Luc Turpin Posted October 22 Author Posted October 22 18 minutes ago, studiot said: Is it a coincidence that on the same day someone else is posting here about the P v NP problem in computing ? Coincidence!
swansont Posted October 22 Posted October 22 45 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: ZIPF Law “A strange pattern running through the equations of physics may reveal something fundamental about the universe or could be a sign that human brains are biased to ignore more complex explanations of reality – or both.” If it is the former, what is this fundamental aspect of our universe? Order in disorder? An underlying template to the apparent chaos? Or, if it is the latter, can it just be human brains doing what human brains do; paint-in a picture of reality based on an unintentionally biased interpretation of facts. What are you doing - searching for “bias” in articles so you can post your “findings”? Which are based on linguistic choices of journalists, rather than any actual analysis. 1. Zipf’s law shows up in more than physics; it was originally applied to language. 2. No mention of methodology. I can write V=IR and also I=V/R. Does that count as a multiply and a divide? 3. Physics doesn’t aim to explain reality, it describes how nature behaves. It also works. V=IR is what you actually measure in a resistive circuit. How is that a biased interpretation of facts?
studiot Posted October 22 Posted October 22 27 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Coincidence! Did you catch the irony of my reply to your actual question ? In plain language it means that scientists, like acounts and others, prefer to calculate the easy way. So the curve is not suprising..
Luc Turpin Posted October 22 Author Posted October 22 5 minutes ago, swansont said: What are you doing - searching for “bias” in articles so you can post your “findings”? Which are based on linguistic choices of journalists, rather than any actual analysis. 1. Zipf’s law shows up in more than physics; it was originally applied to language. 2. No mention of methodology. I can write V=IR and also I=V/R. Does that count as a multiply and a divide? 3. Physics doesn’t aim to explain reality, it describes how nature behaves. It also works. V=IR is what you actually measure in a resistive circuit. How is that a biased interpretation of facts? Not searching for bias; it just came up! 1. Yes Zipf's law shows up in more than physics, but why in physics? 2. Could not get to the methodology part either. 3. How nature behaves is part of reality. The analysis, if it holds up, still implies that there is some sort of pattern in the use of symbols, which should not be occuring. 2 minutes ago, studiot said: Did you catch the irony of my reply to your actual question ? In plain language it means that scientists, like acounts and others, prefer to calculate the easy way. So the curve is not suprising.. Did not catch the irony! But how many conincidences will be required before it is no longer interpreted as a coincidence? Your "account" of what might be going on may very well be true, but finding a pattern when there should not have been one is still worth consideration, even if it eventually leads to an impasse. And scientistis prefering to calculate the easy way is stil some sort of bias. A pause to contemplate before outright dismissal is a good thing in science. The speed a which you responded speaks loudly.
swansont Posted October 22 Posted October 22 3 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 3. How nature behaves is part of reality. The analysis, if it holds up, still implies that there is some sort of pattern in the use of symbols, which should not be occuring. Should not be occurring? How do you figure that? What principle does it violate?
Luc Turpin Posted October 22 Author Posted October 22 8 minutes ago, swansont said: Should not be occurring? How do you figure that? What principle does it violate? Why does it show up "between three different sets of equations....coming from different places" but does not show up in randomly generated mathematical expressions? Obvious that it would not show up in the latter, but not so much so in the former!
