Slashdot Mirror

Yup, based on Dunning and Kruger's work at Cornell. (WARNING: PDF, but a good read.)

A nice sound-bite summary of the problem, from the paper:

Not only do [the incompetent] reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it.

So, this sample set is rife with issues related to self-reporting competence. Something to consider. Along with possible self-selection problems (i.e., only Mechanical Turk affiliates).

Not a particularly scientific poll survey, really, and I have difficulty believing that the methodology supports the outcome. Intuitively, I trust the outcome, but that's probably confirmation bias.

I'd be interested in seeing this as an actual controlled study. Surely there's a psychology or sociology postgrad out there in /.-land who needs a good thesis idea?

Actually, studies suggest that DARE has no long-term effects on drug use: http://www.apa.org/releases/dare.html

You might want to look at this paper linked to below, titled "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

This paper may even help explain the situations of Bennett Haselton, who submitted this rubbish, 90% of hardcore libertarians, 95% of hardcore environuts, Sarah Palin, and so many more hardcore weirdos today. However, teaching that many self-imagined geniuses that they are in fact idiots and then making it stick would be hard and a waste of time. However teaching the actual geniuses that there are stupid people out there is another problem as well.

Heck, none of the respondents who were actually bad in either of the mentioned subjects (there had to be a few) had the guts to say that they were bad at these subjects. This relates directly to the subject of the above linked paper itself. I should give the clueless answering that the survey the the benefit of the doubt, the questions had extremely poor wording. However, I still won't give the clueless the benefit of the doubt here.

I think Mr. Hasselton made a fundamental error in his analysis. When you ask people to self-rate how good they are at a subject, you first need to read Unskilled and Unaware of It. The research can be summed up simply: people who are not very good at X are more likely to rate themselves highly than people who truly are good at X.

You can't demonstrate you collected results from anybody who was actually any good at maths, you just got a bunch of responses from people who thought they were good at maths.

Exactly. This study implies that the people who rated themselves excellent in math are actually worse at it than people who didn't rate themselves excellent.

Forgot: here's a link to an article on hemispheric effects of audio processing:

http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-poremba.html

Your not adding anything to the conversation

"You're". Not: "your".

See, something has been added. Your grammar was frequently atrocious in your earlier screeds, but I decided to give you a free pass for those ones. You really should concentrate on getting the basics of English down, because using it poorly reflects badly on your message, no matter what you are saying. Or trying to say.

I addressed the merits of your case earlier, with regard to the physical location of the plant used to operate the gaming, versus the residence of the gamers. You argued that the WTO had no remit in this case. The WTO panel disagreed, and in accepting arbitration, the US *and* Antigua both accepted remit. You are, in effect, second guessing the legal and political teams from two countries as well as an international panel of jurists. As with idiosyncratic stock picking, there is a very, very small probability of you being correct in this instance, versus a very high probability of you not being correct in this case. I have read your bloggish/fisking-style arguments againt the WTO decision and they are unconvincing and merely reiterate or restate many of the initial arguments of the US deposition in the first round of hearings. These arguments were judged at the time to be of insufficient merit to prevent the arbitration from proceeding. Your stubborn refusal to recognise that a legally constituted body delegated to come to a resolution of this difficult problem bespeaks a cognitive difficulty in accepting wisdom.

Sometimes, you just have to admit that you are wrong. The problem is that when your intellectual capabilities constrain you from recognising the domain borders of your inexpertise, there is a high probability that you will overestimate your capabilities.

As I understand it, IQ tests were largely developed by whites. You'd think that if they were biased, they'd have fiddled it so they came out on top.

It's not that conscious. No conspiracy theory is required. Cultural bias slips into IQ tests without the designers noticing, but it's a well-established fact now that it has. There are efforts to eliminate cultural bias from IQ tests but it is unlikely that this is even possible; for example, visual processing, although language-independent, is culturally determined to a massive degree. For a little background here's the same link I gave to the other guy: Intelligence across cultures (APA).

Just out of curiosity, would you say the same thing about physical attributes?

So you claim that physical attributes are related to intelligence? If not, you're off topic; if so, you're not worth arguing with. Anthropometric theories of intelligence have been utterly discredited since the 1940s.

have different levels of "intelligence" (a culturally defined and therefore biased concept)

Ridiculously silly.

Your inability to come up with any substantial response is a sign of ignorance.

You might want to educate yourself. For example: Intelligence across cultures

Have you read this

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.

It's truly +1 Funny/Insightful. And yet highly disturbing (-1 Troll) too, because clearly everyone must have areas where they lack ability and also lack 'metacognitive ability' to know they lack ability. It's absolutely an awesome read the first time you do so.

To me at least this is common sense stupid, but I am often myself told I am stupid. So I guess either everybody else is crazy or it's me that is crazy. I'm hoping it is everybody else.

CATHARSIS INCREASES RATHER THAN DECREASES ANGER AND AGGRESSION, ACCORDING TO A NEW STUDY

Ref. http://www.apa.org/releases/catharsis.html

Yeah. So those people who like to yell and scream and make the excuse that it is healthy to "let go", "cathart" (sic), and be irrational; well they will likely (as experience has demonstrated to me) just call it "social" science (as opposed to real science).

