You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is Everyone Off Attending the Inauguration Today?
- Thread starter Chris Coad
- Start date
Chris Coad
Chris Coad
Douche-baggitry is a spectrum. Coad is on the high end.
Your sweet-talk sends a little shiver of delight up my leg. Although I'm sure you mean Douchebaggery.
Shall we get a room?
Carl Steefel
Carl Steefel
Less common, but it does happen nonetheless in the sciences. Any time thinking drifts outside of the commonly accepted norms in the community, there can be real problems...originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
peer reviewed
Everything is 'peer reviewed' in every field.
The question is who are the peers and what are they doing when they review.
Yes, but in my experience, peer review is quite different depending on the subject. In the social science world, you can be held hostage, despite a very good piece of scholarship because of disagreements with reviewers that have nothing to do with the quality of that scholarship (which is what peer review is supposed to do). I've found in the sciences that this is much less likely to happen. Once your laboratory techniques have been established what folks tend to quibble over are discussion sections.
Carl Steefel
Carl Steefel
Amen...originally posted by MLipton:
Don't get me started on peer review, guys. It's got its good and bad sides, to be sure. One of the important features of peer review in the natural sciences is that it's anonymous and that editors have great discretion over selection of reviewers. Having said that, there are major flaws in the system. First and foremost is the change in behavior conferred by anonymity, a phenomenon well documented on the Internet, too. A second problem is self-interest, which manifests itself in several ways: the trashing and delaying of competing research and the "circle jerk" approach in which a small cadre of researchers send each other their papers or proposals to review and always give the thumbs-up. Yet another problem is that it's single blind, and the reputations of the researcher and institution bias the review. At the NIH, another problem with peer review is the use of committees, resulting in a well-recognized problem funding truly innovative research.
Like democracy, the only thing worse than peer review is the alternative.
Mark Lipton
There is no real alternative, but the objectivity conveyed by the peer review process is vastly overrated. As Mark says, it opens up the possibility of all sorts of vile behavior under the cloak of anonymity--usually where some reviewer feels their own self-interest endangered. And the circle jerk mentality is also rife, especially where a segment of the community gets control of the funding agencies as well...
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by SFJoe:
SFJoe, knowing very little about the empirical reality of wine, usually brackets his comments with a disclaimer about the difference between empiricism and the application of broad theories.originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
more or less take it on authority when SF Joe tells me something about the chemistry of wine.
Please don't do any bracketing. That way uncertainty lies. And where there is uncertainty, madness and postmodernism soon follow. Go out there and be chemically authoritative and accept my faith in your rightness. If I didn't believe you about something, how would I believe anybody about anything?
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by SFJoe:
I'm not sure the math is the same. It's not just using a resource, it's a question of the probability of transmission, which varies with the vulnerability of the population. The vaccine is not perfect protection, and some vaccinated folk will have some resistance. So it's a bit different than adding one more cow to graze on Cambridge Common.originally posted by MLipton:
IOW, the Tragedy of the Commons, a staple of game theory.
You're being a bit too literal, say I. TotC is really about the following scenario: behavior A benefits all but behavior B benefits the individual slightly more at the expense of the general good. The inevitable conclusion is that all individuals engage in behavior B, to the detriment of all. Tragic, no? I just got "Predictably Irrational" for Xmas; I bet there's a chapter on this.
Mark Lipton
Dan Ariely and I overlapped at UNC in grad school. He really made good I'd say. He's now down here at Duke. In an even more strange, we were both interviewed by Eric Asimov for the same article. Maybe he and I should get a room.
As for the TotC, it and the free rider problem are pretty similar. This is very different from a statistical model of disease transmission. In fact, they aren't even about the same thing. The first two are part of decision theory (mathematical psychology or behavioral economics, whatever you want to call it) and the latter is epidemiology.
originally posted by Carl Steefel:
Less common, but it does happen nonetheless in the sciences. Any time thinking drifts outside of the commonly accepted norms in the community, there can be real problems...originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
peer reviewed
Everything is 'peer reviewed' in every field.