studiot Posted October 22 Posted October 22 49 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Your "account" of what might be going on may very well be true, but finding a pattern when there should not have been one is still worth consideration, even if it eventually leads to an impasse. And scientistis prefering to calculate the easy way is stil some sort of bias. A pause to contemplate before outright dismissal is a good thing in science. The speed a which you responded speaks loudly. I agree with you. Scientists are biased towards the easy way. So what? Why shouldn't they be ? That is why I said it is not suprising. Here is a true concidence. I initially responded quickly because I had just quickly added something in another thread and was ready to finish when you posted, not because my response was hasty or dismissive. Is the time lapse to this post more to your liking ? I have not had the time to try your link and all I get is Bad Gateway Error. So I am stuck with the graph you extracted (probably the most important part of the article). I am a bit worried by the quality of the investigation for instance according to the graph X does not occur at all in 65% of physics formulae. Y does not occur in 100% of them. Cotangents do not occur. So take a typical maths formula that of resection. Two basic methods of solution are available, those involving sin and cos and those involving tangent and cotangent. Tables of the first 3 functions have long been readily available, but there are few cotangent tables on offer. Tienstra (the tan/cot method) is actually easier to work, but the sin/cos method has become ingrained because of the availability of tables in the past. With modern computers that should not matter but tradition dies hard. But what exactly is a 'randomly' generated scientific formula ? Surely there will be an automatic bias towards common and commonly available functions ? The plot surely bears this out with so few functions listed. Also how did the study treat composite function. For instance the trigonometric pythagoras theorem has sin2, cos2 and tan2
swansont Posted October 22 Posted October 22 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: Why does it show up "between three different sets of equations....coming from different places" but does not show up in randomly generated mathematical expressions? Obvious that it would not show up in the latter, but not so much so in the former! Where is that quote from? I don’t understand the context. Not knowing why something shows up is very different from saying it should not. You’re just deflecting. Can you back up your claim?
Luc Turpin Posted October 22 Author Posted October 22 (edited) 1 hour ago, studiot said: I agree with you. Scientists are biased towards the easy way. So what? Why shouldn't they be ? That is why I said it is not suprising. Here is a true concidence. I initially responded quickly because I had just quickly added something in another thread and was ready to finish when you posted, not because my response was hasty or dismissive. Is the time lapse to this post more to your liking ? I have not had the time to try your link and all I get is Bad Gateway Error. So I am stuck with the graph you extracted (probably the most important part of the article). I am a bit worried by the quality of the investigation for instance according to the graph X does not occur at all in 65% of physics formulae. Y does not occur in 100% of them. Cotangents do not occur. So take a typical maths formula that of resection. Two basic methods of solution are available, those involving sin and cos and those involving tangent and cotangent. Tables of the first 3 functions have long been readily available, but there are few cotangent tables on offer. Tienstra (the tan/cot method) is actually easier to work, but the sin/cos method has become ingrained because of the availability of tables in the past. With modern computers that should not matter but tradition dies hard. But what exactly is a 'randomly' generated scientific formula ? Surely there will be an automatic bias towards common and commonly available functions ? The plot surely bears this out with so few functions listed. Also how did the study treat composite function. For instance the trigonometric pythagoras theorem has sin2, cos2 and tan2 The timeline for post was merely mentioned to show that all of us are more dismissive of ideas that run counter to our belief system than ideas that do not. It's human nature. That there is bias in science is irrefutable. What is at stake here is whether or not the "warping" effect of bias has made understanding how nature behaves indistinguishable from its real occurrence. I provided yet another example of how bias might immerse itself in the scientific process, that is all that I have done. And I also share many of your concerns and have too not been able to fully access the article. 57 minutes ago, swansont said: Where is that quote from? I don’t understand the context. Not knowing why something shows up is very different from saying it should not. You’re just deflecting. Can you back up your claim? The quote was taken from here "“You might expect that this [distribution] would differ quite significantly between the three different sets of equations because they come from different places,” says team member Deaglan Bartlett at Sorbonne University in France, but to their surprise, that wasn’t the case. Instead, all three sets seemed to fit the same pattern. That wasn’t true when applying the same analysis to randomly generated mathematical expressions." I reiterate, it is expected that three different sets of equations coming from different places should show no pattern. Then comes next the question of why something shows up if it does show up? Edited October 22 by Luc Turpin