Try reading Unskilled and Unaware of It to understand the problem with this line of thought.

What is your point exactly ? You seem to be arguing that all races are equal and then you drop this :

I"m not saying there may not be significant genetic differences between the races.

Let's agree that there is at least one significant difference between the races : skin color. And are others, as you say, and truly sorry, intelligence differences are amongst the bigger differences. Races are genetically different, and by quite a margin.

In reality there is no real question within scientific circles, but everybody who dares to say it, gets clobbered :

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html

You can also see the political reaction : ad-hominems. People attack science because it clashes with "progressive" ideals. The reaction of anyone who claims to accept science as truth would obviously be entirely different, or at least : they wouldn't shoot the messenger.

Unfortunately science has long since stopped supporting the prevailing political view of the world that most people in America have, to say nothing of Europeans warped views. In economics, biology, medicine, ... especially "progressive" ideology gets clobbered. It is in fundamental conflict with evolution*, with economics**. Physics***, and Psychology : Modern progressive ideals are based on the ideas of the noble savage (the idea of fundamental innocence of human beings, which unfortunately is ... non-existent), and the fundamental "goodness" of the human race, which everybody interprets as "having the same morals as me". Obviously the mere fact that there exists more than one religion is a contradiction with that theory.

When science, independent critical examination yields results that fail to live up to the political view, the pattern is the same everywhere. Video games cause violent behavior (in 23% of humans) and so does TV, but computer games are worse than TV in causing violent behavior : http://www.apa.org/releases/videogames.html. Again, amongst psychologists this result is not, at all, in dispute. Another extremely disputed psychological result is that threatening kids with punishment is the *best* incentive possible for them to learn, and far outweighs the advantages offered by a capable teacher, or good books. Or put another way : if you are forced to learn, you will learn. If you merely have the option, you won't learn (again this is true for a majority of people, not for every last person).

Contrary to "atheist", science is *NOT* in fact atheist. It is agnost, and it will never change that position.

Furthermore, science cannot replace religion in the thinking of people. All science is based on maths, and math has been proven to both leave a large class of problems absolutely unanswered, and another, even bigger class of problems are prohibitively difficult to solve (e.g. NP-complete problems), and will forever remain so.

* obviously protective nature policies are simply another factor in evolution, they cannot do what progressives expect them to do : stop evolution in it's tracks (which is what needs to happen in order to "preserve" e.g. a national park). The depopulation of yellowstone park for example, is not something that we can prevent.

Furthermore, you hear a lot about evolution, except there's one tiny little part of that theory that no progressive will ever mention : natural selection. Death. Death of everyone and anyone that's not good enough. Death that comes unpredictably, because we have little idea about the factors that are "being optimized" at the moment (and a less-than-polite person would change "being optimized" into "being genocidally implanted", since that would be close to the method gaia uses to do so)

Fair use is an affirmative defense, you can't just claim it as a right but have to prove your use was "fair" in court.

Mod parent up -- this quote is key. Popular folklore on the Internets holds that there is a certain percentage of material you can post that qualifies as fair use. That is bogus. Fair use is a judgment call based on a balance of four factors. From the linked Stanford Law site: "The only way to get a definitive answer on whether a particular use is a fair use is to have it resolved in federal court."

The copyright holders probably would argue that the amount of quoted material is excessive (one of the 4 factors) and that simply posting the items for discussion does not have adequate "transformative value" (another factor). Furthermore, they would probably argue that copying those test items will have a significant detrimental effect on the market for their product (yet another of the factors). On this point, they may well have the American Psychological Association backing them up. The official position of the APA is that psychological tests require careful protection because disclosing their content can invalidate the tests. If this went to court, judge would probably be strongly influenced by a friend-of-the-court brief from the world's largest professional society of psychologists.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer either.

Well, I guess that depends on what you consider "harmful". For example, there's a fair amount of academic research on how exposure to porn affects teens and preteens (nice rollup here: http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov07/webporn.html).

Obviously we are referring to the loose kind of journalism one would find in Der Spiegel.

Or the New York Times, or by CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN...

The point that the GP was getting at, that you so flippantly deride, is that too many "researchers" these days are willing to use the first three results from a Google search as the sum total of their research into a topic. While Der Spiegel may be a reputable news outlet, one cannot generally take its articles as primary sources, and certainly not for the purposes of engaging in encyclopedic grade research.

Which is a large reason Wikipedia is so shoddy: sources are taken on "reputation" and the arbitrary decision of what a "reliable source" is, usually as defined by whether or not (a) most of the left-winger edit warriors of Wikipedia agree with the source's conclusions and (b) whether anyone else can come up with something that passes the "reliable source" test to discredit it (interestingly vague; lies and nonsense have remained in Wikipedia sometimes for months because a "reliable source" said something wrong, a set of bloggers caught it and documented very well that it was wrong, but the left-wingers shouted it down, claimed the blogs were not "reliable sources", "No Original Research" when someone simply replicated the sources the blogs were using as proof that it was false, etc...)

