Same Planet, different worlds.

This was seen as “wow, that is cool”…

And these people who were “having fun” just completely disregarded those around them (note one of these people crashing into someone else who was finishing).

I see them as self-centered narcissists.

Also on the Steamboat thread: one of my Facebook friends whined, bellyached and complained about the streets being closed for the race (though cross trafic was permitted to pass in gaps). This wasn’t the first time.

Then from the Steamboat Training group: There were hurt feelings because the 15K finishers got a medal whereas the 4 mile runners did not. Seriously….the larger running races are becoming kindergarten.

Then there is this, from the Huckabee Facebook page:

Oh sure, the others died but one who survived said that he prayed. I suppose that the others didn’t?

And also from our Right Wing

Uh, no…these women aren’t the same.

I might live on the same planet as these people, but we live in very different worlds.

Bad Arguments Don’t Imply False Conclusions

I admit that I haven’t followed the Steubenville rape case closely. I know that some of the people have posted angry rants about some of the media pointing out that the rapists ruined their own lives (they did) and about “rape culture” (huh)? And much of the reporting from the left wing media has been poor. Here is an example. Most of it is a “jocks are an entitled bunch who feel that they can do whatever they want and coaches should be..uh….

In thinking about Steubenville, thinking about my own experiences playing sports, thinking about athletes I’ve interviewed and know, I believe that a locker room left to its own devices will drift toward becoming a breeding ground for rape culture. You don’t need a Coach Reno or a Bob Knight to make that happen. You just need good people to say or do nothing. As such, a coach or a player willing to stand up, risk ridicule and actually teach young men not to rape, can make all the difference in the world. We need interventionist, transformative coaches in men’s sports that talk openly about these issues. We need an economic setup in amateur sports that does away with their gutter economy. But most of all, we need people who recognize the existence of rape culture, both on and off teams, to no longer be silent.

As for Steubenville, Coach Reno needs to be shown the door, never to be allowed to mold young minds again. Football revenue should go toward creating a district-wide curriculum about rape and stopping violence against women. And “Jane Doe,” the young woman at the heart of this case, should be given whatever resources she and her family needs to move if they choose, pay for college or just have access to whatever mental health services she and her family require. After the trial, testimony and verdict, they deserve nothing less.

“Teach young men not to rape?” Uh, well, our society teaches people not to steal, yet some do. We teach people not to murder, yet some do.
We teach people not to drive while intoxicated, yet some do.

While the campus sexual assault prevention programs HAVE been correlated with reductions in sexual assault rates (I learned this from Steven Pinker’s book Better Angels) and they should be continued, people are foolish if they think that rapes will be eliminated and that an example of an incident can be extrapolated to a whole so-called culture. That is not sound reasoning.

Now, at the college level, we do have some data:

Male athletes in big-time college programs are responsible for a significantly higher percentage of reported sexual assaults than other students, according to the first national study on the subject.

While athletes constitute 3.3 percent of the total male student population, they were involved in 19 percent of the sexual assaults reported to judicial-affairs offices at colleges, according to a Massachusetts-based study released yesterday at a sports-sociology conference in Georgia.

Sex crimes involving athletes are less often reported to campus police, suggesting that women are particularly reluctant to accuse athletes of wrongdoing unless they can do it quietly and efficiently, as the more private, campus judicial-affairs system allows.

The authors of the study are Todd Crosset and Mark McDonald, professors in sports management at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, and Jeffrey Benedict, a graduate student at Northeastern University.

Without getting into the causes behind the relationship between athletes and sexual assault, the report provides evidence of a problem consistently discounted by coaches and administrators.

“Obviously what it warrants is the question: Is sports contributing to the incidence of rapes and sexual assaults?” Benedict said. “In some cases it’s probably coincidence. But in many cases it may be that being a player in a big-time program makes it more difficult to determine what’s criminal and what isn’t.”

The authors leave to future researchers the question of whether the culture of contact sports creates attitudes that foster sexual crimes against women.

