CharonY

Most dogs, regardless of size orient their behavior closely to that of their owners (assuming they have good rapport). In other words, if the owner gets nervous, the dog often reacts to that, which can a feedback loop of a nervous break down. During these stress situations small dogs often overact in order to compensate for their size (i.e. the small dog syndrome). However, experienced dog owners and trainers refocus the dog to themselves in potential stress situations, remain calm and thereby direct their actions. Those dogs are far more relaxed and are about as well behaved as others and rarely act up. Similar stress behaviour can also be observed in larger dogs and again, is typical when they think they have to be in charge rather than their owner.

Funny bit is that the syndrome is more often than not caused by the owner.

I have a few of those. Often looking at some grooves in places gives you a hing on where to slide things along.

There is no mechanism where that is possible.

*cough* Chihuahua (as the city or state).

Actually Bonaqua is basically carbonated tap water. I.e. they basically use municipal water.

Could you quote where she said that? You mean it is a pattern of action? Any articles that highlight that which you could share? I fail to see it. Her error is to assume that 21T were available. Would it be different if she said that we could fund something else with it? Which math does not add up on the medicare aspect? And is it worse than actually passing a tax cut and claiming that it will somehow pay for itself (while in truth it increases the deficit as predicted)? I.e. I am uncertain what the precise issue is and here the overall baseline claim is here.

The release of nitrogen is caused by denitrification but that is usually not a direct balance with available N2. Denitrification is inhibited by O2, for example. Then there is the balance between denitrifiers and nitrate reducers. While in most soils under anoxic conditions the former dominate, in the hypothetical scenario there may as well be a balancing reaction with dissimilatory nitrate reducers (who would convert nitrate to ammonia).

I am not sure what you are trying to say. She was wrong in assuming that the money just vanished and could have been used for something else. How does the latter assumption (which hinges on the wrong one) make it worse (if that is what you are implying).

I think the inexperience could be a political weakness, i.e. it may be harder for her to navigate the power structures. However, considering how much basic things members of congress and senate gets wrong (snowball as a rebuttal to climate change? rape cannot cause pregnancies? how marginal tax rates work? Steve King?) it would be hypocritical to call her out specifically. Just skimming to fact checks the only thing I found is a claim regarding Pentagon spending that was wrong. There is still some ways to build the mountain of lies that are part of the regular political broth, though.

I always wondered how much of that is just down to effects like stereotype threat.

Well, I see the quest for knowledge as a multifaceted endeavour of which natural sciences are only one part (and of note, there is a lot of snobbery between engineering and "pure" sciences, too). I always felt that the dichotomy painted by Snow is (unfortunately) compelling yet ultimately meaningless and counter-productive.

I said "quoted" instead of "quotes", didn't I? Yeah, not my first language, either.

Well, I don't know the author of the article, but even if it was his second language, there is usually some level of editing. As such I assume it was deliberate. Edit: Or do you mean OP? The content is directly lifted from the article (probably easier to spot if quoted had been used).

I was always a bit partial to Gould's view on that matter. Edit: I probably should say I became partial to Gould's view eventually. The always is a bit of an overstatement if I think back to my youth...

I am not sure whether that would a good characterization of the majority of students outside a class setting. I think it really only becomes more visible (often in a negative way) if folks learn a little and think they figured everything out and hence are absolutely correct in what they say. I.e. a hefty dose of Dunning-Kruger before they learn enough to realize their mistake.

Not sure whether there are articles but one thing that seems to appear is that especially certain STEM students come with the assumption that non-STEM education is worthless. Typically that is more common in early-semester students and/or those that (erroneously) view higher education predominantly as vocational training. That particular attitude is viewed by folks from other disciplines as close-minded. Lack of empathy and social skills may also be a stereotype, but from what I have seen it seems to be one thrown at each other fairly liberally. Though it is usually more about social skills rather than empathy (I mean there is sometimes the odd kid claiming to be pure logical or something but usually they grow out of it eventually).

! Moderator Note Discussion about the geometry of graphene has been split here.

It is an unusual use of the word, for sure.

I suspect that you mean well, but read the sentence carefully and think about what a careless declaration such as this entails.

It is willful overinterpretation of faulty data by someone without training on the subject. On top he his opinion have been around for quite a while, he is just using the said overinterpretation to justify his views (or perhaps they happened in parallel, he said a lot of things over time).

He had indeed a long history of racist and sexist remarks/behaviour and there are stories abound. He was just too influential to have any consequences (even if he made those statements publicly). Note that he was not simply referring to data, but engaged in selective overinterpretation in an area outside of his expertise. Moreover, he also made a number of racist statements (the infamous "melanin increases libido" claim) which simply has no basis whatsoever. Taken together with the consistency of it, it is rather obvious that he comes from a racist (and sexist) mindset and selectively utilizes (or makes up) data/observations to justify them.

It is a but cryptic and it is not clear what is being disputed. The push back is notable in itself.

Right, but I wonder about that. So it appears that you think it is important to provide data for one side of the claim (i.e. neutral effect or even decrease on crime) to be taken seriously, whereas worries have to be taken at face value. While I do understand that a politician need to address it, I do wonder about the double standard.

As it seems I misunderstood you, could you clarify which one is the one and which one is the other? My rant is mostly because in similar discussions on this board, I do see quite often that provided data is often brushed away which does cause some annoyance. As it does not seem what you mean, I apologize for that. However, it would help if you contextualize what you mean. One example would be the quoted sentence that I obviously misunderstood another one is perhaps what you mean with properly address. What would you consider a proper approach? If showing data that e.g. they commit less crime does not help, what does?