studiot Posted October 22 Posted October 22 (edited) 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: The timeline for post was merely mentioned to show that all of us are more dismissive of ideas that run counter to our belief system than ideas that do not. It's human nature. So you used my agreement with you on the one hand to support your conclusion that this bias is somehow bad - a conclusion on the other hand I disagree with. That's what I call twisted logic. Both swansont and I have asked you a question Why does it matter ? Please answer it. I have also noted that your first link does not work I note that the second link does not take me to the referred material either. Please brush up your support links. Edited October 22 by studiot spelling
swansont Posted October 22 Posted October 22 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: The timeline for post was merely mentioned to show that all of us are more dismissive of ideas that run counter to our belief system than ideas that do not. It's human nature. That there is bias in science is irrefutable. What is at stake here is whether or not the "warping" effect of bias has made understanding how nature behaves indistinguishable from its real occurrence. I provided yet another example of how bias might immerse itself in the scientific process, that is all that I have done. And I also share many of your concerns and have too not been able to fully access the article. The quote was taken from here "“You might expect that this [distribution] would differ quite significantly between the three different sets of equations because they come from different places,” says team member Deaglan Bartlett at Sorbonne University in France, but to their surprise, that wasn’t the case. Instead, all three sets seemed to fit the same pattern. That wasn’t true when applying the same analysis to randomly generated mathematical expressions." I reiterate, it is expected that three different sets of equations coming from different places should show no pattern. Then comes next the question of why something shows up if it does show up? “You might expect that this [distribution] would differ quite significantly between the three different sets of equations because they come from different places” … but you would be wrong to expect this. (it’s not “you expect” which is predictive. “you might expect” is cautionary) It’s what one could call a naive expectation. There are a limited number of mathematical forms, and relationships between variables are not random. Kinetic energy, for example, depends on speed squared. It’s not random. They’re related. Without knowing exactly what they looked at it’s impossible to know what the context is, but physics is interconnected in some interesting ways, so things that might seem random are not. And it’s ironic that you’re suggesting some deep meaning to this when you are arguing by quote mining, which is quite superficial and avoids deeper investigation. And “we don’t know” does not imply either some deep meaning, nor does it imply that something should not happen. You still have not shown that this shouldn’t happen, as you claimed.
Luc Turpin Posted October 22 Author Posted October 22 41 minutes ago, studiot said: So you used my agreement with you on the one hand to support your conclusion that this bias is somehow bad - a conclusion on the other hand I disagree with. That's what I call twisted logic. Both swansont and I have asked you a question Why does it matter ? Please answer it. I have also noted that your first link does not work I note that the second link does not take me to the referred material either. Please brush up you support links. Do you not believe that science would be better off without bias? Why does it matter is dependent on the impact bias has on science. If it is a minor impact, then I agree with both you and swansont that it does not matter much. But if the impact is major, then it matters as we would no longer be as confident as we are about the validity of results. A single cut or death by a thousand cuts. It's the cumulative affect that bothers me. One scientific finding used as a precursor to another finding then used as a foundation for another finding. There is also the cumulative effect of various types of biases culminating into possibly more influence than one would expect of biases over science. I agree on this one that the links were to say the least very disappointing. I am trying to correct this, with no luck so far. 12 minutes ago, swansont said: “You might expect that this [distribution] would differ quite significantly between the three different sets of equations because they come from different places” … but you would be wrong to expect this. (it’s not “you expect” which is predictive. “you might expect” is cautionary) It’s what one could call a naive expectation. There are a limited number of mathematical forms, and relationships between variables are not random. Kinetic energy, for example, depends on speed squared. It’s not random. They’re related. Without knowing exactly what they looked at it’s impossible to know what the context is, but physics is interconnected in some interesting ways, so things that might seem random are not. And it’s ironic that you’re suggesting some deep meaning to this when you are arguing by quote mining, which is quite superficial and avoids deeper investigation. And “we don’t know” does not imply either some deep meaning, nor does it imply that something should not happen. You still have not shown that this shouldn’t happen, as you claimed. Agree, should have said "might" expect instead of expect. That all three sets of mathematical equations follow the same pattern and that this pattern is found in linguistics is to say the least, confounding. No, no, not arguing deep meaning on this one, but that there "might" be biases brought about by how human brains work. That a law borne out of linguistics be possibly applicable to physics "might" imply that the former has some sort of sway over the latter. Physics should be all about the laws of nature, not about the laws of language. Zipf's law possibly applying to physics might be yet another example of bias seeping into science.
