|
I keep wanting to rearrange the sections around to reveal that there's now a missing square.
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 19:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 09:05 |
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:I keep wanting to rearrange the sections around to reveal that there's now a missing square. It's not actually missing, you just have to turn off your monitor to find it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 19:38
|
|
|
Personality and Individual Differences has a history. TLDR: in twenty loving twelve they published an article that presented no new evidence that claimed skin pigmentation correlates with aggression in humans that itself cited a debunked, retracted, and racist paper as evidence. Also they were founded with funding from the The Pioneer Fund, an organization dedicated to proving the genetic inferiority of non whites. As a journal, it's not like... quite as bad as that makes it sound, but that's only because that sounds totally inexcusable, and the majority of the content isn't neonazi trash, but psychologists desperate for publication and who don't know the history.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 20:43
|
|
|
I was surprised to see it was even peer reviewed at some level, it looks like the kind of pay-to-publish places that just send out unsolicited emails begging you to send them a manuscript.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 20:46
|
|
|
lmao the dallas area has to carve out dallas county from the ft worth area
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 20:50
|
|
|
Assistant Manager Devil posted:I was surprised to see it was even peer reviewed at some level, it looks like the kind of pay-to-publish places that just send out unsolicited emails begging you to send them a manuscript. Notoriously, Personality and Individual Differences has a policy of minimal peer review(usually 2 reviewers) to prevent "stifflinging discussion". Unless you're writing an article they invited you to write concerning the fraudulent researching practices of their dead founding editor and whether that warrants a retraction. Then you'll get nine peer reviewers, and when you finally pass their review, you'll get your paper rejected anyways due to "libel concerns".
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 20:55
|
|
|
Assistant Manager Devil posted:It's not actually missing, you just have to turn off your monitor to find it. Nice  Tag yourself. I'm the implication no woman is less than 40% nutso.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 21:29
|
|
|
Assistant Manager Devil posted:It's not actually missing, you just have to turn off your monitor to find it. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2021 21:44
|
|
|
Outrail posted:Nice Yeah starting the y-axis at 4 is certainly A Choice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 00:06
|
|
|
I'm confused, if I'm (for example) 1 attractive and 6 crazy, does that put me above the Hot Crazy Line even though I'm still in the No Go Zone? Isn't that dividing line irrelevant in that zone if they're all too uggo to be datable? Or is the area unlabeled below the Hot Crazy Line supposed to be datable? And as already noted, why is nobody under 4 crazy points? (On whatever the hell scale this is.) Is this actually a serious paper or some kind of Sokal-esque hoax? Dr. Arbitrary posted:I keep wanting to rearrange the sections around to reveal that there's now a missing square. Careful, that's how you get infinite (hot crazy) chocolate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 00:55
|
|
|
I'm glad you did this, because while it was a solid burn, I wasn't going to be the one who acknowledged it first.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 02:06
|
|
|
Carthag Tuek posted:did someone seriosly plagiarize barney for an academic paper
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 20:48
|
|
|
I've been looking at my state's infection statistics and found something fascinating: First graph: Recorded infections; red female, blue male Second graph: Recorded hospitalisations (blue) and deaths (white) See that extreme split in infections for 80+? Can you guess why it exists? If you think this is the result of normal difference in life expectation: good guess. Wrong, though
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 18:04
|
|
|
Older men are significantly more socially isolated than older women?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 18:07
|
|
|
Antigravitas posted:See that extreme split in infections for 80+?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 18:17
|
|
|
I'm guessing it has something to do with the text on the graph being in German
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 18:17
|
|
|
Huh, WW2 meaning there's not as many 80+ year old German men?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 18:21
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:Huh, WW2 meaning there's not as many 80+ year old German men?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 18:24
|
|
|
frankenfreak posted:I had a thought, but 80-89 would (have) be(en) a tad too young for that to be correct. While true, look at the demographics:  Iirc the extreme female surplus in the older demographics is war and post-war related. You'd normally expect a surplus, but not that insanely pronounced.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 18:27
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:Huh, WW2 meaning there's not as many 80+ year old German men? Not even the Nazis would send literal newborns to fight though. e: beaten like the nazis
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 18:28
|
|
|
Antigravitas posted:Iirc the extreme female surplus in the older demographics is war and post-war related. You'd normally expect a surplus, but not that insanely pronounced.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 18:33
|
|
|
Memento posted:Yeah starting the y-axis at 4 is certainly A Choice. I don’t know if this is the original source, but it’s just this: https://youtu.be/R_USJCTIgs4 EDIT: Oh great, there’s even bonus transphobia at the end (on top of all the other gross poo poo). CellBlock has a new favorite as of 18:47 on Feb 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 18:40
|
|
|
Sighence posted:Not even the Nazis would send literal newborns to fight though. Unless my math is bad (very plausible), people in the 80-89 demographic in 2021 would be born in 1932-1941, i.e. they would have been between 4-13 years old in 1945. Something to to do with the Hitler Youth, maybe? Did a lot of them get killed volunteering in munitions factories?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 19:40
|
|
|
13 year olds were old enough for the Volkssturm. I'm fairly certain I read a paper that went into some detail that war and post-war scarcity and upheaval had a stark impact on the relative distribution of the sexes, but now I can't find it again and I'm beginning to doubt my memory. I'm making a note to waste some time at work tomorrow on finding it again, since I have access to a lot of journals at work…
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 19:58
|
|
|
I'm wondering if it was an emigration thing? Living in postwar Germany was probably not great and men likely had more freedom to be able to just leave than women.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 20:01
