He was probably talking of the Pirahã. It was once thought that they had word for one, two, and many (not zero). Now it's thought that their quantity terms aren't even that sophisticated. They essentially have terms for small or smaller quantity, large or larger quantity, and many.
They also don't distinguish singular and plural grammatically.
Well, there's a fair amount of data showing that people have trouble with percentages, ratios, and probabilities. This goes both for thinking about them from a mathematical standpoint and from an evaluative one (that's the heuristics and biases stuff).
It's not really a matter of "I think that..."
From my own personal experience teaching statistics to undergrads, I can say that it is proportions and probabilities that give them the most trouble.
On signalling, as I said before, it's not that signalling isn't an issue in the use of numbers, but it's much more than that, since these numberse are likely to "signal" how people actually represent the information.
I don’t disagree with your point about the general… suboptimality of using percentages. Our brains just aren’t very good at dealing with percentages in pretty much any context, at least not on a conscious level (our neurons are doing calculations of proportions all the time, and quite well – we could learn a thing or two from them). It’s not by accident that much of the early heuristics and biases research by Tversky and Kahneman involved ratios and percentages (though mostly as probabilities): our interpretations of proportions is largely determined by our evaluations, instead of the other way around.
On the other hand, I’m not sure what the alternative is. Absolute numbers? That’s even worse! While .01% of the federal budget sounds really small, that’s still in the millions of dollars, and millions of dollars sounds like a lot to most people regardless of the context. The problem is that in order to think rationally about almost every political issue, numbers are important, and in the vast majority of cases, absolute numbers just won’t tell you enough to make any sort of informed decision. Whether it’s money or time or demographics, everything is relative.
Also, like someone else (I’m too lazy to look back and find out who), I’m not sure this is really a case of signaling. That’s not to say that percentages are never used for signaling, but I think the way we think about percentages in politics, or elsewhere, really reflects our representation of the information. It’s just that are representations don’t map onto reality very well.
Sure, except that the reforms they're promoting are precisely the ones you mention them opposing.
The larger point is that it depends on which union you're talking about. There are two big ones, and one has consistently opposed just about any form of merit pay, while the other has promoted certain kinds. And this isn't just in the last year, but over the last several years.
Bill Ayers would probably be a good spokesperson, given that he's not a 60s radical anymore, but a fairly mainstream, well-respected scholar of education. And I wonder what you think is
far left" about Van Jones (who did a lot of TV after his resignation). I think you show your colors a little too readily sometimes, Tom.
By the way, if you get to determine who is conservative, do liberals get to determine who is liberal? If so, you're not going to be able to claim the media is liberal for very long.
I for one wouldn't mind some ZMag type "leftists" on mainstream TV and radio more often, though it’s not going to happen. And it has little if anything to do with hiding the “far left,” since that “far left” has absolutely no influence on mainstream liberal politics in this country anyway. What that it did. On the other hand, it can’t be said that Robertson, Dodson, the Bob Jones’s, etc., haven’t had an influence on mainstream conservative politics in this country.
The picture is always nuanced. Republicans and Democrats give money to law enforcment, when in office, because appearing soft on crime is a good way to not get elected. The police state that we currently live in is a product of both parties actions, not just Democrats, and certainly not mostly Democrats.
Koz has built a huge wall around him so that the world he sees fits his views of the "Teams." At this point, I think we can just dismiss him as obviously blind.
Tom, I can't find voting information specifically, but the endorsements and donation information I can find are all mostly Republican (again, by a 60-70% margin).
Tom (and Koz), Trumwill is unfortunately wrong on Wisconsin. My point was that Walker excluded the police unions, but if you look, you'll find that both the Fraternal Order of Police and the Wisconsin Law Enforcement Association endorsed Walker. In 2008, the Fraternal Order of Police endorsed Republicans far more often, including McCain. The donations follow (you can find info on Police Benevolent Association too). If you look at the money specifically, it's going to be around 60-70% Republican.
Anyway, this might affect Tom, but Koz is so deeply and blindly partisan that I suspect he'll rationalize police voting and giving to Republicans by saying that it's because they're social conservatives, or something to that effect (because really, police associations would rather give money to people who will screw them but also screw gays and women than).
I was being sarcastic, Koz. Cops vote Republican, overwhelmingly. So yeah, it isn't much more complicated than what I wrote, but it is the opposite of what I wrote.
