explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2865: The Wrong Stuff

2023-12-08T22:30:51Z

108.162.216.104: /* personal similarity */

the design is very timeghost-esque [[Special:Contributions/172.71.167.165|172.71.167.165]] 21:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Bumpf

== personal similarity ==

I made a post to the derelict cypherpunks list right before this about ghost visits. It’s notable because I used to post to the same derelict list about making a spaceship out of tissue paper. I’m planning to edit this comment with my posts (in progress).

[https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2023-December/120247.html Thu Dec 7 20:57:06 PST 2023]<blockquote><code>2249

a ghost visits you

you: “oh! a ghost! are you a spirit of a person who is now dead?”

the ghost looks sheepish

ghost: “i am a psychological result of something you went through!”

the ghost grins, trying to put on a great-looking appearance

you: “awww frack”

the ghost stops grinning and looks crestfallen and depressed

ghost: “i want to repeat something that perturbed you from the thing you went through, over and over … would this be okay with you?” [translator may have taken liberties with this line]

you: “oh no that would um be really perterburing! um !!”

ghost [looking sheepish again]: “um !”

you and the ghost both put handkerchiefs over your mouths to represent politeness or something and you go for a walk down a lane in your town called “memory la—
</code></blockquote>

[https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2023-January/110003.html Mon Jan 30 18:35:20 PST 2023]<blockquote><code>[crazy][spam]

let’s reduce the tension and go back to a concept spammed to this list before

let’s make a space rocket out of tissue paper! or s9mething similarly incredibly flimsy like cobwebs or dustballs.
</code></blockquote>
[https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2023-January/110004.html Mon Jan 30 18:36:19 PST 2023]
<blockquote><code>[crazy][spam]

- we can use an nlp bot to scrape the internet for materials
properties and perform the rough design

- we can make bots that replicate like a reprap generator to collect
the materials
</code></blockquote>
[https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2021-December/093000.html Wed Dec 1 00:17:51 PST 2021]
<blockquote><code>[spam][ot][rambling][crazy] Building a Spaceship Out Of Something Ridiculously Weak and Flimsy

I like to daydream around hard challenges.

I don't know how to build a spaceship. But maybe it would be fun to try.

To make it harder, let's make it out of only something ridiculously hard to
do it with, like toilet paper, or leaves, or old newspapers.

I don't know what kinds of problems one runs into when building a
spaceship, but when I start planning it I think the first problem will be
getting something to go really, really far against gravity.

Another problem I hear about is burning up as you accelerate through the
atmosphere.

I imagine aiming what direction you go in is pretty hard too.

I'm thinking I'm probably okay with there being some guidance computers and
robotics on the craft, but that we would _mostly_ make it out of tissue
paper or whatnot. Making computers out of tissue paper can be considered a
separate problem, for now.

One way to make tissue paper move is to burn it. Could we use a
tissue-paper-fueled rocket to accelerate the craft? Almost certainly not,
but doing the calculations for this could inform what thing to consider
next.

I have no idea how to make a rocket, or how rockets work, but I imagine
that when you burn something, it turns into gas, and the expansion of the
gas is much larger than the thing you burned, so if you direct this gas in
some direction or another, it might push something further. I dunno. Like
getting up from a chair because of a fire you sat in. Maybe? I dunno.

Maybe I'll briefly websearch for "solid fuel rocket" and see what I get.
</code></blockquote> … the post goes on and I then replied with more things for a few days. Rereading it turns out I was playing with my psychological triggers from social influence AI, and it’s hard to continue cause my amnesia and dissociation is kicking in (might try a different part not sure). I think of this xkcd as about me though!

