"The Facebook users completed a personality questionnaire and were asked to get their colleagues, friends and family to act as character witnesses by filling out a survey. The researchers then compared all the results to see how the computer model fared in summing up a person's self-reported character. Given enough "likes", the computers came closer to a person's self-reported personality than even their closest allies."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30775401
Thursday, 15 January 2015
Thursday, 8 January 2015
Socrates wants to insult you
This is why the freedom to insult people is very, very important, according to Socrates :
"For if you kill me you will not easily find another like me, who, if I may use such a ludicrous figure of speech, am a sort of gadfly, given to the state by the God; and the state is like a great and noble steed who is tardy in his motions owing to his very size, and requires to be stirred into life. I am that gadfly which God has given the state and all day long and in all places am always fastening upon you, arousing and persuading and reproaching you. And as you will not easily find another like me, I would advise you to spare me. I dare say that you may feel irritated at being suddenly awakened when you are caught napping; and you may think that if you were to strike me dead, as Anytus advises, which you easily might, then you would sleep on for the remainder of your lives, unless God in his care of you gives you another gadfly... coming to you individually, like a father or elder brother, exhorting you to regard virtue; this I say, would not be like human nature."
And this is why he thought violence against those you disagree with is futile :
"Me you have killed because you wanted to escape the accuser, and not to give an account of your lives. But that will not be as you suppose: far otherwise. For I say that there will be more accusers of you than there are now; accusers whom hitherto I have restrained: and as they are younger they will be more severe with you, and you will be more offended at them. For if you think that by killing men you can avoid the accuser censuring your lives, you are mistaken; that is not a way of escape which is either possible or honorable; the easiest and noblest way is not to be crushing others, but to be improving yourselves. "
"For if you kill me you will not easily find another like me, who, if I may use such a ludicrous figure of speech, am a sort of gadfly, given to the state by the God; and the state is like a great and noble steed who is tardy in his motions owing to his very size, and requires to be stirred into life. I am that gadfly which God has given the state and all day long and in all places am always fastening upon you, arousing and persuading and reproaching you. And as you will not easily find another like me, I would advise you to spare me. I dare say that you may feel irritated at being suddenly awakened when you are caught napping; and you may think that if you were to strike me dead, as Anytus advises, which you easily might, then you would sleep on for the remainder of your lives, unless God in his care of you gives you another gadfly... coming to you individually, like a father or elder brother, exhorting you to regard virtue; this I say, would not be like human nature."
And this is why he thought violence against those you disagree with is futile :
"Me you have killed because you wanted to escape the accuser, and not to give an account of your lives. But that will not be as you suppose: far otherwise. For I say that there will be more accusers of you than there are now; accusers whom hitherto I have restrained: and as they are younger they will be more severe with you, and you will be more offended at them. For if you think that by killing men you can avoid the accuser censuring your lives, you are mistaken; that is not a way of escape which is either possible or honorable; the easiest and noblest way is not to be crushing others, but to be improving yourselves. "
Tom Holland on cartoons
" Insults to him [Mohammed] were traditionally held by Muslim jurists to be equivalent to disbelief - and disbelief was a crime that merited Hell.
Not that there was anything within the Koran itself that necessarily mandated it as a capital offence. "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills, let him believe; and whoever wills, let him disbelieve."
While under normal circumstances I am perfectly happy not to mock beliefs that other people hold dear, these are far from normal circumstances. As I tweeted yesterday, the right to draw Muhammad without being shot is quite as precious to many of us in the West as Islam presumably is to the Charlie Hebdo killers.
We too have our values - and if we are not willing to stand up for them, then they risk being lost to us. When it comes to defining l'infâme, I for one have no doubt whose side I am on."
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30714702
Not that there was anything within the Koran itself that necessarily mandated it as a capital offence. "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills, let him believe; and whoever wills, let him disbelieve."
While under normal circumstances I am perfectly happy not to mock beliefs that other people hold dear, these are far from normal circumstances. As I tweeted yesterday, the right to draw Muhammad without being shot is quite as precious to many of us in the West as Islam presumably is to the Charlie Hebdo killers.