However, what I haven’t seen (and need to see) is correction factors: is there a correction factor for, say the athlete’s IQ versus the IQ of the general student population (low IQ correlates with increased violent crime). Is there a correction factor for socio-economic background? In other words, does belonging to a sports team increase the chances that an individual will commit sexual violence? Or, is there a correlation between the person who is good at sports (especially the violent ones) and the ones who are prone to commit sexual violence?

Remember it has been shown that there are genetic factors to behavior.

Also from the above study:

But, the authors warn, “even here, reports were not uniform from school to school – suggesting that the social environment of programs may vary significantly and have a substantial impact on the rate of sexual assault.” Rates often jumped after coaching changes, indicating that coaches may have a strong influence on player attitudes, the authors wrote.

Although campus police records also showed that athletes were involved in sexual assaults at a higher rate than other male students, the authors concluded that the difference was not “statistically significant” on that basis.

Police records, however, are the least accurate gauge of sexual assault on campuses, Benedict said. As in any criminal matter, victims must file formal charges against the accused perpetrator and submit to a public, sometimes lengthy legal process.

Victims showed a preference for going through the campus judicial-affairs office, which cannot impose jail time but can offer relief to the victim by such measures as removing the alleged perpetrator from the same class or residence hall. The office also handles matters behind closed doors.

Now some might say: “athletes have a high profile and are therefore more likely to be charged falsely”. But another report talks about this:

Athletes, and some of their supporters, have also contended that because of their notoriety, athletes are more likely to be scrutinized or falsely accused than nonathietes and that no real differences exist in their behaviors. The findings here do not support this contention since the athletes in this sample self-reported higher levels of physical and sexual abuse yet none of the athletes in the sample had been publicly accused of abuse. Further, the victims of sexual abuse in this sample reported higher rates of victimization than perpetrators admitted to, implying that perpetrators do not always acknowledge the sexual abuse they commit.

So the study (the one with the data) is an example of a reasonably good article; Dave Zirin’s The Nation article is pretty much junk (one reason I quit subscribing to that rag; I mostly agree with their conclusions but their arguments tend to be terrible; it is “Newsmax for left wingers” caliber stuff).

I also looked at the Boston University hockey case and read an article about a “task force” recommendation. I found the following to be interesting:

A six-month assessment by a special task force appointed to examine the culture and climate of the BU men’s ice hockey team has found significant deficiencies in the structures and processes that are designed to provide oversight of the program. These weaknesses, in turn, resulted in the supervision of student-athletes’ conduct falling disproportionately and inappropriately to the coaching staff, whose oversight was also lacking. The task force also found that a culture of sexual entitlement exists among some players, and that this, combined with the absence of sexual assault prevention training and education, led to risky behaviors.

Hmmm, ok…but…

The report concludes that the hockey team’s disciplinary history does not show a pattern that is significantly different from the undergraduate population as a whole,

Emphasis mine. Of course, in this case, “n” might be too small to make a conclusion.

Anyway: there is SOMETHING going on here even if it isn’t the “cultures” that some are talking about. I have to remember that many “know” things because they construct a model that “makes sense to them”, which, of course, is NOT evidence. This may be a result of their thinking or the data that they have access to, or their own life experiences.

I know that I am sometimes guilty of this: I’ve played sports in high school (and, ok, I sucked) and didn’t find any “rape culture” in the locker rooms. I know some elite athletes…who are….well, let’s just say that racewalkers aren’t a representative sample of athletes.

So, I haven’t been in these locker rooms; then again, neither have the ranters who think that they “know” so much.

My conclusion I am not sure as to what is going on; there is a problem but I am unconvinced that it is a “culture” problem.

Weather.com FAIL

I know that math is hard for some, but someone needs to inform these clowns that “0 percent” means…well….zero.

It has flurried and showered constantly over the past 5 days.

Humor, Snark and Ridicule…

Ok, the above is funny.

Politics and statistical literacy

A facebook friend posted this.

Now someone on her comment thread doubted these statistics because he knew that just walking around was safer than being in a war zone. That is, of course, true. But that doesn’t mean that the above statistics are false. What it means: wars tend to be brief and the armed forces involved are far smaller in number than the population of the United States.