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I'm wondering if it was an emigration thing? Living in postwar Germany was probably not great and men likely had more freedom to be able to just leave than women. Are we sure its not just the fact that men die younger than women? That looks pretty close to the us age distribution that had none of these post war effects. https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the-us-by-sex-and-age/
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 20:32
|
|
|
The men just refused to see a doctor until it was too late: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 20:44
|
|
|
Elviscat posted:I haven't done a statistical analysis or anything, but my gut tells me redrawing on these state lines would be a huge improvement fot American politics. No, clearly these are the four new countries that emerge after the collapse, and Canada annexes Alaska.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 21:47
|
|
|
Antigravitas posted:13 year olds were old enough for the Volkssturm. You are right that the sex ratio in newborns sees significant shifts during times of crisis, but it's the other way round: during the world wars and in the years immediately following them the percentage of boys being born rose by a lot (see this article). The causes aren’t really known yet though, and I'd also be interested if that holds for other times and crises as well, eg the colonisation of the Americas, the Irish famine or the collapse of the USSR
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 23:40
|
|
|
Leviathan Song posted:Are we sure its not just the fact that men die younger than women? That looks pretty close to the us age distribution that had none of these post war effects. And here is Russia (2015):  
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 13:24
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:You are right that the sex ratio in newborns sees significant shifts during times of crisis, but it's the other way round: during the world wars and in the years immediately following them the percentage of boys being born rose by a lot (see this article). The causes aren’t really known yet though, and I'd also be interested if that holds for other times and crises as well, eg the colonisation of the Americas, the Irish famine or the collapse of the USSR Well, I can confidently state that… my search using my university resources has been entirely unsuccessful and I've given up on wasting my employer's time on this. I retract my earlier statements and proclaim the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 14:00
|
|
|
Antigravitas posted:Well, I can confidently state that… my search using my university resources has been entirely unsuccessful and I've given up on wasting my employer's time on this. waste your employer's time as much as possible
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2021 17:39
|
|
|
I've been binge-reading a bunch of Stephen Jay Gould's collected essays lately. (never lived a better pop sci writer imho). In The Panda's Thumb is a piece on neoteny called "A Biological Homage to Mickey Mouse." Figure 1 and caption for context:  quote:Mickey’s evolution during 50 years (left to right). As Mickey became increasingly well behaved over the years, his appearance became more youthful. Measurements of three stages in his development revealed a larger relative head size, larger eyes, and an enlarged cranium—all traits of juvenility. © Wall Disney Productions Of course, I'd be remiss to not quote his methods section: quote:To give these observations the cachet of quantitative science, I applied my best pair of dial calipers to three stages of the official phylogeny—the thin-nosed, ears-forward figure of the early 1930s (stage 1), the latter-day Jack of Mickey and the Beanstalk (1947, stage 2), and the modern mouse (stage 3). I measured three signs of Mickey’s creeping juvenility: increasing eye size (maximum height) as a percentage of head length (base of the nose to top of rear ear); increasing head length as a percentage of body length; and increasing cranial vault size measured by rearward displacement of the front ear (base of the nose to top of front ear as a percentage of base of the nose to top of rear ear). Here's the graph:  quote:At an early stage in his evolution, Mickey had a smaller head, cranial vault, and eyes. He evolved toward the characteristics of his young nephew Morty (connected to Mickey by a dotted line). Bonus figure:  quote:Dandified, disreputable Mortimer (here stealing Minnie’s affections) has strikingly more adult features than Mickey. His head is smaller in proportion to body length; his nose is a full 80 percent of head length. © Walt Disney Productions
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 08:05
|
|
|
That mouse fucks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 16:44
|
|
|
Those trousers feel like I'm wearing nothing at all! / / / / //
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 16:56
|
|
|
the book barn book of the month is “how to read donald duck” if anyone has further interest in a marxist analysis of disney characters from the perspective of not just physiology but also historical materialism
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 17:01
|
|
|
Tree Goat posted:the book barn book of the month is “how to read donald duck” if anyone has further interest in a marxist analysis of disney characters from the perspective of not just physiology but also historical materialism This sounds interesting, thanks for the recommendation!
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 17:21
|
|
|
You know, for some reason it has started to annoy me that mickey's ears are ALWAYS on model. Always 85 degrees apart and always facing the viewer. It's somehow become frustrating on a sublime level. It makes me think about how you could possibly have ears in that arrangement, and how a real dog or other animal would look in the real world. And it's... annoying as hell? I don't get why it feels that way, but I hate it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 17:37
|
|
|
It is probably your subconscious revulsion to constant branding. Here. Bask in the glory of a tween frame of Phineas to reset: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 18:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 09:05 |
|
|
ikanreed posted:You know, for some reason it has started to annoy me that mickey's ears are ALWAYS on model. Always 85 degrees apart and always facing the viewer. It's somehow become frustrating on a sublime level. It makes me think about how you could possibly have ears in that arrangement, and how a real dog or other animal would look in the real world. And it's... annoying as hell? this is what happens when Mickey stops being "a character" and starts being "a brand asset." consistency and recognition become more important than anything else, and guidelines with a lot of geometry in them become the rule. does mickey ever show up as anything other than a corporate mascot anymore? like, do they still make shows or films where he appears? literally the only thing i can think of from the last 10 years is loving Kingdom Hearts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 19:33
|
|