We too have our values - and if we are not willing to stand up for them, then they risk being lost to us. When it comes to defining l'infâme, I for one have no doubt whose side I am on."
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30714702
Sunday, 21 December 2014
The Hobbit - I'll pay you money to make it shorter
Reshare with slight postscript having just seen the Battle of the Five Armies. I would pay good money to see the Hobbit films re-released as a single 3 hour movie. I wasn't much impressed by the first film, did enjoy the second (mostly because Smaug was exactly how I wanted Smaug to be), and approve almost entirely of the third. But they could all - especially the first - be so much better if large chunks of them were simply not there.
Dear Peter Jackson
and also Guillermo del Toro and New Line Cinema.... Thanks for making The Lord of the Rings ! Wasn't it just awesome ? Everyone I know thought so. In fact, I think it's pretty tough to find a better movie adaptation of a much-loved book. Like Shary Bobbins, it's practically perfect in every way.
Monday, 1 December 2014
The precision of science can be a political weakness
This is excellent. Long, and worth reading in its entirety, but some highlights :
"Ironically, in part because researchers employ so much nuance and strive to disclose all remaining sources of uncertainty, scientific evidence is highly susceptible to selective reading and misinterpretation. Giving ideologues or partisans scientific data that’s relevant to their beliefs is like unleashing them in the motivated-reasoning equivalent of a candy store."
"When the scientist’s position stated that global warming is real and human-caused, for instance, only 23 percent of hierarchical individualists [Republicans] agreed the person was a “trustworthy and knowledgeable expert.” Yet 88 percent of egalitarian communitarians [Democrats] accepted the same scientist’s expertise.... In other words, people rejected the validity of a scientific source because its conclusion contradicted their deeply held views—and thus the relative risks inherent in each scenario... The study subjects weren’t “anti-science”—not in their own minds, anyway. "
Unlike many similar articles, this one suggests ways to avoid the problem :
"...they tried to test the fallacy (PDF) that President Obama is a Muslim. When a nonwhite researcher was administering their study, research subjects were amenable to changing their minds about the president’s religion and updating incorrect views. But when only white researchers were present, GOP survey subjects in particular were more likely to believe the Obama Muslim myth than before. "
"If you want someone to accept new evidence, make sure to present it to them in a context that doesn’t trigger a defensive, emotional reaction.... you don’t lead with the facts in order to convince. You lead with the values—so as to give the facts a fighting chance."
https://medium.com/mother-jones/the-science-of-why-we-dont-believe-science-adfa0d026a7e
"Ironically, in part because researchers employ so much nuance and strive to disclose all remaining sources of uncertainty, scientific evidence is highly susceptible to selective reading and misinterpretation. Giving ideologues or partisans scientific data that’s relevant to their beliefs is like unleashing them in the motivated-reasoning equivalent of a candy store."
"When the scientist’s position stated that global warming is real and human-caused, for instance, only 23 percent of hierarchical individualists [Republicans] agreed the person was a “trustworthy and knowledgeable expert.” Yet 88 percent of egalitarian communitarians [Democrats] accepted the same scientist’s expertise.... In other words, people rejected the validity of a scientific source because its conclusion contradicted their deeply held views—and thus the relative risks inherent in each scenario... The study subjects weren’t “anti-science”—not in their own minds, anyway. "
Unlike many similar articles, this one suggests ways to avoid the problem :
"...they tried to test the fallacy (PDF) that President Obama is a Muslim. When a nonwhite researcher was administering their study, research subjects were amenable to changing their minds about the president’s religion and updating incorrect views. But when only white researchers were present, GOP survey subjects in particular were more likely to believe the Obama Muslim myth than before. "
"If you want someone to accept new evidence, make sure to present it to them in a context that doesn’t trigger a defensive, emotional reaction.... you don’t lead with the facts in order to convince. You lead with the values—so as to give the facts a fighting chance."
https://medium.com/mother-jones/the-science-of-why-we-dont-believe-science-adfa0d026a7e
Friday, 28 November 2014
Welfare is not a dirty word
"He acknowledges it will provoke a debate and one that might benefit his party, which aims to cut welfare spending even further if re-elected in May. Of course the tax summaries do not break down the welfare payments into their constituent parts such as unemployment, child benefit, winter fuel allowance, in-work tax credit etc.
