Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   More Bunk Science
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


(1)
Message 31 of 64 (629386)
08-17-2011 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Wounded King
08-17-2011 10:29 AM


Re: RTFP
Is that the sound of you waving your hand in the air?
Its the only sound I can get from your reply. Its a very trivial sound. Like the sound of flatulence from a rodent.
Is there something you wanted to say about the paper? Did you want t comment on my assertion that you could choose 100 different attributes and reference that with who is "co-operative" and who isn't, and ONE of the two groups you choose is going to be more co-operative or they will be EXACTLY the same (which is the most unlikely outcome of all).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Wounded King, posted 08-17-2011 10:29 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-17-2011 3:08 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 34 by subbie, posted 08-17-2011 6:17 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 08-17-2011 8:36 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 37 by Wounded King, posted 08-18-2011 4:38 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 32 of 64 (629416)
08-17-2011 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Bolder-dash
08-17-2011 11:31 AM


Re: RTFP
Is there something you wanted to say about the paper? Did you want t comment on my assertion that you could choose 100 different attributes and reference that with who is "co-operative" and who isn't, and ONE of the two groups you choose is going to be more co-operative or they will be EXACTLY the same (which is the most unlikely outcome of all).
This is why they calculated p.
Have you not read their paper, or did you not understand it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-17-2011 11:31 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Larni, posted 08-17-2011 4:30 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 33 of 64 (629426)
08-17-2011 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Dr Adequate
08-17-2011 3:08 PM


Re: RTFP
100 that he has no idea the significance of p (or even that pun).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-17-2011 3:08 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 34 of 64 (629445)
08-17-2011 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Bolder-dash
08-17-2011 11:31 AM


Re: RTFP
Strange as this may sound, Sport, but your refusal, or inability, to read the actual paper is not evidence that the science in it is bunk.
Food for thought.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-17-2011 11:31 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(4)
Message 35 of 64 (629449)
08-17-2011 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Bolder-dash
08-17-2011 11:31 AM


Re: RTFP
Did you want t comment on my assertion that you could choose 100 different attributes and reference that with who is "co-operative" and who isn't, and ONE of the two groups you choose is going to be more co-operative or they will be EXACTLY the same (which is the most unlikely outcome of all).
Well, that's right.
But don't you think that's something that applies to basically all research? For instance you probably take it for granted, as the medical establishment does, that things like smoking dramatically increase your risk of cancer. But your criticism applies just as easily to that research, as well - you can take your sample size, re-index them into groups based on nose size or hair color or something stupid like that, and you're certainly going to have one hair color turn out to get cancer at a greater rate than another. In fact every time you take a group of people and organize them by one trait, they're going to be in groups that necessarily differ along some other quantifiable trait. Two groups of people organized by zip code will differ in weight. Two groups of people organized by eye color will differ in how much they like country music.
You're by no means the first person to figure this out. (Frankly you should never suspect you're the first person to figure anything out. That goes for the rest of us, too.) As a result, statisticians have a series of tests and tools to determine when two groups really differ in a statistically significant way. It's based largely on the notion of the standard distribution - a pattern that naturally varying traits fall into - and the expected variation within a completely random group compared to one selected based on a certain trait. If you find the idea of such tools and tests interesting, then you could do worse than audit an Intro to Statistics course at your local college, or barring that, read Larry Gonick's The Cartoon Guide to Statistics. I own it, it's great.
I largely agree with you that symmetry is not the be-all and end-all of attractiveness. But it's widely-understood to be the most quantifiable association with attractiveness. Short of parading study participants in some kind of "Hot Or Not" cattle call, I can't think of a better quality on which to objectively measure who is more attractive than who. Can you? The best part about statistical analysis is that it is error-counteracting; some people in the "not attractive" group will probably be more attractive than some people in the "attractive" group since symmetry or lack thereof is the sole characteristic for grouping in these studies. But, the "attractive" group will be on average more attractive than the "not attractive" group, significantly so, and that's sufficient to draw conclusions about the behavior and characteristics of attractive vs non-attractive individuals in the aggregate.
It's not hand-waving. It's a known, mathematically-verified application of statistical tests. Much more interesting would be for you to talk about the actual paper, it's actual flaws and actual conclusions, rather than hand-wave over the fact that you haven't read the research you're talking about. You know, since we're talking about hand-waving.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-17-2011 11:31 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-18-2011 1:15 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 36 of 64 (629469)
08-18-2011 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by crashfrog
08-17-2011 8:36 PM