I feel that Wikipedia needs to put in place policies that start selecting out those contributors who are unable to either engage in this level of research and those who are unable to produce encyclopedia grade writing.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia's policies are currently the reverse: they have a major problem with driving academics and good researchers away, and it doesn't help that those who are "unable to produce encyclopedia grade writing" instead wind up spending hours per day "reverting vandalism" and are eventually given admin tools.

Power corrupts: Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely: Petty Power corrupts all out of proportion. Wikipedia admins are the worst sort because they, and their power, are so petty. It doesn't help that they also routinely overestimate their own competence.

Many of the Wikipedia articles are, while informative and good as an introduction into a topic, very superficial and poorly written. Unsophisticated use of language is not a problem per se, however it can lead to ambiguity. The ability of a writer to consistently ensure that there is no other way their text could be interpreted is the difference between a mediocre researcher and a true scholar.

How to lie with statistics. Also, Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit.

Most wikipedia articles are not "informative and good as an introduction into a topic" - the sourcing is routinely biased, and important countersourcing ignored or minimized if included at all.

Wait... so attacking the notion that video games incite violance is not a counter-argument

Nothing is a valid counterargument except for proper argumentation.

some wack-job blames video games for violence

You state that your opposition is comprised of whack-jobs, and your alleged fact they are wack-jobs somehow makes their position incorrect.

This is invalid argumentation, so it doesn't form a valid counterargument to the proposition that video game violence incites violent behavior.

By the way, are you suggesting the APA is comprised of mostly whack-jobs?

"They are whack-jobs" does not demonstrate a solid basis for throwing out or failing to consider the numerous studies that have strongly shown a solid link between playing violent video games and violent behavior.

This has nothing to do with the level of surprise about DRM.

Great link, and rather surprising considering it's directly in contradiction to the published Resolution on Violence in Video Games and Interactive Media published by the American Psychological Association, which was referenced from TFA (albeit from the comments section). The APA resolution is interesting reading, since it cites a lot of studies and only grudgingly provides qualifications of any of their claims; when it does provide qualifications of the claims, they're rather amusing to read:

"WHEREAS there appears to be evidence that exposure to violent media increases feelings of hostility, thoughts about aggression, suspicions about the motives of others, and demonstrates violence as a method to deal with potential conflict situations[...]"

(emphasis added)

"WHEREAS perpetrators go unpunished in 73% of all violent scenes, and therefore teach that violence is an effective means of resolving conflict. Only 16% of all programs portrayed negative psychological or financial effects, yet such visual depictions of pain and suffering can actually inhibit aggressive behavior in viewers[...]"

Because, you know, works of fantasy are required to have social value equal to their entertainment value. We also don't know from the above snippet if they're really talking about video games or violent programming -- note the use of the phrase "violent scenes," which implies passive consumption or watching rather than active participation. The use of the term "viewers" later on indicates the authors of this resolution are in fact conflating passive media with video games, perhaps deliberately so.

(There's a reason why works of fiction in general are called "escapism." Negative consequences don't make for very good escapist entertainment.)

The APA goes on to essentially blame video games for promoting negative stereotypes of women and minorities, various "rape myths," and so on. In point of fact, I can't think of a single video game that specifically glorifies rape, nor can I think of one that endorses misogyny or encourages the rape, assault, or murder of women.

What I find most bizarre about Baca's proposal is that he wants this blanket warning label for every video game with a T rating or higher. Yet many non-violent games get a T rating, and it's theoretically possible for even an M-rated game to have no violent content. (The Leisure Suit Larry series of games springs to mind, although most of them predate the ratings system we have now. I have no doubt Larry would have had an M rating when he first debuted. Even Infocom had Leather Goddesses of Phobos, for crying out loud!)

In order to be fair and not adversely harm the sales of non-violent games, shouldn't compulsory warning labels only apply to games whose content is actually deemed violent?

Furthermore, the existing ESRB rating system is a voluntary one agreed upon by the games industry; such a law would imply government endorsement of a privately developed rating system... when said rating system was developed to stave off government interference and regulation, similar to the Comics Code of yesteryear and the MPAA rating system we still use for movies.

To be fair, I examined a "con" link, one that you would favor. The page is here:

http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/myths.html

And PBS claims:

2. (myth) Scientific evidence links violent game play with youth aggression.

(fact) Claims like this are based on the work of researchers who represent one relatively narrow school of research, "media effects." This research includes some 300 studies of media violence. But most of those studies are inconclusive and many have been criticized on methodological grounds. In these studies, media images are removed from any narrative context. Subjects are asked to engage with content that they would not normally consume and may not understand. Finally, the laboratory context is radically different from the environments where games would normally be played. Most studies found a correlation, not a causal relationship, which means the research could simply show that aggressive people like aggressive entertainment. That's why the vague term "links" is used here. If there is a consensus emerging around this research, it is that violent video games may be one risk factor - when coupled with other more immediate, real-world influences â" which can contribute to anti-social behavior. But no research has found that video games are a primary factor or that violent video game play could turn an otherwise normal person into a killer.

There are many things to say about PBS's critique.

1. PBS says, "Claims like this are based on the work of researchers who represent one relatively narrow school of research, 'media effects.' This research includes some 300 studies of media violence."

