Skip to main content

View Diary: Morning feature: The Monty Hall problem (with poll and statistics questions answered) (310 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No, adults don't have to become angry (0+ / 0-)

    over mathematical logic.  But immature hotheads do.

    Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

    by hestal on Tue May 05, 2009 at 06:41:38 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Therefore hestal = immature hothead. nt (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      plf515, winterbanyan

      This sig line was taken by the Rapture.

      by Maimonides on Tue May 05, 2009 at 06:58:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Still haven't regained your composure, huh? (0+ / 0-)

        Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

        by hestal on Tue May 05, 2009 at 07:02:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't understand how this thread got started (4+ / 0-)

          meaning, i'm not sure where you made the jump from a criticism of Vos Savant to misogyny. It really isn't there and is exceptionally illogical. Not to mention most of the people you are arguing with (for no real reason) are women themselves.

          Perhaps everyone should just walk away and go do something else.

          (0.12, -3.33) disagreement does not automatically render one a shill. duh.

          by terrypinder on Tue May 05, 2009 at 07:08:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There was a reason for my comments. (0+ / 0-)

            If one reads the actual comments that Savant got, which she published on her website, then one can only conclude that misogyny was at work.

            Most of those who were offended and who were downright rude to her were men.  Many were chairmen of university math departments.  Now either Savant deliberately selected only rude letters from males to publish, or most mathematicians are males, or only males got angry.  Furthermore in my world of mathematicians at the time I solicited reactions from colleagues and found that the males were overwhelmingly hostile to her.  One of them, for example, had advanced degrees in math and physics and was the head of reasearch for a very large electronics company and his immediate reaction, and angry reaction, was that she was dead wrong and that she had done much harm to mathematics teaching everywhere.  Three days later he called me to sheepishly admit that she was right and he was wrong.  

            The argument still boils today.  You can see here that heat.  I have been an observer of this blog and some others for years now, almost from their inception, and they are fruitful areas to gather data about human behavior and about how anonymity permits unreasonable discourse to flourish, and about how anger is freely embraced.  

            And these blogs are full of examples where people make fools of themselves in a special way.  This old adage is proven true time and again: "It is not what you don't know that makes you look silly, but it is what you know that just ain't so that does trick."

            For example, misogyny, as it is used here is taken to mean a hatred of women by males, but that is not the definition of misogyny.  It simply means a hatred of women no matter the gender of the hater.  So both males and females can be misogynists.

            I am making this study to see how the Internet can be employed to replace certain important national institutions.  One of these is political parties.  Where else can one find such examples of Interet political discourse, with an emphasis on political parties, than here and others of similar kind.

            The evolution of these blogs has been fascinating and they are improving, but there are several important factors that are used to control debate, in a good way, that are absent from them.  As a consequence good ideas are lost in the heat of emotion.  I see it all the time.  There is more to this process that I am following but I think I should stop here.

            Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

            by hestal on Tue May 05, 2009 at 07:28:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So this is all about you. Makes sense now. nt (0+ / 0-)

              This sig line was taken by the Rapture.

              by Maimonides on Tue May 05, 2009 at 07:31:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  You were the one who suggested (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              plf515, Maimonides, kktlaw

              the limited definition, to wit:

              Secondly you are so quick to forgive the men, yes men, who wrote in and castigated her in the most hateful terms, telling her that she was wrong, not unclear, but flat wrong.  If she had been a man the writers would have confirmed the correctness of her ultimate answer and they would have offered better explanations than his.  That is how gentlemen behave, but gentlemen, unfortunately do not behave like gentlemen when it comes to admitting that a woman, a WOMAN for god's sakes, is smarter than they.

              And the final proof of my statements is that when such ungentlemanly persons have their rudeness pointed out to them they become uncontrollably angry and start SHOUTING.

              I wasn't going to reply to you again, but I couldn't let this pass.  If your mode of study is to come on a blog, hijack the thread with baseless accusations, and then excuse yourself because we here are just bugs under your microscope, you may have to start eating doughnuts for breakfast.  You insulted my friends.

              Basta!

              The austerity you see around you covers the richness of life like a veil -- Anonymous

              by winterbanyan on Tue May 05, 2009 at 07:39:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You are incorrect. (0+ / 0-)

                If you read the thread beginning with my first comment you will see that Mainmonides was the first to suggest that only men hate women.

                I wrote: "I am not angry. I am amused, but also saddened at the irrationality of so many people when it comes to dealing with a smart woman."

                Maimonides, in attack mode wrote: "BTW, women are responding to you. But you're ignoring them . . . because they undermine your thesis?"

