No, I have not been productive today.
No yoga; no teacher showed up though I did manage to get into arm pressure pose on my own…barely.
Then I walked 3.2 miles home.
So what to do?
Just for the heck of it, I’ll post my times to reach 50 miles (walking); I am missing my Ultracentric 2007 where it took me about 20 hours or so.
2004 McNaughton 50 12:46 (trail)
2004 Cornbelt 24 hour track 11:08 (100 in 23:41)
2004 Wandelweekend 24 hour: 11:13
2004 Ultracentric 24 hour 11:24
2005 McNaughton trail 100 miler 13:23 (100 in 34:16)
2005 Leanhorse trail 100 (groomed) 12:50 (100 in 29:34)
2005 Ultracentric track 24 12:27
2006 Houston 24 hour 12:28
2006 McNaughton 100 (DNF 70) 15:17
2006 FANS 24 hour 12:38
2007 FANS 24 hour 13:41
2007 Ultracentric 58 miles in 24 hours; my 50 mile split was somewhere around 19 hours.
2008 McNaughton 31 hours plus (52 miles; done in stages)
2009 McNaughton 100 24:18 (100 in 47:55)
2009 FANS 24 hour 12:43
Lynn dragged me to Zumba class. It was interesting.
I did my best to watch the feet of the instructor; still I botched many of the moves. But some of my tightness and weaknesses were exposed (piriformis, tight quads) and worked on; overall it was good for me.
Afterward, we went to Indian buffet (Pasad’s) and then to Starbucks. At Starbucks we chatted with the director of the Steamboat 4 mile/15 K race (Philip Lockwood).
Highlight of the Zumba class: Nancy (the perky instructor) rubbed a towel across her butt (as part of demonstrating a move); then she tossed me the towel. :) It was all in good fun.
My trying and failing. :)
Lynn and me; I am on the right. Lynn had just made me laugh when this was taken…
Lynn, Me and Nancy
PM: lifted weights, swam 1300 yards:
weights: rotator cuff
incline: 10 x 115, 9 x 130, 6 x 135, 5 x 135
dumbbell curl: 3 sets of 10 x 25 lb.
ez curl (preacher) 1 set of 62 (two 10’s on each side)
pull downs: 3 sets of 10 x 140
rows (medium grip; sore elbow) 3 sets of 10 x 200 (Hammer machine)
sit ups 4 x 25 (varied incline)
Swim: 6 x (25 drill, 25 swim), 10 x 100 on the 2 (1:52, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 49, 48, 47, 47) Getting better.
The water was nice and cold; some of the old farts don’t like it, but it is good for swimming.
Ok, now to read my New York Times, watch a few videos, etc. I’ve screwed around on the internet and am not being productive at all. :)
I am taking a break between segments of a pop-science video on quantum mechanics. I’ll probably write a short blurb on my mathematics blog about how the Taylor series is used in Plank’s law (which yields the Rayleigh-Jeans blackbody radation law at low frequencies).
I’ll post some stuff that I found interesting.
Remember all of the uproar about the “why black women are ugly” article that appeared in Psychology Today (online) and then was pulled? Much of the push-back against the article was lame; it was “I don’t like it” and that was about it. This is a typical reaction, though the TITLE of this counter article “says who?” actually gets to the point rather quickly.
Of course, there are many problems with the article; for one the measurement of attractiveness was basically the opinion of a small number of people. So what the data (supposedly) said was “a tiny percentage of people seem to think that black women are less attractive than other women.”…that’s it.
2. Kanazawa interprets his findings in terms of adult attractiveness yet the majority of his data were based on the ratings of attractiveness of the participants when they were teenagers. If many of us (including the authors of this post) were judged throughout our lives based on our physical attractiveness as a teenager, a lot of us would be in trouble!
Add Health currently has four “waves,” [...]
Note that only Wave IV actually consists of “Adults.” In fact, the range of ages for Wave I and Wave II is 12-22, with an average age of about 16 for both waves.
Imagine the scenario. Adult researchers (unfortunately we couldn’t find out information about the actual interviewers themselves) went into the homes of these participants and rated their own subjective view of the physical attractiveness of the study participants on a scale from 1 to 5 (ranging from “very unattractive” to “very attractive”). For Waves I and II in particular, the ratings couldn’t possibly (we hope!) be referring to ratings of the sexual attractiveness of these kids. So discussions of this topic using data from the dating website OK Cupid really aren’t appropriate here.
