Parents Explain More Often to Boys Than to Girls During Shared Scientific Thinking

fierceawakening:

reasonandempathy:

Young children’s everyday scientific thinking often occurs in the context of parent-child interactions. In a study of naturally occurring family conversation, parents were three times more likely to explain science to boys than to girls while using interactive science exhibits in a museum. This difference in explanation occurred despite the fact that parents were equally likely to talk to their male and female children about how to use the exhibits and about the evidence generated by the exhibits. The findings suggest that parents engaged in informal science activities with their children may be unintentionally contributing to a gender gap in children’s scientific literacy well before children encounter formal science instruction in grade school.

This is at the core of the STEM Gender Gap.

It is simply a fact that by the time women reach adulthood the majority of them just don’t want to be scientists or mathematicians..  And whatever quotas you put into place it just won’t work because there’s insufficient demand.  

We can talk about “well women are discouraged” or “natural biological inclinations say…” or what have you.

But here’s the deal.  Nothing we say on the subject when looking at fully-grown and realized adults will be entirely accurate if daughters when growing up aren’t taught to the same scientific standards and material as sons are, even informally, even if it’s the mother doing the teaching.

Teach your kids.  Love them.  Help them grow.  Enable them to be fucking amazing.  Let them be spectacular.

My dad always tried to encourage me to “develop tool sense”—to involve me in building things or putting things together or taking them apart. I’m glad he thought girls should learn that! But I usually rejected this because I didn’t know enough about what he was doing to understand *what I was supposed to notice* once he unscrewed some bit of something or showed me some wiring.

I wanted to participate, but I felt stupid, because I didn’t even know what I didn’t know. It wasn’t until I got into Transformers fandom as an adult and essentially bought myself puzzle toys that I started to learn how built/engineered things fit together, and I was terribly insecure about it at first and in some ways I still am. (It’s especially tough for me because since I never learned it, I don’t know things names: “I think this joint thing bends this way and then that way, but I can’t move it! Am I wrong about how it bends or is it sticky?” “Joint thing? Do you mean the double hinge?”)

Not sure where I’m going with this except to say: when people are beginner-beginners, they may not even have the words to explain to you why they didn’t follow something.

Be super patient, at least outwardly, and say stuff like “I can see that you’re confused. That’s okay! I go fast because I already understand. Do you want me to explain again? Did you understand part of what I said?”

Like, if you’re one of the stereotypical good at science bad at social stuff types, imagine that the kid you’re showing things to is you asking about some obscure aspect of manners, and think about that if they seem to take a while to get it.

Etc.

Also some people are just shit teachers. Not talking about your dad obviously, I’ve never seen him, but some people don’t have the pedagogy God gave a field mouse.

Parents Explain More Often to Boys Than to Girls During Shared Scientific Thinking

Chilean’s Biodegradable Plastic Bag Dissolves in Three Minutes

maid-of-timey-wimey:

Environmentally friendly plastic alternatives are great, but… what if you have to carry groceries in the rain?

(Also a nitpick for the article: this bag isn’t biodegradable, it’s water-degradable. Biodegradable means something that breaks down through the action of microbes or other living organisms.)

what if you have to carry groceries in the rain?

I see your occasional rain and raise you: What if I have to carry groceries in the summer, with sweaty hands?

Or, disgustingly, what if I forget, and use it as a garbage bag? I don’t dry out my left-over potato peels or whatever before throwing them out, imagine a garbage bag just splitting open when you lift it out because you forgot you bought your groceries at the trendy place.

Chilean’s Biodegradable Plastic Bag Dissolves in Three Minutes

When Tumblr bans porn, who loses?

earnest-peer:

shieldfoss:

discoursedrome:

A lot of good info and comments here; I’m glad they got a chance to talk to @pervocracy in particular.

For the tl;dr, the big news here is that banning NSFW has been in the works for some time and was simply rushed out the door due to the app thing, and the real motivation is that few ad buyers are willing to buy ads that might show up next to porn.

Porn on Tumblr is something Verizon needs to wipe out if it’s going to
make any money off what it thinks is actually valuable about the
platform — enormous fandom and social justice communities that, just
before the Verizon acquisition, [former head of media brands Simon] Khalaf was insisting the staff figure
out how to better monetize.

This explains a number of things that were hard to contextualize at the time: the insistence on repeatedly turning on safe mode for everybody, and the push for non-chronological feeds, were likely intended to help increase the amount of “safe” pagespace they could sell higher-value ads on.

I’d noticed for a while that Tumblr was pushing the fandom angle very hard – the Radar and other highlight features are extremely fanart-oriented, and that was clearly also part of the motivation behind algorithmic feeds. However, I’d been presuming that this was just to facilitate marketing of the actual brands in question, like “pay Tumblr to highlight fandom content for your show so more people will get into it.” It sounds like they actually wanted to use fandoms as a general marketing demographic, which is a bit more ambitious but also makes more sense – you might want to reach MCU fans not just for MCU stuff but also for unrelated products that had conceptual crossover.

