What is the newest installment of 'Random Thoughts' on Physics Forums?

[jim hardy]

Why men can't listen and women can't park.

Watch your nature shows.
Large brained mammals - in most species females tend to the young while males carouse and compete for position.

We like to think we're somehow elevated above animal behavior , but watch the show in any bar about closing time.
You'll see
both genders displaying plumage to attract a partner
dominant males looking to clash antlers
less dominant males trying to corral a female
hyenas slinking around looking for something to purloin
bumblebees buzzing around looking for a flower to pollinate
and sweet little flowers looking to get pollinated...old jim

 

[StoneTemplePython]

Interesting article and dataset on proving that !Q in males has larger variability than in females. A ratio of variances passes the F-test ( Ratio of Variances) even at the 0.01 significance level, though result is not politically-correct nowadays because some use it to explain why there are more male CEOs -- tho it may also explain why some 93%+ of prison population is male -- the left tail is fatter in males , just like the right tail. . The site is not politically neutral, but it sticks to the data, as I saw it. .http://www.aei.org/publication/statistical-tests-shows-greater-male-variance/ Hope it is acceptable to post this; let me know otherwise.

I don't care much for AEI -- way too partisan and not very insightful. For example:

meaning that there is only a 1-in-a-1000 chance that we would find these results purely by chance, and a 99.9% chance that we have established a statistical difference in variances.

Interpreting classical statistics correctly is perilous, and I'm pretty sure that this is wrong.

It also depends on what part of the distribution you are interested in -- in particular, consider the extremes.

(a) It's been fairly well documented that severe intellectual disabilities are in the neighborhood of 4x - 6x more likely in males. (I can foot to some stuff from The Economist I think.) That alone is enough to spike variance if the means are comparable and we are in fact evaluating the entire distribution (and remember we are talking about squared deviations so variance weights extreme things more). (b) A more interesting test would look at whether the distributions are actually well approximated as symmetric (and in particular whether this holds at the extremes which may not be so easy).

There is a ton of subtlety involved and I've met just about no one who is able to think through these things dispassionately, deal with subtleties and guard against ideological and self-serving biases. As a result, I have a hunch that this is not appropriate for the forum.

It's worth recalling that the final straw in Larry Summer's presidency at Harvard was speculating on variance in intellect and its potential impact in physics. Edge.org had a very good discussion on superforecasting which at one point remarked that this is viewed merely as hypothesis generation by those small few that qualify as superforecasters and most everyone else went berserk after hearing it.

Come to think of it there is a lot of good stuff in that thing on superforecasting, that is probably a lot more fruitful and interesting to read through:

https://www.edge.org/event/edge-master-class-2015-philip-tetlock-a-short-course-in-superforecasting

(I actually think this 5 part discussion may be better than the book.)

 

[WWGD]

I don't care much for AEI -- way too partisan and not very insightful. For example:
Interpreting classical statistics correctly is perilous, and I'm pretty sure that this is wrong.

It also depends on what part of the distribution you are interested in -- in particular, consider the extremes.

(a) It's been fairly well documented that severe intellectual disabilities are in the neighborhood of 4x - 6x more likely in males. (I can foot to some stuff from The Economist I think.) That alone is enough to spike variance if the means are comparable and we are in fact evaluating the entire distribution (and remember we are talking about squared deviations so variance weights extreme things more). (b) A more interesting test would look at whether the distributions are actually well approximated as symmetric (and in particular whether this holds at the extremes which may not be so easy).

There is a ton of subtlety involved and I've met just about no one who is able to think through these things dispassionately, deal with subtleties and guard against ideological and self-serving biases. As a result, I have a hunch that this is not appropriate for the forum.

It's worth recalling that the final straw in Larry Summer's presidency at Harvard was speculating on variance in intellect and its potential impact in physics. Edge.org had a very good discussion on superforecasting which at one point remarked that this is viewed merely as hypothesis generation by those small few that qualify as superforecasters and most everyone else went berserk after hearing it.