Critics will say that is a deliberate omission."
Yes. Yes I will. Welfare is a fundamentally good thing. Trying to make the idea of caring for the less fortunate a dirty word is appalling.
"One further notable element is the single smallest element of your tax bill is Britain's contribution to the EU budget at 0.7%."
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29871522
Critics will say that is a deliberate omission."
Yes. Yes I will. Welfare is a fundamentally good thing. Trying to make the idea of caring for the less fortunate a dirty word is appalling.
"One further notable element is the single smallest element of your tax bill is Britain's contribution to the EU budget at 0.7%."
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29871522
OK, I get the idea that you want to limit benefits to migrants.
OK, I get the idea that you want to limit benefits to migrants. They haven't done anything in this country to earn the money, so why should they get it as soon as they arrive ? Makes sense, though I am not saying I agree with it. Practically all studies find that migration improves the economy; the amount of "benefit tourism" is massively exaggerated by certain right-wing groups. In short, we can afford it.
But this part I simply don't understand at all :
"Stopping citizens from new countries joining the EU from working in the UK until "their economies have "converged more closely" with existing members."
What in God's name does that mean ? The political right suffers from a bizarre "wealthism", the notion that people with less money are somehow worse than you. It's absurd. I live in a country where the average salary is at or below minimum wage in the UK, and I assure you that most of my colleagues are much more intelligent than I am. People's skills don't correlate with how much they earn; even if they did, assuming that poor = talentless scrounger is stupid. It's pretty easy to assess people's qualifications, that's why we have, you know, universities and stuff.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-30224493
But this part I simply don't understand at all :
"Stopping citizens from new countries joining the EU from working in the UK until "their economies have "converged more closely" with existing members."
What in God's name does that mean ? The political right suffers from a bizarre "wealthism", the notion that people with less money are somehow worse than you. It's absurd. I live in a country where the average salary is at or below minimum wage in the UK, and I assure you that most of my colleagues are much more intelligent than I am. People's skills don't correlate with how much they earn; even if they did, assuming that poor = talentless scrounger is stupid. It's pretty easy to assess people's qualifications, that's why we have, you know, universities and stuff.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-30224493
Monday, 24 November 2014
Yowsers.
Yowsers.
"He said women needed equal respect...."
Yes...
"...rather than equality."
Sorry, what ?
"Women cannot do all the work done by men, he added, because it was against their "delicate nature".
My head hit the floor. The whole point of giving equal respect is that you don't judge people based on gender !!! You allow people to compete on ability and ignore their gender ! Why is this so complicated ? Aaaaargh !!!!
You are not treating people with equal respect if you say that one gender can't do a job the other gender can. Equal respect implies equal values; if something is acceptable to one gender then it must also be acceptable to the other. Saying, "you can't do this, you're a woman" is the absolute antithesis of equal respect.
Grrr.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30183711
"He said women needed equal respect...."
Yes...
"...rather than equality."
Sorry, what ?
"Women cannot do all the work done by men, he added, because it was against their "delicate nature".
My head hit the floor. The whole point of giving equal respect is that you don't judge people based on gender !!! You allow people to compete on ability and ignore their gender ! Why is this so complicated ? Aaaaargh !!!!
You are not treating people with equal respect if you say that one gender can't do a job the other gender can. Equal respect implies equal values; if something is acceptable to one gender then it must also be acceptable to the other. Saying, "you can't do this, you're a woman" is the absolute antithesis of equal respect.
Grrr.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30183711
Saturday, 22 November 2014
Another scientist wading into the #shirtstorm melarky. Well, I neededan article on feminism anyway.
Another scientist wading into the #shirtstorm melarky. Well, I needed an article on feminism anyway.
On page 1, I explain why (in my view) feminism does not mean you can't objectify women in certain circumstances :
" If you can differentiate between the fantasy world of gameplay and reality, you damn well ought to be able to tell the difference between a woman posing for a photograph and the idea that women are somehow subordinate to men. There ought to exist the same vast chasm between enjoying killing thousands in a video game and wanting to massacre people in reality, as between enjoying a photograph of the opposite gender (or indeed any form of adult entertainment) and assuming they're all somehow inferior to you. You ought to possess the modicum of intellect needed to realise that people aren't toys because they chose to dress (or undress) in a certain way - yes, even (especially) when they're deliberately doing it so that you can enjoy them."