If that’s the case, though, it means that the ban was even more foolhardy than I thought, since fandoms are going to be the first thing to vacate – sites like Dreamwidth are natural fits for that, and not only are they among the least tolerant of strict anti-NSFW guidelines, but they’re also the most likely to post the kind of SFW visual art that Tumblr is flagging for deletion because their algorithms suck.

Ah yes, the enormous Fandom and Social Justice communities that will definitely stay around after they ban queer porn of fandom characters.

Are they fucking mental

I mean you did also catch that they want to double (!) the userbase until 2019 (!!), right?

Besides everything more relevant to the ban, that seems like a clear sign of lost touch.

Nah, “double the user base” just sounds like the kind of idiocy you say to get investors on board, I don’t think anybody involved actually believes that.

But “Get rid of porn to become more advertiser-friendly” sounds completely legit, that’s the kind of plan you would make if you were a serious person who wears a tie to work and have never used tumblr at all.

When Tumblr bans porn, who loses?

When Tumblr bans porn, who loses?

discoursedrome:

A lot of good info and comments here; I’m glad they got a chance to talk to @pervocracy in particular.

For the tl;dr, the big news here is that banning NSFW has been in the works for some time and was simply rushed out the door due to the app thing, and the real motivation is that few ad buyers are willing to buy ads that might show up next to porn.

Porn on Tumblr is something Verizon needs to wipe out if it’s going to
make any money off what it thinks is actually valuable about the
platform — enormous fandom and social justice communities that, just
before the Verizon acquisition, [former head of media brands Simon] Khalaf was insisting the staff figure
out how to better monetize.

This explains a number of things that were hard to contextualize at the time: the insistence on repeatedly turning on safe mode for everybody, and the push for non-chronological feeds, were likely intended to help increase the amount of “safe” pagespace they could sell higher-value ads on.

I’d noticed for a while that Tumblr was pushing the fandom angle very hard – the Radar and other highlight features are extremely fanart-oriented, and that was clearly also part of the motivation behind algorithmic feeds. However, I’d been presuming that this was just to facilitate marketing of the actual brands in question, like “pay Tumblr to highlight fandom content for your show so more people will get into it.” It sounds like they actually wanted to use fandoms as a general marketing demographic, which is a bit more ambitious but also makes more sense – you might want to reach MCU fans not just for MCU stuff but also for unrelated products that had conceptual crossover.

If that’s the case, though, it means that the ban was even more foolhardy than I thought, since fandoms are going to be the first thing to vacate – sites like Dreamwidth are natural fits for that, and not only are they among the least tolerant of strict anti-NSFW guidelines, but they’re also the most likely to post the kind of SFW visual art that Tumblr is flagging for deletion because their algorithms suck.

Ah yes, the enormous Fandom and Social Justice communities that will definitely stay around after they ban queer porn of fandom characters.

Are they fucking mental

When Tumblr bans porn, who loses?

Magnitude 7.0 Earthquake Shakes Alaska, Damaging Roads, Buildings

cromulentenough:

the-real-seebs:

I have seen claims elsewhere that the quake was not 7.0, but 6.something, but that some reporting services were rounding log-scale numbers to whole numbers to make reporting on them easier, which is a horrifically bad idea.

How should you round log scale numbers though? Does a 6.77 get rounded to 6.8? If yes what’s wrong with rounding to 7?

You should probably round down unless you’re very close to the next higher number – there’s some math I could do to find out how close you should be before rounding up becomes more accurate, but I’m not gonna.

(NB: you should probably round down unless you’re a journalist, in which case, higher numbers -> higher interest)

Magnitude 7.0 Earthquake Shakes Alaska, Damaging Roads, Buildings

Banish Plump Mouse Deer and Banish All the World

random-thought-depository:

bambamramfan:

Keep gets wrong what “New Atheism” is (hint: they worship a different god), but this is still a pretty good essay, especially his points about moral economy.

James C. Scott is associated with a tradition called “moral economy” (so is Polanyi), which might be the single worst name for it. A “moral economy” sounds like something Burning Man extra-drug-edition might suggest, Bill and Ted’s take on fiat currency, “What about, like, a system that was fair and excellent to the people, man?” This is not what it means.