To see how this works, for law enforcement, one only has to look to Wisconsin.
Look to the private sector to see why. The basic justification of unions from the labor perspective aren't that different. But either you knew that or unions really aren't something you understand at all.
On an only slightly related note, I'd be perfectly happy with customers having a say in things like curriculum, class size, etc. Maybe we could have a system where such decisions are made by some sort of policy-making group or groups, the members of which are elected, and therefore beholding to the customer, at least in theory. I'm just throwing these names out there off the top of my head, but my suggestion is to call them legislatures and school boards.
I didn't mean to imply to imply, Tom, that you were a creationist, merely that the types of assaults that climate scientists and biologists get from denialists and creationists, respectively, are similar: they don't fight the science, they fight the public opinion.
Sure, it's the idea that the basic syntax, or rules for the combination of symbols/representations, is innate and universal, and experience fills in the content. This is the basic Chomskyan view of language (or at least language structure, not semantics, or at least not any ordinary version of semantics). It's an increasingly common view of other things as well, including recent ideas of a universal moral grammar. Is that under 100 words?
The I suppose thing was really more of a shrug of the shoulders than actually supposing. It looks to me like you're doing precisely what I describe as life-denying, or at least life-debasing, but you see it as life-affirming. That's wonderful. We have a different starting point, and a different metaphysics. Chacun à son gout.
Interestingly, if there are "secularist, atheist, agnostic" folks, then even for the theist "there is no universally agreed upon ground" either. I think "universally agreed upon ground" is probably not where you want to start.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “We, as a society”
I.e. the way things are now.
On “The Percentage Sign as a Signaling Device”
I love BlaiseP's Dos Equis commercials. ;)
"
He was probably talking of the Pirahã. It was once thought that they had word for one, two, and many (not zero). Now it's thought that their quantity terms aren't even that sophisticated. They essentially have terms for small or smaller quantity, large or larger quantity, and many.
They also don't distinguish singular and plural grammatically.
"
Well, there's a fair amount of data showing that people have trouble with percentages, ratios, and probabilities. This goes both for thinking about them from a mathematical standpoint and from an evaluative one (that's the heuristics and biases stuff).
It's not really a matter of "I think that..."
From my own personal experience teaching statistics to undergrads, I can say that it is proportions and probabilities that give them the most trouble.
On signalling, as I said before, it's not that signalling isn't an issue in the use of numbers, but it's much more than that, since these numberse are likely to "signal" how people actually represent the information.
"
I don’t disagree with your point about the general… suboptimality of using percentages. Our brains just aren’t very good at dealing with percentages in pretty much any context, at least not on a conscious level (our neurons are doing calculations of proportions all the time, and quite well – we could learn a thing or two from them). It’s not by accident that much of the early heuristics and biases research by Tversky and Kahneman involved ratios and percentages (though mostly as probabilities): our interpretations of proportions is largely determined by our evaluations, instead of the other way around.
On the other hand, I’m not sure what the alternative is. Absolute numbers? That’s even worse! While .01% of the federal budget sounds really small, that’s still in the millions of dollars, and millions of dollars sounds like a lot to most people regardless of the context. The problem is that in order to think rationally about almost every political issue, numbers are important, and in the vast majority of cases, absolute numbers just won’t tell you enough to make any sort of informed decision. Whether it’s money or time or demographics, everything is relative.
Also, like someone else (I’m too lazy to look back and find out who), I’m not sure this is really a case of signaling. That’s not to say that percentages are never used for signaling, but I think the way we think about percentages in politics, or elsewhere, really reflects our representation of the information. It’s just that are representations don’t map onto reality very well.
On “Doubt and Ideology”
Tom, I'm not a liberal, but I imagine I'd agree with most liberals about who is and who isn't liberal.
On “Beyond Unions”
Sure, except that the reforms they're promoting are precisely the ones you mention them opposing.
The larger point is that it depends on which union you're talking about. There are two big ones, and one has consistently opposed just about any form of merit pay, while the other has promoted certain kinds. And this isn't just in the last year, but over the last several years.
"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-09-10-aft-plan_N.htm
"
It's not true. Unions have tried to influence reform, but they haven't simply tried to block it.
On “Doubt and Ideology”
How dare I quote so,eone accurately.
Mike, any comment which quotes what Tom said on Monday is a falsehood.
