tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post4221965544327232630..comments2024-03-17T05:03:46.056-07:00Comments on xkcd sucks: Comic 763: Problem SolvingCarlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-42332060619442696252010-07-12T15:07:53.991-07:002010-07-12T15:07:53.991-07:00"It doesn't take a psychologist to devise..."It doesn't take a psychologist to devise a rigorous experiment."<br /><br />but it does take a psychologist to devise a rigorous <i>psychological</i> experiment, which was my entire point. again, whatever helps you sleep at night, though.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-71203813782379679462010-07-12T14:41:36.885-07:002010-07-12T14:41:36.885-07:00It was such a good comment Blogger wanted to make ...It was such a good comment Blogger wanted to make sure noone missed it.Ann Apolishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08566528013026340201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-47160351997536039082010-07-12T13:59:13.806-07:002010-07-12T13:59:13.806-07:00Agreed. Anyone know why my comment posted five tim...Agreed. Anyone know why my comment posted five times?Kevinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-68759118809196063942010-07-12T12:02:09.441-07:002010-07-12T12:02:09.441-07:00Rob and Anon@11:25, total agreement again. It'...Rob and Anon@11:25, total agreement again. It's a lot easier to fake competence in the humanities, especially if the evaluator prizes cleverness over adherence to the texts.<br /><br />Kevin, while experimental design is often taught alongside statistics, I think they're separate disciplines that are often lumped together in the classroom for convenience.<br /><br />Further, a physicist with no psychological background wouldn't know what questions might be interesting to test experimentally, nor would he or she realize the limitations inherent in some experimental methods (first-person self-report surveys, for example, are great at telling us how people see themselves or want to be seen, but little about what they actually are like). And stuff.Matt Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-39355165351026258012010-07-12T09:57:30.126-07:002010-07-12T09:57:30.126-07:00Rob, Statistics is not *all* about numbers; it'...Rob, Statistics is not *all* about numbers; it's also about devising or conducting experiments to be suitably scientifically rigorous. That's the only problem I had with your statement. It doesn't take a psychologist to devise a rigorous experiment. "Hard science" people would probably not have the knowledge to conduct experiments that sociologists and psychologists would, but I would wager they can tell if one is rigorous based on their Statistics knowledge (I know I can). If you've never taken a Statistics class it might be hard to understand it's real purpose (I remember thinking it was stupid before I took it), but if you haven't and you think I'm spouting lies I encourage you to learn about it. It's rather interesting and can give you a new perspective on all of the "studies" that people conduct.Kevinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-33418231849029437982010-07-12T09:56:43.593-07:002010-07-12T09:56:43.593-07:00Rob, Statistics is not *all* about numbers; it'...Rob, Statistics is not *all* about numbers; it's also about devising or conducting experiments to be suitably scientifically rigorous. That's the only problem I had with your statement. It doesn't take a psychologist to devise a rigorous experiment. "Hard science" people would probably not have the knowledge to conduct experiments that sociologists and psychologists would, but I would wager they can tell if one is rigorous based on their Statistics knowledge (I know I can). If you've never taken a Statistics class it might be hard to understand it's real purpose (I remember thinking it was stupid before I took it), but if you haven't and you think I'm spouting lies I encourage you to learn about it. It's rather interesting and can give you a new perspective on all of the "studies" that people conduct.Kevinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-18581980552191298572010-07-12T09:55:45.366-07:002010-07-12T09:55:45.366-07:00Rob, Statistics is not *all* about numbers; it'...Rob, Statistics is not *all* about numbers; it's also about devising or conducting experiments to be suitably scientifically rigorous. That's the only problem I had with your statement. It doesn't take a psychologist to devise a rigorous experiment. "Hard science" people would probably not have the knowledge to conduct experiments that sociologists and psychologists would, but I would wager they can tell if one is rigorous based on their Statistics knowledge (I know I can). If you've never taken a Statistics class it might be hard to understand it's real purpose (I remember thinking it was stupid before I took it), but if you haven't and you think I'm spouting lies I encourage you to learn about it. It's rather interesting and can give you a new perspective on all of the "studies" that people conduct.Kevinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-67828201968771744332010-07-12T08:51:21.297-07:002010-07-12T08:51:21.297-07:00Rob, Statistics