Moral economy is, more or less, two observations:

a) Pre-modern societies have informal institutions that govern the economy, and these institutions rely on what sounds to us like “moral” language. That’s Polanyi’s “submerged economy“, primitive redistribution, etc. Why this is the case is a different debate. Maybe people are naturally munificent to their neighbors, maybe it’s because subsistence communities risk ruin if even a few members go under. Hence, in situations of economic and political distress, the peasant class falls into moral language, but it’s not “moralism” as we think of it. In a weird way, it’s closer to institutional language, a kind of rural legalese. The most famous is the demand for “just prices” of bread, etc.

b) The vast majority of our own economic experiences don’t really feel economic. I mean to say: Theoretically we don’t need to go to work. We could just live under a bridge and survive on charity or something. The reasons we go are a lot closer to morality: you need to keep your kids clothed and fed, or you need to make your parents proud, or [other]. Apply to most transactions, especially with members of your circle, and you have it. Whythis pans out into good economic behavior is a different question, the point is that it does, but does not “feel” like it operates on that logic.

Putting this together, using our language: pre-modern communities have to punish defectors without recourse to a state’s judicial apparatus. They do so with moral language, social censure, status, reputation, etc., probably for a few reasons: a) minimizes friction in the community; b) is super-effective; c) allows for a careful tinkering case-by-case; d) is an instantaneous form of punishment, and thus well-suited to communities with narrow temporal wiggle-room to survive the winter. I like to phrase moral economy like this: “Everything you interpreted as moral or religious or ideological was actually material, you just failed to recognize that.”

Though I’m surprised he doesn’t mention “Debt: The First 5000 Years.

Oooh, this is really interesting! The thesis I got from it:

– There’s a strain of leftist thinking that goes roughly like this: religion and conservatism is a tool the elite use to control the masses. If the masses realized the true stark reality of class interests they’d rebel, but the elites keep them pacified by hiring priests and other propagandists to tell them their exploitation is good. This essay is talking about this in terms of class, but it shows up in other areas of left-liberal thought too, e.g. this is how radfems think femininity works. This is backwards. The masses in traditional societies use the moral language they share with the elite as a source of leverage over the elite. A shared moral language allows the poor to guilt and shame the rich for exploitative practices, and it creates Schelling points that the poor can easily coordinate around (e.g. people shouldn’t have to work on Sunday because it’s the Lord’s day).

– Liberalism and other “modernizing” reforms are threats to this soft power. Weaken Islam and you weaken the moral force of Zakat. Weaken Christianity and you weaken the moral force of “Sunday is the day of the Lord.” This probably explains a lot about why poor people tend to be social conservatives: it is rational, as a matter of class interest, for them to be so.

– The most effective form of resistance often isn’t open rebellion but “everyday resistance” that is subtle and often invisible and avoids open confrontation with power (foot-dragging, desertion, petty theft, putting in the absolute minimum effort, etc.).

– The weak often manipulate the strong by flattering their egos. Keep this in mind when you look at societies where everybody seems to accept propositions like “the plebs are all lazy and you just can’t expect them to work hard” or “women are naturally dependent and need a big strong man to protect them and provide for them.”

——–

Reactions:

– I think the “elites meme the plebs into accepting their subjugation” narrative and the “plebs craftily use religion and traditions to manipulate the rich” narrative are probably grabbing different parts of the same elephant. Societies are almost always the designed-by-committee products of a constant fifty-way culture war; they are shaped by many wills.

– This seems like very much the flip-side of @balioc‘s comments on god-emperors and barons. Moral-social pressure tactics are a lot more likely to work on a baron. For one thing, a baron is just more vulnerable to small-scale action. Your little village is the village headman’s whole world too, so if you can turn a few dozen villagers against him that’s a big deal to him. By contrast, your village is a tiny speck in the God-Emperor’s vast dominions, he has no reason to particularly care what people there think of him, and he can crush any village-scale uprising like a bug. But also, a god-emperor is much more likely to have a different culture from yours, which would make it much harder to morally-socially pressure him if you aren’t familiar with his exotic foreign culture.

– I think there may be a connection between the thing this essay is talking about and this. Mouse deer power rests on precisely the forms of power that socially awkward people are bad at and vulnerable to. A world where everything is nice and legible is a world where mouse deer has nowhere to hide, and I suspect for a lot of authoritarian formalizers that’s precisely the appeal of such a world. Formalization is often “punching down,” as ambiguous informal power is often the power of people who aren’t “supposed” to have power, such as women and people who lack certain forms of class privilege (seems like there’s some parallel here with the criticism of antitheism in the essay). On the flip-side, whuffie is a terrible currency and informal power often synergizes with other hierarchies instead of subverting them; informal power often looks like popular and privileged people “punching down” on people with little power.

– The essay talks about this in terms of class, but as I’ve hinted a couple of times now, I wonder if the same analysis could be applied to gender. I often see debates where people will point to things that could be considered female privilege, and feminists will reply that those things are really consequences of the infantilization and disempowerment of women. I think “the weak often manipulate the strong by flattering their egos” may apply here. Ideas about female dependency and vulnerability create a moral language that women can use to demand entitlements and concessions from men in a way that’s compatible with a flattering male self-image.