[[Special:Contributions/172.71.254.32|172.71.254.32]] 21:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2471: Hippo Attacks

2021-06-05T00:28:04Z

108.162.216.104:

'Hippo violation' refers to Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA or the Kennedy–Kassebaum Act) - probably ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.95|172.69.35.95]] 22:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
:I've worked with demographic data and experienced the removal of datapoints with only a couple people in them, because the statistics would reveal the details of the people. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.48|172.70.114.48]] 22:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
:Strictly speaking, wouldn't this be a HIPOO violation? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.142.171|172.68.142.171]] 22:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
:Alternatively, it may refer to violation of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath Hippocratic Oath] which include provision to respect patients' privacy [[User:Aufa|Aufa]] ([[User talk:Aufa|talk]])
"But, counting every body of water on the planet, this works out as around 400 (unique) waves per square meter" - Can we get a source for this information? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.20|108.162.221.20]] 11:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
:The Wikipedia article "Earth", in the section "Surface", says that the area of the oceans is 361.13 million sq km (their source: CIA's World Factbook). If so, then 850 trillion waves would average out to 2.354 million waves per sq km, or 2.354 waves per square meter.--[[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.172|172.70.110.172]] 12:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
::But… is “area“ referring to the actual surface area of the world’s oceans, which are three-dimensional, or the are they assuming a flat surface within the perimeter? Not only that, is this value determined based on the mean value between tides? Finally, of course, if we are looking at the true surface area, including the undulations, that would be a remarkably much larger number then that calculated by merely looking at a flat surface within a perimeter. I’ll hang up and listen for the answer.[[User:Dhugot|Dhugot]] ([[User talk:Dhugot|talk]]) 21:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
:I inserted the '(unique)' to the edit, among other things (I thought presuming stormy waters was overkill), taking on trust the number-per had been worked out accurately ahead of time. Maybe the original author of that ''had'' accounted for how many square metres a wave might cover (and thus combine with other waves nominally belonging to other ²m units).
:Assuming the 2ish waves value is correct (for one thing, assuming it's a US Trillion, which is likely; but the alternative can't account for the factor of ~175, regardless) then do change it, but any significant wave does exist in a greater area than 1m² both in width and between pairs of troughs, so two waves or ripples assigned to one area (prob. crossing paths) will probably also be mixed up with 'other square's waves'.
:Naturally, I presume the actual figure given is a ridiculously made-up one, but if we're justifying/highlighting this belief then these are the considerations I'd give to the matter. Even if the maths isn't perfect. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.161|141.101.99.161]] 13:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

From the title-text: "Some random guess will get cited everywhere and become the universally quoted value." This might be a reference to [[Citogenesis]]? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.147|172.68.132.147]] 15:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Side note: the title text talks about waves *in* the ocean, not *on* the ocean. This means that localized, sub-surface waves should also be considered as well as any waves caused by even small seismic events. [[User:Cwallenpoole|Cwallenpoole]] ([[User talk:Cwallenpoole|talk]]) 18:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

If one counts whale song, sonar pings, https://inshorts.com/m/en/news/herring-fish-communicate-through-farts-1490104994916 maybe mr munroe's number is still a wag. Dunno.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.104|108.162.216.104]] 00:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2471: Hippo Attacks

2021-06-05T00:26:22Z

108.162.216.104:

1588: Hardware Reductionism

2015-10-09T22:19:27Z

108.162.216.104: /* Explanation */ Update status

{{comic
| number = 1588
| date = October 9, 2015
| title = Hardware Reductionism
| image = hardware_reductionism.png
| titletext = My MRI research shows a clear correlation between the size of the parietal lobe--the part of the brain that handles spatial reasoning--and enjoyment of 3D Doritos®.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|More links and real examples would help.}}

[[Wikipedia:Reductionism|Reductionism]] is the belief that things can be explained by their smaller parts. It can be abused, when complex phenomena with multiple causes are attributed to a single, simple cause.

Neurological reductionism is the attempt to explain people's behavior and personality by physical features of their brain. With advances in neuroscience, and especially in brain imaging, there's a fad to claim that brain types determine what the mind is. Examples of this kind of bad reductionism would be:

* Male brains have more grey matter than females. Therefore males are smarter. For an example of criticism of this kind of reasoning, see ''[http://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2013/dec/04/male-female-brains-real-differences Male and female brains: the REAL differences]'' (4 December 2013).
* Brains of gay males are slightly more symmetrical, as are female brains, when compared to straight males. Therefore gay men are fated to be more effeminate.
* The left side of the brain is associated with logical thinking, and the right, with visual and artistic thinking. Therefore people divide into "left-brain" or "right-brain" types, depending on how good they are at using each side.