is not *all* about numbers; it'...Rob, Statistics is not *all* about numbers; it's also about devising or conducting experiments to be suitably scientifically rigorous. That's the only problem I had with your statement. It doesn't take a psychologist to devise a rigorous experiment. "Hard science" people would probably not have the knowledge to conduct experiments that sociologists and psychologists would, but I would wager they can tell if one is rigorous based on their Statistics knowledge (I know I can). If you've never taken a Statistics class it might be hard to understand it's real purpose (I remember thinking it was stupid before I took it), but if you haven't and you think I'm spouting lies I encourage you to learn about it. It's rather interesting and can give you a new perspective on all of the "studies" that people conduct.Kevinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-86434580871328649532010-07-12T08:49:30.273-07:002010-07-12T08:49:30.273-07:00Rob, Statistics is not *all* about numbers; it'...Rob, Statistics is not *all* about numbers; it's also about devising or conducting experiments to be suitably scientifically rigorous. That's the only problem I had with your statement. It doesn't take a psychologist to devise a rigorous experiment. "Hard science" people would probably not have the knowledge to conduct experiments that sociologists and psychologists would, but I would wager they can tell if one is rigorous based on their Statistics knowledge (I know I can). If you've never taken a Statistics class it might be hard to understand it's real purpose (I remember thinking it was stupid before I took it), but if you haven't and you think I'm spouting lies I encourage you to learn about it. It's rather interesting and can give you a new perspective on all of the "studies" that people conduct.Kevinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-10542993165534082892010-07-12T05:03:33.975-07:002010-07-12T05:03:33.975-07:00If both hate XKCD, would not it be better to stop ...If both hate XKCD, would not it be better to stop reading? Sure would appreciate your liver. I really do not think it is as offensive as you see, in short, every fool with his folly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-81177684977255695712010-07-12T04:47:47.893-07:002010-07-12T04:47:47.893-07:00You are a joke.You are a joke.Eight Tons of Geesehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11664651664846004234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-70977446007902330552010-07-12T04:32:00.822-07:002010-07-12T04:32:00.822-07:00Actually, with the C-through-J thing, probably six...Actually, with the C-through-J thing, probably six. D is usually reserved for the optical drive, unless you change it, and IIRC there is another letter in the range (E, I think) that is also reserved unless a change is forced. It's not hard - but not many people actually think of doing that.<br />With that being said, if you can partition a hard drive you can probably change a drive letter. <br /><br />I think the point being made in the comic is that people will often make things unnecessarily difficult for themselves if they are thrown in the deep end of a problem. I see people doing this to themselves every day, and I wonder why the person who gave them the problem didn't just tell them what the easy way to do it is. It's not a point about 'people are so dumb'. It's a point about 'people are smart, but they also like to do things the hard way when they don't have to'. Yes, you could do all that to send a Youtube video - but isn't it just easier to copy and paste the URL into an email or FlashGot the video if you really want the file? <br />We're all guilty of doing this at some point, geek or not - we've all done something difficult and complicated, then stopped and said to ourselves, 'I didn't really need to do that. Man. I just wasted so much time making things hard for myself.' <br /><br />As for Randall prodding social sciences - he's made jokes about the supposed rivalries between fields in science before. He's got a screwed-up sense of humor, that's true, but remember the 'purity of fields' comic? Or even the 'intelligent cuttlefish' comic? Not a first. <br />Or it's possible that an anthropologist pissed him off and he was blowing off steam by flipping the bird at the entire field.dartigennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-63754177564274481182010-07-11T11:25:10.264-07:002010-07-11T11:25:10.264-07:00"a good part of that is probably that there a..."a good part of that is probably that there aren't really correct answers in humanities. grading is perforce different. of course, grade inflation is also a serious problem, but that's got a lot more to do with academia than anything."<br /><br />Rob- some of the things I don't entirely agree with, but I feel this statement hits the nail right on the fucking head.<br /><br />Being a good writer, scientist, artist or expressionistic seal tamer requires a lot of dedication, self-critique, creative thinking, and numerous other skills.