PBS calls it "relatively narrow" as a comparison to other fields of study, but it's really a way to spin the body of research as small and insignificant. But 300 studies is 300 studies. How many studies did PBS conduct?

2. PBS says, "But most of those studies are inconclusive and many have been criticized on methodological grounds."

Which studies? On what grounds? On what basis does PBS say that they are "inconclusive" when the APA's conclusions are plain for all to see? PBS does not say. This is a sweeping judgment of a body of research that comprises 300 studies.

3. PBS says, "In these studies, media images are removed from any narrative context."

And what psychological effect would that have? PBS does not say. And which studies does this apply to? PBS does not say.

4. PBS says, "Subjects are asked to engage with content that they would not normally consume and may not understand."

Media is frequently "consumed" by people who would not "normally consume" it. Furthermore, on what psychological basis "understanding" media, specifically as it relates to witnessing acts of violence, germane? PBS does not say.

5. PBS says, "Finally, the laboratory context is radically different from the environments where games would normally be played."

The APA says:

Myth 3. Laboratory experiments are irrelevant (trivial measures, demand characteristics, lack external validity).

Facts: Arguments against laboratory experiments in behavioral sciences have been successfully debunked many times by numerous researchers over the years. Specific examinations of such issues in the aggression domain have consistently found evidence of high external validity. For example, variables known to influence real world aggression and violence have the same effects on laboratory measures of aggression (Anderson & Bushman, 1997).

6. PBS says, "If there is a consensus emerging around this research, it is that violent video games may be one risk factor - when coupled with other more immediate, real-world influences â" which can contribute to anti-social behavior."

I think the APA's consensus is pretty clear. Go here:

http://search3.apa.org/

Type

Actually the results of studies linking video games and aggression have been posted on Slashdot (you can find a lot of studies wit Google). Also I'm not biased, I clearly said it pointed both ways and I obviously mentioned that there is a chance that a child that is too young will imitate what is seen on any media. Also, I speak from personal experience (both with knowledge of psychology/statistics and my own observations). One thing I have noticed is that the "aggression" in video games is caused by loosing. When football fans show violence, it's not because violent media has a direct play in it, it's because the ref made a bad call, or some player made a dumb move.

I took your advice and googled it, and the first hit which came up was from the American Psychological Association:

http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html

I want to counter what you wrote with what the APA says.

You wrote: "Experiments have pointed both ways"

The APA says:

Myth 1. Violent video game research has yielded very mixed results.

Facts: Some studies have yielded nonsignificant video game effects, just as some smoking studies failed to find a significant link to lung cancer. But when one combines all relevant empirical studies using meta-analytic techniques, five separate effects emerge with considerable consistency. Violent video games are significantly associated with: increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased prosocial (helping) behavior. Average effect sizes for experimental studies (which help establish causality) and correlational studies (which allow examination of serious violent behavior) appear comparable (Anderson & Bushman, 2001).

You wrote: "many dolts firmly believe that correlation implies causation"

The APA says:

Myth 5. Correlational studies are irrelevant.

Facts: The overly simplistic mantra, "Correlation is not causation," is useful when teaching introductory students the risks in too-readily drawing causal conclusions from a simple empirical correlation between two measured variables. However, correlational studies are routinely used in modern science to test theories that are inherently causal. Whole scientific fields are based on correlational data (e.g., astronomy). Well conducted correlational studies provide opportunities for theory falsification. They allow examination of serious acts of aggression that would be unethical to study in experimental contexts. They allow for statistical controls of plausible alternative explanations.

You wrote: "the 'aggression' in video games is caused by loosing"

The APA says:

Myth 10. Arousal, not violent content, accounts for video game induced increases in aggression.

Facts: Arousal cannot explain the results of most correlational studies because the measured aggression did not occur immediately after the violent video games were played. Furthermore, several experimental studies have controlled potential arousal effects, and still yielded more aggression by those who played the violent game.

You wrote: "this link has been established with biased experiments and insufficient data" And then you also wrote: "I'm not biased". In other words, you're completely objective, but anyone who disagrees with you is biased?

I'm completely willing to accept that there are studies which refute a theory that you hate. But you need to pony up those studies and explain to me why the APA disagrees with you so strongly. It seems to me that you are in the weaker position, especially given these psychological facts:

1. Humans ape behavior that they see other humans perform (modeling).

2. Humans will perform a behavior more often if they are rewarded for it.

3. Violent video games ever more closely approximate humans performing violence on humans and reward players

I'll post what posted over on the xkcd forums a while back.

http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html

. . . when one combines all relevant empirical studies using meta-analytic techniques, five separate effects emerge with considerable consistency. Violent video games are significantly associated with: increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased prosocial (helping) behavior.

. . .

The overly simplistic mantra, "Correlation is not causation," is useful when teaching introductory students the risks in too-readily drawing causal conclusions from a simple empirical correlation between two measured variables. However, correlational studies are routinely used in modern science to test theories that are inherently causal. Whole scientific fields are based on correlational data (e.g., astronomy). Well conducted correlational studies provide opportunities for theory falsification. They allow examination of serious acts of aggression that would be unethical to study in experimental contexts. They allow for statistical controls of plausible alternative explanations.