There are several problems with this kind of reasoning. First, most studies identify correlation, not causation. Brains are plastic; they can be shaped by experience. For example, if, in a given society, the females are taught to mind their appearance, and the males are taught that aesthetic considerations are unmanly, then of course the female brains will end up with more developed aesthetic centers. In other words, behavior and capabilities aren't always ''determined'' by the brain. Sometimes it's the behavior that shapes the brain; sometimes a third factor (e.g., malnutrition) shapes both.

Second, even when the brain is actually a cause of the behavior, it's far from the only piece in the puzzle. Many studies on brain differences are correlation studies, often about very small effect sizes. Unfortunately, the popular science media tends to gloss over the statistical concept of "effect size". For example, imagine a study that says that males' brains are 0.1% more likely than females' brains to exhibit attention-deficit disorder (ADHD). Journalists are prone to report it simply as "STUDY SHOWS THAT MALES HAVE MORE ADHD", and this becomes a conversation soundbite that neglects other factors, liked genetics or pregnancy smoking.

Another kind of excessive neuronal reductionism is the overemphasis on brain modules ("scientists identify brain area responsible for religious faith", and the like). Though it's true that the brain has specialized areas, it's also true that the processing is very complex, messy, and distributed all over. Some varieties of brain damage can often be overcome by learning to use undamaged areas of the brain.

The comic illustrates the problem by analogy to some better-understood general-purpose computing hardware: the CPU in a smartphone. Cueball and Megan have used their phones to take pictures of the same event: a triathlon, that is, an athletic competition comprising three modalities (e.g., swimming, cycling, and running). Cueball wonders why is it that Megan's photos are more popular, and Megan gives a reductionist explanation (starting with the typical "research shows that"): Cueball's phone only has two cores. (A [[Wikipedia:Multi-core processor|core]] is a part of a CPU that is, roughly speaking, capable of acting as an independent computer.) Megan thinks that this means Cueball's smartphone can only capture two events at the same time; she misunderstands how the specialized modules work and fails to realize that the number of cores is unrelated to how many events can be captured. Her claim is like saying that male brains are better at spatial reasoning, and therefore males are better triathlon photographers, or that females are better at multitasking, and therefore females are better triathlon photographers.

A CPU with more cores could process pictures faster, speeding up facial recognition or color filters. So it's true that Megan's CPU makes it slightly easier for her to take pictures. However, this has, at best, a very small effect in the number of "likes". There's a lot more going on with photography than the CPU of the phone: Megan's photographing skills, her luck in capturing interesting scenes, the number of online friends she has, etc.

So Megan misunderstands many things: the modularity of CPUs, the small effect of the CPU on the quality of her photography, and the actual causes of her success, much like people who reduce ability to structural features of the brain.

The title text is mocking reductionist explanations based on [[wikipedia:Magnetic resonance imaging|magnetic resonance brain imaging]]. One of the most famous (and [http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/08/gender-gap-in-spatial-reasoning-mia-in-matrilineal-society/ disputed]) claims about gendered brains is that women's brains are (slightly) worse at spatial reasoning. In the title text, a larger spatial reasoning brain area is associated with enjoyment of 3D Doritos® – a three-dimensional variation of the popular junk-food snack.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball hold his smartphone looking at it while talking to Megan who is holding her smartphone in her hand.]
:Cueball: Your photos from the triatholon got so many more likes than mine.
:Megan: Yeah - My phone is quad-core. Research shows that iPhones like yours have just two cores, so they have a hard time capturing scenes with three different events in them.

:[Caption below the frame:]
:If we talked about phone hardware the way we talk about brain hardware

==Trivia==
*There is a spelling error in Cueball's comment where he says triath'''o'''lon instead of triathlon. (Maybe it will be corrected by [[Randall]] when he notices?)