studiot Posted October 22 Posted October 22 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Do you not believe that science would be better off without bias? I do not like loaded questions. Do I believe there is bias in Science towards easier calculations. Yes Do I believe Science would benefit without that bias No I would expect more mistakes. The whole idea is as arcane as suggesting that Science still ought to be taught in Latin. Do I believe there is bias in Science against women ? Yes Do I think Science would be better off without that bias Yes. So learn how to ask proper questions without attacking other people. Edited October 22 by studiot spelling 1
swansont Posted October 22 Posted October 22 19 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: That all three sets of mathematical equations follow the same pattern and that this pattern is found in linguistics is to say the least, confounding. That’s the fallacy of personal incredulity. A form of bias. Zipf applies to more than physics laws and language. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipf's_law Guess what? Patterns exist! 19 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: No, no, not arguing deep meaning on this one, but that there "might" be biases brought about by how human brains work. Back to brains, eh? To show bias, you have to show where the result is wrong. You haven’t done that. You’re using bias as a bogeyman. It has no meaning in these discussions anymore. 19 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: That a law borne out of linguistics be possibly applicable to physics "might" imply that the former has some sort of sway over the latter. Physics should be all about the laws of nature, not about the laws of language. Again, you say that something should not happen but have no support for it. Not being the way you want it to be - isn’t that a form of bias? 19 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Zipf's law possibly applying to physics might be yet another example of bias seeping into science. Bogeyman. 1
Luc Turpin Posted October 22 Author Posted October 22 44 minutes ago, studiot said: I do not like loaded questions. Do I believe there is bias in Science towards easier calculations. Yes Do I believe Science would benefit without that bias No I would expect more mistakes. The whole idea is as arcane as suggesting that Science still ought to be taught in Latin. Do I believe there is bias in Science against women ? Yes Do I think Science would be better off without that bias Yes. So learn how to ask proper questions without attacking other people. Not a loaded question. Are you not a bit worried about the cumulative effect of what you stated in your post, plus other biases not stated, on science? In my last response to you, I had not the least intention of attacking you or anyone. I do not even know where you get that. I am not even attacking science. The only thing that I am doing is questioning, only questioning whether or not we are too confidence in the shielding of science from the effects of biases. That is it. No other intention. I am not even looking for an argument, but for a discussion. 47 minutes ago, swansont said: Zipf applies to more than physics laws and language. That is even more disconcerting. 48 minutes ago, swansont said: Guess what? Patterns exist! I like patterns; they possibly imply meaning or not! 49 minutes ago, swansont said: Back to brains, eh? The article talks about human brains, so the introduction is not mine. 51 minutes ago, swansont said: To show bias, you have to show where the result is wrong. You haven’t done that. You’re using bias as a bogeyman. It has no meaning in these discussions anymore. Bogeyman. No, the introduction of bias is not necessarily wrong, but only a demonstration that some interpretation of results is occuring, which might be a right or wrong interpretation of results. 56 minutes ago, swansont said: Again, you say that something should not happen but have no support for it. Not being the way you want it to be - isn’t that a form of bias? I tried to show support through a logical statement, but apparently this is insufficient. I do not want it to be or not be the way that I want it to be. The results of the study that I referenced seems to show bias. Whether it is or not showing bias is up for debate. And if I wanted it to be a certain way, then yes it would be a form of bias.