But also note:

Media violence is only one of many factors that contribute to societal violence and is certainly not the most important one. Media violence researchers have repeatedly noted this.

In other words, video games are a source of violent tendencies across a large segment of the population, but their effect is relatively small. If your goal is to reduce violence in society as a whole, video games, TV, and movies are not the first place you should look.

I call bullshit:

Fact: Welfare Costs 1 Percent of the Federal Budget

Widespread misperception about the extent of welfare exacerbate the problems of poverty. The actual cost of welfare programs-about 1 percent of the federal budget and 2 percent of state budgets (McLaughlin, 1997)-is proportionally less than generally believed. During the 104th Congress, more than 93 percent of the budget reductions in welfare entitlements came from programs for low-income people (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1996). Ironically, middle-class and wealthy Americans also receive "welfare" in the form of tax deductions for home mortgages, corporate and farm subsidies, capital gains tax limits, Social Security, Medicare, and a multitude of other tax benefits. Yet these types of assistance carry no stigma and are rarely considered "welfare" (Goodgame, 1993). Anti-welfare sentiment appears to be related to attitudes about class and widely shared and socially sanctioned stereotypes about the poor. Racism also fuels negative attitudes toward welfare programs (Quadagno, 1994).

source: http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html

Find someone to pick on besides those that are scraping by. Keep in mind that the defense budget is 54% of the federal budget in the US. I'd much rather feed hungry people than shoot them.

source: http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

And somehow society has continued on over the last 500 years, without everyone blowing their own head off every time they have a bad day.

Well 30,000 annual deaths out 300 million averages out to nearly 0.1% over an average lifetime. Sure, that's less than auto accident deaths and nobody's talking about outlawing cars. That's a much better argument and comparison than the one you've chosen, BTW, although the economic impact of banning car ownership and driving permits would be much more severe than that of restricting firearm ownership. There's also already a much stricter standard for permitting car operation than for gun ownership, which hopefully already significantly decreases the car accident death rate down to current levels.

However, it takes a lot more than a bad day to overcome the self-preservation instinct in most people.

"In the end, say some researchers, occupation may not be much of a factor in suicide. Psychologists have long documented that among the top predictors for suicide are diagnosable mental disorder, co-morbid substance use, loss of social support and availability and access to a firearm."

Guns are a facilitator in successful suicides, not a necessary or sufficient condition. When you're severely depressed due to chemical issues or apparently insurmountable problems, it's a heck of a lot easier to get shit-faced, pull out your Colt or Glock and blow your brains out, than to successfully pull off any of the other alternatives for ending one's own life.

Unfortunately, when it comes to suicide, statistics older than about 30 years (let alone 500) are unreliable since many suicides would be covered up by family if possible so that the person could still get funeral rites from their church. So the historical impact of firearm availability on suicide levels would be impossible to determine due to cultural taboos, even if there had been attempts to gather statistics that far back. As would the mitigating effects of trauma medicine and the establishment of a societal and physical infrastructure for dealing with medical emergencies in the general population.

I'd be interested in hearing how you've come to know that America is a socially inept country beyond your own observation. If that's all you have, my observations differ.

It's based on the observations of many people - including American friends living in or visiting South America, reporters, and journalists with extensive knowledge of other countries. It's also based on my own experiences living in various cities throughout the U.S., as well as the experiences of other people who have similarly moved around the country in various locations.

Obviously experiences vary from place to place and person to person, but that doesn't mean general observations cannot be made or are of little value. For instance, Icelanders are known for being difficult to get to know initially, whereas many South American countries are both social and physically demonstrative even with platonic new acquaintances. America has been around long enough - and with only one in five Americans being first or second generation - that there are general observations to be made about American social interactions and relationships, albeit (again) varying by region, age, individual, etcetera. There is, for instance, the social phenomenon of the Seattle Chill aka Seattle Freeze.

I don't mean to imply that we're completely inept or that people need to always be social, however things aren't so great for us. Americans are becoming increasingly socially isolated:

Americansâ(TM) circle of confidants has shrunk dramatically in the past two decades and the number of people who say they have no one with whom to discuss important matters has more than doubled, according to a new study by sociologists at DukeUniversity and the University of Arizona. ...The percentage of people who talk only to family members about important matters increased from about 57 percent to about 80 percent...

Worse, technology seems only to be exacerbating the problem:

They found a direct correlation between participants? level of Internet use and their reports of social activity and happiness. As their use of the Internet increased, the participants reported a decrease in the amount of social support they felt and in the number of social activities they were involved in. They also reported being more depressed and lonely.

Having an occasional good discussion on slashdot is cool, but it is not an adequate substitute for having a close group of friends or face-to-face interaction. While technology can, and in some cases does, help to bring people together - I have a second date tomorrow with a girl I met online who resembles Ally Sheedy in Wargames, but curvier in a very good way - so far it seems like overall it's hurting us more than it's helping us and we were already having problems.

Did you read the paper? Here is is if you didn't:

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

They didn't try to rank how funny the people were, they tried to rank how well they compared to comedians in evaluating the humor of various jokes.