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]

1588: Hardware Reductionism

2015-10-09T22:17:50Z

108.162.216.104: /* Explanation */ Minor tweaks

{{comic
| number = 1588
| date = October 9, 2015
| title = Hardware Reductionism
| image = hardware_reductionism.png
| titletext = My MRI research shows a clear correlation between the size of the parietal lobe--the part of the brain that handles spatial reasoning--and enjoyment of 3D Doritos®.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Quick attempt; needs links and real examples, as well as summarizing/editing.}}

[[Wikipedia:Reductionism|Reductionism]] is the belief that things can be explained by their smaller parts. It can be abused, when complex phenomena with multiple causes are attributed to a single, simple cause.

Neurological reductionism is the attempt to explain people's behavior and personality by physical features of their brain. With advances in neuroscience, and especially in brain imaging, there's a fad to claim that brain types determine what the mind is. Examples of this kind of bad reductionism would be:

* Male brains have more grey matter than females. Therefore males are smarter. For an example of criticism of this kind of reasoning, see ''[http://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2013/dec/04/male-female-brains-real-differences Male and female brains: the REAL differences]'' (4 December 2013).
* Brains of gay males are slightly more symmetrical, as are female brains, when compared to straight males. Therefore gay men are fated to be more effeminate.
* The left side of the brain is associated with logical thinking, and the right, with visual and artistic thinking. Therefore people divide into "left-brain" or "right-brain" types, depending on how good they are at using each side.

There are several problems with this kind of reasoning. First, most studies identify correlation, not causation. Brains are plastic; they can be shaped by experience. For example, if, in a given society, the females are taught to mind their appearance, and the males are taught that aesthetic considerations are unmanly, then of course the female brains will end up with more developed aesthetic centers. In other words, behavior and capabilities aren't always ''determined'' by the brain. Sometimes it's the behavior that shapes the brain; sometimes a third factor (e.g., malnutrition) shapes both.

Second, even when the brain is actually a cause of the behavior, it's far from the only piece in the puzzle. Many studies on brain differences are correlation studies, often about very small effect sizes. Unfortunately, the popular science media tends to gloss over the statistical concept of "effect size". For example, imagine a study that says that males' brains are 0.1% more likely than females' brains to exhibit attention-deficit disorder (ADHD). Journalists are prone to report it simply as "STUDY SHOWS THAT MALES HAVE MORE ADHD", and this becomes a conversation soundbite that neglects other factors, liked genetics or pregnancy smoking.

Another kind of excessive neuronal reductionism is the overemphasis on brain modules ("scientists identify brain area responsible for religious faith", and the like). Though it's true that the brain has specialized areas, it's also true that the processing is very complex, messy, and distributed all over. Some varieties of brain damage can often be overcome by learning to use undamaged areas of the brain.

The comic illustrates the problem by analogy to some better-understood general-purpose computing hardware: the CPU in a smartphone. Cueball and Megan have used their phones to take pictures of the same event: a triathlon, that is, an athletic competition comprising three modalities (e.g., swimming, cycling, and running). Cueball wonders why is it that Megan's photos are more popular, and Megan gives a reductionist explanation (starting with the typical "research shows that"): Cueball's phone only has two cores. (A [[Wikipedia:Multi-core processor|core]] is a part of a CPU that is, roughly speaking, capable of acting as an independent computer.) Megan thinks that this means Cueball's smartphone can only capture two events at the same time; she misunderstands how the specialized modules work and fails to realize that the number of cores is unrelated to how many events can be captured. Her claim is like saying that male brains are better at spatial reasoning, and therefore males are better triathlon photographers, or that females are better at multitasking, and therefore females are better triathlon photographers.

A CPU with more cores could process pictures faster, speeding up facial recognition or color filters. So it's true that Megan's CPU makes it slightly easier for her to take pictures. However, this has, at best, a very small effect in the number of "likes". There's a lot more going on with photography than the CPU of the phone: Megan's photographing skills, her luck in capturing interesting scenes, the number of online friends she has, etc.

So Megan misunderstands many things: the modularity of CPUs, the small effect of the CPU on the quality of her photography, and the actual causes of her success, much like people who reduce ability to structural features of the brain.

