Stupidity Denied

Two Day. Sparser in gym. Same stand-in. Podcast the usual. The only intriguing bits was a segment on workplace friendships.

It was seriously flawed. The analysis was way off. It basically dealt with the aspects that workplace friendship can increase satisfaction and thereby productivity but the interactions of friendship made for more interruptions and less creativity.

Most workplaces do not value or encourage creativity.

What was missed was the effect of a dissolved friendship. It’s catastrophic. Almost as bad as a workplace romance that failed. And that’s a lot worse on everything since the folks in the workplace are almost forced to choose sides. So it’s not the positive side of workplace friendships that is important, it’s the negative.

And these schmucks missed it.

Speaking of which I saw a new weight bouncer, a slab schmuck. Never looked up from his slablet. A real slave of his eye friend.

On which azimuth, I note that the old men in robes have naysayed the Texican oppression of women’s rights to determine reproduction. Sadly, no politicians will be put in front of firing parties. And they will try again. The forces of evil do not die, they just slink away and plot more evil.

Manwhile there is much gnashing of teeth in Muntgum among the Christerrorists in the council of thieves. And throughout the state. It is also their evil that has been momentarily thwarted. I expect a couple of suicide bombings when the clinics reopen.

Pronounced Opposite

Two Day. Lower air temperature than yesterday when I ventured out to gym but the weather beavers foretell highr maximum today. Glad of the respite; weary of summer already. Except for not having to fear ruptured plumbing.

Gym was sparse. No educationalists. Schule is definitely desessioned. Podcasts were mediocre. High point was Guardian podcast on some of the strange (?) ways we humans view money. And use it. 

Thereafter downhill.

Different clerk this week who can’t seem to do what needs be done. Or is a bit of a sadist? Hard to tell. Especially in that business. her sole grace seems to be arriving earlier than the permanent one and thus I can get home earlier. Which is of mixed value to FD SCP. 

Not much cognition this morning. Too much distraction. Pornography – food this morning and cosmetics – on the televisions. Glad I hadn’t eaten. Nauseating enough on a relatively void stomach. One segment was some sort of shoping/cooking race. Ostensibly as a simulation of home entertainment. Do people do that any more? It was rare when I was a child and rarer now. I haven’t done it in thirty or forty years. No desire on the part of either myself or my friends. Why would anyone put themselves to such a burden, for so little? Is it an EXTRO thing. Or a Bog thing? Or both. Demented, regardless.

Of course, I suspect it’s more about the fantasy television people call reality. Sort of like if you have to tell me its a science, it isn’t. So if you have to tell me it’s reality, it isn’t? Especially if on television?

That strikes me as a model of modern society. It is the opposite of what pronouncement figures tell me it is. I shall have to conduct observation and make analysis.

Chompin’ the Snark

Seven Day. Ice Cream. Although that may be contraindicated by the air temperature. 

Not bad in park. Mild breeze,  pleasing air temperature. But no great thoughts forthcoming. 

So home to hawg tabs. First. an article [Link] entitled “Economists discover people don’t behave rationally.” The lead paragraph says most of it:

“Contrary to our original thinking, I’ve come to believe that people don’t behave like the economic textbooks say they should behave,” wrote Dr. Paul Wingfield, an economist at Cato University. “People don’t behave rationally.”

Amazing! Fully validates all my suspecions and concerns about economists and their obliviousness to reality. Now, the question is whether they will actually do so in future or just shrug this off and irrelevant reality?

Next, an article [Link] entitled “Are You a Geek or a Nerd? The Difference Really Is in the Data.” This one is really quite good at both distinguishing between nerd and geek and actually getting it right.

geek – An enthusiast of a particular topic or field. Geeks are “collection” oriented, gathering facts and mementos related to their subject of interest. They are obsessed with the newest, coolest, trendiest things that their subject has to offer.

nerd – A studious intellectual, although again of a particular topic or field. Nerds are “achievement” oriented, and focus their efforts on acquiring knowledge and skill over trivia and memorabilia.

and elaborating differences:

  • Collections are geeky. All derivatives of the word “collect” (“collection,” “collectables”, etc.) are orange. As are “boxset” and “#original,” which imply a taste for completeness and authenticity.
  • Academic fields are nerdy: “math”, “#history,” “physics,” “biology,” “neuroscience,” “biochemistry,” etc. Other academic words (“thesis”, “#studymode”) and institutions (“harvard”, “oxford”) are also blue.
  • The science & technology words differ. General terms (“#computers,” “#bigdata”) are on the diagonal — similarly geeky and nerdy. As you splay up toward more geeky, though, you see products, startups, brands, and more cultish technologies (“#apple”, “#linux”). As you splay down toward more nerdy you see more methodologies (“calculus”).
  • Hobbies: compare the more geeky pastimes (“#toys,” “#manga”) with the more nerdy ones (“chess,” “sudoku”).
  • Brains: the word “intelligence” may be geeky, but “education,” “intellectual,” and “#smartypants” are nerdy.
  • Reading: “#books” are nerdy, but “ebooks” and “ibooks” are geeky.
  • Pop culture vs. high culture: “#shiny” and “#trendy” are super-geeky, but (curiously) “cellist” is the nerdiest…

The only part I couldn’t abide was the claim that the differences are minor. Perhaps to bogs, but not to people who matter – the nerds and geeks.