It isn't nearly as bad as your I'm-cool-because-I'm-skeptical attitude would imply.

To me, not sure who said it, but the qoute goes like this: "anyone who claims they understand QM does not understand it."

This seems to be more generally true, not just for QM.

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

While not exactly what you are talking about, a psychology study found no connection between a positive attitude and survival rates among a sample of patients with head and neck cancers: Article

That's not to say attitude is unimportant in general. It does affect quality of life, which is important to enjoying whatever time you have left. It just doesn't determine how much time you get.

There's no such thing as a flop in the pharma industry. If they spend the money to do research, they sure as hell spend the money to get the clinical trials come out the way they want.

Think I'm exaggerating? Check out the latest research regarding Prozac.

Besides that, $1bn is chump change for research these days. Gillette claims to have spent $750 million on R&D for the Mach 3 razor, and these were pretty reasonably priced, even when they were introduced. Pharma pricing is all about inelastic demand, and it needs to either be moderated through collective bargaining at the national level or outright regulation.

I'm willing to take the hit "thru" my 401k.

Here's the old adage: You know how stupid the average person is? Statistically, half the people are more stupid than that.

Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

"This study also enabled us to explore Prediction 3, that incompetent individuals fail to gain insight into their own incompetence by observing the behaviour of other people."

"[After seeing the answers of others] If anything, bottom-quartile participants tended to raise their already inflated self-estimates, although not to a significant degree"

The fundamental problem is that, even with the right answers in front of them, the incompetent are unable to distinguish the right from the wrong answers. What the internet brings to the incompetent is AN answer so now they THINK they know.

The competent can, of course, filter the wheat from the chaff.

I especially like the concluding remarks from that paper. "That worry is that this article may contain faulty logic, methodological errors, or poor communication. Let us assure our readers that to the extent this article is imperfect, it is not a sin we have committed knowingly."

Tim.

It wasn't sarcastic, because that would imply you had a point outside the flamebait. It wasn't a joke because it wasn't funny...at all. You are completely wrong, it is not "minorities" but single, white women, and here are my sources:

US, 1996: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n21_v90/ai_18744024
UK, 1999: http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/29/2/269
US, 1999: http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html

The parent may be funny to some (enough to get +5??) but I didn't find it funny at all and also believe it is wrong. so I think it is worth trying to refute it with some googled evidence at least.

The gist of what I found and what makes sense to me is this quote from the research paper summary that is linked later:
"Participants who were poor at recognizing black faces appear to code blackness as a visual feature while they may not code whiteness at all," says Dr. Levin. "The problem is not that we can't code the details of cross-race faces; it's that we don't. Instead, we substitute group information, or information about the race, for information about the features that help us tell individual people apart. ... (that's a Black man") rather than individual recognition ("that's a man with a mustache and a down-turned mouth")"

This old post on reddit says it pretty well. Mostly only the first part of the post is directly related to refuting the logic behind this kind of joke.

That post also links to this press release summary (same as first link of this comment) of an article on the topic in the Journal of Experimental Psychology that backs up that post.

The parent may be funny to some (enough to get +5??) but I didn't find it funny at all and also believe it is wrong. so I think it is worth trying to refute it with some googled evidence at least.

The gist of what I found and what makes sense to me is this quote from the research paper summary that is linked later:
"Participants who were poor at recognizing black faces appear to code blackness as a visual feature while they may not code whiteness at all," says Dr. Levin. "The problem is not that we can't code the details of cross-race faces; it's that we don't. Instead, we substitute group information, or information about the race, for information about the features that help us tell individual people apart. ... (that's a Black man") rather than individual recognition ("that's a man with a mustache and a down-turned mouth")"

This old post on reddit says it pretty well. Mostly only the first part of the post is directly related to refuting the logic behind this kind of joke.

That post also links to this press release summary (same as first link of this comment) of an article on the topic in the Journal of Experimental Psychology that backs up that post.

The "therapy" that they put those kids through is truly horrific. The handbook reads nicely, almost as if they are lovingly trying to help the young men and women. They force the kids into therapy, as if the therapy will help. But the church leaders certainly know that the therapy harms the youth who are forced into it. It's like using bleach to force a black person to become white.

Every medical and psychological association has determined that sexual orientation is unchangeable, and that attempting to change it does harm to the patient. The question is completely settled.

The LDS church uses clerical authority to force those kids into that therapy. They threaten the kids with excommunication and eternal damnation if they do not change their sexual orientation. But the kids are not able to change. It's no wonder so many of those kids attempt suicide.

Here's some more reading: http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html http://www.healthyminds.org/glbissues.cfm http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=resultLink&doc=policyfiles/HnE/H-160.991.HTM&s_t=homosexuality&catg=AMA/HnE&catg=AMA/BnGnC&catg=AMA/DIR&&nth=1&&st_p=0&nth=1& http://www.youth-suicide.com/gay-bisexual/

Start here: http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_ovrvw.html

Then go to to the APA: http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov07/webporn.html

Take the chip off your shoulder and go here: http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/DIAM/effects_pornography.htm

None of these are right-wing, or faith-based or in other ways crazed observations. YMMV.