The title text is mocking reductionist explanations based on [[wikipedia:Magnetic resonance imaging|magnetic resonance brain imaging]]. One of the most famous (and [http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/08/gender-gap-in-spatial-reasoning-mia-in-matrilineal-society/ disputed]) claims about gendered brains is that women's brains are (slightly) worse at spatial reasoning. In the title text, a larger spatial reasoning brain area is associated with enjoyment of 3D Doritos® – a three-dimensional variation of the popular junk-food snack.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball hold his smartphone looking at it while talking to Megan who is holding her smartphone in her hand.]
:Cueball: Your photos from the triatholon got so many more likes than mine.
:Megan: Yeah - My phone is quad-core. Research shows that iPhones like yours have just two cores, so they have a hard time capturing scenes with three different events in them.

:[Caption below the frame:]
:If we talked about phone hardware the way we talk about brain hardware

==Trivia==
*There is a spelling error in Cueball's comment where he says triath'''o'''lon instead of triathlon. (Maybe it will be corrected by [[Randall]] when he notices?)

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]

1588: Hardware Reductionism

2015-10-09T22:15:21Z

108.162.216.104: /* Explanation */ Sentence structure variation, wikification, another example

{{comic
| number = 1588
| date = October 9, 2015
| title = Hardware Reductionism
| image = hardware_reductionism.png
| titletext = My MRI research shows a clear correlation between the size of the parietal lobe--the part of the brain that handles spatial reasoning--and enjoyment of 3D Doritos®.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Quick attempt; needs links and real examples, as well as summarizing/editing.}}

[[Wikipedia:Reductionism|Reductionism]] is the belief that things can be explained by their smaller parts. It can be abused, when complex phenomena with multiple causes are attributed to a single, simple cause.

Neurological reductionism is the attempt to explain people's behavior and personality by physical features of their brain. With advances in neuroscience, and especially in brain imaging, there's a fad to claim that brain types determine what the mind is. Examples of this kind of bad reductionism would be:

* Male brains have more grey matter than females. Therefore males are smarter. For an example of criticism of this kind of reasoning, see ''[http://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2013/dec/04/male-female-brains-real-differences Male and female brains: the REAL differences]'' (4 December 2013).
* Brains of gay males are slightly more symmetrical, as are female brains, when compared to straight males. Therefore gay men are fated to be more effeminate.
* The left side of the brain is associated with logical thinking, and the right, with visual and artistic thinking. Therefore people divide into "left-brain" or "right-brain" types, depending on how good they are at using each side.

There are several problems with this kind of reasoning. First, most studies identify correlation, not causation. Brains are plastic; they can be shaped by experience. For example, if, in a given society, the females are taught to mind their appearance, and the males are taught that aesthetic considerations are unmanly, then of course the female brains will end up with more developed aesthetic centers. In other words, behavior and capabilities aren't always ''determined'' by the brain. Sometimes it's the behavior that shapes the brain; sometimes a third factor (e.g., malnutrition) shapes both.

Second, even when the brain is actually a cause of the behavior, it's far from the only piece in the puzzle. Many studies on brain differences are correlation studies, often about very small effect sizes. Unfortunately, the popular science media tends to gloss over the statistical concept of "effect size". For example, imagine a study that says that males' brains are 0.1% more likely than females' brains to exhibit attention-deficit disorder (ADHD). Journalists are prone to report it simply as "STUDY SHOWS THAT MALES HAVE MORE ADHD", and this becomes a conversation soundbite that neglects other factors, liked genetics or pregnancy smoking.

Another kind of excessive neuronal reductionism is the overemphasis on brain modules ("scientists identify brain area responsible for religious faith", and the like). Though it's true that the brain has specialized areas, it's also true that the processing is very complex, messy, and distributed all over. Some varieties of brain damage can often be overcome by learning to use undamaged areas of the brain.

The comic illustrates the problem by analogy to some better-understood general-purpose computing hardware: the CPU in a smartphone. Cueball and Megan have used their phones to take pictures of the same event: a triathlon, that is, an athletic competition comprising three modalities (e.g., swimming, cycling, and running). Cueball wonders why is it that Megan's photos are more popular, and Megan gives a reductionist explanation (starting with the typical "research shows that"): Cueball's phone only has two cores. (A [[Wikipedia:Multi-core processor|core]] is a part of a CPU that is, roughly speaking, capable of acting as an independent computer.) Megan thinks that this means Cueball's smartphone can only capture two events at the same time; she misunderstands how the specialized modules work and fails to realize that the number of cores is unrelated to how many events can be captured. Her claim is like saying that male brains are better at spatial reasoning, and therefore males are better triathlon photographers, or that females are better at multitasking, and therefore females are better triathlon photographers.

