On the surface, these results seems counterintuitive; science, after all, is — in the strictest sense — amoral.
Either this is just another insincere sentence thrown in to fill the article, or the author's intuition is terrible. Something along these lines: "They are engaged with something amoral, therefore they must be amoral!", genious. A farm or the act of farming is also amoral, so I guess you expect farmers to be pretty indecent. Really, it's been so many years and why do journalists still think these filler sentences help their article?
If I had said, "Cars are used for transportation," would you say, "I know a guy whose car doesn't have a motor, but he sleeps in it"?
Or if I had said, "Tables are flat surfaces," would you say, "I saw a table in the museum of modern art that had a curving surface"?
So, yes, you are completely right, and I don't dispute what you're saying, but it does not invalidate the generalization. Analogously to the example cases I just gave.
There is probably some philosophical name for and explanation of this phenomenon, but I don't know what it is.
You're reading a meaning that isn't there. The author is not expecting scientists (or farmers) to be indecent, he is merely expecting them to be equally decent as non scientists (or non farmers). He's not surprised specifically that there is a positive correlation, he's surprised that there is a correlation at all.
You're right, I might have misinterpreted. He didn't actually write anything else that implies he found the positive correlation counterintuitive. I don't know what the author's actual meaning was, so I still can't say for sure, but you're right, there was some cognitive bias involved in my reading. My apologies to the author.
What makes you think that? The author is the one claiming the result, which is that people who study science (which is amoral, not immoral) tend to be good people, is counterintuitive. If anyone, the author is the one in confusion.
If you thought he could've meant that people who aren't good could be amoral instead of being indecent, then you are most likely, although not absolutely wrong. Keep in mind amorality for a human is not well-defined, it is more often used to describe non-intelligent life or abstract entities. Society would consider an amoral person "immoral" in a casual sense of the word, because a person who is indifferent towards morality is per definition likely to commit immoral acts if there are no repercussions.
Let me put it this way: I'm all for one person who's interested to learn coding. Sure, if you wish, even let all this public campaigning and incentives be there. I'm fine with it. I will help this hypothetical guy personally if he comes my way. Nothing wrong here.
But... You (you, with the coding = literacy idea) are seriously overestimating the masses. I'm not sure why, might be due to some bubble effect. I don't live in SV or anything that resembles it. And my view is that even if you decide to go with the coding = literacy analogy, you will run into trouble because most people are not even literate beyond the absolute basics they can get away with. I'm speaking about professionals, and even a certain "majority" of college graduates. I'm speaking about a randomly sampled manager from a medium sized enterprise. Ask this guy to write a single page essay about something he knows about. I'm talking about writing, the kind of literacy we're talking about in the coding = literacy analogy. If you are really in a bubble, you might be surprised that only a minority of people living in the first world can write coherently beyond the length of a twitter update or an SMS. So, I would suggest to find another analogy for your public campaigning if you mean learning coding as in learning to code beyond hello world or fizzbuzz.
Another problem: where are those magical people that want to increase productivity? Most professionals I know don't even work most of the time! And they want to get away with the absolute minimum that can still achieve the maximum possible return. This is basic human behaviour. I don't endorse it, and I don't say this is everyone's standart behaviour, so no need to take offense, but I don't think anyone would argue against that what I posit here holds for the majority. Now, you want these people to learn coding to increase their productivity? Good luck. I'm sincerely all for it, and I will even help in ways that I can, excuse my cynicism.
Obviously Google translate is not error free, nor is any statistical translation system going to be comparable to a human translator in the very near future, but you're underestimating the current development of statistical translation. Granted, I'm not a native speaker but I think "I need to meet up" is not even a sentence with proper grammar. Underlying model probably predicted something like meeting (satisfying) requirements due to the lack of an object in the sentence and context. Situations like this where the input is very short and noisy is obviously going to be a weakness of statistical systems for a long time to come, but looking at technologically how far we are from mastering biological systems, I think it's safe to say this is going to be the way of doing it for a while, and will be very successful in translating properly structured texts if proper context can be provided. Currently statistical translations have (almost) no awareness of context beside some phrase-based or hierarchical models. Many people are probably not factoring in the fact, that with exponentially more data, and exponentially higher computing power, a model can utilize the context of a whole book while translating just a sentence from that book - which is actually still much less than what human translators utilize in terms of context. While translating a sentence, I might even have to utilize what was on the news the night before to infer the correct context. We are currently definitely far from feeding this kind of information to our models, so I'd say this kind of criticism towards statistical translation is very unfair.