Interestingly someone tried to argue by just posting a link, and I admit (and admitted it there) I misread the number of countries that were being compared (with respect to homicide rates). But the person attempting to argue with me didn’t get that this was a comparison of European countries; after all this study (which was a competent one) talked about the “high homicide rate” of the Netherlands and Sweden. Yes, their homicide rate is about 1.1 out of 100,000 whereas ours is 4.8 out of 100,000. But this person didn’t know that and won’t accept it.

The point: statistical and numerical illiteracy hamstrings a person when it comes to being able to make an intelligent contribution to a discussion on the major issues.

Politics

I am happy to let Ted Nugent be the face of the Republican party:

Bill Maher: made a joke that he wanted to see Donald Trump’s birth certificate to ensure that he wasn’t fathered by an orangutan and joked that he’d pay 5 million dollars to charity if one were produced. Mr. Trump produced a birth certificate and is now attempting to sue Mr. Maher for a breach of contract. Just watch the response:

Facepalm

Sorry, my sympathy for “senior citizens” is very limited here. Why? Here is why.

You old people voted for the Republicans. You richly deserve what you get.

Facepalm
I generally like Daily Kos. It is one of the few places you can make a physics joke and someone will get it. There are some smart people there. But if someone from a “community” feels that people from that community has been insulted, a “this prejudice X is the last remaining socially acceptable form of bigotry allowed in America…people from community X are your {insert obligatory list of family, friends and professions here}”, etc. etc. You could write one of these diaries with a computer program.

Well, here is the “fat acceptance” diary (you know, anti obesity programs are just there to enrich the diet/weight loss industry, right?”)

I’d say that this opens our community to ridicule from the red staters, but fortunately the Republicans also have their share of obese people, though I wonder if they are as prone to blaming external forces for their situations as liberals are. Oh wait, of course they are; look at how they whine and complain when they lose an election; much of their strategy is to make the poor social conservatives feel like they are being victimized by “the libs”.

Rant: journalism and discussion about the Obama drone program

I’ve been following the “drone attack program” and the “authority to kill US citizens” issue closely. This will come up during the confirmation hearings for proposed CIA head John O. Brennan.

I’ve also tried to follow some of the discussions. Many have been extremely simple-minded.

I think that the problem is very difficult. What happens when a US citizen joins an Al Qaida-like organization, including one that has carried out, plotted attacks that have killed others? On one hand, it isn’t exactly the same thing as a US citizen who joins the army of a belligerent nation; obviously in the latter case, the “citizen” can be killed by standard military operations.

On the other hand, isn’t it at least similar? What constitutes an “army” anyway, if it is a non-state agency?
On the other hand: what if this person hasn’t really joined the organization but is in the area doing something else (say, humanitarian work). How is the person declared a “belligerent”, and who/what makes that declaration? What is the standard of proof?

Will this escalate into an excuse to kill political opponents? What safeguards (checks/balances) are there to prevent this from happening?

And what do you do? We are talking about areas that have no effective law-enforcement, and standard operations (military ones) usually result in many civilian injuries and deaths.

So, I am conflicted; I can see several sides of an issue.

However, some in the liberal media (that is the “liberal subset of the media”) think that a lack out outrage means that liberals are ignoring the problem.

Why isn’t there more outrage about the president’s unilateral targeted assassination program on the left?
BY JOAN WALSH

Note: the article itself isn’t that bad; it contains a decent summary of the program and principled objections to it. But as far as the headline….

No, it isn’t that we are “ignoring” justice. It is that some of us have the intellect to see that this is a complicated, sticky issue and some of us are still working through our own thoughts.

I find it especially ironic that such charges are coming from a media that showed, among other things, that it doesn’t understand science and can’t even digest a simple collection of poll numbers (re: “the 2012 election is razor tight!”). Frankly, I doubt if many journalists and pundits have the mental firepower to give this issue proper examination.

Note: If you want to comment, fine. However I’d like for you to explain how your plan would work “right now” and what the potential weaknesses are, as well as why you might be wrong. If you can’t give me the weakness of your ideas or analysis, then you probably aren’t worth talking to about this.

When you lose your “dummy card” in my book (or the Wisdom of Donald Rumsfeld)

I am getting ready to work out and then go to a coffee shop to work on my math paper (I have a paid leave to do research this semester).