Unskilled and Unaware of It.

Having more choices is not necessarily a good thing.

>So you agree that there is no evidence whatsoever to justify your belief that a realistic depiction of
>what is known to be a fictional event can cause harm.

>Any reports of PTSD from players of those games?

I've been doing some Googling, and it seems that there is evidence that supports the claim that exposure to fictional violence can have adverse consequences:

This is just one supporting article I found:
http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html

Nonetheless, I still believe all the video games I have seen are reasonably cartoonish to not be a serious problem. I believe this is going to change, however, as they become more and more realistic.

>And if you think that video games aren't realistic enough, what about movies that are literally photorealistic?

My 2-year old daughter was sufficiently traumatized from watching Disney's "Beauty and the Beast" that it gave her nightmares, and the toy monster we got at McDonald's yesterday looks enough like "The Beast" that it upset her. Now bad dreams are a long way from acting out violent behavior, but the point here is that audio/visual stimuli /can/ have deep, lasting mental impacts. The extent of those impacts is debatable and is likely different for different people. I know I can't watch movies like "Hostel" or "Saw" - they disturb me. I suspect authentic simulations (or real depictions) of audio/video stimuli of violence can have adverse effects, and I bet I can go Google and find something to support this suspicion. But I suspect that /participatory/ stimuli have an even stronger effect. To use your phobia example, I suppose viewing realistic footage of heights could help someone become acclimated to such environments. But actual exposure to the real environment would go even further. Thus it is logical to assume the more realistic the simulation, the greater the acclimation effect.

>Gears of War comes pretty close, and I gather that some of the newer PC games go even further when played on a top end gaming PC.

I just Googled Gears of War - it does look pretty good. I've got a pretty high-end machine - I'll have to give it a go. I tend to prefer 1st-person games over 3rd person, though. I just played the latest Half Life game a couple of months ago and it was pretty realistic, too. Enough so that the crab-headed zombies grossed me out. :)

>Any reports of PTSD from players of those games?

I found a link of a soldier who had a PTSD episode possibly triggered by CoD:
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/02/10/ex-marine-goes-missing-after-call-of-duty-triggered-flashbacks/

>I've never heard of anybody experiencing PTSD from training scenarios in which the
>people participating know that they are not real--not even real life scenarios. Have you?

This is one I turned up with Google:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3912/is_200602/ai_n16087458

"Depression and anxiety in particular have been associated with attrition during initial military training"

"It has been estimated that most recruits who demonstrate problems with adaptation are referred for mental health evaluation within the first 14 days of training.10 Although most of those referred are diagnosed with adjustment disorder,10,11 more serious levels of depression and suicide are likely to occur within the first 20 to 60 days of basic training.12 This report of referral for depression and suicide during the beginning of basic training coincides with reports of stress levels over the course of basic training. Fluctuating levels of stress have been noted in some groups of basic trainees, with peaks in stress levels after the first 1 week of training.2 However, most

The mass of evidence still favors the link. http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html answers some of the present study's objections. One study using somewhat different methodology doesn't suddenly invalidate the bulk of research - that's not the way statistics works.

Also, Dr. Olson doesn't strike me as completely impartial, based on the tone of her writing. It's one thing to point out how you believe your study is superior; another to impute biased motivations to other researchers (e.g. "the most-published researchers have built their careers around media violence"). Clearly to me she's to some degree part of the political war here.

Here's another example of this kind of reasoning:

On the topic of gaming violence, Slashdot overwhelmingly publishes items that scoff at the idea of a link between gaming and violent behavior, as opposed to items that support a link. Gee, I wonder why that is?....because the Slashdot readership is generally 12-35 year old males with a strong interest in computers and playing video games, the exact hormone-engorged demographic the violent crap is marketed to?

So let me get this straight. You were once near a research program, but not actually a part of it, and the head of a department, but apparently not the head of the department doing the research, dismissed it out of hand, before the research was published, implying to you the data was noisy? Your ass just fell off. Let me hand it to you, so you can re-attach it.

Perhaps it didn't occur to you that in some cases you can pull signal out of noisy data by looking for regular repeating patterns? Or with maybe some other techniques you hadn't thought of? Maybe some technique described in the research paper, or its references?

Here's the thing. Getting signal from noise is hard, but often possible. As a species, we get better at it as time goes on. If signal could never be pulled from noise, radio, television, cell phones, and the internet wouldn't work. Heck, even without any fancy schmancy scientific instruments, we're pretty darn good at it. A big chuck of most brains (including yours) is devoted to the task. In fact, you couldn't use spoken words to communicate with somebody else in a bar where everybody else was talking, too. Seismographs couldn't detect earthquakes from the other side of the planet, because there are too many people having raucaus sex and too much truck traffic at any given time.