Third, an article {Link] entitled “Smartwatches: I hate to say ‘I told you so’. But I told you so.” from the Brits. Quite agree with much of this. I look at smart watches every time I receive a diverse advertisement and never find any compelling reason to buy. Yes, I would like the access to my phone without yanking it out but (1) how about when my phone is OFF – what does the watch do then, and (2) can I tune the presentation so it is a watch first and second and maybe a phone appendage third? I thought not.

Lastly, an article [Link] entitled “Elon Musk Thinks There’s A Chance We’re Living In A Computer Simulation.” The irrevrent thought that occurred is that if we are living in a computer simulation then why can’t we make a motorcar or house or whatever simply by writing a bit of code?


Enough for now.

Outreach Rot

Five day. Muggish, mostly from precipitation, I suspect. Not quite refreshing as I walked in the park. 

I was considering an article [Link] entitled “Science communication training should be about more than just how to transmit knowledge.” This is enough – almost – to damn the whole article.

Science isn’t primarily about training; it’s about education. Or should be. And I get concerned when some derriere-hat talks about scientists as if they were some slightly better schooled handy man (or woman.) This is probably understandable since the author are advertising academics. My guess is that they know less about science than most five year old Nerds. 

I was particularly taken by this:

“But times change. Leaders in the scientific community are increasingly calling on their scientist colleagues to meaningfully engage with their fellow citizens. The hope is that such interactions can improve the science-society relationship at a time when we are confronting a growing list of high-stakes, high-controversy issues including climate change, synthetic biology and epigenetics.

The gauntlet has been issued, but can scientists meet it?”

It seems to illustrate the bad think. Science doesn’t have leaders. It has scientists. Appeal to authority is wrong. Everything has to be testable, at least eventually. 

Engagement does not mean pandering, which seems to be what these snake oil salesmen are proposing. Engagement is a form of communication and that means some effort and adaptation on both sides. And how do we measure meaningful? Sounds like advertising hype to me. Let us not forget that every advertisement contains AT LEAST one inaccuracy (lie, if you will.) 

From what I can see, the gauntlet metaphor is part of that inaccuracy. It implies a duel, at least to anyone who has any knowledge of medieval history. (I shan’t go beyond that inference.) The outreach thing is largely self-inflicted by academics who are trying to sell something. I am not sure it is science. I suspect it is funding for academic scientists. But that’s another blot.

But overall, this is rubbish of the rotting organic type.

Exactly like almost all advertisements. 

The academics would be better served paying attention to Chad Orzel than these panacea purveyors.


Unfun in the Sun

Four Day. Nasty yesterday. Had to visit cataractist while in Nawth Alibam’s Shining City on the Hill. not an experience that instills confidence in the system. Feel like a Model T.

Also motoring after was not enjoyable. Which also did not instill confidence since I hadn’t been forewarned. This inability of medicalists to communicate and adapt is NOT good. Along several azimuths.

The rest of the trip was abbreviated. Limited to provisioning.  And today will be catch-up. 

And when I got to gym this morning I found out the regular staffer is on vacation next week and the replacement is the borderline sociopath. 

Maybe it is time to move to Canadia?

More About

Mumble. Storing copies of selected articles from the week. Have to do this locally now that Ubernote has just become a half-derriere taxi service.

Noted a slightly distressing – minor hemorrhoid pain – article [Link] entitled “13 incredible science facts you probably didn’t learn at high school.” Must be one of those outreach-to-Bog articles that Chad was talking about. I actually learned a couple of these in high schule. Not, I should admit as part of the curriculum. But I was in high schule when I read a book/article that contained the information. 

So while this was a failed sample I suspect such is the norm for not-Bogs. They read. And learn. And do other things Bogs don’t. Or can’t?

And this one [Link] explains rather a lot about religionist conspiracy theories. But it is nice to think of works as fiction as being equally predictive as the bible. Wait? What? Fiction? Bible?

Aren’t Week Out fun?

Mirror Image?

Two Day. Last day of schule? Density actually up a bit at gym. Unusual for a two day. Otherwise, not bad. The podcasts were passable albeit a bit tedious and unmemorable. 

But I did note an article [Link] yesterday entitled “Selfie fans regularly overestimate how attractive they are, scientists find” that gathered my attention span. I am a bit bemused by this selfie thing. It is not, to my domain, the land of speedbumpia portrayed by the media of selfie addicts obstructing passage and causing collisions. I also have to admit to having tried it on myself for both investigation and obtaining photographs for icons on various web sites. There is considerably more art and skill to this than portrayed by the media, which is consonant with my experience with photography.

There is also the matter that while the camera sensor in cellular telephones is quite good, the optics are RUBBISH bordering on STERCUS. 

This article, from U Toronto, asserts that there is a component of egotism. That is unsurprising. Nor is the academic sense of priestliness, that information is gossip until sanctified by a gowned scholar. The form of the egotism is. The intro claims that selfie takers consider themselves more attractive than those who view their work, which raises anew the question of art.

But what was telling was deeper in the article:

When all was said and done, both groups – the selfie-takers and non-selfie-takers – reported themselves more attractive than they were rated by the outside group, though the selfie-takers were off by a greater degree

Seems to control for this the wonks did two sets of photos – selfies and otheries – and submitted them to an independent (?) group to review. And they found everyone had a better view of themselves than others do.

And here I thought that was a well established character of human nature. If we all didn’t think we look better than we do the suicide rate would be close to 1.0.

So I am mulling whether this nulls the whole exercise. Is there any science here? Maybe. But probably not new.