Come to think of it there is a lot of good stuff in that thing on superforecasting, that is probably a lot more fruitful and interesting to read through:

https://www.edge.org/event/edge-master-class-2015-philip-tetlock-a-short-course-in-superforecasting

(I actually think this 5 part discussion may be better than the book.)

True there are subtleties, and very few , specially in today's charged climate, to abandon their preconceptions.

 

[WWGD]

I don't care much for AEI -- way too partisan and not very insightful. For example:
Interpreting classical statistics correctly is perilous, and I'm pretty sure that this is wrong.

It also depends on what part of the distribution you are interested in -- in particular, consider the extremes.

(a) It's been fairly well documented that severe intellectual disabilities are in the neighborhood of 4x - 6x more likely in males. (I can foot to some stuff from The Economist I think.) That alone is enough to spike variance if the means are comparable and we are in fact evaluating the entire distribution (and remember we are talking about squared deviations so variance weights extreme things more). (b) A more interesting test would look at whether the distributions are actually well approximated as symmetric (and in particular whether this holds at the extremes which may not be so easy).

There is a ton of subtlety involved and I've met just about no one who is able to think through these things dispassionately, deal with subtleties and guard against ideological and self-serving biases. As a result, I have a hunch that this is not appropriate for the forum.

It's worth recalling that the final straw in Larry Summer's presidency at Harvard was speculating on variance in intellect and its potential impact in physics. Edge.org had a very good discussion on superforecasting which at one point remarked that this is viewed merely as hypothesis generation by those small few that qualify as superforecasters and most everyone else went berserk after hearing it.

Come to think of it there is a lot of good stuff in that thing on superforecasting, that is probably a lot more fruitful and interesting to read through:

https://www.edge.org/event/edge-master-class-2015-philip-tetlock-a-short-course-in-superforecasting

(I actually think this 5 part discussion may be better than the book.)

Still, though, if you accept the data, the variability claim holds. Doesn't it? Do you think "left" variability would explain all the difference in variances, even at the 0.01% level? Or would you like to see the original data to examine for "right" variability ( i.e., variability on higher values)

 

[StoneTemplePython]

Still, though, if you accept the data, the variability claim holds. Doesn't it? Do you think "left" variability would explain all the difference in variances, even at the 0.01% level? Or would you like to see the original data to examine for "right" variability ( i.e., variability on higher values)

The issue is in part that normal approximations have curious breakdowns in the real world. Reference financial data (returns are approximately log-normal except extremes) and even human heights (which can be approximated as normal by sex, except in each case there are far too many very tall and very short people). For financial data there is even some reason to believe that variance may in fact be infinite.

In general variance is quite sensitive to extreme events. (You could even phrase this as a ruler problem -- does high variance tell you a lot about extreme events, or does the existence of too many extreme events tell you a lot about the quality of variance estimates and normal approximation?) It's tricky because a $\approx 10 \%$ change in variance doesn't change all that much near the center, but it has a massive impact on the tails of a normal distribution.

It could be the the left tail explains just about all of the variance difference. It may not be the case. There are also some other issues akin to pre-registering or data snooping. (I.e. you actually need people to agree to a methodology before examining the data.)

I don't see much to be gained from this line of inquiry, for the reasons I outlined above, so I will drop now.

 

[WWGD]

The issue is in part that normal approximations have curious breakdowns in the real world. Reference financial data (returns are approximately log-normal except extremes) and even human heights (which can be approximated as normal by sex, except in each case there are far too many very tall and very short people). For financial data there is even some reason to believe that variance may in fact be infinite.

In general variance is quite sensitive to extreme events. (You could even phrase this as a ruler problem -- does high variance tell you a lot about extreme events, or does the existence of too many extreme events tell you a lot about the quality of variance estimates and normal approximation?) It's tricky because a $\approx 10 \%$ change in variance doesn't change all that much near the center, but it has a massive impact on the tails of a normal distribution.

It could be the the left tail explains just about all of the variance difference. It may not be the case. There are also some other issues akin to pre-registering or data snooping. (I.e. you actually need people to agree to a methodology before examining the data.)