Take this signal, for examle, the pattern of posts dismissing something with a wave of the interjection "meh" when they clearly have no concept, amidst the general noise of Slashdot posts. If I see it once, I think it's just a random person, spouting off, maybe pre-caffeinated, maybe late at night, maybe not thinking it through, whatever it is. When I see "meh" many times, and every time it's from somebody who is seriously and totally lacking clue, then I wonder. Is this "meh" some sort of signal for someone who doesn't realize the limits of their own knowledge? Is there something about the "meh" meme which causes it to preferentially survive in a cesspool of incompletely formed thought, and die out amidst the frenzy of competition in a curious mind? Is "meh" a signal which indicates intellectual laziness? Perhaps it's related to the phenomenon of the unskilled being unable to correctly assess their skill? (This applies to all of us, in domains of our in-expertise. I'm not insulting you, merely pointing out that we all need to become more aware of the areas of our in-expertise, in order to avoid looking like idiots.)

Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
(Also available in this HTML version if you prefer.)
Overconfidence


Your geek card is hereby suspended for the weekend, which you should devote to reading about signal processing and astronomy. You are also prohibited from using "meh" for one year.

The Fundamentals of Signal Analysis
Extrasolar Planets

Right on dude!

True, people quit generating their own power for their factories a long time ago, and electricity has become distributed from a single source. And maybe computing power will be too - I'm thinking of something like most of the business world having dumb terminals and connecting to the centralized "real" horsepower.

BUT.. Although the power itself has been centralized, the devices that make use of it have not. In other words - though electric power has been centralized, and for the most part remained unchanged for a long time, the devices that USE it have been changing and evolving at a rapid pace during this time. Think of all the DEVICES that run on electricity that have been created and improved upon over the years - from big machines in factories, to robotics, to consumer electronics, to the very IC itself!

What IT departments provide/manage/maintain/create are the things that USE the computing power, like the DEVICES in the above sentence.

The guy who wrote this book is an extreme example of the type of person I've seen a lot of - people who just don't *get* it. They try to understand things that they don't do and can't understand unless they actually do them. The sad part is they have no inkling as to their own incompetence. (This link comes to mind -> "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments -> http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf Someone should send this guy a copy!)

I seriously wonder if this guy actually believes what he writes, or if he's just posing an extreme point of view in order to ruffle feathers and draw attention and sell books.

The professor wasn't trying to absolve the woman that you held the door for; she was trying to get you to understand what causes such encounters. However, you clearly are looking for others to rubberstamp your perspective on that encounter. That's not a luxury you deserve.

I'm truly impressed that you have been able to quote what this professor said all those many years ago in what I find a very convincing rendering of what she may have said. I'm disappointed, however, that you've not tried to understand it better. Are you aware to what extend women and people of color are subject to microaggressions throughout their lifetime, and what the effects of this may be? (Another good link.)

Germans are better at math: http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar05/scores.html, but the Fins and South Koreans have us all beaten.

In the US, the math is skewed by the income tax deduction for mortgage interest.
Take that away, or make rent deductible in a similar manner and you'll see fewer people buying homes because the payback takes longer. (That, and the correction in property values from the change in tax policy would scare some people away)

Having more land in the US factors into the equation strongly as well... on the whole a standalone home is a less risky permanent purchase... you can never control who your neighbors are, but if you're not right on top of, or next to each other, that blunts the impact somewhat.

A point about ownership:
People justify the deduction for mortgage interest because owners are more likely to be conscientious members of a community. Makes some sense, but there's a downside... if major employers aren't also owners, they will move freely based on conditions, but people will be stuck because they can't sell their house for anything decent, and you'll have slightly higher unemployment and somewhat higher underemployment than you would otherwise.

Research, published a decade ago in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, shows that catharsis -- verbal or physical venting -- is ``worse than useless,'' says the lead author, Iowa State University psychologist Brad J. Bushman. ``Expressing anger produces harmful effects -- it increases aggression.''

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp763367.pdf

'The brain is very parallel. There's lots of things going on at once,'

I have a bit of an issue with that statement. I guess in a way it is true that the brain does multiple things simultaneously such as balancing the body and chewing gum ;), but any article on multitasking will tend to point out that the brain isn't very good at processing higher functions simultaneously. I guess the main goal may not be to simultaneously process multiple images, but to quickly process a single image (which the brain is good at) based on the content rather than the meta-data associated with it.

You don't want to interrupt your concentration. You just type in the computer, and it's easy. If you get up and walk to the next cubicle, your concentration is ruined. But in this case, it's ruined also for both of you: you and the person you walked to.

Switching from one task to another, even if you're doing both on a computer, is still a break in concentration. This is why people who really need to concentrate work in offices with doors. This is why libraries require patrons to be quiet. The ability to shut out the rest of the world for significant periods of time is how tasks requiring real concentration get done.

In short, multitasking is a productivity killer.

Continuous interruptions (like IM) are one of the enemies of serious concentration. That's why IM sees widespread use in social communication where individual focus is unimportant, but little use among those who need long periods of concentration to do serious work. For the latter, intermittent communication (like email) allows for longer periods of focused concentration.

I know that one. Read it years ago. You're much better off reading the original study, http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf rather than all the pundits commenting upon it, by the way.

It's an age-old observation anyway.

There is evidence the dream is coextensive with the REM period and that the time length of dreams, as subjectively experienced by the dreamer and objectively rated by experimenters, is closely related to the real-time length of the corresponding REM period.