<br /><br />It's just easier to tell when a numerical science-type problem is wrongAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-86624363146079759742010-07-11T03:58:39.846-07:002010-07-11T03:58:39.846-07:00"Statistics is essentially what you're de..."Statistics is essentially what you're describing here which is more than anything pure math and used extensively by "hard science" majors and "not hard science" majors alike."<br /><br />no, it really isn't. see, statistics consists of numbers. psychological and sociological experiments consist of humans. if I were talking about statistics I would not have said that. I wouldn't have said anything, because it would have been entirely unremarkable on that subject.<br /><br />it seems like you are telling me that hard science people could just as easily have devised and conducted most of the psychological experiments, without any change in their background--just on a whim one day come up with these. perhaps you could clarify that you aren't actually positing the dumbest thing I've heard all week?rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-60284576609501640212010-07-11T01:35:59.130-07:002010-07-11T01:35:59.130-07:00Rob -
"(after several experiments that hard m...Rob -<br />"(after several experiments that hard math/science people could likely never have devised or conducted to be suitably scientifically rigorous)"<br /><br />This made me cringe. Statistics is essentially what you're describing here which is more than anything pure math and used extensively by "hard science" majors and "not hard science" majors alike. Try not to respond to stupid insults with equally stupid insults, I tend to enjoy what you write.<br /><br />My 2 cents:<br />No major is more difficult than another, but people will have different experiences and some people will *choose* to work harder than others (I think is the case with a lot of Fine Arts people). I busted my ass in college so I could (almost) guarantee myself a good job and I didn't know anyone who worked as hard as I did, not-hard science or otherwise. The not-hard science people often complained about the three hours of work they did the week before, but I think that's because the ones that I knew had no ambition, not that their entire major was made up of idiots.Kevinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-80049038224799180772010-07-10T14:26:38.813-07:002010-07-10T14:26:38.813-07:00a good part of that is probably that there aren...a good part of that is probably that there aren't really correct answers in humanities. grading is perforce different. of course, grade inflation is also a serious problem, but that's got a lot more to do with academia than anything.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-85412638771008698902010-07-10T13:59:34.585-07:002010-07-10T13:59:34.585-07:00Rob, I don't disagree with anything you've...Rob, I don't disagree with anything you've written in your last two posts, but I think there's one more thing worth taking into consideration: standards for success are vastly different within and without the hard sciences.<br /><br />NB: I'm referring here entirely to non-elite programs. I did my time as an undgergrad in both hard and soft sciences at two different low-ranked institutions, and I've spent the last several years working closely with *lots* of students on both sides of the divide at a mid-tier institution. Everything I say here is based on personal, non-rigorous observation, so take it as you will.<br /><br />With those caveats, it has been my experience that non-STEM instructors seem more likely than their STEM counterparts to assign good grades to mediocre work. It may be equally hard to produce truly excellent work on both sides of the divide, but excellent and mediocre work are more likely to be differentiated on one side of the divide than the other.<br /><br />So, STEM students end up seeing plenty of soft-science and humanities slackers pulling down As and the occasional B, while STEM slackers have to scramble for a C. <br /><br />Judging from what I've read on the Chronicle of Higher Education forums and from discussions with non-STEM faculty, there are strong institutional factors influencing grade inflation in non-STEM classes. <br /><br />Shorter: It's a lot harder to flunk out of a psychology program than a physics program, and it has nothing to do with the inherent difficulty of the fields.Matt Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-87307772624113070122010-07-10T02:50:36.920-07:002010-07-10T02:50:36.920-07:00mostly, I blame the math/science geeks for perpetu...mostly, I blame the math/science geeks for perpetuating the myth that it's harder. instead of buying into the cultural stereotype that it's hard and it's only for smart people, and assuming that because they can do it they are smart people who can do hard things, they should come to the realization that the reason they don't find it hard is because it's not hard. they should try to break the myths. they should advocate for better math education, specifically the kind of education that says "this shit is easy." they could fight to break the paradigm.