I don't see much to be gained from this line of inquiry, for the reasons I outlined above, so I will drop now.

Good luck finding data satisfying all those properties. I never claimed this was a conclusive argument, just that it gave reason to believe that a reasonable case can be made, and reason to proceed with more careful data analysis. The first stab at an idea has never been intended, AFAIK, to be conclusive. So I bow out myself too.

 

[fresh_42]

The answer is 101010.

 

[WWGD]

The answer is 101010.

And the question is? Playing Jeopardy?

 

[jim hardy]

answer = TRUE

And the question is? Playing Jeopardy?

 

[collinsmark]

Life, the universe, and everything.

 

[jim hardy]

42.

 

[StoneTemplePython]

To make my response more relevant in pop culture, I should have said:

"and for those reasons, I'm out."

 

[DrGreg]

The answer is 101010.

And the question is?

What do you get when you multiply 110 by 1001?
_____

Alternatively...

The answer is 101010.

00101011 OR 11010100, that is the question.
11111111, that is the answer (it's true)

 

[fresh_42]

I find that besides the astonishing symmetry the decomposition into primes is funny, too: $101010 = 2\cdot3\cdot5\cdot7\cdot13\cdot37$ - no powers, all primes below $10$ included, and $37$ for the symmetry. "Here I am with a brain the size of a planet and they ask me to..." ... do some numerology. I hate numerology.

 

[WWGD]

I find that besides the astonishing symmetry the decomposition into primes is funny, too: $101010 = 2\cdot3\cdot5\cdot7\cdot13\cdot37$ - no powers, all primes below $10$ included, and $37$ for the symmetry. "Here I am with a brain the size of a planet and they ask me to..." ... do some numerology. I hate numerology.

Square-free numbers ( and containing neither 2,5 as factors) seem "primerer" (more likely to be prime) than non-square-free ones, is my impression. A nice random result: 9-digit numbers without repeated digits =10!- 9! ; 10! rearrangements of {0,1,...,9} minus all arrangements starting with 0. But I wonder what is the prime density _restricted to odd numbers_ . ? EDIT: Asympotically, of course, otherwise we get a(n) (almost) doubling

 

[WWGD]

Interview of a talk between Steven Pinker, prof. at Harvard and Bill Gates. Gates referred to several areas that fascinated him, where he devoted a lot of effort, neither of which was...quality control. Surprise; ). (Sorry, I ha dnot taken a dig at him in a while EDIT: I think most Windows users will understand ;))

 

[Evo]

This is Random Thoughts. Please keep posts to RANDOM THOUGHTS.

 

[jim hardy]

Random thoughts? It's the only kind i have !

 

[Psinter]

Drugs and chemicals are one hell of a thing. It is scary . To think that the doctor put me to sleep in like 5 or 10 minutes, performed the procedure, and when I woke up I remembered nothing. Literally nothing.

I always thought that it was stupid that people supposedly got drugged at parties and then got kidnapped, etc. I always thought it was ridiculous. Not possible. But seeing how I didn't even notice when I fell asleep, now I believe it is possible.

I don't understand how it works, but you do fall asleep without noticing. The next thing you know, you are awake and the doctor is telling you the procedure was a success.

Think about it. Someone could put you to sleep in minutes. Now that... is scary... At least for me. I mean, everyone has their own way of thinking.

 

[jim hardy]

To think that the doctor put me to sleep in like 5 or 10 minutes, performed the procedure, and when I woke up I remembered nothing. Literally nothing.

I remember well getting put out for my first open heart. It was much faster than you describe.
A pretty nurse had in her hand a small valve connecting a vial to my IV port. She said "Good Night" and gave it a quarter turn. Almost immediately my vision darkened and i went out before i could give a comeback. I still marvel at how fast it was.

Next thing i remember is gradually coming back toward consciousness aware only of searing pain and darkness. My only thought was "When i open my eyes i know there'll be nothing left below my ribcage - I've been bit in two by a shark nothing less could hurt like this .. "
Then i became aware that a machine was doing my breathing for me.
Then i opened my eyes and could see only a jumble of tubes , vision pretty well blocked by a really big one coming out of my mouth.
So i tried wiggling my toes, it felt as if they were still there . Then i remembered where i was .