Re: RTFP
But, the "attractive" group will be on average more attractive than the "not attractive" group, significantly so, and that's sufficient to draw conclusions about the behavior and characteristics of attractive vs non-attractive individuals in the aggregate.
Though the authors did not in fact do so: they drew conclusions about facial asymmetry and behavior. If they'd wanted to draw conclusions about attractiveness and behavior, they would presumably have used a "Hot Or Not" style test to evaluate their subjects.
The authors wrote: "We cannot assume that our more symmetric subjects will be identified as the more attractive". It's the journalists who have put that together with results showing that symmetry is attractive to reach a conclusion of "Gee whiz, scientists prove that you can't trust pretty people!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 08-17-2011 8:36 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


(1)
Message 37 of 64 (629488)
08-18-2011 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Bolder-dash
08-17-2011 11:31 AM


Re: RTFP
I'll help you out, there is a pre-publication draft of the paper available on the Edinburgh University website here.
Did you want t comment on my assertion that you could choose 100 different attributes and reference that with who is "co-operative" and who isn't, and ONE of the two groups you choose is going to be more co-operative or they will be EXACTLY the same (which is the most unlikely outcome of all).
Except in this case they had several very specific hypothesis driven traits, circulating testosterone levels, digit 2 to digit 4 ratio, facial masculinity, fluctuating asymmetry which there was already considerable evidence suggesting they were related to cooperative or aggressive behaviour. They also looked at other variables including age, which city in the study the subjects came from and the behaviour the subjects expected from their opponent prior to them actually taking part in the game.The scenario you describe is the sort of approach which might turn up an association but is very unlikely to throw up one that isn't a false positive. That is why it is beneficial to go into a study with a defined hypothesis rather than the sort of fishing expedition you describe.
As has been suggested you should try and get a basic understanding of statistics and then you might understand why not looking at hundreds of traits actually makes any association found more robust.
And also you really should read the paper before making any more comments about it.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-17-2011 11:31 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-22-2011 1:21 PM Wounded King has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 38 of 64 (630104)
08-22-2011 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Wounded King
08-18-2011 4:38 AM


Re: RTFP
Yea I read the paper. It appears they measured how much each person's face deviated from a standard model, and according to their numbers, given the margins of error of, it looks statistically impossible to draw any conclusions at all.
But if one were to draw any conclusion from the parameters of the study they carried out, as small as it was, it would make just as much sense or more to conclude that some people were simply more stupid than others, and thus they chose co-operate over defect (as defect is the better strategic choice.)
If the people who choose co-operate more did in fact have more lop-sided faces, maybe it just means that people with lob-sided faces are dumber, and not that beautiful people are less co-operative because it is some evolutionary artifact. Isn't that just as reasonable of a conclusion?
Another reasonable conclusion to draw would be that when people play a game (say shooting at a bunch of digital policeman and running over pedestrians on a video game for instance), its not a window into their soul, and a useful tool for making up bogus scientific conclusions which you are going to present to the Nobel Prize committee.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Wounded King, posted 08-18-2011 4:38 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Larni, posted 08-22-2011 3:18 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 41 by Wounded King, posted 08-22-2011 3:36 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 43 by Taq, posted 08-23-2011 12:36 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 39 of 64 (630124)
08-22-2011 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Bolder-dash
08-22-2011 1:21 PM


Re: RTFP
The only thing you have shown is another knee jerk reaction against the scientific community.
You read the article, believed what the journos told you and came here raving about how bad scientist are.
Aside from you prejudice you have only shown us that journos miss report scientific findings to trigger knee jerk reactions from people like you.
We already knew that and it worked.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-22-2011 1:21 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 40 of 64 (630127)
08-22-2011 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bolder-dash
08-16-2011 9:48 AM


Humans are bilaterally symmetrical creatures. It is a instant reflection on overall genetic health if one is fitting the blueprint of symmetry. Of course there is always a exception to every rule, but it makes sense that one would on a subconcious level be more attracted to someone with symmetrical features as opposed to asymmetrical. It is a overall indicator of good genetic make up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-16-2011 9:48 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-25-2011 10:10 AM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


(1)
Message 41 of 64 (630128)
08-22-2011 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Bolder-dash
08-22-2011 1:21 PM


