Jan 27 2012: Cheers Dave, narrowing the scope of the question in that way has helped me answer the larger one.
The following statement is true:
the US military spends millions of dollars annually funding entomologists.
“What, in the name of (insert preferred deity/profanity here), are they doing?” You may well ask. I did. We should have asked a mountain of questions first ‘though. We should have checked our facts. Here’s some we could check before we start asking other questions:
1.Do they?
2.How many million?
3.What’s an entomologist?
Let’s imagine we have complete co-operation from the US military. Let’s imagine we can afford the army of forensic accountants. Let’s imagine the relevant curriculum was taught and the accrediting bodies did their job. Let’s imagine we asked all the relevant questions, to the right people and in the right places; and got sufficient answers to establish the truth of the statement.
You could even just ask George W. Korch Jr, Ph.D. at the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Preparedness and Response, if he’s still there (just ask for George Korch, you can drop the Lieutenant Colonel).
Cool, so what’s he going to say? How, yes, millions have been spent protecting you from disease vectors, in bio-defence and other things vital to national security. Interestingly, it’s quite possible he doesn’t know about the “other things”.
So who can find out for you? A truth vigilante? A blogger, a newspaper, Fox? For reasons that should be obvious to you by now: they can’t. Let alone should.
Good news America! There are people that can. They’re not truth vigilantes. They’re highly paid and motivated truth bureaucrats. They’re not self-appointed. You’re about to elect the most important one in the world. Choose wisely please.
Jan 25 2012: The reference you give refers to a paper by Neil F. Johnson, Mike Spagat, Jorge A. Restrepo, Juan Camilo Bohórquez and others. I've seen those names before somewhere... oh yeh, 1min 22 sec. These guys seem to have been getting grant money since 2005. I hope TED only gave them coffee.
Yes, there is something different going on in the G7 countries. It's to do with population density, urbanisation and population clustering. Very difficult statistics to handle when comparing heavily industrialised (g7) countries with others. There's no way of knowing if you're seeing the effect of different population distributions in those figures you quote.
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/sconcerns/densurb/densurbmethods.htm
Cheers for your thoughts too Michael. The short answer to your question about the data behind the talk appears to be "no".Domestic violence, school shootings and Vietnam? Good questions. Perhaps a similar pattern could also be found in road traffic accidents. The alpha numbers would be different but the pattern would be the same.
I'm making two assumptions 'though. Firstly, that what we're looking at is a manifestation of human geography. That is, we get these patterns because of the way we organise ourselves. Secondly, that you can make meaningful statistical comparisons across very different human geographies. If you want to get an idea how difficult that is: click on the link I posted.
Finally, the Oklahoma City bombing. No, that's a single data point. One of the dots on the graph.
Tyvm to the both of you and TED as a whole. You're making me think. One day I may even be right about something! In my defence: I'm trying to think with this tune in my head: "Baby monkey, baby monkey, riding on a pig: baby monkey". ARggghh.
Jan 24 2012: And I'm sorry for my use of idiom in the previous comment.
It's interesting how our opinions differ on the usefulness of the excercise. Perhaps it's because of our methodologies?
You choose to read newspapers: I had to be bribed with a wage.You choose which newspapers to read: mine were randomly assigned. You choose which articles to read: I had to read every word or face the sack.
We've hardly read a word and already our opinions have been biased by choice and coercion.
Maybe we could control those and many other variables with randomisation?
Do we read a newspaper today or not? Toss a coin. Which newspaper? Roll a dice. Which article? Roll a 6, we read it. Info roulette.
Nice aphorism btw. Like it a lot.
For several years I got paid to read national newspapers. On any given night it may have been: The Times, Guardian, Sun, Wall Street Journal (International ed.), Express. Colleagues would read the others. We'd then collate the articles on any given subject. Finally: attempt to produce a summary of those articles.
Getting the truth after it's been through a newspaper is like getting a mackerel after it's been through a shark.
Sure, you can have a good go at picking the bones out. You'll have to sift through a lot of faeces and everything's going to smell fishy afterward.
Jan 17 2012: James, what Art's got there is a basic material for the building of a bad barrel: the false dichotomy. The tricky thing is seeing what a bad barrel is made of when you're inside. It's dark in there. I'm with Art, I'm not sure what I'd do.
Now, that Zimbardo fella seems like a nice chap. Not the sort of guy to build a bad barrel and stuff it full of kids? Well, he did didn't he? Luckily, his future wife put him straight.
James, you seem like a decent bloke. You wouldn't make a bad barrel would you? Or make the same mistake as Art and I could make: think a bad barrel is the best place to be and invite everyone else in?