Part of my study involves studying this object:

The red circle represents a line going to infinity; the yellow circle represents a “pattern” that is obtained by cutting it with a disk bounded by the red circle, and attaching copies of itself “end to end”. This gives you algebraic data to analyse.

So, what about the title of the post?
I had a conversation with a Sarah Palin supporter (I haven’t undfriended them all) who didn’t like the movie Game Change; they thought it was an “exaggeration” and refuse to believe that she was the way that she was portrayed, despite some top McCain campaign officials saying it was like that.

Then the topic of “common sense” came up. Yes, such “common sense” (a way of reasoning based on everyday life experience) might get you through your day to day routine (e. g. prevent you from getting swindled, help you run a small business, help you in relations with people) but it frequently fails when the situation becomes larger (say, nation wide, or world wide) or unfamiliar (say, science). Here is an example of such a failure:

I don’t blame someone for not knowing a technical area that isn’t their speciality; most of us have to struggle for success in our own fields. I do blame someone for not realizing that other fields have smart people working in them; just because what they are doing doesn’t make sense to you doesn’t mean that what they are doing is nonsense, waste of time, etc.

So, to me: you lose your “dummy card” when you realize “hey, this might seem strange to me, but this is in a different arena than I am used to; maybe I am missing something!”. In other words, when you realize that your “common sense” isn’t enough to compensate for a gross lack of knowledge, training or experience in another field, then you’ve lost your “dummy card” in my book.

Or, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld (NOT one of my favorite persons): “when you realize that there are not only “known unknowns” (variables that you don’t know the value of) but also “unknown unknowns” (variables hidden to YOU that you are unaware of to begin with but that the experts are aware of, as well as some that no one is aware of yet), then you lose your dummy card.

And, no this is not a partisan rant (think: Senator Proxmire Of course, projects should be vetted prior to getting funding, but they should be vetted by knowledgeable people and not “common sense populists”)

Off I go…

December 26 workout notes (2012)

Interesting workout. While I was there, I saw my wife, her trainer, my department chair, and a few die hards.
It lasted close to 2 hours: weights plus a 5 mile run on the indoor track.
Weights:
rotator cuff
pull ups (4 sets of 10, one broken set of 6 wide grip, 4 narrow grip)
bench press (barbell): 10 x 135, 4 x 180, 3 x 180 (didn’t push out that last rep), rested with ab crunches
dumbbell bench press/row superset: rows: 3 sets of 10 x 65 (each arm), bench: 2 sets of 10 x 65, 1 set of 8 x 70.
incline press/pull down superset: pull downs, 3 sets of 10 x 160 (one set with a rotated grip), incline: 9 x 135, 8 x 135
military press/curl superset : 2 sets of 10 x 70 (each arm) machine, 1 set of 15 x 50 dumbbell, curls: 3 sets of 10 x 70 machine

I used ab stuff to rest.

Now the run: I did 41 laps of the so-called “8 laps to the mile” indoor track; I think that it is oh-so-slightly short.
The miles: 9:40, 9:30, 9:26, 8:59, 8:41 (46:17), 1:04 (47:22). The effects of the blood donation (two days earlier) didn’t really start to show up until the pace got below 9:30 mpm. Then I viewed it as a way to trying to stay “efficient”. The last 2 miles WERE work.

I find it interesting that what I am feeling (no degradation until I am at a “harder effort”) is exactly what the science shows. Fascinating.

The cold outside doesn’t bother me, but the slippery roads are hard on my knees….and I really don’t like competing with cars for the dry portions of the road. I think that they will win every time.

Snowstorm to the east of us Hence no bus service out east, hence ANOTHER night with our “developmentally disabled/disadvantaged/whateverthepctermisformentallyretarded” guest. I can hear them downstairs; when he talks he sounds like someone who talks without moving their tongue.

What I Value in People

I’ve always wondered what attracts me to some people.

I used to think that it is intelligence, but that really isn’t correct.

I’d have to say what attracts me to people is: perspective.