"We need to meet up" also translates incorrectly "我们需要满足". In fact, I did not originally use a fragment, I wrote a full sentence that Google repeatedly incorrectly translated. I only used a fragment here to simply my example.
To avoid the wrath of the Google fan boys, a better example would have been the pinnacle of statistical AI :
The category was "U.S. Cities" and the clue was: "Its largest airport is named for a World War II hero; its second largest for a World War II battle." The human competitors Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter both answered correctly with "Chicago" but IBM's supercomputer Watson said "Toronto."
Once again, Watson, a probability based system failed where real intelligence would not.
Google has done an amazing job, with their machine translation considering they cling to these outdated statistical methods. And just like with speech recognition has found out over the last 20 years, they will continue to get diminishing returns until they start borrowing from
nature's own engine of intelligence.
You are exhibiting a deep misunderstanding of human intelligence.
Ken Jennings thought that a woman of loose morals could be called a "hoe" (with an "e", which makes no sense!), when the correct answer was "rake". Is Ken Jennings therefor inhuman?
As a european, I trust neither. Trust? I mean really, one of them is only caring about monetizing everything possible, the other has its own (sometimes mysterious) motives, why should I trust anyone but my friends and family? I think the question itself is just a play on emotions, people with bad experiences with either is going to say they trust the other more, but all in all I don't think any sensible person trusts the government or companies in the true meaning of the word.
We have similar chess history, but I think you're being emotional here in your "rebuttal of chess". I've had similar thoughts but I've come to the natural conclusion that all that matters in the end is whether I enjoy playing it or not.
Some things you mentioned don't add up. You don't have to be a human database to play chess as a hobby, even at club level. Playing at club level can be fun, and can definitely be a healthy hobby which doesn't take more time than any other sports or any other gaming activity. If it's not fun for you, or if you obsess over how better you could get if you just studied this or that opening, or how you'll never even reach 2200 ELO, then chess is probably not for you or not fit to be a hobby for you, that is true.
In short, thinking you would gain more mentally that would help with your engineering skill-set by playing chess instead of just, well, studying and working as an engineer, is fallacious to begin with. If there aren't any such studies, which I doubt, then why would you assume that? Of course, if all you want to do in life is being a better engineer, then anything but doing that is a "huge waste of time", not just chess.
But I think I still understand you emotionally as we had similar thoughts. Maybe, like me, you too rationalized your time spent in chess by saying to yourself that it helps your focus and concentration at work etc., but that's really not any more logical than rationalizing smoking, in the end you're just fooling yourself spending time doing something you enjoy. I'd think this was obvious, and I knew it even when as I was doing it myself. Maybe you just needed that external heads-up, from that older engineer you mentioned.
On a completely different note, I could still argue chess is not entirely useless in that sense. Compared to legos, you're forgetting that chess is a social activity. You're facing real people, and beating them can build confidence, and losing also has its lessons - socially, not chesswise. I've learned a lot about competition at a young age, and I've experienced what "winning" and "losing" is like. This is different than team sports, because you're out there alone by yourself, with no luck involved. And although we don't share the same success with him, a friend who doesn't spend more than a few hours per week playing chess became rather successful (2000+ ELO), and I see that it made him a lot more confident. Also for what it's worth, a lot of people - you may find the notion stupid - perceive him to be a very smart person, which is pretty valuable socially. I think that is an incredible value gained for that effort, arguably more efficient than a college education considering all this talk nowadays about the bubble.
The Cyrillic script[1] and the Armenian alphabet[2] were also devised in similar fashion, and probably many more. It is not unusual for writing systems or alphabets to find widespread usage in this manner.
The Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics is another one. It was developed by a missionary that noticed that when aboriginal where written in latin script the result was often long and awkward.
Yes, also yes to the exaggeration bit, but intelligence is just, well, intelligence. A complex "brain" can be about emotional depth, about being able to communicate that emotional complexity, it can be about processing senses in amazing ways or many other functions we may not even think of. That is just the complexity of a certain nervous system though, not intelligence per se, for us what matters is indeed problem solving capabilities which lead to technology.