"
Bill Ayers would probably be a good spokesperson, given that he's not a 60s radical anymore, but a fairly mainstream, well-respected scholar of education. And I wonder what you think is
far left" about Van Jones (who did a lot of TV after his resignation). I think you show your colors a little too readily sometimes, Tom.
By the way, if you get to determine who is conservative, do liberals get to determine who is liberal? If so, you're not going to be able to claim the media is liberal for very long.
I for one wouldn't mind some ZMag type "leftists" on mainstream TV and radio more often, though it’s not going to happen. And it has little if anything to do with hiding the “far left,” since that “far left” has absolutely no influence on mainstream liberal politics in this country anyway. What that it did. On the other hand, it can’t be said that Robertson, Dodson, the Bob Jones’s, etc., haven’t had an influence on mainstream conservative politics in this country.
On “We, as a society”
Tom, precisely.
The picture is always nuanced. Republicans and Democrats give money to law enforcment, when in office, because appearing soft on crime is a good way to not get elected. The police state that we currently live in is a product of both parties actions, not just Democrats, and certainly not mostly Democrats.
Koz has built a huge wall around him so that the world he sees fits his views of the "Teams." At this point, I think we can just dismiss him as obviously blind.
"
Tom, I can't find voting information specifically, but the endorsements and donation information I can find are all mostly Republican (again, by a 60-70% margin).
"
Tom (and Koz), Trumwill is unfortunately wrong on Wisconsin. My point was that Walker excluded the police unions, but if you look, you'll find that both the Fraternal Order of Police and the Wisconsin Law Enforcement Association endorsed Walker. In 2008, the Fraternal Order of Police endorsed Republicans far more often, including McCain. The donations follow (you can find info on Police Benevolent Association too). If you look at the money specifically, it's going to be around 60-70% Republican.
Anyway, this might affect Tom, but Koz is so deeply and blindly partisan that I suspect he'll rationalize police voting and giving to Republicans by saying that it's because they're social conservatives, or something to that effect (because really, police associations would rather give money to people who will screw them but also screw gays and women than).
"
I was being sarcastic, Koz. Cops vote Republican, overwhelmingly. So yeah, it isn't much more complicated than what I wrote, but it is the opposite of what I wrote.
To see how this works, for law enforcement, one only has to look to Wisconsin.
"
It's well known that cops vote Democrat, because that's where they see their funding coming from.
On “Beyond Unions”
Look to the private sector to see why. The basic justification of unions from the labor perspective aren't that different. But either you knew that or unions really aren't something you understand at all.
On an only slightly related note, I'd be perfectly happy with customers having a say in things like curriculum, class size, etc. Maybe we could have a system where such decisions are made by some sort of policy-making group or groups, the members of which are elected, and therefore beholding to the customer, at least in theory. I'm just throwing these names out there off the top of my head, but my suggestion is to call them legislatures and school boards.
"
Yes, because management decisions about product and management decisions about labor are exactly the same thing.
On “Changing Minds”
I didn't mean to imply to imply, Tom, that you were a creationist, merely that the types of assaults that climate scientists and biologists get from denialists and creationists, respectively, are similar: they don't fight the science, they fight the public opinion.
On “Moral Evolution”
It does say, among other things, that language, morality, perhaps aesthetics, and who knows what else, is a product of both nature and nurture, yes.
As for absolutes, I suppose it depends on what you mean by absolute. If you mean transcendent, then it probably leaves it unaffected.
"
In the end, (again EV) Christianity is the perfect philosophy.
I find that endlessly amusing.
"
Sure, it's the idea that the basic syntax, or rules for the combination of symbols/representations, is innate and universal, and experience fills in the content. This is the basic Chomskyan view of language (or at least language structure, not semantics, or at least not any ordinary version of semantics). It's an increasingly common view of other things as well, including recent ideas of a universal moral grammar. Is that under 100 words?
"
I honestly have no idea what you're going on about now.
"
The I suppose thing was really more of a shrug of the shoulders than actually supposing. It looks to me like you're doing precisely what I describe as life-denying, or at least life-debasing, but you see it as life-affirming. That's wonderful. We have a different starting point, and a different metaphysics. Chacun à son gout.
"
Interestingly, if there are "secularist, atheist, agnostic" folks, then even for the theist "there is no universally agreed upon ground" either. I think "universally agreed upon ground" is probably not where you want to start.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.