swansont Posted October 22 Posted October 22 2 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: No, the introduction of bias is not necessarily wrong, but only a demonstration that some interpretation of results is occuring, which might be a right or wrong interpretation of results. Experiment matches theory. Repeatedly. How is there an “interpretation of results” issue? Where is it? Quote I tried to show support through a logical statement, but apparently this is insufficient. I do not want it to be or not be the way that I want it to be. The results of the study that I referenced seems to show bias. Whether it is or not showing bias is up for debate. And if I wanted it to be a certain way, then yes it would be a form of bias. Where’s the debate if you can’t present evidence? This is just repeatedly throwing “bias” against the wall and hoping something sticks. Quote That is even more disconcerting. I don’t see why it would be. Not-random stuff shows a pattern? The whole basis of science analysis is discerning patterns in things that aren’t random
studiot Posted October 22 Posted October 22 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: Not a loaded question. Are you not a bit worried about the cumulative effect of what you stated in your post, plus other biases not stated, on science? In my last response to you, I had not the least intention of attacking you or anyone. I do not even know where you get that. I am not even attacking science. The only thing that I am doing is questioning, only questioning whether or not we are too confidence in the shielding of science from the effects of biases. That is it. No other intention. I am not even looking for an argument, but for a discussion. You appear to be the only person who reads your writing as you do. At least one other agree with me that your posts are generally loaded or overlaid with something outside Science. Perhaps that is why you don't answer simple direct questions. Most of us see this as a sustained attack, not on any particular person, but on Science and Scientists in general. 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: I like patterns; they possibly imply meaning or not! So do you think patterns can be any of Good , Bad or Indifferent or only some of these or what ? 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: That is even more disconcerting. What is even more disconcerting is the plot you posted. Have you given it any consideration at all ? Like for instance what was the source material it was drawn up from ? It gives the impression that no calculus - derivatives, integrals, gradients, differential or integral equtions and so on are used in Physics. The sort of impression one might get from polling junior high school precalculus texts. That is why I want the source article. For convenience I am posting the plot again here No calculus ? How's that pattern or is it bias looking now ? 1
Luc Turpin Posted October 22 Author Posted October 22 22 minutes ago, studiot said: You appear to be the only person who reads your writing as you do. Maybe you are right that I am the only person who reads it as I do. I am not trying to attack science or scientists, most of the time, but wonder based on an outsider's perspective if there is not an over abundance of confidence in science, and this is my perception of you, swansont and most members participating in discussions with me; that you might have an over confidence in science. To me, questioning even the foundations of science is sound and healthy, not destructive. 24 minutes ago, studiot said: Perhaps that is why you don't answer simple direct questions. I think I do answer questions, but might not be giving the answer that is expected. 37 minutes ago, studiot said: So do you think patterns can be any of Good , Bad or Indifferent or only some of these or what ? There is joy in finding patterns. And when patterns replicate, then there is even more joy in the endeavour, because this could mean that we might be on to something. 2 hours ago, swansont said: Experiment matches theory. Repeatedly. How is there an “interpretation of results” issue? Where is it? I don't think that it is as simple as that. Scientists cling to theories even when experimentation does not match. 4 hours ago, swansont said: Where’s the debate if you can’t present evidence? This is just repeatedly throwing “bias” against the wall and hoping something sticks. I presented a study that may be an indication of bias in science. I presented it for discussion purpose. To elicit a discussion; not to say that I am right and most of you are wrong. And I am not repeatedly throwing "bias" against the wall and hoping something sticks. I am however uncovering studies that seem to indicate more bias in science than acknowledged and want to share it, again for discussion purposes. 4 hours ago, swansont said: I don’t see why it would be. Not-random stuff shows a pattern? The whole basis of science analysis is discerning patterns in things that aren’t random Disconcerting in the sense that it may imply a more pervasive presence of bias. The provided study implies that it is the marking of patterns of bias.
swansont Posted October 23 Posted October 23 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: I presented a study that may be an indication of bias in science. I presented it for discussion purpose. To elicit a discussion; not to say that I am right and most of you are wrong. And I am not repeatedly throwing "bias" against the wall and hoping something sticks. I am however uncovering studies that seem to indicate more bias in science than acknowledged and want to share it, again for discussion purposes. Disconcerting in the sense that it may imply a more pervasive presence of bias. The provided study implies that it is the marking of patterns of bias. You keep saying bias, but there is no explanation of what the alleged bias is.