I tend to like people who:
1. HONESTLY know what they know and can admit what they don’t know.
2. Know that there is much to be known about fields outside of their own.
3. Accept that many don’t agree with them on many issues; they are aware that not everyone is like them and that there is a big world outside of their “bubble”.
4. Can keep their accomplishments in perspective; they neither undersell nor oversell them.

I’ll give some examples:

Academia: I teach at a small school which has a research requirement. The teaching load is heavy (12 hours) hence even our “best” researchers don’t research full time. I like those who understand that their research will NOT be on a level with the research that is being done at the big time research places (e. g Big Ten schools). In all honesty, we have some faculty who either don’t understand this or haven’t accepted it.

Politics: too many, especially the zealots, seem to pretend that their political opponents don’t exist. Some on the left thought that a “progressive” president would have gotten “single payer” or a “robust public option” through Congress. Seriously. Others think that just because everyone they hang around hates Obama, the rest of the country does too.

And there was this: one of my older friends told me about her life in the 1960′s; she exclaimed “EVERYONE was liberal back then!” So I replied: “ok, just how did Richard Nixon get elected twice?” She really didn’t have an answer.

What goes on in your bubble really doesn’t extend outside of it (in most cases).

There is also the “if it makes sense to me, it must be true, and if it doesn’t make sense to me, it must be BS” type personality. They drive me up the wall; they fail to consider that their thinking MIGHT be flawed in one manner or another.

I am also amused at those people who haven’t really accomplished much in life, but see fit to issue “correction” to people like Paul Krugman in economics or Richard Dawkins in science. Seriously people????? Do you really think that a world class practitioner would make some elementary mistake IN THEIR OWN FIELD that YOU can catch?????

Of course, there is “keeping one’s accomplishments in perspective”. Yes, I am glad I got a Ph. D. and have published, but I am NOT in the same league as the full time researchers. Yes, I’ve finished a marathon and a 100 miler, but I’ve done nothing on the level as even running a sub 5 minute mile (which isn’t that big of a deal in the scheme of things). And my goodness…..I have to shake my head when I see people putting “13.1″ stickers on their vehicles. Someone would BRAG about finishing a half-marathon??????? Seriously????? (unbelievable).

Personally: I like someone who can expand my horizons and fill in my blind spots. And yes, some conservatives do that for me (shout out to Dr. Andy here). So do some liberals.

Others: not so much.

Yes, I am somewhat biased toward the intelligent and toward the educated (we speak the same language) but mostly I value those who have perspective.

I’ll say it: We Deserve to Lose This Election

Ok, rant to follow:
I admit that part of me admires the Republicans.

Some of it is values: for example, during an 24 hour race I stopped to rest and I stopped for a bit too long. Someone said “you aren’t getting in miles doing that.” I guarantee you it was a Republican who said that….a liberal would have mumbled something about “poor baby”.

You know that guy who got admitted as a physics or a math major…with a 20 ACT who is starting with COLLEGE ALGEBRA??? No conservative would have admitted him.

I remain a Democrat because I don’t think that the country needs to “return to Jesus”, I accept science and I don’t think that more tax cuts for hedge fund managers will help the economy, and I don’t think it is our place to bully other countries.

And some of it is political. Watch what is happening in the Presidential election. The Republicans are rallying around their nominee even though he tacked to the center.

All during his administration, the liberal purity trolls hammered President Obama for killing Bin Laden (not capturing him), killing terrorists, making deals with the Republicans and passing a Health Care act that was too weak (as opposed to holding out and coming up empty). It was as if the rest of the country and as if the red/purple states/Congressional districts didn’t even exist.

Then there is the election itself. If the Democrats actually showed up to vote, it wouldn’t even be close. Much of our energy will go to knocking on doors and dragging their lazy butts to the polls!!! That’s pathetic.

Screw this. We deserve to lose. We are the party of loud mouthed “know-it-alls but never have actually accomplished anythings”, “woos”, “ivory tower people” mixed in with slackers and deadbeats.

end rant…

Off to bed…enough of the Clown-fest

Early day tomorrow.

My goodness, it appears that Mr. Huckabee has eaten too much Chick-Fil-A. He is starting to resemble Chris Christie.