<br /><br />but instead they congratulate themselves for being so incredibly brilliant, and assume that everyone in other degrees is just too dumb to do their super smart degree.<br /><br />also, can we please all agree that fine arts people kick the asses of everyone else at working hard? because they do. if anyone ever accuses fine arts kids of having too much time on their hands that person needs to be punched in the solar plexus.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-84447748259067927702010-07-10T02:49:54.981-07:002010-07-10T02:49:54.981-07:00"Coming from the "hard science" sid..."Coming from the "hard science" side of undergraduate life, I can tell you EXACTLY why the hard science/engineering nerd crowd thinks our stuff is harder than the social science/lib-ed stuff: WE'RE CONSTANTLY TOLD THAT BY OUR FELLOW UNDERGRADS ON THE LIB-ED SIDE."<br /><br />what, and you believe them? really?<br /><br />you think that because some people aren't good at math, and you find an Intro To Sociology class easy, that your major is actually harder? really?<br /><br />number one: people who don't find math hard don't complain about how hard it is. they aren't going to say "math is easy," though. there's a number of reasons for this, mostly related to<br /><br />number two: culturally speaking, math and science are seen as "hard." psychology and sociology tell us (after several experiments that hard math/science people could likely never have devised or conducted to be suitably scientifically rigorous) that one's beliefs tend to greatly shape their performance. when an asian is given stereotypes about how asians are better at math, they do better at math. when a kid is told that something is too hard for him, he does poorly at it. there is an overwhelming cultural influence that says "math and science are hard" and "math and science are for nerds."<br /><br />this leads to<br /><br />number three: most people who are bad at math or science have been bad at it for years and years, because of this cultural expectation and, most likely, a lack of adequate teaching. they aren't good at it. they have always just scraped by. their intro-level college classes build on their complete elementary and secondary school educations in math, but they have not been paying attention to that past about fifth or sixth grade. it builds on something they essentially do not have, in other words.<br /><br />that is the difference between intro math classes and intro sociology classes. it's not that one is harder and the other is easier; it's that one of them is essentially in a foreign language to a good number of people. an intro to sociology class, in contrast, only requires you to speak English (or your primary language of choice).<br /><br />math and science classes culturally self-select so that intelligent kids will be more likely to take them--because "math is hard and math is for nerds and only smart people can take math classes." it isn't harder, but kids are told that it's harder from as soon as they're old enough to care about which classes are harder or easier.<br /><br />your first paragraph:<br /><br />"I'm not going to argue the point that, at the undergrad level, math/science/engineering courses don't require much critical thinking. All of my aerospace engineering courses, at the most basic level, boiled down to a whole lot of specialized, applied math. However, by the end of the degree, it certainly did require a large amount of critical thinking to apply knowledge gained over a four year period to the specific problem at hand..."<br /><br />by this description, humanities degrees are significantly harder. they require both critical and creative thinking in nearly every one of their classes, as well as a great deal of both in order to apply their knowledge gained over a four year period to the specific problem at hand. it also usually requires a lot more research, which is an entirely different skill, and it completely lacks an immediately verifiable correct answer.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-77210858101102478942010-07-10T02:20:24.161-07:002010-07-10T02:20:24.161-07:00Mr. Jesus H. Christ, to quote you:
"What get...Mr. Jesus H. Christ, to quote you:<br /><br />"What gets me is the science geek culture of thinking other courses are "easy", while theirs is "hard". I certainly ran into a lot of that during undergrad.<br /><br />The plain fact is that undergrad was not that hard. In engineering, math and physics, you read a few books, do a lot of exercises, maybe the occasional project, and you're set. At the undergrad level, very little independent thought is required in the "hard" sciences, just some technical facility. This is not a controversial statement even among mathematicians. Any reasonably alert student complained about it."<br /><br />---<br /><br />I'm not going to argue the point that, at the undergrad level, math/science/engineering courses don't require much critical thinking. All of my aerospace engineering courses, at the most basic level, boiled down to a whole lot of specialized, applied math. However, by the end of the degree, it certainly did require a large amount of critical thinking to apply knowledge gained over a four year period to the specific problem at hand...