Only in Waves 3 and 4 were the participants old enough on average (M = 22.2, SD = 1.9 and M= 29.00 SD = 1.8, respectively) to be actually called “women” and “men” instead of girls and boys. If one looks at the data from the waves (3 and 4) in which all of the interviewees reached legal adulthood, the pattern of results no longer supports Kanazawa’s main conclusion.
In Wave 3, we did find a very slight difference in attractiveness ratings in favor of European women, but this is effect is no longer significant after we take into account the random variation due to the raters.
However, only data from Wave 4 is relevant for the issue that Kanazawa wants to address simply because this is the only Wave consisting of adults (they were collected when all of the participants were adults aged 25-34). Unfortunately, Kanazawa does not include presentation of these Wave 4 results, despite the fact that he uses Add Health data in most of his studies and these data have been available for over a month.
Focusing just on Wave 4, it is obvious that among the women in the sample, there is no difference between the ethnicities in terms of ratings of physical attractiveness. Differences in the distributions for females when tested with a regular (and slightly liberal) test of independence is non-significant and hence can be attributed to chance (Pearson’s Chi-Square=15.6, DF=12, p =.210). Here’s the graph that shows the distribution of ratings (in percentages) for 1564 European Americans, 553 African Americans, 97 Native Americans, and 96 Asian American females (with arithmetic means below each group):
There is much more there, but the counter-argument is easy to sum up: it is an incompetent analysis of data which represents the opinions of a small number of people. THAT is how one critiques such shoddy “studies”.
I freely admit that this study attracted such attention because it offended so many, and I wonder how much junk is out there that hasn’t attracted such scrutiny? I also wonder what the article referee was doing when he/she reviewed this article. That this passed some sort of a “review process” does not speak well for Psychology Today.
Note: before you start screaming “oh, you are just being PC”; it is possible to, say, do a competent survey of American heterosexual males on what they find sexually attractive, and it is possible that one group of women (say, Asian or Mexican) be found more or less attractive than some other group of women. My honest guess is that the results would be all over the map, especially if one took into account things like health, wealth, obesity, etc. But who knows?
BUT…I doubt if there would be any “evolutionary” reason aside from people having some tendency to select for the signs of good child bearing potential in women and perhaps being more attracted to one’s own “race” (on the average….MAYBE). Remember that some homo sapiens carry Neanderthal genes….so evidently sexual attraction is quite varied!!!! :)
What I know for sure is that the Psychology Today article was pathetic and it sure appears to me as if the author has some sort of racial ax to grind, but I can’t be sure of that. It could be that the author of the Psychology Today is driven by some desire to be anti-PC and iconoclastic for its own sake.
Progress in the United States
I have to beware of passing along things that are “what I want to hear”:
I want to hear this message. BUT…becoming right wing might well be a sign of wealth; that is, as more racial minorities become more affluent, they too might turn into right wingers.
And remember that people who are discriminated against often have no problem discriminating against others; though this comes from a satire blog, it sure hammers home the point:
(cut and paste if you want to read the post; I don’t want the track-back)
Warning: the language is not what I’d use on the blog:
I am so proud of the West Coast blacks! I didn’t think they had it in them. They disproved the liberal concept of “prejudice.” So-called “enlightened” people often claim those of us who recognize that different people have different places in society — and not everyone is “equal” — are prejudiced. They criticize our claims that colored people are destined to serve rather than lead as evidence of “prejudice.” Well, the California coloreds proved them wrong. Even though these people support their own “rights,” they voted overwhelmingly in favor of Proposition 8, which prohibits homosexuals from having the same kind of relationships the rest of us have (i.e., marriage). Exit polls show that the majority of normal people (Caucasians) voted against the proposition. It was the blacks who ensured it passed.
This, of course, just shows that claims of “prejudice” involve nothing more than self-interest. Blacks pushed hard for the right to be viewed the same as whites, and actually got one of their own kind elected President. But when it came to homos seeking the same so-called “rights,” they voted to recognize that not everyone is equal. They single-handedly defeated homo equality in California. Thank you, California coloreds, not just for putting homos in their place, but for showing that claims of “injustice” and “prejudice” really just involve self-interest. After all, as soon as you got what you wanted, you abandoned all pretense of supporting equality. Clever. LOL!