Now, if you really want to industrialise bad-barrel production: use the de-humanisation process. Start in a small way, in Zimbardo's words: administer the first 15v; maybe change the word "people" to "sickos"?
ps. Dear Mr Zimbardo: Head Cooper to husband in twelve months? You are one silver-tongued cavalier.
pps. James and Art: you both got a thumbs up from me because you both made me think. Ty.
TEDCred score: 0.00 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: Should newspapers be truth vigilantes?
The following statement is true:
the US military spends millions of dollars annually funding entomologists.
“What, in the name of (insert preferred deity/profanity here), are they doing?” You may well ask. I did. We should have asked a mountain of questions first ‘though. We should have checked our facts. Here’s some we could check before we start asking other questions:
1.Do they?
2.How many million?
3.What’s an entomologist?
Let’s imagine we have complete co-operation from the US military. Let’s imagine we can afford the army of forensic accountants. Let’s imagine the relevant curriculum was taught and the accrediting bodies did their job. Let’s imagine we asked all the relevant questions, to the right people and in the right places; and got sufficient answers to establish the truth of the statement.
You could even just ask George W. Korch Jr, Ph.D. at the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Preparedness and Response, if he’s still there (just ask for George Korch, you can drop the Lieutenant Colonel).
Cool, so what’s he going to say? How, yes, millions have been spent protecting you from disease vectors, in bio-defence and other things vital to national security. Interestingly, it’s quite possible he doesn’t know about the “other things”.
So who can find out for you? A truth vigilante? A blogger, a newspaper, Fox? For reasons that should be obvious to you by now: they can’t. Let alone should.
Good news America! There are people that can. They’re not truth vigilantes. They’re highly paid and motivated truth bureaucrats. They’re not self-appointed. You’re about to elect the most important one in the world. Choose wisely please.
A reply on Talk: Sean Gourley on the mathematics of war
Yes, there is something different going on in the G7 countries. It's to do with population density, urbanisation and population clustering. Very difficult statistics to handle when comparing heavily industrialised (g7) countries with others. There's no way of knowing if you're seeing the effect of different population distributions in those figures you quote.
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/sconcerns/densurb/densurbmethods.htm
Cheers for your thoughts too Michael. The short answer to your question about the data behind the talk appears to be "no".Domestic violence, school shootings and Vietnam? Good questions. Perhaps a similar pattern could also be found in road traffic accidents. The alpha numbers would be different but the pattern would be the same.
I'm making two assumptions 'though. Firstly, that what we're looking at is a manifestation of human geography. That is, we get these patterns because of the way we organise ourselves. Secondly, that you can make meaningful statistical comparisons across very different human geographies. If you want to get an idea how difficult that is: click on the link I posted.
Finally, the Oklahoma City bombing. No, that's a single data point. One of the dots on the graph.
Tyvm to the both of you and TED as a whole. You're making me think. One day I may even be right about something! In my defence: I'm trying to think with this tune in my head: "Baby monkey, baby monkey, riding on a pig: baby monkey". ARggghh.
A reply on Conversation: Should newspapers be truth vigilantes?
It's interesting how our opinions differ on the usefulness of the excercise. Perhaps it's because of our methodologies?
You choose to read newspapers: I had to be bribed with a wage.You choose which newspapers to read: mine were randomly assigned. You choose which articles to read: I had to read every word or face the sack.
We've hardly read a word and already our opinions have been biased by choice and coercion.
Maybe we could control those and many other variables with randomisation?
Do we read a newspaper today or not? Toss a coin. Which newspaper? Roll a dice. Which article? Roll a 6, we read it. Info roulette.
Nice aphorism btw. Like it a lot.
A comment on Conversation: Should newspapers be truth vigilantes?
For several years I got paid to read national newspapers. On any given night it may have been: The Times, Guardian, Sun, Wall Street Journal (International ed.), Express. Colleagues would read the others. We'd then collate the articles on any given subject. Finally: attempt to produce a summary of those articles.
Getting the truth after it's been through a newspaper is like getting a mackerel after it's been through a shark.
Sure, you can have a good go at picking the bones out. You'll have to sift through a lot of faeces and everything's going to smell fishy afterward.
A reply on Talk: Philip Zimbardo: The psychology of evil
Now, that Zimbardo fella seems like a nice chap. Not the sort of guy to build a bad barrel and stuff it full of kids? Well, he did didn't he? Luckily, his future wife put him straight.
James, you seem like a decent bloke. You wouldn't make a bad barrel would you? Or make the same mistake as Art and I could make: think a bad barrel is the best place to be and invite everyone else in?
Now, if you really want to industrialise bad-barrel production: use the de-humanisation process. Start in a small way, in Zimbardo's words: administer the first 15v; maybe change the word "people" to "sickos"?
ps. Dear Mr Zimbardo: Head Cooper to husband in twelve months? You are one silver-tongued cavalier.
pps. James and Art: you both got a thumbs up from me because you both made me think. Ty.