Page 2 deals with why objectifying women in practise is much worse than the way men are objectified by women :
"That's why my female friends admiring the manly nature of certain public figures doesn't make me feel diminished in any way. The degree to which men are objectified is far less than that experienced by women - they don't carry on the harmless admiration of tremendously manly men and expect me to conform to that stereotype. No pressure is put upon me to do the slightest thing to live up to an unrealistic expectation of masculinity. I can live my life however the hell I like and not be judged for it; they are very much expected and obliged to try and meet certain ideals that exist only to appease male sexuality."
Finally on page 3 I look at a selection of anti-feminist memes that sprang up in response to the shirt. Mostly I think they're all nonsense, however, about this widely perceived idea that they discourage women from entering science - I would like an actual poll conducted as to whether students really feel put off my the shirt or not. I conclude that the shirt isn't inherently anti-feminist, but I understand why it was perceived as such. Taylor was right to apologise for the offence caused, if not the shirt itself.
On page 1, I explain why (in my view) feminism does not mean you can't objectify women in certain circumstances :
" If you can differentiate between the fantasy world of gameplay and reality, you damn well ought to be able to tell the difference between a woman posing for a photograph and the idea that women are somehow subordinate to men. There ought to exist the same vast chasm between enjoying killing thousands in a video game and wanting to massacre people in reality, as between enjoying a photograph of the opposite gender (or indeed any form of adult entertainment) and assuming they're all somehow inferior to you. You ought to possess the modicum of intellect needed to realise that people aren't toys because they chose to dress (or undress) in a certain way - yes, even (especially) when they're deliberately doing it so that you can enjoy them."
Page 2 deals with why objectifying women in practise is much worse than the way men are objectified by women :
"That's why my female friends admiring the manly nature of certain public figures doesn't make me feel diminished in any way. The degree to which men are objectified is far less than that experienced by women - they don't carry on the harmless admiration of tremendously manly men and expect me to conform to that stereotype. No pressure is put upon me to do the slightest thing to live up to an unrealistic expectation of masculinity. I can live my life however the hell I like and not be judged for it; they are very much expected and obliged to try and meet certain ideals that exist only to appease male sexuality."
Finally on page 3 I look at a selection of anti-feminist memes that sprang up in response to the shirt. Mostly I think they're all nonsense, however, about this widely perceived idea that they discourage women from entering science - I would like an actual poll conducted as to whether students really feel put off my the shirt or not. I conclude that the shirt isn't inherently anti-feminist, but I understand why it was perceived as such. Taylor was right to apologise for the offence caused, if not the shirt itself.
Wednesday, 19 November 2014
MAXIMUM AWESOME
MAXIMUM AWESOME
"A British-led consortium has outlined its plans to land a robotic probe on the Moon in 10 years' time. Its aim is to raise £500m for the project from donations by the public."
"The team hope to raise £600,000, using the international crowd funding web service Kickstarter, in the next four weeks to fund the initial phase of the project."
I'll donate to that, otherwise I'll lose all self-respect.
"The cost of a short message will be a few pounds, a compressed photo will be a few tens of pounds while a short compressed video will be about £200. The cost of sending a hair sample will be around £50."
Sending a little piece of me to the Moon ??!?! [fangirl scream !]
I'll consider it...
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30102343
"A British-led consortium has outlined its plans to land a robotic probe on the Moon in 10 years' time. Its aim is to raise £500m for the project from donations by the public."
"The team hope to raise £600,000, using the international crowd funding web service Kickstarter, in the next four weeks to fund the initial phase of the project."
I'll donate to that, otherwise I'll lose all self-respect.
"The cost of a short message will be a few pounds, a compressed photo will be a few tens of pounds while a short compressed video will be about £200. The cost of sending a hair sample will be around £50."
Sending a little piece of me to the Moon ??!?! [fangirl scream !]
I'll consider it...
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30102343
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)