Yes, I know; one can correct for education, religiosity and age.
Bottom line: I don’t see racial minorities as being more altruistic than anyone else; remember that my ancestors (Aztecs if you go back far enough) ruthlessly dealt with the people that they conquered. They weren’t really any more moral than my Spanish ancestors; they were merely less efficient at killing and enslaving.
Ok, I’ll look at it this way: conservatism is more about keeping order than anything else:
And if minorities become the new majority, we’ll probably see “conservative” minorities trying to preserve the new order at the expense of others.
Yes, I did some mathematics over the last hour or so.
But I got an e-mail from a female racewalking friend (a FAST racewalker; she just finished 15K in 1:29) who sent me this video with the following comment:
Ollie – don’t know if you’ve seen this video, as it was posted to the RW list, but if not, you will particularly enjoy 1:32 or so into it :)
And from that 1:32 section?
Why would anyone think that I would especially enjoy this??? :)
Ok, the wife is away and the yard work is mostly done…and for various reasons, doing long hikes, walks, runs, swims and long weight lifting sessions are not an option. Short walks/swims are ok.
So what should I do this weekend?
1. Make a dent on my reading list
2. Read a technical mathematics paper
3. View some of my old movies or “courses on CD”; the latter might actually teach me something
4. Blog; look for statistics of interest.
5. Surf the net for spandex butt shots.
On a whim I decided to try to run the 5K in Chillicothe, IL today.
Doing the run wasn’t a mistake; I like this race. The weather: about 60 F, and yes, there were some MILF and GILF spandex too. :)
But today, I wasn’t fast enough to keep up with the ladies. :(
Final time: 26:56; this included 3-4 very short walking breaks.
Mile 1 was 8:19…and that was too fast for today! I was walking by 14 minutes into it (probably shouldn’t have) and took 8:49 to reach mile 2 (17:07) and mile 3 (1.1 miles) took 9:48. Afterward I walked a mile to cool down and my legs were like rocks.
My guess: last week’s CRUD 8 hour took more out of me than I care to admit; my thighs were fatigued.
Ironically there was slender lady with a McNaughton shirt and she struggled too; 5K’s and ultras don’t mix all that well.
Realistically had I tried to walk this it would have only taken about 5 minutes longer.
Update: I finished 144 out of 283; so close to the middle of the pack. I just was DEAD in the last .5 miles or so though, and it felt as if I were jogging in place.
- 2008 Election
- 2010 election
- 2012 election
- 2014 midterm
- Aaron Schock
- affirmative action
- Agricultural Commisioner
- alternative energy
- April 1
- Barack Obama
- barback obama
- Barbara Boxer
- big butts
- bill maher on mosque
- bill richardson
- blog humor
- blood donation
- Bobby Jindal
- business & economy
- Cheri Bustos
- civil liberties
- Claire McCaskill
- climate change
- college football
- d k hirner
- dark energy
- dave koehler
- Dick Durbin
- Dick Morris
- dk hirner
- draw Mohammad day
- draw Muhammad day
- Fox News Lies Again
- free speech
- glenn beck
- glenn hubbard
- green news
- ground zero mosque
- gwen ifill
- haunting songs
- health care
- Herman Cain
- High Speed Rail
- hillary clinton
- human sexuality
- if rich people have to pay taxes
- immigration. racial profiling
- internet issues
- Intrade Prediction
- jan brewer
- jim lehrer
- Joe Biden
- John McCain
- jon stewart
- Judicial nominations
- knee rehabilitation
- laughing at myself
- michelle bachmann
- Mid Life Crisis
- Middle East
- Mike Huckabee
- mike's blog round up
- Mitt Romney
- national disgrace
- Navel Staring
- Newt Gingrich
- north america
- north carolina
- NSFW humor
- Olympic Spandex
- Personal Issues
- Political Ad
- political humor
- public policy and discussion from NPR public radio program Science Friday with host Ira Flatow. Science Videos
- rebulican party
- republican party
- republican senate minority leader
- republicans political/social
- republicans politics
- rick perry
- rick santorum
- Rush Limbaugh
- sarah palin
- Science Friday teachers
- Science Friday teens.
- shoulder rehabilitation
- Spineless Democrats
- stem cells
- stephen colbert
- tax cuts
- the colbert report
- Tim Pawlenty
- time trial/ race
- war on drugs
- weight training
- wise cracks
- world events