Luc Turpin Posted October 23 Author Posted October 23 8 hours ago, swansont said: You keep saying bias, but there is no explanation of what the alleged bias is. I keep saying bias, because the co-authors (Andrei Constantin, Deaglan Bartlett, Harry Desmond, Pedro G. Ferreira) allege that it is. And it is the unintentional kind brought about by how our brains work (again not mine introducing the subject, but the authors). The kind that is "baked-into" our way of perceiving and thinking; similar in general terms, but not precicely this: https://biasinsideus.si.edu/online-exhibition/the-science-of-bias Without notice, familiarity, similarity, belonging and confirming all play a role in the way science is done.
exchemist Posted October 23 Posted October 23 22 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: I keep saying bias, because the co-authors (Andrei Constantin, Deaglan Bartlett, Harry Desmond, Pedro G. Ferreira) allege that it is. And it is the unintentional kind brought about by how our brains work (again not mine introducing the subject, but the authors). The kind that is "baked-into" our way of perceiving and thinking; similar in general terms, but not precicely this: https://biasinsideus.si.edu/online-exhibition/the-science-of-bias Without notice, familiarity, similarity, belonging and confirming all play a role in the way science is done. That link is unreadable shit. Have you a version that one can read without all the imbecile whizzo graphics?
studiot Posted October 23 Posted October 23 (edited) 11 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: 14 hours ago, studiot said: Perhaps that is why you don't answer simple direct questions. I think I do answer questions, but might not be giving the answer that is expected. Then why don't you answer the questions I wrote about the paper you introduced and i can't access (I tried again this morning) ? These surely are the important questions pertinant towhat we are meant to be discussing. 14 hours ago, studiot said: 16 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: That is even more disconcerting. What is even more disconcerting is the plot you posted. Have you given it any consideration at all ? Like for instance what was the source material it was drawn up from ? It gives the impression that no calculus - derivatives, integrals, gradients, differential or integral equtions and so on are used in Physics. The sort of impression one might get from polling junior high school precalculus texts. That is why I want the source article. For convenience I am posting the plot again here No calculus ? How's that pattern or is it bias looking now ? Edited October 23 by studiot
swansont Posted October 23 Posted October 23 Twenty seconds of Google reveals the source article, now that we have the author information https://www.arxiv.org/abs/2408.11065
Luc Turpin Posted October 23 Author Posted October 23 (edited) 51 minutes ago, exchemist said: That link is unreadable shit. Have you a version that one can read without all the imbecile whizzo graphics? Hope that it is helpful The brain relies on shortcuts all the time. We use what we’ve learned from our environment to make quick assumptions about whom to trust, how to behave, what to say. But shortcuts can sometimes lead us astray. You can’t always trust your brain. Our eyes play tricks on us. Our minds fill in the gaps of what we think we see. But is that actually what’s there? Check out the two blue circles. They look like different sizes. But look again! A new perspective shows what they really are: two identical circles. Now check out these two squares—A and B. They look like different colors. A is darker than B, right? But look again! A new perspective shows what they really are: two identical squares. Two groups of circles appear on screen. The blue circle in the left group is surrounded with larger purple circles, where as the blue circle on the right is surrounded with smaller circles. The blue circle on the left appears to be smaller than the blue circle on the right. Two lines are drawn between the two circles, revealing that they are in fact the same size. The circles fade off screen. A checkerboard appears on screen and a cylinder casts a shadow on the checkerboard. Two of the squares are highlighted. Square A is surrounded with squares that are lighter color, where as square B is surrounded with squares that are darker color. Square A appears to be darker than square B. A line is drawn between the two squares, revealing that they are the same color. Still don't believe your eyes? These visual illusions work because the surrounding context of an image shapes what we see. Context is so powerful because it sets up our expectations of what we might see. And once we have that expectation, we can’t see it any other way! Titchener Circles Illusion When the center blue circle is surrounded by big pink circles, the center blue circle looks smaller than when it is surrounded by small pink circles. Checkered Shadow Illusion When the “A” and “B” squares are surrounded by a checkerboard pattern, our mind fills in the blanks and sees the “A” and “B” squares as different colors. Mindbugs are engrained patterns of thought that lead to errors in how we perceive, remember, reason, and make decisions. Dr. Mahzarin R. Banaji, Professor of Psychology, Harvard University Listen In From Mindbugs to Bias Transcript Bias is a process and builds over a lifetime. Familiarity Babies quickly learn to prefer people from familiar groups. A baby might prefer a face that matches the gender or race of their primary caregiver. At just a few hours old, newborn infants already prefer listening to a language that they heard in the womb over an unfamiliar language. Similarity Toddlers notice similarities and differences across groups defined by language, gender, or race, and they start to more clearly separate people along these dimensions. The adults around them fill in “value gaps” by subtly communicating about the kinds of people that are safe or smart. This teaches children whom they should approach and avoid. Belonging With further learning, children figure out who they are in the world. They learn the meaning of their own race, gender identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, religion, and more. As a result, they also come to feel belonging, preferring their in-groups (“us”), and perhaps expressing negative attitudes toward out-groups (“them”). Confirming The process of building and maintaining bias continues into adulthood. Throughout our lives, we use confirmation bias to see only what we expect to see in our environment. We take in only the examples that align with our preexisting notions and stereotypes. We discard the counter-examples that would challenge these world views. Implicit bias is like the smog that hangs over a community. It becomes the air people breathe. Shankar Vedantam, Journalist Listen In Practice Makes Perfect Transcript Get Inside Your Head. What about my brain? Is there bias there too? The amygdala, hippocampus, and prefrontal cortex make up the control panel for bias. The amygdala fires up for our fears, the hippocampus records our memories, and the prefrontal cortex controls our ability to reason and reconsider. What part of the brain do you think is responsible for each reaction? What part of your brain is working here? You see a man walk into a fancy glass building. He’s carrying a briefcase and wearing an expensive suit. Six months later, you see another fancy glass building and assume, “that must be filled with men with briefcases and expensive suits.” Is it the prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, or amygdala? It's the hippocampus! This organ is the brain’s memory bank. The hippocampus notes the associations we make and reminds us of them later on. In this case, it creates a connection (in fact, a stereotype) between fancy glass buildings and men with briefcases. What part of your brain is working here? You’re deeply afraid of snakes. Suddenly, a snake slithers into the room. Your mind makes a snap judgment, immediately sending the message: “Fright! Fear! Flee!” You run and jump on a nearby table to avoid the snake. Is it the prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, or amygdala? It’s the amygdala! This is the “fear center” of the human brain. Fully developed just before a full-term baby’s birth, the amygdala sparks many of our emotions, fears, and impulse reactions. What part of your brain is working here? That snake is still in the room. Your amygdala has registered fear and the hippocampus reminded you to be afraid of snakes. You begin to calm down and realize that you don’t have to panic! The snake is across the room and, now that you see it more clearly, it doesn’t look so scary after all. Is it the prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, or amygdala? It’s the prefrontal cortex (PFC)! This is where the brain settles things. We can use our PFC to reason through different perspectives, weigh pros and cons, or even revise our previous assumptions about things and people. Bias is in our brains and baked into our environments from early in childhood. But having bias does not mean that we are destined to be bad people. Those same brain processes can sometimes be used for good. As humans, we can recognize both what we have in common and what we hold as unique differences. Listen in on a conversation between a young scientist and a celebrated philosopher to learn about the nature of our biases and identities. Dr. Tessa Charlesworth, a psychologist at Harvard, and Dr. Kwame Appiah, an emeritus professor and author, share their thoughts here. Next SectionBias IRL*(*in real life) Bias is a process initiated even before we are born. It is a process of learning about the structures and associations embedded in the world around us. But what actually are those structures in the world? Where is bias in real life? 13 minutes ago, swansont said: Twenty seconds of Google reveals the source article, now that we have the author information https://www.arxiv.org/abs/2408.11065 This link was given with the original article that I posted; it was at the very end of the article. Edited October 23 by Luc Turpin
swansont Posted October 23 Posted October 23 The paper mentions bias once (ipad wouldn’t let me copy paste from the pdf) We see that the possible bias proposed here is in how we write the equations down, rather than in the physics. IOW, they are showing we tend to write V=IR instead of I=V/R for language/communication reasons. It’s not a bias in the physics itself. Which suggests I was right before, that this was just a matter of finding the word bias and not understanding or not caring what was actually being discussed, because this has nothing to do with physics discoveries or some flaw in how we figure things out, it’s a linguistics issue with math as the language.
Recommended Posts