– I wonder if a lot of “everyday resistance” isn’t consciously resistance at all, just spontaneous expressions of the resentment that naturally exists in someone who feels exploited.

I didn’t see this last time it came around so I’m really happy you reblogged it

Banish Plump Mouse Deer and Banish All the World

Ancient or modern? The perplexing case of indigenous art

bubobubosibericus:

shieldfoss:

argumate:

femmenietzsche:

The problem is that Aboriginal Australians do not, as a rule, look at
their own art in the way I have described above. Aboriginal artists
aren’t working with anything like a Kantian conception of a free play of
the faculties and they have, in the vast majority of cases, no interest
in the idea of abstraction as that idea emerged in European and then
American painting in the 20th century. Aboriginal artists have (up until
very recently) no conception of art as something to hang on a wall, to
enjoy visually and with non-specific cognitive delight. Indeed, many if
not most Aboriginal artists are bemused by the idea of “keeping” works
of art at all, since their practice is to wash off the body paint or
muss-up the designs in the sand after the ceremony is over. Art, for the
Aboriginal artist, is less about having and keeping, and more about
using and doing. Aboriginal artists make their designs in order to map
out sacred sites in the landscape, or to tell important stories, or as
an aid to various specific forms of ritual and worship. The idea of
putting the work on canvas and selling it to outsiders only came about
as recently as the 1970s, and as a way for Aboriginal communities to
make some extra money.

Abie Loy Kemarre, for instance, was thinking not about Kandinsky, but about hens and seeds when she made Bush Hen Dreaming — Bush Leaves.
The work, for all its abstract beauty, is a map of sorts, a map of
sacred sites around Artenya, Kemarre’s ancestral homeland. It also
tracks the movements of the bush hen in its search for bush tomatoes, a
quest that is mythologized in the ritual tales that Aboriginals call
“The Dreaming,” the central narratives that frame Aboriginal life. In
short, there is quite a lot going on in Bush Hen Dreaming that
someone who purchased the painting and hung it over their couch in the
living room might know nothing about. The question, I suppose, is
whether this matters. Can we like her painting simply for the ways it
pleases the eye? Are we required to understand the painting in the way
that Abie Loy Kemarre does?

apparently they make art on North Sentinel Island, with their intricately carved bows

oh no

i want to sail there and gift them a modern compound bow + arrows

stop me before i commit warcrimes

Good job, that’ll probably work until I forget the idea.

Ancient or modern? The perplexing case of indigenous art

Ancient or modern? The perplexing case of indigenous art

argumate:

femmenietzsche:

The problem is that Aboriginal Australians do not, as a rule, look at
their own art in the way I have described above. Aboriginal artists
aren’t working with anything like a Kantian conception of a free play of
the faculties and they have, in the vast majority of cases, no interest
in the idea of abstraction as that idea emerged in European and then
American painting in the 20th century. Aboriginal artists have (up until
very recently) no conception of art as something to hang on a wall, to
enjoy visually and with non-specific cognitive delight. Indeed, many if
not most Aboriginal artists are bemused by the idea of “keeping” works
of art at all, since their practice is to wash off the body paint or
muss-up the designs in the sand after the ceremony is over. Art, for the
Aboriginal artist, is less about having and keeping, and more about
using and doing. Aboriginal artists make their designs in order to map
out sacred sites in the landscape, or to tell important stories, or as
an aid to various specific forms of ritual and worship. The idea of
putting the work on canvas and selling it to outsiders only came about
as recently as the 1970s, and as a way for Aboriginal communities to
make some extra money.

Abie Loy Kemarre, for instance, was thinking not about Kandinsky, but about hens and seeds when she made Bush Hen Dreaming — Bush Leaves.
The work, for all its abstract beauty, is a map of sorts, a map of
sacred sites around Artenya, Kemarre’s ancestral homeland. It also
tracks the movements of the bush hen in its search for bush tomatoes, a
quest that is mythologized in the ritual tales that Aboriginals call
“The Dreaming,” the central narratives that frame Aboriginal life. In
short, there is quite a lot going on in Bush Hen Dreaming that
someone who purchased the painting and hung it over their couch in the
living room might know nothing about. The question, I suppose, is
whether this matters. Can we like her painting simply for the ways it
pleases the eye? Are we required to understand the painting in the way
that Abie Loy Kemarre does?

apparently they make art on North Sentinel Island, with their intricately carved bows

oh no

i want to sail there and gift them a modern compound bow + arrows

stop me before i commit warcrimes

Ancient or modern? The perplexing case of indigenous art