The question is who are the peers and what are they doing when they review.
Yes, but in my experience, peer review is quite different depending on the subject. In the social science world, you can be held hostage, despite a very good piece of scholarship because of disagreements with reviewers that have nothing to do with the quality of that scholarship (which is what peer review is supposed to do). I've found in the sciences that this is much less likely to happen. Once your laboratory techniques have been established what folks tend to quibble over are discussion sections.
Oh, I agree completely. However, I do think it should be hard to break down the accepted norms. I'm OK with that. I'm hopeful that truly great idea will rise to the top.
originally posted by SFJoe:
You can't get your free ride if the probability of transmission gets too high.
This is where ToTC, F-R and epi all converge.
originally posted by VLM:
Dan Ariely and I overlapped at UNC in grad school. He really made good I'd say. He's now down here at Duke. In an even more strange, we were both interviewed by Eric Asimov for the same article.
Ah, yes, I'd forgotten that article. Of course, Asimov blew all his credibility talking about your "Zen-like serenity." Who's he trying to con, anyway?
Mark Lipton
Scott Kraft
Scott Kraft
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Chris Coad:
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Scott Kraft:
I hate to say it, but a lot of this comes down to the marketing of ideas. Most scientists are pretty poor marketers. Indeed, most despise the very thought of marketing. This gives the other side a decided advantage. They are great marketers. They use fear, graphic imagery, deceptive logic, etc to get people on their side. Today, they are some of the most effective viral marketers around. Very internet savvy.
It's not enough to be right. You've got to convince people to embrace it.
Nah, fuck 'em. Needs to be a requirement to be around pother kids. Otherwise, move to fucking Idaho.
There are some scientists who sell well, but there is an inherent difficulty in selling complexity. That is, people are mouth breathing, drooling, fucknobs as Bwood would say. Besides, an inordinate number of scientists have Asperger's syndrome (which some folks think is a type of autism, ironic huh).
Is Carson vaccinated? You are in a prime location and demographic to be a free-rider.
Autism is a spectrum condition, Asperger's is on the low end of the autism spectrum.
Douche-baggitry is a spectrum. Coad is on the high end.
BTW, Scott, I wasn't trying to pick a personal fight, just curious. I would bet a lot of $$$ that a good number of the kids at her school aren't.
I didn't think you were. Yes, she's vaccinated. I couldn't imagine not. She goes to a school where vaccinations are required to attend. They even send emails around every time a student gets a severe, communicable ailment.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by SFJoe:
I'm not sure the math is the same. It's not just using a resource, it's a question of the probability of transmission, which varies with the vulnerability of the population. The vaccine is not perfect protection, and some vaccinated folk will have some resistance. So it's a bit different than adding one more cow to graze on Cambridge Common.originally posted by MLipton:
IOW, the Tragedy of the Commons, a staple of game theory.
You're being a bit too literal, say I. TotC is really about the following scenario: behavior A benefits all but behavior B benefits the individual slightly more at the expense of the general good. The inevitable conclusion is that all individuals engage in behavior B, to the detriment of all. Tragic, no? I just got "Predictably Irrational" for Xmas; I bet there's a chapter on this.
Mark Lipton
SF Joe is right that the Tragedy of the Commons isn't an analogy because there is no good choice A. Telling the herders to decrease their herds is not only against each interest, but against all collective interests because each herder will always want a larger herd. Choice A is thus a reduced evil: they each get to use the commons at the cost of a smaller herd. The vaccination situation has a best outcome--all children get vaccinated and get protected at a very slight (and factually false, but that's a different issue)cost. This is an absolutely better outcome for each and all. The free rider situation depends for its success on only a very few taking advantage of it, but if only that few do, there's no cost to the commons (and of course only slight gain to the bozos who do it), which is not the case with the commons in which each added stock depletes absolutely. The situation becomes detrimental when too many people decide to become free riders. Obviously, like the TotC and the Prisoner's Dilemma, there is some family resemblance to the situation. But that family resemblance occludes the fact that there really is a best outcome to the vaccination scenario, a worst outcome and a slight anomalous third alternative that quickly disappears.