<br /><br />Coming from the "hard science" side of undergraduate life, I can tell you EXACTLY why the hard science/engineering nerd crowd thinks our stuff is harder than the social science/lib-ed stuff: WE'RE CONSTANTLY TOLD THAT BY OUR FELLOW UNDERGRADS ON THE LIB-ED SIDE.<br /><br />In order to be a "well rounded individual", UMN required us to take classes in other fields; inevitably, everyone takes a freshman-level class just to fulfill the requirement. All of the math/science geeks would complain about how ridiculously easy the classes like "introduction to sociology" or "intro to film study" were, while the lib-ed folks would bitch and moan to no end about how difficult "college algebra" or "intro to physics for non-majors" were. I understand not everyone outside of the science-y majors thinks classes like those are hard, but they're the exception, not the rule (or they're at least quieter)<br /><br />Mathematics, hard science, and engineering undergrads are going to keep thinking their majors are harder as long as all of the other undergrads keep whining about how hard intro math and science classes are.ademhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/theholymacintoshnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-2620705485956898872010-07-09T20:06:18.410-07:002010-07-09T20:06:18.410-07:00Anon 11:21: Thanks for the update on daisy owl. I&...Anon 11:21: Thanks for the update on daisy owl. I've spent a lot of time thinking about the difficulty with updating a comic regularly, especially when your job depends on it. I should write something about that question some day.<br /><br />Very low chance of the Count von Count comic getting to my angriest rants, because 1, i am a little too busy to write a long post this weekend, 2, Rob's already written something pretty good, and 3, i can't quite figure out how to get angry at it properly, it's something about how the outrage is directed at the alt-text and not the comic proper. In my mind, the alt text is still in a place where it operates like an aside, a frosting, if you will, on the comic. It could say a lot of terrible, offensive things and it still wouldn't really affect how I read the comic. <br /><br />Lastly, to the most recent anon, on the thinkgeek shirt - that's all well and good if you only wore the shirt in the Computer Lab where people are always coming up to you, and because you work there there is an expectation that you might be able to help. But what if you are just walking down the street (to your job at the lab, say)? It's basically saying, apropos of nothing, "I am smart enough to fix your computer. And a big enough jerk not to actually help you." How obnoxious is that? hugely.Carlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-90234666666491410742010-07-09T19:18:56.605-07:002010-07-09T19:18:56.605-07:00I actually empathize with the sentiment of that th...I actually empathize with the sentiment of that thinkgeek shirt. Though not with the typically snobbish attitude that produces such a sentiment. I am a Computer Science major, who focuses on theoretical Computer Science, and a tutor at a drop in tutoring center. While at my job I am regularly asked by tutees to fix their computer problems. It is not in my duties at work to fix their computer issues nor is it within my skill set. So I relate to that sentiment because I am someone who focuses on the theoretical aspects of CS and not an Information Technologist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-27628450750146329062010-07-09T15:38:11.410-07:002010-07-09T15:38:11.410-07:00he is a pseudomakemeasandwichintellectualhe is a pseudomakemeasandwichintellectualR.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-38966168453898658792010-07-09T08:03:53.627-07:002010-07-09T08:03:53.627-07:00CARL YOU FAT ASSHOLE
Randall is not a physicyst- ...<b>CARL YOU FAT ASSHOLE</b><br /><br />Randall is not a physicyst- he is a seudointallectual hack.<br /><br />I say this as a physics student, more qualified than randall (Masters, bitches).<br /><br />Randall does not understand science, and unless the US degree system is different, he's never had to do any totally independent wok for his BA-<br /><br />He is a textbook monkey.<br /><br />Today's ALT ttext makes me genuinley ashamed randall has once studied the same subject I am.<br /><br />Seriously genuinely ashamed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-9180110547405590622010-07-09T01:21:38.930-07:002010-07-09T01:21:38.930-07:00Wow, that alt text. No longer content with merely ...Wow, that alt text. No longer content with merely implying that anyone who doesn't study physics is inferior, Randall decides to address a nice big "fuck you" to all us inferior non-"real science" majors. Lovely!<br /><br />xkcd: a webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language (but only for sufficiently shallow topics of the last). After all, he wouldn't want anyone to think he had any interest in - gag - liberal arts!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com