Print Story How To Cheat on Your Girlfriend
Diary
By R Mutt (Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 11:30:41 PM EST) MLP (all tags)
The ultimate one picture per day video [;) MeFi]

Art and the new philistinism [:(]

The Sun Ra Arkestra and the Blues Project's Batman tie-in album [MeFi :o]

Steady-hand draw line to star game [B *]

Women test worse at maths when told it's down to genetics [:(]



Key:
[MeFi] = Stolen from Metafilter
[/.] = Stolen from Slashdot
[M] = Stolen from Memepool
[BX] = Stolen from Blogdex
[X.] = Stolen from Christdot
[)] = Stolen from Monkeyfilter
[B] = Stolen from B3ta
[GG] = Stolen from Green Gabbro
[BFB] = Stolen from Big Fat Blog
[BB] = Stolen from Boing Boing
[PU] = Stolen from PopURLs
[S2MM] = Stolen from Stuff I Send To My mates
[JR] = Stolen from Joel.Reddit
[RED] = Stolen from Really Evil Canine
[[:)] = Needs sound
[:(] = Serious
[:)] = Amusing
[;)] = Ironic
[:o] = Strange
[*] = Flash
[#] = Free registration required
[NSFW] = Not Safe For Work
[NSFWFUP] = Not Safe For Work For Ultra-Prudish
[(UK)] = UK-centric
[LL] = Late or repeated link
< Photo Monday: Spiky | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >
How To Cheat on Your Girlfriend | 17 comments (17 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
Paths by gazbo (2.00 / 0) #1 Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 12:30:46 AM EST
Good fun, but I took one look at level 15 and thought "you know what?  Just...no."

I recommend always assuming 7th normal form where items in a text column are not allowed to rhyme.

We're not "outraged" by yicky yacky (2.00 / 0) #2 Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 01:01:40 AM EST

It just mostly craftless bollocks, and some people say so.


----
Vacuity abhors a vacuum.
you know what art is? by martingale (4.00 / 2) #3 Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 01:33:29 AM EST
Mornington Crescent!
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]
More relevantly, by yicky yacky (4.00 / 1) #5 Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 01:39:52 AM EST

Does Germaine?


----
Vacuity abhors a vacuum.
[ Parent ]
she doesn't strike me by martingale (2.00 / 0) #7 Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:29:41 AM EST
as the Mornington Crescent playing type...
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]
philistine (nt) by komet (4.00 / 1) #4 Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 01:33:51 AM EST


--
<ni> komet: You are functionally illiterate as regards trashy erotica.
[ Parent ]
nazi (nt) by yicky yacky (2.00 / 0) #6 Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 01:40:10 AM EST

----
Vacuity abhors a vacuum.
[ Parent ]
Greer by priestess (2.00 / 0) #8 Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 04:11:52 AM EST
My god sometimes Germaine Greer is a vacuous windbag. What kind of screwed up dictionary can she have where "art" doesn't include aboriginal scraping in the sand?

Meh.

Pre.......
---------
Chat to the virtual me...

She makes a semantic mistake by Dr H0ffm4n (2.00 / 0) #16 Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 02:37:50 AM EST
 The first attribute of the art object is that it creates a discontinuity between itself and the unsynthesised manifold
...
 The true field of art is the mind of the beholder

So the discontinuity is created in the mind of the beholder. It does not have to exist as a truly physical discontinuity. It therefore does not discount the work of the aborigine simply because there is no frame around it, or plinth beneath it. Any synthesised work can have a subjective discontinuity between itself and the unsynthesised.

I.e. anything that a human has affected can become art as soon as someone considers it for artistic merit.

[ Parent ]
Relevent studies by ucblockhead (3.50 / 2) #9 Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 09:41:55 AM EST
In an old diary I mentioned a study I read about in Us and Them. Asian women do significantly worse on math tests after being given a lecture on "Women's Studies" than they do after bing given a lecture on "Asian Studies". In other words, people seem to internally live their own stereotypes.

This, of course, has huge implications, both in terms of genetic studies (which tend to assume only the observer, not the observed, are subject to unconcious biases) and also to society as a whole in that bias is not just a matter of victimizers forcing their views on victims. The attitudes of the "oppressed" are fully as important as the attitudes of the "oppressors".

It also raises the uncomfortable idea that there's a sense that some negative stereotypes were closer to truth at the time then we'd like to think, but the very hopeful idea that we can in some ways change who people are simply be refusing to hold the idea that they are what we don't want them to be.

I also think that it hilights the danger of certain ideas. If women can be made to be worse at math if they are told that they are worse at math, do men become more sexist because they are told that they are more sexist?