It is really amazing that they can get us so far down and bring us back.

But google "Bypass Brain" . It's a real phenomenon.

old jim

 

[jedishrfu]

Do random thoughts exhibit Brownian motion or are they simply chaotic in a gedanken sort of way? :-)

 

[strangerep]

I don't understand how it works, but you do fall asleep without noticing.

Think about it... when you fall asleep normally, you're not aware of the moment you fall asleep. You can't be "aware" or "loss of awareness".

For my last 3 procedues, I noticed that the anaesthetist used a modified technique. Instead of asking me to count backwards from 10, she just said "this is just a calming agent, the real anaesthetic comes later". But of course, it was the real anaesthetic and she was just trying to stop me from freaking out at the last moment (which some people do, apparently).

Several times, I've tried to count backwards anyway, but I can never remember afterwards which number I reached.

 

[strangerep]

It is really amazing that they can get us so far down and bring us back.

... and a bit scary that it doesn't always work properly...

My uncle had open-heart surgey that lasted for many hours. When he awoke, he could not comprehend where he was (even when told by a nurse), and could not even recognize the faces of the specialist doctor and nurse who had been treating him for many years previously. His personality was also horribly changed: normally a jovial easy-going easy-to-like person, he became dreadfully irritable and uncooperative. This lasted 2 weeks(!) after the procedure, until thankfully he eventually regained his old personality.

Fortunately, the hospital staff all had previous knowledge and experience of this sort of thing and gently nursed him through it, in spite of his attitude.

 

[skyshrimp]

I like bidding on eBay. I just won an auction for a 40" 4K UHD Panasonic display for £185 in mint condition. I want a 70" but 40" will suffice for now. My bedroom 27" 1080p monitor was just fine for my needs tbh.

I'll auction the 27" starting at £185.

 

[WWGD]

Drugs and chemicals are one hell of a thing. It is scary . To think that the doctor put me to sleep in like 5 or 10 minutes, performed the procedure, and when I woke up I remembered nothing. Literally nothing.

I always thought that it was stupid that people supposedly got drugged at parties and then got kidnapped, etc. I always thought it was ridiculous. Not possible. But seeing how I didn't even notice when I fell asleep, now I believe it is possible.

I don't understand how it works, but you do fall asleep without noticing. The next thing you know, you are awake and the doctor is telling you the procedure was a success.

Think about it. Someone could put you to sleep in minutes. Now that... is scary... At least for me. I mean, everyone has their own way of thinking.

Yes. Listen to a podiatrist, or most economists at a party. zzzz... A rule of thumb I heard is, for parties, never have Economists be more than 25% of all guests if you want to avoid a snooze fest. Sorry to all Economists here in the Forum.

 

[WWGD]

It seems like many of my recent exchanges/communications have been Seinfeld-like going nowhere. Misunderstandings that are not cleared and/or questions that are not addressed. It felt really good to have a conversation recently where both I and the other party had our doubts addressed satisfactorily.

 

[Posty McPostface]

Random thought, does owning gold mean in some sense that one is irrational? Gold seems to only have psychological value.

 

[fresh_42]

Random thought, does owning gold mean in some sense that one is irrational? Gold seems to only have psychological value.

Firstly, this is not true, because it is actually used, even outside the jewelry industry. Secondly, as long as all participants of the global market agree on to view gold as a global currency, there is and will be a real price for gold. Thirdly, in this regard, all existing currencies are far more an illusion, as they merely represent a promise printed on a piece of paper, which is probably the reason for #2. And last but not least, the fact that it is a rare good, makes it valuable because of #1.

 

[jim hardy]

An ounce of gold has always had roughly the same value as a fine men's suit. Not so for a twenty dollar bill.

 

[jim hardy]

Woke up this morning thinking about prairie grass, Big Bluestem .
https://plants.usda.gov/core/profile?symbol=ange