Sure emotional intelligence may be more important than most of us realize (the theory of mind, the ability to "read" other people's thoughts, sometimes also more cynically called Machiavellian intelligence, is thought by some to be the primary driver behind the development of sentience in humans), but I was developing the following thought experiment:
Suppose bottlenose dolphins have an uncanny ability to "read minds" and interpret thoughts and emotions of other bottlenose dolphins (but only of individuals of their own species -- not of porpoises, humans, etc.) to the same or even better extent than we humans can read minds of other humans, but due to the accidental specifics of their bodily layout and environment (no limbs with which to grasp and manipulate objects, unsuitable environment for the use of fire) are unable to develop any semblance of technology. What would those "super-dolphins" look like to us? I have a feeling they would still look a lot like dolphins, and we, without some very specific/expensive/targeted research, probably would have never even realize that we are living right next to some "super-intelligent" animals.
Neanderthals? Yes with them our cousins there is the possibility of interbreeding having occurred, but most likely is that as a species as a whole they went extinct from competition. If even with our similarities and closeness there was enough competition to drive them extinct, I can hardly imagine any (land) species could have been thriving in coexistence with us.
Came here to say almost the same thing, but one more tidbit. Technical = Technical, Programmer = Programmer, and in some cultures even Technical != Programmer. Granted I'm not in US, and I know in the jargon around here people who can code would generally be called technical, but where I live if someone asked me if I was technical I would say no. I can code and I understand maths. I'm not an engineer or anything, neither do I have knowledge worth anything about hardware. That doesn't even pass as "technical" around here. I know it's a bit nitpicky but wording is important if you value your time as you claim.
In the (software/web) start-up culture, technical means writing code. If someone says "I'm creating a fitness app, yeah I'm technical" you expect them to mean "I can code" rather than "I know how to use CAD". Your argument applies in many contexts, but not this one.
Yup, I kind of acknowledged that already, what you say is true of course. Yet in my environment I can still imagine software scenarios where I can say "you need a technical guy for this" to my friends and mean a non-programmer or a special type of programmer. I say no harm in being precise if it costs nothing.
If you are pitching to a potential investor about this idea for an app, and they ask you "So are you technical?" what they mean is "Are you a technical (co-)founder?" as in "Are you the guy who will build/design the prototype/app to a working level before we pour enough money in for you to actually hire decent coders?" When you say yes, but later reveal you don't know how to code but you studied nutrition, they are going to get annoyed.
Once again, it's context. In many worlds technical means other things, but to North American VCs looking at software/apps/etc, it means you know how to get the app/site/whatever running. Since we're talking about the startup world, I really can't see how a potential investor would see it as anything less than deceptive if you said "yeah I'm technical" and then revealed you don't have the capabilities to implement your idea.
100 words per day is definitely possible with very clever techniques and hard work, so is a vocabulary of about 20,000 words in 5 months, but to be fluent (C1) in using them is another story. It is certainly unrealistic unless we're talking 8+ hours a day immersion.
I think you may plateau quickly with 100 words per day and I think that plateau is well below 20,000 words.
Memorizing a foreign language word is not just translation, it's about understanding context and usage for that word.
When you tread outside the "trivial vocabulary kit" you lose bijection between languages and acquiring words becomes harder and harder.
Keep in mind I have nothing but my personal experience to back that up, which means formal studies on the topic are more than welcome to enrich the conversation.
>> Memorizing a foreign language word is not just translation, it's about understanding context and usage for that word.
Exactly. I didn't mean to suggest that you can actually "learn" those 100 words in a meaningful way. That treshold is also difficult to measure indeed, I also can't back that up besides anecdote without spending some time looking into research. Anyway, my point wasn't that at all. I was actually trying to state it's not realistic to assume a 100 word per day acquisition, because that would mean you would spend 4-5+ hours a day _just_ to know certain translations of those words, without any context or very little if any. I'm talking about something very mechanic that would gain you very little in real language acquisition terms for the effort you spend. Unrealistic scenario unless you're trying to win a bet.
Also, it's worth to note that this depends strongly on how you actually define new words, i.e. what kind of inflections etc. you consider to be distinct words. In languages where you can derive an average of 3-4 new words for every word you learn this can become almost trivial.
Either this is just another insincere sentence thrown in to fill the article, or the author's intuition is terrible. Something along these lines: "They are engaged with something amoral, therefore they must be amoral!", genious. A farm or the act of farming is also amoral, so I guess you expect farmers to be pretty indecent. Really, it's been so many years and why do journalists still think these filler sentences help their article?