A CPU with more cores could process pictures faster, speeding up facial recognition or color filters. So it's true that Megan's CPU makes it slightly easier for her to take pictures. However, this has, at best, a very small effect in the number of "likes". There's a lot more going on with photography than the GPU of the phone: Megan's photographing skills, her luck in capturing interesting scenes, the number of online friends she has, etc.

So Megan misunderstands: the modularity of CPUs; the small effect of the CPU on the quality of her photography; and the actual causes of her success, much like people who reduce ability to brain advantages.

The title text is mocking reductionist explanations based on [[wikipedia:Magnetic resonance imaging|magnetic resonance brain imaging]]. One of the most famous (and [http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/08/gender-gap-in-spatial-reasoning-mia-in-matrilineal-society/ disputed]) claims about gendered brains is that women's brains are (slightly) worse at spatial reasoning. In the title text, a larger spatial reasoning brain area is associated with enjoyment of 3D Doritos® – a three-dimensional variation of the popular junk-food snack.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball hold his smartphone looking at it while talking to Megan who is holding her smartphone in her hand.]
:Cueball: Your photos from the triatholon got so many more likes than mine.
:Megan: Yeah - My phone is quad-core. Research shows that iPhones like yours have just two cores, so they have a hard time capturing scenes with three different events in them.

:[Caption below the frame:]
:If we talked about phone hardware the way we talk about brain hardware

==Trivia==
*There is a spelling error in Cueball's comment where he says triath'''o'''lon instead of triathlon. (Maybe it will be corrected by [[Randall]] when he notices?)

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]

1588: Hardware Reductionism

2015-10-09T22:10:35Z

108.162.216.104: /* Explanation */ Condense

{{comic
| number = 1588
| date = October 9, 2015
| title = Hardware Reductionism
| image = hardware_reductionism.png
| titletext = My MRI research shows a clear correlation between the size of the parietal lobe--the part of the brain that handles spatial reasoning--and enjoyment of 3D Doritos®.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Quick attempt; needs links and real examples, as well as summarizing/editing.}}

[[Wikipedia:Reductionism|Reductionism]] is the belief that things can be explained by their smaller parts. It can be abused, when complex phenomena with multiple causes are attributed to a single, simple cause.

Neurological reductionism is the attempt to explain people's behavior and personality by physical features of their brain. With advances in neuroscience, and especially in brain imaging, there's a fad to claim that brain types determine what the mind is. Examples of this kind of bad reductionism would be:

* Male brains have more grey matter than females. Therefore males are smarter. For an example of criticism of this kind of reasoning, see ''[http://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2013/dec/04/male-female-brains-real-differences Male and female brains: the REAL differences]'' (4 December 2013).
* Brains of gay males are slightly more symmetrical, as are female brains, when compared to straight males. Therefore gay men are fated to be more effeminate.
* The left side of the brain is associated with logical thinking, and the right, with visual and artistic thinking. Therefore people divide into "left-brain" or "right-brain" types, depending on how good they are at using each side.

There are several problems with this kind of reasoning. First, most studies identify correlation, not causation. Brains are plastic; they can be shaped by experience. For example, if, in a given society, the females are taught to mind their appearance, and the males are taught that aesthetic considerations are unmanly, then of course the female brains will end up with more developed aesthetic centers. In other words, behavior and capabilities aren't always ''determined'' by the brain. Sometimes it's the behavior that shapes the brain; sometimes a third factor (e.g., malnutrition) shapes both.