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
SF Joe is right that the Tragedy of the Commons isn't an analogy because there is no good choice A. Telling the herders to decrease their herds is not only against each interest, but against all collective interests because each herder will always want a larger herd. Choice A is thus a reduced evil: they each get to use the commons at the cost of a smaller herd.
An interesting distinction you draw, Prof, but I have to take issue with this part of the analysis. You describe choice A as a reduced evil, but that I think isn't the case. If the herdsman's goal is to maximize his output (milk or meat), then the number of cattle isn't a good proxy for success since unhealthy cattle don't help. Now, in scenario A where herd sizes are chosen to fit the resources available, the output per beast is O(A); if an additional animal is added, though, the resources are stressed and output per beast decreases incrementally. It is axiomatic that the cattleman with the additional beast gains an advantage, but it's not a linear relationship and is only considered in the short term. Integrated over time, the stressed environment declines with concomitant decrease in output per beast. Thus, choice B is only better for a single individual in the short term. Even that single cattleman's long term interests are better served by choice A, making choice B truly tragic.
BTW, I see in that scenario the current debate about sustainability. If we can mathematically demonstrate that, given today's energy supply, the US per capita energy consumption is unsustainable and, if adopted by e.g. China, would lead to catastrophic energy shortages, how can one justify a policy of not curtailing per capita consumption here?
Mark Lipton
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
SF Joe is right that the Tragedy of the Commons isn't an analogy because there is no good choice A. Telling the herders to decrease their herds is not only against each interest, but against all collective interests because each herder will always want a larger herd. Choice A is thus a reduced evil: they each get to use the commons at the cost of a smaller herd.
An interesting distinction you draw, Prof, but I have to take issue with this part of the analysis. You describe choice A as a reduced evil, but that I think isn't the case. If the herdsman's goal is to maximize his output (milk or meat), then the number of cattle isn't a good proxy for success since unhealthy cattle don't help. Now, in scenario A where herd sizes are chosen to fit the resources available, the output per beast is O(A); if an additional animal is added, though, the resources are stressed and output per beast decreases incrementally. It is axiomatic that the cattleman with the additional beast gains an advantage, but it's not a linear relationship and is only considered in the short term. Integrated over time, the stressed environment declines with concomitant decrease in output per beast. Thus, choice B is only better for a single individual in the short term. Even that single cattleman's long term interests are better served by choice A, making choice B truly tragic.
Mark Lipton
Is this ripple part of the original argument, which was, I take it, a thought experiment? And even if it is the case, the argument then becomes a balance of health over quantity both for all and for each. There still isn't an optimal alternative that I see.
I keep meaning to post this but keep forgetting. Check out this massive image of the inauguration, a panorama made up of 220 images take with a Canon G10 camera. As you continue to zoom in you can see each face in the crowd:
Inauguration Panorama
Inauguration Panorama
Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
Including Clarence Thomas, who appears to be sleeping during Obama's speech.originally posted by Dan McQ:
I keep meaning to post this but keep forgetting. Check out this massive image of the inauguration, a panorama made up of 220 images take with a Canon G10 camera. As you continue to zoom in you can see each face in the crowd:
Inauguration Panorama
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
Including Clarence Thomas, who appears to be sleeping during Obama's speech.
Unfortunately he doesn't do the same when in court.
Chris Coad
Chris Coad
It looks to me like Cheney has completed the transition to cartoonish supervillain.
Could be the hat.
Could be the hat.
Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
Well, he never asks questions and his positions are completely predictable, so he might as well.originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
Including Clarence Thomas, who appears to be sleeping during Obama's speech.
Unfortunately he doesn't do the same when in court.