                Clearly Maimonides assumed that when I said "many people" I meant men.  He decided on his own, without any prompting from me, that my "thesis" was that only men have trouble dealing with a smart woman.  I did not say it, I did not imply it.  Maimonides made it up and you bought into it -- but he may be one of your friends so giving your support was natural.  I forgive you.

                But I did pile on.  I wanted to see if anyone else would point out this leap to a conclusion.  But no one did.  The narrative was already established.  I was the black hat.  Apparently a lot of these people are "friends" in the Internet sense, and the gang effect came into play.  The whole process was routine.

                So, winterbanyan, you, too have leaped to an incorrect conclusion.

                I don't know what "Basta!" means, so I will just say Ciao.

                Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

                by hestal on Tue May 05, 2009 at 07:59:39 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I was responding to your attack by noting (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  arrows theorem

                  that women were disagreeing with you about the misogyny.  My background in feminist anthropology leads me to believe that it is often best to let women weigh in on whether misogyny is present.

                  Which has nothing to do with my original comment that you've blithely ignored for ages now.

                  This sig line was taken by the Rapture.

                  by Maimonides on Tue May 05, 2009 at 08:28:31 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  How this actually came down (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  plf515

                  I said that she stated the problem wrong (fact) and is overrated (opinion).  You responded:

                  Does her IQ rate higher than yours?  Is this jealousy talking?  She has given hundreds of problems over the years, and this is the only mistake?  And she got the answer right, right?  You just didn't like her explanation?

                  I responded, reasonably, that GIVEN HER EXPLANATION, her answer was originally incorrect (fact), and that her tree falling in the woods explanation was a cop-out (opinion).

                  You responded:

                  Your stubborness has been shared by many (0+ / 0-)
                  many other die hards who just can't accept being caught out by a woman.  Go to Savant's site to see some of the letters she received.  You will see yourself there

                  And right there, without any NEED to know my gender, you ignored the two times I brought up her original mistake in favor of saying that my comments were because she's a woman.  Implicitly, because of misogyny.

                  Sorry, the record, YOUR record, stands.

                  This sig line was taken by the Rapture.

                  by Maimonides on Tue May 05, 2009 at 08:35:11 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And then . . . (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    plf515

                    I asked you to apologize, which you didn't

                    and then you went on to bizarrely accuse me of

                    You are wrong on so many levels. (0+ / 0-)
                    Misogyny is commonplace in the world, and especially in math and science.  (I never said it wasn't)

                    Secondly (there was no firstly) you are so quick to forgive the men, yes men, who wrote in and castigated her in the most hateful terms, telling her that she was wrong, not unclear, but flat wrong. (I never brought them up at all, or their gender.  That's all you.) If she had been a man the writers would have confirmed the correctness of her ultimate answer and they would have offered better explanations than his.  That is how gentlemen behave, but gentlemen, unfortunately do not behave like gentlemen when it comes to admitting that a woman, a WOMAN for god's sakes, is smarter than they. (And for fun you finish off with a broad stereotype, bravo!)

                    And the rest is you going off without ever getting to the main point, the thing I find interesting: the difference between a statistical problem and a problem of information theory.

                    We could discuss sexism in the maths and sciences.  It could be a healthy debate.  My background in feminist anthropology might have informed you, and as an anthrolopologist I would have been interested in your observations as a woman in that world.  But alas, you chose an enemy, and made one.

                    This sig line was taken by the Rapture.

                    by Maimonides on Tue May 05, 2009 at 08:48:14 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  i'm sorry (4+ / 0-)

              but the criticism she recieved on her site regarding her solution to this problem has nothing to do with the criticism that Maimondes and winterbayan, among others, offered here.

              you've made the assumption that those criticizing her are a.)jealous or b.) sexist without any evidence other then what she received ages ago in response. You've also made the assumption that people are angry. I can assure you Maimondes was having fun as logical reasoning sans emotional input is one of his big things (or, at least from following him through the blog over the last months and years, that's what I get from him).

              You need to show a lot more evidence that the people posting here in criticism of Vos Savant are jealous angry misogynists. That seems to be the crux of your claim, and there's absolutely no evidence of such.

              (0.12, -3.33) disagreement does not automatically render one a shill. duh.

              by terrypinder on Tue May 05, 2009 at 07:54:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Now I'm just needling you because it's easy. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          plf515

          I started by being reasonable, even gave you a second swing at my explanation.  Then I tried to convince you that you were overreacting.

          Now I'm just poking with the poor frothing sod with the aggression disorder.

          This sig line was taken by the Rapture.

          by Maimonides on Tue May 05, 2009 at 07:11:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (127)
  • Community (60)
  • Media (32)
  • Elections (32)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Environment (28)
  • Law (28)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Culture (24)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Economy (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Marriage Equality (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site