As far as genetics go, I think that there should be a pretty firm rule for genetic studies, especially those involving the brain. If you can't point to an actual gene, or a specific group of genes, it isn't particularly meaningful.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

maths tests by martingale (4.00 / 1) #10 Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 05:51:44 PM EST
are meaningless for measuring aptitude. Maths is a collection of techniques and mental frameworks for manipulating ideas. There is no innate aptitude to be measured: it requires mental discipline to exercise the techniques, and extensive exposure to gather a large collection of techniques to use.

If you are being distracted by suggestive comments, you are unlikely to perform the techniques as well as if you are not. The nature of the comments is irrelevant.

For example, if I tell you to program a fiddly but standard algorithm, you'll do worse if I tell you first that your wife has just died. Ergo: programmers' ability to program is higher for unmarried programmers. That's what that study would look like in the context of CS.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

[ Parent ]
er... by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #11 Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 06:53:14 PM EST
I think you missed the point... You obviously didn't read closely enough to understand what I said.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
you men the last bit? by martingale (2.00 / 0) #12 Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 07:16:07 PM EST
I agree with you that it's not particularly meaningful genetically. As to the stereotype, I guess I'm fundamentally unable to see that a stereotype such as "not good at maths" is well defined. It makes no sense as a consistent description to me, so I don't see what it means to perpetuate it.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]
I mean by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #13 Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 07:59:48 PM EST
You seemed to have missed the entire point of the post.

The study was very well defined. Asian women given a lecture on women's studies scored worse than asian women given a lecture on asian studies. (With all other things being equal.)

What this means is pretty obvious, and it has nothing to do with saying math skill is innate, nor does it have anything to do with the validity of math tests.

The point is that when people identify with groups that are "good at math" they score better than when they identify with groups that are "bad at math". That is, people fulfil their own stereotypes. That's a damn important result.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

[ Parent ]
and you're missing _my_ point by martingale (4.00 / 1) #14 Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 08:44:22 PM EST
My point is "there can be no well defined study when that which you are measuring isn't well defined".

The study makes at least the following assumptions: 1) there is a hidden variable representing mathematical ability which is correlated with the test score. 2) This variable can evolve as a result of listening to a lecture.

They then go on to observe that the test scores are different after listening to two different lectures.

So what? There is no group which is "good at math". A maths test reflects how tired you are, how much knowledge you have, etc. Therefore it's quite likely that what they observed was the aftereffect of the lecture, and maths had nothing to do with it. They might have done a cooking test right after the lecture and observed the same effect. They didn't do such a test. Why? Because they already have the preconception that such a thing as personal mathematical ability is well defined, and the test scores that they are observing is a reflection of the hidden variable. It isn't.

The point is that when people identify with groups that are "good at math" they score better than when they identify with groups that are "bad at math".
No. The point is that when people are given a motivational speech, they feel good and they tend to work better. Everyone is good at math tests if they follow the instructions to the letter.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]
martingale's right by yicky yacky (4.00 / 1) #15 Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 01:12:04 AM EST

In other words, people seem to internally live their own stereotypes.

Wrong. There are several other hypotheses you'd have to dismiss before being able to come to that conclusion with any degree of confidence.

One such would be that asian studies is less disruptive to the thought processes required for mathematics than women's studies. For a more contrasting comparison, consider which would be more or less disruptive to mathematical skill: A previous half-hour of physics, or a previous half-hour of pottery. Without wanting to kick off a feminist flamewar, I'd imagine that Asian Studies was more organisationally and analytically rigorous (in a manner similar to history or geography), whereas Women's Studies was more ill-defined , creative and intuitive.

At this point you've probably got a nice steaming rebuttal built-up, but hold that thought, because I haven't got to the point yet. Here it comes:

I don't know that what I've hypothesized above is the truth. It may be. It equally may not. But, until you've dismissed all such hypotheses (and for these kind of statements there are a lot), you cannot validly make carte blanche and nebulous statements such as "In other words, people seem to internally live their own stereotypes". This kind of thinking does more damage to science than good as it's the kind of fatuous absolutism which drives non-scientists nuts and, furthermore, their objections would be valid.


----
Vacuity abhors a vacuum.
[ Parent ]
people are influenced by stereotypes by Dr H0ffm4n (2.00 / 0) #17 Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 03:07:49 AM EST
Otherwise, why would stereotypes exist? That the influence is subconscious should surprise no-one. That steroetypes influence the indiviual stereotyped should be no surprise either. This is early 20th C statistical psychology. Nothing new here. Move along.

[ Parent ]
How To Cheat on Your Girlfriend | 17 comments (17 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback