While that is true, I have some questions about the implication that microsoft has implemented the features they have "well". MS SQL is a good product, no doubt, but IE is severely lacking from a web design POV. From a web surfer POV, IE is generally adequate, with nothing to 'wow' the user. They use it because it works well enough (satisficing is the official term).
I use Firefox because it is better. That's the way I am.
Will I use IE7? Absolutely, since I need to test my sites against it.
Good for you--this is a good, solid common sense position--if you believe in a deity of some sort.
I have a personal theory about evolution. Micro-evolution is undeniable. Anyone who claims otherwise is ignoring the facts.
Macro evolution is a different story, and the beginning of life on this planet is the question. The problem is, as others have pointed out, that at some point ID falls apart with the 'infinite designers' problem. Vis-a-vis, deity is necessary. I don't have a problem with this. I also have no problem with the concept of a deity who directly manipulates the universe at any level. Realistically speaking, this is a necessary belief if you accept a deity as a real--that deity must then be able to manipulate the universe. Personally I don't think that anything God does contravenes or 'breaks' the laws of physics. I DO think that there are things that we haven't learned yet, and if we ever learn them, then it will be obvious how God does things.
I read the PDF. The name by itself means nothing to me. I've never heard of the guy, and I'm not in neuropsych.
Google isn't really the best search engine for asking a question like "is this guy well-respected within the scientific community in which he operates?" If it was, I would do it. I don't feel like loggin into psycInfo to look him up, especially when I had no idea until the poster replied what field the guy was in.
Furthermore, until the poster told me of the university affiliation, I couldn't be certain that a google search would point me to the correct person.
Point in fact, the article (which I read), does not address a lot of questions I would like to see answered.
Now that I know who the guy is, I actually imagine that he knew a good deal about the human brain, but since, as the poster now informs us, he is dead, there is a great deal of research that has been done since the book the paper references was published--and he can't even do more research.
So yeah, you're brilliant. I asked some valid questions having made some assumptions about paucity of information. Turns out that the information, although available, was somewhat ambiguous without additional information.
Actually, you don't know that the top brick would have the same influence on the earth. Maybe the combined effect of the earth _and_ the brick next to it would simulate the weakened effect of the earth. Or I could be completely wrong.
As a follow up, I read the 18 page brief. I am still unsatisfied with his conclusions. He paints a very simple picture. It ain't that easy (it never is when dealing with nueral networks).
I don't mean to flame or be rude, but I would like more information.
Who is your grandfather, and why should we care what he has written?
As a psychologist, I need to have a name. Citation is more important. His name means nothing to me (I've read a fair bit of psychology-related research, too), so I am going to need some information.
Look, I'm not trying to be rude, but as a sibling poster pointed out, this doesn't exactly jive with what I know to be currently accepted theory about information processing in the human mind.
One thing the human brain does VERY well is pattern matching as pattern discrimination. Consider the idea of facial recognition. This is computationally intensive. Humans do it almost instantly in most cases. It is also capable of discriminating between two similar patterns in a fraction of a second (sorting tasks have demonstrated this quite conclusively).
Very little is actually known about how we process information because we can't get a handle on it all. MRI's are helping, but haven't solved a lot of the problems that we face.
I would therefore appreciate some more information about how these conclusions were reached and what the research supporting them is like.
The truth is, I hate all these games. I don't WANT a game where I can't quit for a month and not come back to the same experience. Persistent worlds make my life crowded, and I can't afford to put the time into these things that is required.
The numerical system in use today is the direct result of pencil and paper type games. It is also good psychology. Look, the point of the game is to make money (for all but just a few games). People who don't have control over a situation tend to try to get out. Thus stripping the illusion of control away from a game, like your suggestion would, is a bad decision from almost any perspective.
I'll give up the mod points, since I am somewhat qualified to speak to the subject on two scores: first, I grew up under the watchful eye of a professor--my dad. Second, I just finished my MS in Psychology--and am continuing on for a PhD. Education and IQ testing are hallmarks of the science.
Now for my real comments: dear old dad always stated that he failed about 50% of his incoming freshman students for the simple reason that were unable to properly read or write. Granted, this was not the most presitigious university, but it is still a very sad commentary on the state of affairs. For the record, he taught history--generally Middle Eastern, but frequently world history, or classes on economic history (his dissertaion
Next, I have heard similar comments, and have a few concerns. First, _never_ trust a single source. One data point is merely an anecdote, and is statistically useless. Second, when viewed from the outside, most experiences do not seem as difficult (or as easy) as they really are. It is difficult, if not impossible, to completely identify the complexities of someone else's experience.
That said, I suspect that getting a PhD is easier now than it used to be. I also suspect that some of this is strictly due to the level of knowledge and understanding that is required slipping. This is almost impossible to measure. After all, if you measure only the bare facts that are required to do a PhD, you will undoubtedly show that a modern PhD is much harder--there are, after all, many more areas of study available now than 50 years ago, and each area has expanded its body of knowledge--in most disciplines. This is why eventually there will be very few, if any, people who know enough about the entirety of a single subject like psychology or physics to integrate the complete body of knowledge into a reasonably coherent picture--there wil be too much information. There is now. Just as it has its rewards, specialization has its costs.
The place to begin education reform is not at the college level, however. Education reform does NOT start in the grade schools either. It starts, largely, at home. It is about becoming a society in which education and intelligence and knowledge about useful stuff is valued, instead knowledge about the latest celebrity marriage or affair. Where math trumps football, and physics trumps NASCAR. I've got no problem with a society that produces and enjoys entertainment--I am a geek that loves computer games after all--but when that begins to supplant a thirst for knowledge and fosters an attitude that smart people aren't cool, I get a little jittery.
If a kids parents don't value education, knowledge and understanding, then the child won't value these either. Too many kids don't learn to read until they are in school of some sort. Too many kids don't learn real math until high school (theory, not simple stuff). I don't remember hearing about certain theorems until high school, but I know that had these things been pushed a little more, I could have learned it. Instead I was stuck in a class with 35 other kids, and told to sit down, shut up and look attentive. School, until college, was infinitely boring for me because of that attitude from most of my teachers. I learned to value learning and knowledge in high school despite the stuff at school, not because of it. I didn't apply that until I got to college. I still pay for my wasted youth.
Finally, a comment about the renormalization of the "IQ" test scores that a sibling post mentions: this is to be expected. After all, the definition of the IQ score is a normalized score to begin with. It is mental age divided by chronological age, or in other words--how much do you understand compared to what the average person of your age group understands. How smart are you compared to your peers. A very useful concept, but it is NOT a measure of raw intelligence. It developed in France as a method of identifying those children who had special needs and could be helped to catch up
Religious community? Methinks not. At my church, just about everyone I know that has children between say, eight and 18, has read (with or without their children) Harry Potter. They all love it. I haven't met anyone at my church that does that kind of reaction. I know that their are folks out their that are like that, but they are hardly a majority. Most folks I know that are religious are quite even keeled in that regard. That said, the morons that are that way always get my scorn.
A good story is worth a lot. This should be MORE obvious to those who are religious than to anyone else.
Remember, stereotypes are not always bad, they are just bad when they make you dislike a person who happens to be in a particular group, without first taking the time to learn whether or not they fit the stereotype.
There's another name for this, which I can't remember right now, but essentially there is a theory in the academic (psychology) literature that states very simply that people adjust their behavior to acheive a preferred level of risk.
This applies when driving, and is _extremely_ important when developing safety systems when driving. Take a person and let them get used to a vehicle that is unsafe, and they will drive more carefully to compensate for the problems that the vehicle has. However, as soon as more safety features are added they will return to their previous (less safe) habits. The problem is that almost everyone overestimates how much safer they are because of the devices, thus they overcompensate, and are actually less safe driving the newer vehicle (because of their changes in style) than they were in the older vehicle. But they actually feel safer because of the safety features and whatnot.
This is the real reason that unless a feature is absolutely necessary, or shows a difference in safety greater than the compensation, I do not want auto braking or lane change signals and similar tech. What I do want is simple: two devices, one that show the CURRENT speed limit accurately; and one that shows the actual color of the light that you are approaching and how long you have before a light (if green or red) changes. These are two things that would help improve safety by making sure that no one ever has an excuse for running a red light. The speed limit device would give folks a clear idea of their speed in relation to the law. Then if they get caught, the fines could be handled appropriately.
Disclaimer--I am not a theologian nor "Bible Expert". That said I do have some knowledge--My dad spoke most of the languages that were used in writing various parts of the Bible, being an expert himself.
The Bible was not written in any one language originally, nor was it written by a single person. Anyone who makes that type of claim is severely deluded.
The Old Testament (Genesis through Malachi) was written in Hebrew, but not modern Hebrew. Some parts were written in a form of Hebrew that did not make use of vowels. Talk to an expert about this--my Hebrew is limited to recognizing the script and few historical notes.
The New Testament, before the Catholics compiled it, was written in a variety of languages, including both Greek and Aramaic (which is probably what Christ spoke). At some point the Catholic Church (Roman), decided that everything should be in Latin, and only distributed the scripture in that language. Various editions have been translated from both the Latin or from more ancient documents. Many of the documents that are out there are so far from the "original" that there is little, if any, hope of knowing exactly how they read.
Additionally, remember that even the oldest versions in existence today are both ancient and very likely copies (especially with the Old Testament), which means that they have been both translated and transscribed numerous times. So while I believe that the Bible is scripture, and that much of it (not all) was inspired by God, there is a strong need to be very careful in how one interprets the meanings.
Being a member of the LDS church, I have my own beliefs about what should be done to properly understand the Bible, but that opinion is even less popular than even believing in God in the first place (which in these parts can be a dangerous viewpoint).
As for being open source, that is out of the question. Public domain != open source. In the case of the Bible, the license (from the Man Himself) allows anyone to publish or distribute the work, but prohibits one from changing the source to help prevent bugs from creeping in. A lot folks have ignored this restriction, resulting in much chaos, but that's another story.
you are forgetting the tendency of lighter cars to skid more easily in a sudden-stop scenario. THis is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. If the roads are wet, icy or otherwise slick, then you want a medium weight vehicle with high traction--not a low weight vehicle (slide) or higher weight (too much inertia)--in order to be safe. SUVs are dangerous on ice for a lot of reasons, but a mid-size car or even a minivan are generally safe (if you know what you are doing). A lightweight car will slide all over due to insufficient traction, however.
There are ranges in which cars are safer. This should be the target range. Of course, 2000 lbs may be the right target, but I'm just sayin....
I'll agree with you on many points, but there is one glaring mistake that cannot be left alone: Lurching heedlessly through professionally placed signs This is blatantly false. Often times stop signs are placed just over rises (at the end of a down-hill slope), or in the bushes, or in some other location that makes them difficult to see. In the first case (over-the-rise), there should be a "stop ahead" sign, but these are often missing, never placed or obscured (again, bushes and trees).
These types of situations are inevitable because the DMV doesn't have the funds to properly maintain street signs in most cities and towns, let alone on lonely country roads.
Professionally placed? Perhaps, but generally the signs are merely placed.
Traffic lights are no better--most are now oriented vertically (good), with red on top, but in some cities, the lights are oriented horizontally (BAD IDEA), with varying conventions regarding left or right placement of the red-light. Sun glare on east or west-facing lights can completely obscure the ability to see the current state of a light, thus creating a serious road hazard (and many drivers are foolish enough to continue to drive straight through--a fact you can never be sure of when approaching the light). Some cities use lines and hang their lights (causing problems when the wind picks up), while others use poles. Poles can vary from center hanging to side hanging. Center-hanging poles place the light where most individuals expect to see the light, but side-hanging poles place to light off the main area of attention, thus making the light much more difficult to see--especially for drivers unused to such placement.
Saying that lights and signs are always optimally placed (which seems to be the implication in your "professionally placed" statement) is deceiving. I will agree that most people (myself included) need to be more careful in how they drive, but sometimes (especially at night) the fault lies more with the city planners and road workers.
Personally, I think that everyone needs to be aware of both problems--that of sign placement and other drivers. Occasionally there are constraints placed on drivers that are simply impossible to comply with if you don't have prior knowledge of the situation. The first time you approach some signs and lights, you have no way to know that there is going to be a problem. This won't be a problem the next time, but this time it is.
Sorry, just my little rant. No one drives perfectly--it isn't possible.
Having read and used a lot of his work in my master's thesis (which was right along those lines), let me make a few comments: first--you lucky jerk! I wish that I could have heard him talk!
Second, there are a LOT of folks researching affective forecasting--Danny Kahneman is also working on it (Nobel Prize winner). You should also check out Hastie & Dawes book, "Rational Choice in an Uncertain World"--it covers a lot of the "rationality debate" in a very accessible way.
Third, let me make something clear: we are ALL bad at making these predictions, and apparently we are all EQUALLY bad at it. In my own research (which is hardly at the same level as Gilbert's), I have found that being really smart or really conscientious doesn't seem to make you any better at predicting how happy something will make you. Additionally just because you make a good prediction about one experience doesn't mean that you'll make a good prediction about the next one. This is a real problem, and has lead people to make all sorts of bad decisions.
Finally--remember kids, if you can't accurately decide what will make you the happiest, then you are going to act in sub-optimal ways (or engage in behaviors which lead to outcomes that do not produce the most happiness). If everyone knew exactly what made them happiest, the world would be very different.
I am in a similar position. I am currently in graduate school with three children. Wouldn't trade it for anything.
All of my children were born as a result of planning and much thought and discussion with the wife. We were married for two years before we had our first child. The reason I mention all this is the guy who says "its the people who had children before they were ready who say that no one is ever ready."
This is a stupid attitude. If you don't have children, you have perhaps a 1 in 1e100 chance of fully being ready for them. There are so many unexpected _things_ that happen when you have children that prior preparation cannot see.
Are there folks who are substantially ready for children? Absolutely. Some folks are perfectly set financially for children, while a few are emotionally ready, but neither of those are enough.
My wife and I are far from financially well-off, and money is not easily come by, but by working 20 hours a week part-time in addition to my graduate teaching assistantship, we are able to make ends meet. We have never had an issue with having food on the table, and we make our rent.
Will I be getting an xbox 360? No, but that's okay.
The decision of when to have children, and how many one should have, is a deeply personal question that everyone needs to decide with their spouse. It should NEVER be left to chance, and it should ALWAYS be done only after thorough consideration.
hey, I've got a couple of the six leafers somewhere. Even a seven leafer as well. (seriously--I am extremely good at finding four-leaf clovers, but sometimes five or six pop up as well. This is more common with sweet clover than with the regular "yard clover", but even that will have five or six leaves on occasion.)
I wasn't going to reply, but I thought about it a bit and decided to despite my best judgment.
I was not saying that we shouldn't study it, or that the field wasn't worth studying.
If you read on, you'll note that I say that intelligence itself is not well understood or even well defined as a psychological construct. This is what makes it dangerous to study genetic links to IQ--we don't really know what we are doing with this.
Let me be clear: until we have agreed on the full structure of intelligence it is best to leave alone genetic links to some arbitrarilly (sp?) selected measure of a construct under debate. It's somewhat like trying to find a scientific proof that God exists--you have to first define God before you can begin the search, and we are far from a unified definition of God (I say this as a Christian who has a fairly different view of deity than is accepted by the mainstream).
There is a fundamental problem with the concept of correlating a construct that is undefined with anything else--you can't definitively state what you've provided evidence for!
So I stand by this: until IQ (ick, what a nasty term) is better defined or outright rejected, genetic links with IQ are best left alone. I will say that if you want to find a genetic link with mathematical ability, then you have a metric that I am comfortable with.
The real problem is that generalized intelligence (g or IQ) is taking things like mathematical ability, verbal ability, and spatial reasoning and combining them into a single score. This is a lossy compression technique (to use IT terminology) that may actually be more like combining a jpeg with a mp3 and calling the result a Movie or Film. Even that is being generous, but you get the idea: IQ is so general and so big that there is doubt that it even exists!
That said, I know what laymen terms are; we all agree that some people are smarter than others--but does this mean in every area? Think about it like this: if a person is a musical genius (Beethoven level), would that make them any good at math? programming? engineering? art? tactics? literature? or anything else?
If so, then you have an argument for g (or IQ), but otherwise you have to wonder about the concept. What is the correlation between mathematical ability and musical ability? Both can be trained (which by the way, introduces huge problems into the concept that intelligence is innate), but there is probably some degree of innate ability (and a related question is: how do you measure which is trianed and which is innate? This is important, since access to better education might account for many of the gender and racial breaks in intelligence scores.)
There is a reason this link is contentious--it has been (rightly or not) linked to racism and other political hotbeds. Beyond that link is the very simple value judgment that smarter people are more valuable and desirable than less smart folks. I don't think it is true, but how many of us would like to see people we think are dumb removed from the gene pool (do you laugh about the Darwin Awards)? I don't have answers, but until there is a unified framework that is widely accepted for dealing with intelligence that is able to get around these problems, it is wise to tread cautiously.
As a scientific community, we've gotten around the nature/nurture debate (the media may not have caught up, but most scientists know the answer) concerning personality, intelligence, etc. (hint the answer is BOTH), although there is still a matter of degree.
300 is a respectable sample size. Before you can even make a statement about variation being "just signal noise" you need to know a lot more, first of which is the amount of variation. If we were talking about a correlation of.01 or even.09, I would agree with you, but if this is a correlation of.3 or.5, then I am disinclined to agree.
I will agree with you on one thing: the genetic->IQ link is extremely contentious, and is probably best left alone.
As someone said, the standard deviation is either 15 or 16 (depending on the scale), but this is (IIRC) normed on a regular basis, so scores from 20 years ago are not necessarily comparable to scores today (if you use the current version of any particular scale).
Additionally there are definable group differences on these scales, and more than a little contention about the nature of intelligence. Is intelligence best measured by knowledge, if so, which knowledge? Is it best measured by a scale, an acitivity or something else? Can it be measured? Is there more than one type of intelligence? Is factor analysis appropriate in determining the number of intelligences? Is it appropriate to combine all subfactors into a single score (g or IQ)? These are the questions that plague researchers and psychometricians. What makes it worse is that intelligence tests show group differences (blacks scoring lower than whites, females lower than males, and finally, Asians higher than whites), but the within group variance is typically greater than the between group variance, eg. men have (example only) an average IQ of 110, women an average IQ of 105 (.33 std deviation), but the standard deviation for both groups is 15. In a sample large enough, this means that the difference between men and women will be statistically 'significant'*, but practically meaningless (although my numbers are made up, the truth is very similar to this!). This is the same for blacks v. whites etc.
In this case of have and have-not for this gene, the difference is greater than 1 standard deviation, but that doesn't make it practically useful. The question of environment is still present (eg, are there environmental factors that make development or manifestation of this gene more likely?), and frankly, genetic links to intelligence are going to be worthless until we can settle on a definition of intelligence that works. Frankly, I am opposed to the concept of generalized intelligence. It doesn't seem to work--I know far to many folks that are extremely gifted mechanically, but can't do anything creative. Or the guy who can work wonders with a computer and is a wonderful programmer but can't make beans of a social situation (none of those around here are there?). These are all different areas of intelligence that are available, and seem to operate independently, but when you try to combine them, then you get into trouble (take a factor-analysis or psychometrics course if you want a long explanation).
The short of it all is this: yes they found something, but what? If this gene would make you overall smarter, then you would think that it would be present in everyone, since for humans being smarter typically makes you more likely to live longer.
FWIW, I am in psychology, and working on my PhD. I have some minor qualifications to talk about this subject. I don't feel like quoting every relevant peice of research. If you want some reading, see Stephen Jay Gould's 'The Mismeasure of Man', it will delineate the debate quite well.
*statistical significance is a hotbed of trouble in itself. See Cohen & Cohen's work on the matter or just Cohen's "The earth is round, p.05'--these folks make cogent arguments about why statistical significance is not the end all, be all of scientific research. It shouldn't be ignored, but using meaningful alpha levels is very important.
That's the kind of situation that really ticks me off. Companies know that they can get away this, however, because it is NOT illegal in any way, shape, or form.
In hiring situations, there are restrictions on age-based discrimination--but ONLY if it hurts folks over 40! So while a firm may easily say you MUST be over 40 for this job, they cannot say you MUST be under 50 (except in a few strange circumstances).
As a youngish person (29 in a few days), this is really frustrating. The assumption that an older person is smarter or better at something than a younger person (based on experience) is foolish. The only way to know is to check. Unfortunately it is generally a better use of resources to use experience than to test every aspect of a person's development, and the minds of many folks age==experience.
Age discrimination is a problem, however. It has been heavily studied in terms of hiring for older folks, but little has been done to examine the problem of pay as it relates to younger folks. I would bet that if you were 21, had a graduate degree, and even a couple years of experience, you would make less than someone with comparable experience even five years older. This is as much a problem in my mind as gender-based discrimination.
Oh, and contrary to what folks think, it is TECHNICALLY illegal to discriminate against white males (the laws mention only gender and race, not which gender or race). There have even been a few cases of a white male suing an organization for discrimination (and winning). It isn't easy, and most of the time the judges and juries are less than sympathetic. More cases would be nice though, since it would put the idea in folks minds that when you are hiring you need to be racially BLIND! If I were to ever be passed over for someone who is less qualified but is either female or a minority race, you had better believe that I would sue (if I could prove it). Why? Because an organization that is willing to discriminate against me based on race or gender would do it to the minority if they thought they could get away with it.
LESSON? If you are white male, don't let organizations pass you over for that reason in order to hire/promote a minority. The way to do this is to be the best employee you can. If they do the best they can and are better than you, then they deserve the promotion, but ONLY if they are more qualified or do objectively better work.
FWIW, I hate folks that discriminate against anyone.
I hate being a grammar nazi, but that one is too obvious. Of course, I will be nice and assume that you meant to type it right, but your fingers got moving faster than you brain.
That said, I have one serious thought about why NULLS should exist.
In research involving surveys it is very important to code data appropriately. If you give a person a 137 item quesionnaire (which I have done), and they do not respond to an item that is categorically coded, a NULL is the correct input. A zero or even a blank space is not the correct response, since you actually DO NOT have a response. When computing a mean value based on a set of items it important to clarify a NULL, since it means (when handled properly) that the mean should be computed on a different number of items. You cannot do this easily if you have a zero or whitespace.
The truth is that in some data sets you NEED to represent that absence of fact. NULL is the best way to do this in my opinion.
Granted, I am not an expert on data storage, but I know a fair bit about research and logically it seems that there are definitely times when you absolutely need to distinguish between a non-response and some response. When you are doing correlational work, this is an important thing to do.
As an example: I did some research where I was examining the relationship between two variables (call them x and y). X had 119 responses, by y only had 110. The responses were on a scale from 1 to 5. If I were to code a non-response as a 0, this would provide very different results than if I were to code a non-response as a NULL. Whitespace, depending on the tool used to examine the relationship, could either ruin the analysis (yielding a NaN response) or a miscount of the number of responses (thus providing the wrong correlation, since you need the number of responses to calculate a correlation. Thus, in my mind, the proper way to store this data is have a non-response as a NULL.
Perhaps someone with a better theoretical understanding can provide some reasons why this is not necessary, but I think that sometimes you honestly have an absence of fact that needs to be stored as such.
I don't particularly care for Mr. Thompson, but yes, I am upset about the misuse of the DSM (get it right). Not that it is sacred, but that by quoting from it, the poster gained an air of authority that was wholly unwarranted.
It also gave the very mistaken impression that one could self-diagnose or that a non-professional should be able to use the DSM to make a diagnosis about someone that they do not know. This is why it is irresponsible. Furthermore this opens up the possibility (although remote) of someone saying, "crap, I have three of those symptoms, I must by psychotic!" and then doing something quite foolish like taking their life or the life of another. Remote? Certainly, but if this were depression or a mental disorder like schizophrenia, it is much more likely. I've seen it happen. It is extremely sad.
The moral is not that the DSM is sacred, but that it is foolish to go around tossing of authoritative looking diagnoses of mental disorders.
Attacks on Mr. Thompson are also rather pointless, but they are not nearly as irresponsible as using the DSM in the fashion seen.
Sorry, but I don't think your point is valid: you say that I think that the DSM is sacred. I don't think that. I do think that it shouldn't be used by someone with no training or to make a public statement about someone's mental state. I would say the same about using the PDR (Physician's Desk Reference) to fill prescriptions. Just not a good idea.
Slashdot Mirror
While that is true, I have some questions about the implication that microsoft has implemented the features they have "well". MS SQL is a good product, no doubt, but IE is severely lacking from a web design POV. From a web surfer POV, IE is generally adequate, with nothing to 'wow' the user. They use it because it works well enough (satisficing is the official term).
I use Firefox because it is better. That's the way I am.
Will I use IE7? Absolutely, since I need to test my sites against it.
Good for you--this is a good, solid common sense position--if you believe in a deity of some sort.
I have a personal theory about evolution. Micro-evolution is undeniable. Anyone who claims otherwise is ignoring the facts.
Macro evolution is a different story, and the beginning of life on this planet is the question. The problem is, as others have pointed out, that at some point ID falls apart with the 'infinite designers' problem. Vis-a-vis, deity is necessary. I don't have a problem with this. I also have no problem with the concept of a deity who directly manipulates the universe at any level. Realistically speaking, this is a necessary belief if you accept a deity as a real--that deity must then be able to manipulate the universe. Personally I don't think that anything God does contravenes or 'breaks' the laws of physics. I DO think that there are things that we haven't learned yet, and if we ever learn them, then it will be obvious how God does things.
Oh you're just brilliant, huh?
I read the PDF. The name by itself means nothing to me. I've never heard of the guy, and I'm not in neuropsych.
Google isn't really the best search engine for asking a question like "is this guy well-respected within the scientific community in which he operates?" If it was, I would do it. I don't feel like loggin into psycInfo to look him up, especially when I had no idea until the poster replied what field the guy was in.
Furthermore, until the poster told me of the university affiliation, I couldn't be certain that a google search would point me to the correct person.
Point in fact, the article (which I read), does not address a lot of questions I would like to see answered.
Now that I know who the guy is, I actually imagine that he knew a good deal about the human brain, but since, as the poster now informs us, he is dead, there is a great deal of research that has been done since the book the paper references was published--and he can't even do more research.
So yeah, you're brilliant. I asked some valid questions having made some assumptions about paucity of information. Turns out that the information, although available, was somewhat ambiguous without additional information.
Actually, you don't know that the top brick would have the same influence on the earth. Maybe the combined effect of the earth _and_ the brick next to it would simulate the weakened effect of the earth. Or I could be completely wrong.
As a follow up, I read the 18 page brief. I am still unsatisfied with his conclusions. He paints a very simple picture. It ain't that easy (it never is when dealing with nueral networks).
I don't mean to flame or be rude, but I would like more information.
Who is your grandfather, and why should we care what he has written?
As a psychologist, I need to have a name. Citation is more important. His name means nothing to me (I've read a fair bit of psychology-related research, too), so I am going to need some information.
Look, I'm not trying to be rude, but as a sibling poster pointed out, this doesn't exactly jive with what I know to be currently accepted theory about information processing in the human mind.
One thing the human brain does VERY well is pattern matching as pattern discrimination. Consider the idea of facial recognition. This is computationally intensive. Humans do it almost instantly in most cases. It is also capable of discriminating between two similar patterns in a fraction of a second (sorting tasks have demonstrated this quite conclusively).
Very little is actually known about how we process information because we can't get a handle on it all. MRI's are helping, but haven't solved a lot of the problems that we face.
I would therefore appreciate some more information about how these conclusions were reached and what the research supporting them is like.
The truth is, I hate all these games. I don't WANT a game where I can't quit for a month and not come back to the same experience. Persistent worlds make my life crowded, and I can't afford to put the time into these things that is required.
The numerical system in use today is the direct result of pencil and paper type games. It is also good psychology. Look, the point of the game is to make money (for all but just a few games). People who don't have control over a situation tend to try to get out. Thus stripping the illusion of control away from a game, like your suggestion would, is a bad decision from almost any perspective.
It just wouldn't sell the same. Sorry.
I'll give up the mod points, since I am somewhat qualified to speak to the subject on two scores:
first, I grew up under the watchful eye of a professor--my dad.
Second, I just finished my MS in Psychology--and am continuing on for a PhD. Education and IQ testing are hallmarks of the science.
Now for my real comments: dear old dad always stated that he failed about 50% of his incoming freshman students for the simple reason that were unable to properly read or write. Granted, this was not the most presitigious university, but it is still a very sad commentary on the state of affairs. For the record, he taught history--generally Middle Eastern, but frequently world history, or classes on economic history (his dissertaion
Next, I have heard similar comments, and have a few concerns. First, _never_ trust a single source. One data point is merely an anecdote, and is statistically useless. Second, when viewed from the outside, most experiences do not seem as difficult (or as easy) as they really are. It is difficult, if not impossible, to completely identify the complexities of someone else's experience.
That said, I suspect that getting a PhD is easier now than it used to be. I also suspect that some of this is strictly due to the level of knowledge and understanding that is required slipping. This is almost impossible to measure. After all, if you measure only the bare facts that are required to do a PhD, you will undoubtedly show that a modern PhD is much harder--there are, after all, many more areas of study available now than 50 years ago, and each area has expanded its body of knowledge--in most disciplines. This is why eventually there will be very few, if any, people who know enough about the entirety of a single subject like psychology or physics to integrate the complete body of knowledge into a reasonably coherent picture--there wil be too much information. There is now. Just as it has its rewards, specialization has its costs.
The place to begin education reform is not at the college level, however. Education reform does NOT start in the grade schools either. It starts, largely, at home. It is about becoming a society in which education and intelligence and knowledge about useful stuff is valued, instead knowledge about the latest celebrity marriage or affair. Where math trumps football, and physics trumps NASCAR. I've got no problem with a society that produces and enjoys entertainment--I am a geek that loves computer games after all--but when that begins to supplant a thirst for knowledge and fosters an attitude that smart people aren't cool, I get a little jittery.
If a kids parents don't value education, knowledge and understanding, then the child won't value these either. Too many kids don't learn to read until they are in school of some sort. Too many kids don't learn real math until high school (theory, not simple stuff). I don't remember hearing about certain theorems until high school, but I know that had these things been pushed a little more, I could have learned it. Instead I was stuck in a class with 35 other kids, and told to sit down, shut up and look attentive. School, until college, was infinitely boring for me because of that attitude from most of my teachers. I learned to value learning and knowledge in high school despite the stuff at school, not because of it. I didn't apply that until I got to college. I still pay for my wasted youth.
Finally, a comment about the renormalization of the "IQ" test scores that a sibling post mentions: this is to be expected. After all, the definition of the IQ score is a normalized score to begin with. It is mental age divided by chronological age, or in other words--how much do you understand compared to what the average person of your age group understands. How smart are you compared to your peers. A very useful concept, but it is NOT a measure of raw intelligence. It developed in France as a method of identifying those children who had special needs and could be helped to catch up
bah!
Religious community? Methinks not. At my church, just about everyone I know that has children between say, eight and 18, has read (with or without their children) Harry Potter. They all love it. I haven't met anyone at my church that does that kind of reaction. I know that their are folks out their that are like that, but they are hardly a majority. Most folks I know that are religious are quite even keeled in that regard. That said, the morons that are that way always get my scorn.
A good story is worth a lot. This should be MORE obvious to those who are religious than to anyone else.
Remember, stereotypes are not always bad, they are just bad when they make you dislike a person who happens to be in a particular group, without first taking the time to learn whether or not they fit the stereotype.
There's another name for this, which I can't remember right now, but essentially there is a theory in the academic (psychology) literature that states very simply that people adjust their behavior to acheive a preferred level of risk.
This applies when driving, and is _extremely_ important when developing safety systems when driving. Take a person and let them get used to a vehicle that is unsafe, and they will drive more carefully to compensate for the problems that the vehicle has. However, as soon as more safety features are added they will return to their previous (less safe) habits. The problem is that almost everyone overestimates how much safer they are because of the devices, thus they overcompensate, and are actually less safe driving the newer vehicle (because of their changes in style) than they were in the older vehicle. But they actually feel safer because of the safety features and whatnot.
This is the real reason that unless a feature is absolutely necessary, or shows a difference in safety greater than the compensation, I do not want auto braking or lane change signals and similar tech. What I do want is simple: two devices, one that show the CURRENT speed limit accurately; and one that shows the actual color of the light that you are approaching and how long you have before a light (if green or red) changes. These are two things that would help improve safety by making sure that no one ever has an excuse for running a red light. The speed limit device would give folks a clear idea of their speed in relation to the law. Then if they get caught, the fines could be handled appropriately.
Disclaimer--I am not a theologian nor "Bible Expert". That said I do have some knowledge--My dad spoke most of the languages that were used in writing various parts of the Bible, being an expert himself.
The Bible was not written in any one language originally, nor was it written by a single person. Anyone who makes that type of claim is severely deluded.
The Old Testament (Genesis through Malachi) was written in Hebrew, but not modern Hebrew. Some parts were written in a form of Hebrew that did not make use of vowels. Talk to an expert about this--my Hebrew is limited to recognizing the script and few historical notes.
The New Testament, before the Catholics compiled it, was written in a variety of languages, including both Greek and Aramaic (which is probably what Christ spoke). At some point the Catholic Church (Roman), decided that everything should be in Latin, and only distributed the scripture in that language. Various editions have been translated from both the Latin or from more ancient documents. Many of the documents that are out there are so far from the "original" that there is little, if any, hope of knowing exactly how they read.
Additionally, remember that even the oldest versions in existence today are both ancient and very likely copies (especially with the Old Testament), which means that they have been both translated and transscribed numerous times. So while I believe that the Bible is scripture, and that much of it (not all) was inspired by God, there is a strong need to be very careful in how one interprets the meanings.
Being a member of the LDS church, I have my own beliefs about what should be done to properly understand the Bible, but that opinion is even less popular than even believing in God in the first place (which in these parts can be a dangerous viewpoint).
As for being open source, that is out of the question. Public domain != open source. In the case of the Bible, the license (from the Man Himself) allows anyone to publish or distribute the work, but prohibits one from changing the source to help prevent bugs from creeping in. A lot folks have ignored this restriction, resulting in much chaos, but that's another story.
Hope this helped.
you are forgetting the tendency of lighter cars to skid more easily in a sudden-stop scenario. THis is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. If the roads are wet, icy or otherwise slick, then you want a medium weight vehicle with high traction--not a low weight vehicle (slide) or higher weight (too much inertia)--in order to be safe. SUVs are dangerous on ice for a lot of reasons, but a mid-size car or even a minivan are generally safe (if you know what you are doing). A lightweight car will slide all over due to insufficient traction, however.
There are ranges in which cars are safer. This should be the target range. Of course, 2000 lbs may be the right target, but I'm just sayin....
I'll agree with you on many points, but there is one glaring mistake that cannot be left alone:
Lurching heedlessly through professionally placed signs
This is blatantly false. Often times stop signs are placed just over rises (at the end of a down-hill slope), or in the bushes, or in some other location that makes them difficult to see. In the first case (over-the-rise), there should be a "stop ahead" sign, but these are often missing, never placed or obscured (again, bushes and trees).
These types of situations are inevitable because the DMV doesn't have the funds to properly maintain street signs in most cities and towns, let alone on lonely country roads.
Professionally placed? Perhaps, but generally the signs are merely placed.
Traffic lights are no better--most are now oriented vertically (good), with red on top, but in some cities, the lights are oriented horizontally (BAD IDEA), with varying conventions regarding left or right placement of the red-light. Sun glare on east or west-facing lights can completely obscure the ability to see the current state of a light, thus creating a serious road hazard (and many drivers are foolish enough to continue to drive straight through--a fact you can never be sure of when approaching the light). Some cities use lines and hang their lights (causing problems when the wind picks up), while others use poles. Poles can vary from center hanging to side hanging. Center-hanging poles place the light where most individuals expect to see the light, but side-hanging poles place to light off the main area of attention, thus making the light much more difficult to see--especially for drivers unused to such placement.
Saying that lights and signs are always optimally placed (which seems to be the implication in your "professionally placed" statement) is deceiving. I will agree that most people (myself included) need to be more careful in how they drive, but sometimes (especially at night) the fault lies more with the city planners and road workers.
Personally, I think that everyone needs to be aware of both problems--that of sign placement and other drivers. Occasionally there are constraints placed on drivers that are simply impossible to comply with if you don't have prior knowledge of the situation. The first time you approach some signs and lights, you have no way to know that there is going to be a problem. This won't be a problem the next time, but this time it is.
Sorry, just my little rant. No one drives perfectly--it isn't possible.
Having read and used a lot of his work in my master's thesis (which was right along those lines), let me make a few comments:
first--you lucky jerk! I wish that I could have heard him talk!
Second, there are a LOT of folks researching affective forecasting--Danny Kahneman is also working on it (Nobel Prize winner). You should also check out Hastie & Dawes book, "Rational Choice in an Uncertain World"--it covers a lot of the "rationality debate" in a very accessible way.
Third, let me make something clear: we are ALL bad at making these predictions, and apparently we are all EQUALLY bad at it. In my own research (which is hardly at the same level as Gilbert's), I have found that being really smart or really conscientious doesn't seem to make you any better at predicting how happy something will make you. Additionally just because you make a good prediction about one experience doesn't mean that you'll make a good prediction about the next one. This is a real problem, and has lead people to make all sorts of bad decisions.
Finally--remember kids, if you can't accurately decide what will make you the happiest, then you are going to act in sub-optimal ways (or engage in behaviors which lead to outcomes that do not produce the most happiness). If everyone knew exactly what made them happiest, the world would be very different.
did you buy an OEM model or a retail model?
If you bought an OEM, then you shouldn't have expected it to ship with a cable.
OTOH, what kind of geek doesn't have spare cables laying around (SATA OR IDE)?
To support you,
Good for you!
I am in a similar position. I am currently in graduate school with three children. Wouldn't trade it for anything.
All of my children were born as a result of planning and much thought and discussion with the wife. We were married for two years before we had our first child. The reason I mention all this is the guy who says "its the people who had children before they were ready who say that no one is ever ready."
This is a stupid attitude. If you don't have children, you have perhaps a 1 in 1e100 chance of fully being ready for them. There are so many unexpected _things_ that happen when you have children that prior preparation cannot see.
Are there folks who are substantially ready for children? Absolutely. Some folks are perfectly set financially for children, while a few are emotionally ready, but neither of those are enough.
My wife and I are far from financially well-off, and money is not easily come by, but by working 20 hours a week part-time in addition to my graduate teaching assistantship, we are able to make ends meet. We have never had an issue with having food on the table, and we make our rent.
Will I be getting an xbox 360? No, but that's okay.
The decision of when to have children, and how many one should have, is a deeply personal question that everyone needs to decide with their spouse. It should NEVER be left to chance, and it should ALWAYS be done only after thorough consideration.
hey, I've got a couple of the six leafers somewhere. Even a seven leafer as well. (seriously--I am extremely good at finding four-leaf clovers, but sometimes five or six pop up as well. This is more common with sweet clover than with the regular "yard clover", but even that will have five or six leaves on occasion.)
As for the rest, can't help with that.
I wasn't going to reply, but I thought about it a bit and decided to despite my best judgment.
I was not saying that we shouldn't study it, or that the field wasn't worth studying.
If you read on, you'll note that I say that intelligence itself is not well understood or even well defined as a psychological construct. This is what makes it dangerous to study genetic links to IQ--we don't really know what we are doing with this.
Let me be clear: until we have agreed on the full structure of intelligence it is best to leave alone genetic links to some arbitrarilly (sp?) selected measure of a construct under debate. It's somewhat like trying to find a scientific proof that God exists--you have to first define God before you can begin the search, and we are far from a unified definition of God (I say this as a Christian who has a fairly different view of deity than is accepted by the mainstream).
There is a fundamental problem with the concept of correlating a construct that is undefined with anything else--you can't definitively state what you've provided evidence for!
So I stand by this: until IQ (ick, what a nasty term) is better defined or outright rejected, genetic links with IQ are best left alone. I will say that if you want to find a genetic link with mathematical ability, then you have a metric that I am comfortable with.
The real problem is that generalized intelligence (g or IQ) is taking things like mathematical ability, verbal ability, and spatial reasoning and combining them into a single score. This is a lossy compression technique (to use IT terminology) that may actually be more like combining a jpeg with a mp3 and calling the result a Movie or Film. Even that is being generous, but you get the idea: IQ is so general and so big that there is doubt that it even exists!
That said, I know what laymen terms are; we all agree that some people are smarter than others--but does this mean in every area? Think about it like this: if a person is a musical genius (Beethoven level), would that make them any good at math? programming? engineering? art? tactics? literature? or anything else?
If so, then you have an argument for g (or IQ), but otherwise you have to wonder about the concept. What is the correlation between mathematical ability and musical ability? Both can be trained (which by the way, introduces huge problems into the concept that intelligence is innate), but there is probably some degree of innate ability (and a related question is: how do you measure which is trianed and which is innate? This is important, since access to better education might account for many of the gender and racial breaks in intelligence scores.)
There is a reason this link is contentious--it has been (rightly or not) linked to racism and other political hotbeds. Beyond that link is the very simple value judgment that smarter people are more valuable and desirable than less smart folks. I don't think it is true, but how many of us would like to see people we think are dumb removed from the gene pool (do you laugh about the Darwin Awards)? I don't have answers, but until there is a unified framework that is widely accepted for dealing with intelligence that is able to get around these problems, it is wise to tread cautiously.
As a scientific community, we've gotten around the nature/nurture debate (the media may not have caught up, but most scientists know the answer) concerning personality, intelligence, etc. (hint the answer is BOTH), although there is still a matter of degree.
Hope that helps clarify things a bit.
um, no?
.01 or even .09, I would agree with you, but if this is a correlation of .3 or .5, then I am disinclined to agree.
300 is a respectable sample size. Before you can even make a statement about variation being "just signal noise" you need to know a lot more, first of which is the amount of variation. If we were talking about a correlation of
I will agree with you on one thing: the genetic->IQ link is extremely contentious, and is probably best left alone.
As someone said, the standard deviation is either 15 or 16 (depending on the scale), but this is (IIRC) normed on a regular basis, so scores from 20 years ago are not necessarily comparable to scores today (if you use the current version of any particular scale).
Additionally there are definable group differences on these scales, and more than a little contention about the nature of intelligence. Is intelligence best measured by knowledge, if so, which knowledge? Is it best measured by a scale, an acitivity or something else? Can it be measured? Is there more than one type of intelligence? Is factor analysis appropriate in determining the number of intelligences? Is it appropriate to combine all subfactors into a single score (g or IQ)? These are the questions that plague researchers and psychometricians. What makes it worse is that intelligence tests show group differences (blacks scoring lower than whites, females lower than males, and finally, Asians higher than whites), but the within group variance is typically greater than the between group variance, eg. men have (example only) an average IQ of 110, women an average IQ of 105 (.33 std deviation), but the standard deviation for both groups is 15. In a sample large enough, this means that the difference between men and women will be statistically 'significant'*, but practically meaningless (although my numbers are made up, the truth is very similar to this!). This is the same for blacks v. whites etc.
In this case of have and have-not for this gene, the difference is greater than 1 standard deviation, but that doesn't make it practically useful. The question of environment is still present (eg, are there environmental factors that make development or manifestation of this gene more likely?), and frankly, genetic links to intelligence are going to be worthless until we can settle on a definition of intelligence that works. Frankly, I am opposed to the concept of generalized intelligence. It doesn't seem to work--I know far to many folks that are extremely gifted mechanically, but can't do anything creative. Or the guy who can work wonders with a computer and is a wonderful programmer but can't make beans of a social situation (none of those around here are there?). These are all different areas of intelligence that are available, and seem to operate independently, but when you try to combine them, then you get into trouble (take a factor-analysis or psychometrics course if you want a long explanation).
The short of it all is this: yes they found something, but what? If this gene would make you overall smarter, then you would think that it would be present in everyone, since for humans being smarter typically makes you more likely to live longer.
FWIW, I am in psychology, and working on my PhD. I have some minor qualifications to talk about this subject. I don't feel like quoting every relevant peice of research. If you want some reading, see Stephen Jay Gould's 'The Mismeasure of Man', it will delineate the debate quite well.
*statistical significance is a hotbed of trouble in itself. See Cohen & Cohen's work on the matter or just Cohen's "The earth is round, p.05'--these folks make cogent arguments about why statistical significance is not the end all, be all of scientific research. It shouldn't be ignored, but using meaningful alpha levels is very important.
That's the kind of situation that really ticks me off. Companies know that they can get away this, however, because it is NOT illegal in any way, shape, or form.
In hiring situations, there are restrictions on age-based discrimination--but ONLY if it hurts folks over 40! So while a firm may easily say you MUST be over 40 for this job, they cannot say you MUST be under 50 (except in a few strange circumstances).
As a youngish person (29 in a few days), this is really frustrating. The assumption that an older person is smarter or better at something than a younger person (based on experience) is foolish. The only way to know is to check. Unfortunately it is generally a better use of resources to use experience than to test every aspect of a person's development, and the minds of many folks age==experience.
Age discrimination is a problem, however. It has been heavily studied in terms of hiring for older folks, but little has been done to examine the problem of pay as it relates to younger folks. I would bet that if you were 21, had a graduate degree, and even a couple years of experience, you would make less than someone with comparable experience even five years older. This is as much a problem in my mind as gender-based discrimination.
Oh, and contrary to what folks think, it is TECHNICALLY illegal to discriminate against white males (the laws mention only gender and race, not which gender or race). There have even been a few cases of a white male suing an organization for discrimination (and winning). It isn't easy, and most of the time the judges and juries are less than sympathetic. More cases would be nice though, since it would put the idea in folks minds that when you are hiring you need to be racially BLIND! If I were to ever be passed over for someone who is less qualified but is either female or a minority race, you had better believe that I would sue (if I could prove it). Why? Because an organization that is willing to discriminate against me based on race or gender would do it to the minority if they thought they could get away with it.
LESSON? If you are white male, don't let organizations pass you over for that reason in order to hire/promote a minority. The way to do this is to be the best employee you can. If they do the best they can and are better than you, then they deserve the promotion, but ONLY if they are more qualified or do objectively better work.
FWIW, I hate folks that discriminate against anyone.
what does a _viola_ have to do with this?
Oh, you meant voila! That's different. Sorry.
I hate being a grammar nazi, but that one is too obvious. Of course, I will be nice and assume that you meant to type it right, but your fingers got moving faster than you brain.
Disclaimer: I am not a dba.
That said, I have one serious thought about why NULLS should exist.
In research involving surveys it is very important to code data appropriately. If you give a person a 137 item quesionnaire (which I have done), and they do not respond to an item that is categorically coded, a NULL is the correct input. A zero or even a blank space is not the correct response, since you actually DO NOT have a response. When computing a mean value based on a set of items it important to clarify a NULL, since it means (when handled properly) that the mean should be computed on a different number of items. You cannot do this easily if you have a zero or whitespace.
The truth is that in some data sets you NEED to represent that absence of fact. NULL is the best way to do this in my opinion.
Granted, I am not an expert on data storage, but I know a fair bit about research and logically it seems that there are definitely times when you absolutely need to distinguish between a non-response and some response. When you are doing correlational work, this is an important thing to do.
As an example: I did some research where I was examining the relationship between two variables (call them x and y). X had 119 responses, by y only had 110. The responses were on a scale from 1 to 5. If I were to code a non-response as a 0, this would provide very different results than if I were to code a non-response as a NULL. Whitespace, depending on the tool used to examine the relationship, could either ruin the analysis (yielding a NaN response) or a miscount of the number of responses (thus providing the wrong correlation, since you need the number of responses to calculate a correlation. Thus, in my mind, the proper way to store this data is have a non-response as a NULL.
Perhaps someone with a better theoretical understanding can provide some reasons why this is not necessary, but I think that sometimes you honestly have an absence of fact that needs to be stored as such.
I don't particularly care for Mr. Thompson, but yes, I am upset about the misuse of the DSM (get it right). Not that it is sacred, but that by quoting from it, the poster gained an air of authority that was wholly unwarranted.
It also gave the very mistaken impression that one could self-diagnose or that a non-professional should be able to use the DSM to make a diagnosis about someone that they do not know. This is why it is irresponsible. Furthermore this opens up the possibility (although remote) of someone saying, "crap, I have three of those symptoms, I must by psychotic!" and then doing something quite foolish like taking their life or the life of another. Remote? Certainly, but if this were depression or a mental disorder like schizophrenia, it is much more likely. I've seen it happen. It is extremely sad.
The moral is not that the DSM is sacred, but that it is foolish to go around tossing of authoritative looking diagnoses of mental disorders.
Attacks on Mr. Thompson are also rather pointless, but they are not nearly as irresponsible as using the DSM in the fashion seen.
Sorry, but I don't think your point is valid: you say that I think that the DSM is sacred. I don't think that. I do think that it shouldn't be used by someone with no training or to make a public statement about someone's mental state. I would say the same about using the PDR (Physician's Desk Reference) to fill prescriptions. Just not a good idea.
HAND.
I'll get to Amazon when I have some cash--grad school can suck at times!
FWIW, the Otherland series rocks.
I'll definitely get to the Stephenson stuff sometime soon.