Re: RTFP
It appears they measured how much each person's face deviated from a standard model, and according to their numbers, given the margins of error of, it looks statistically impossible to draw any conclusions at all.
Care to make some specific coherent criticism rather than this vague hand waving? Why do you not consider the significance of the results in their study to be robust?
If the people who choose co-operate more did in fact have more lop-sided faces, maybe it just means that people with lob-sided faces are dumber, and not that beautiful people are less co-operative because it is some evolutionary artifact.
I don't see the distinction you are trying to draw here, you seem to be saying that even allowing that this correlation does exist it doesn't mean that more symmetric people are less co-operative, just that less symmetric people are more co-operative because they are more stupid? Can you point out to me how those 2 things are actually different?
The only difference I can see is that you have added an entire additional layer by tying things into intelligence, which goes considerably further beyond what the data will support than anything in the paper.
As to it being an evolutionary artefact, can you tell me where in the paper they make any such claim? I don't find any mention of evolution in the paper outside of the references. In the press pieces certainly, but not in the paper itself (at least the draft one I have access to at home).
Also on a point of information, they aren't addressing the 'Nobel Prize committee' it is rather a meeting that will be attended by several Nobel laureates in economics.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-22-2011 1:21 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by jar, posted 08-22-2011 3:47 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 42 of 64 (630129)
08-22-2011 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Wounded King
08-22-2011 3:36 PM


Re: RTFP
It would also be interesting if Bolder-dash actually presented the study he did so we can compare.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Wounded King, posted 08-22-2011 3:36 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 43 of 64 (630267)
08-23-2011 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Bolder-dash
08-22-2011 1:21 PM


Re: RTFP
Yea I read the paper. It appears they measured how much each person's face deviated from a standard model, and according to their numbers, given the margins of error of, it looks statistically impossible to draw any conclusions at all.
It would seem that you are not as intelligent as the authors of the paper because they were able to draw conclusions that were backed by statistically signficant results.
If the people who choose co-operate more did in fact have more lop-sided faces, maybe it just means that people with lob-sided faces are dumber, and not that beautiful people are less co-operative because it is some evolutionary artifact. Isn't that just as reasonable of a conclusion?
So you complain about the conclusions of the study, and then add your own conjecture on top of the conclusions that you are complaining about. A little consistency would be nice.
Another reasonable conclusion to draw would be that when people play a game (say shooting at a bunch of digital policeman and running over pedestrians on a video game for instance), its not a window into their soul, and a useful tool for making up bogus scientific conclusions
It is a window into how people cooperate with other living and breathing people. That's the whole point. Also, you have yet to show that the conclusions are bogus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-22-2011 1:21 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 44 of 64 (630444)
08-25-2011 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by 1.61803
08-22-2011 3:35 PM


Humans are bilaterally symmetrical creatures. It is a instant reflection on overall genetic health if one is fitting the blueprint of symmetry. Of course there is always a exception to every rule, but it makes sense that one would on a subconcious level be more attracted to someone with symmetrical features as opposed to asymmetrical. It is a overall indicator of good genetic make up.
But the problem with this is that it doesn't square with how the theory of evolution is claimed to be operating (although admittedly getting anyone to actually verbalize what the theory claims is pretty darn elusive.) The reason it doesn't square is because does the reality of life show that people with lop-sided faces really do suffer more difficulties in reproducing? I think you would have a very tough time showing that this is the case. Do you know people whose faces are not really symmetrical? Do you think they have a harder time reproducing? Do they really die faster? Is face symmetry really an indicator of how long you will live or how many offspring you will have? Show me where this is so?
Furthermore, if face symmetry really was advantageous to reproducing, why are there still so many people who aren't symmetrical? Has natural selection weeded them out of the population? How long will this take? Are the people of today more symmetrical than 10,000 years ago, because natural selection has selected against them? Are was evolving away from the crooked noses?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by 1.61803, posted 08-22-2011 3:35 PM 1.61803 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 08-25-2011 10:20 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 46 by Wounded King, posted 08-25-2011 10:23 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 45 of 64 (630446)
08-25-2011 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Bolder-dash
08-25-2011 10:10 AM


But the problem with this is that it doesn't square with how the theory of evolution is claimed to be operating (although admittedly getting anyone to actually verbalize what the theory claims is pretty darn elusive.)
What? No, it's not. Here, I'll do it for free:
quote:
Evolution is the scientific explanation of the history and diversity of life on Earth as having arisen by natural selection and random mutation.
Getting you to understand any form of science has, on the other hand, been truly elusive.
The reason it doesn't square is because does the reality of life show that people with lop-sided faces really do suffer more difficulties in reproducing?
You tell me. How man children did the Elephant Man have?
Which of these two guys do you suppose gets laid more?
I think the notion that ugly people have less romantic success than attractive people, all things being equal, fits pretty squarely in with most people's experience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-25-2011 10:10 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024