Second, even when the brain is actually a cause of the behavior, it's far from the only piece in the puzzle. Many studies on brain differences are correlation studies, often about very small effect sizes. Unfortunately, the popular science media tends to gloss over the statistical concept of "effect size". For example, imagine a study that says that males' brains are 0.1% more likely than females' brains to exhibit attention-deficit disorder (ADHD). Journalists are prone to report it simply as "STUDY SHOWS THAT MALES HAVE MORE ADHD", and this becomes a conversation soundbite that neglects other factors, liked genetics or pregnancy smoking.

Another kind of excessive neuronal reductionism is the overemphasis on brain modules ("scientists identify brain area responsible for religious faith", and the like). Though it's true that the brain has specialized areas, it's also true that the processing is very complex, messy, and distributed all over. Some varieties of brain damage can often be overcome by learning to use undamaged areas of the brain.

The comic illustrates the problem by analogy to some better-understood general-purpose computing hardware: the CPU in a smartphone. Cueball and Megan have used their phones to take pictures of the same event: a triathlon, that is, an athletic competition comprising three modalities (e.g., swimming, cycling, and running). Cueball wonders why is it that Megan's photos are more popular. Megan gives a reductionist explanation (starting with the typical "research shows that"): Cueball's phone only has two cores. In a CPU each core is, roughly speaking, capable of acting as an independent computer. Megan thinks that this means Cueball's smartphone can only capture two events at the same time. She misunderstoods how the specialized modules work; the number of cores is unrelated to how many events can be captured. This is like saying that male brains are better at spatial reasoning, and therefore males are better photographers.

A CPU with more cores could process pictures faster, speeding up facial recognition or color filters. So it's true that Megan's CPU makes it slightly easier for her to take pictures. However, this has, at best, a very small effect in the number of "likes". There's a lot more going on with photography than the GPU of the phone: Megan's photographing skills, her luck in capturing interesting scenes, the number of online friends she has, etc.

So Megan misunderstands: the modularity of CPUs; the small effect of the CPU on the quality of her photography; and the actual causes of her success, much like people who reduce ability to brain advantages.

The title text is mocking reductionist explanations based on [[wikipedia:Magnetic resonance imaging|magnetic resonance brain imaging]]. One of the most famous (and [http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/08/gender-gap-in-spatial-reasoning-mia-in-matrilineal-society/ disputed]) claims about gendered brains is that women's brains are (slightly) worse at spatial reasoning. In the title text, a larger spatial reasoning brain area is associated with enjoyment of 3D Doritos® – a three-dimensional variation of the popular junk-food snack.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball hold his smartphone looking at it while talking to Megan who is holding her smartphone in her hand.]
:Cueball: Your photos from the triatholon got so many more likes than mine.
:Megan: Yeah - My phone is quad-core. Research shows that iPhones like yours have just two cores, so they have a hard time capturing scenes with three different events in them.

:[Caption below the frame:]
:If we talked about phone hardware the way we talk about brain hardware

==Trivia==
*There is a spelling error in Cueball's comment where he says triath'''o'''lon instead of triathlon. (Maybe it will be corrected by [[Randall]] when he notices?)

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]

1588: Hardware Reductionism

2015-10-09T22:07:06Z

108.162.216.104: /* Explanation */ commas

{{comic
| number = 1588
| date = October 9, 2015
| title = Hardware Reductionism
| image = hardware_reductionism.png
| titletext = My MRI research shows a clear correlation between the size of the parietal lobe--the part of the brain that handles spatial reasoning--and enjoyment of 3D Doritos®.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Quick attempt; needs links and real examples, as well as summarizing/editing.}}

[[Wikipedia:Reductionism|Reductionism]] is the belief that things can be explained by their smaller parts. It can be abused, when complex phenomena with multiple causes are attributed to a single, simple cause.

Neurological reductionism is the attempt to explain people's behavior and personality by physical features of their brain. With advances in neuroscience, and especially in brain imaging, there's a fad to claim that brain types determine what the mind is. Examples of this kind of bad reductionism would be:

* Male brains have more grey matter than females. Therefore males are smarter. For an example of criticism of this kind of reasoning, see ''[http://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2013/dec/04/male-female-brains-real-differences Male and female brains: the REAL differences]'' (4 December 2013).
* Brains of gay males are slightly more symmetrical, as are female brains, when compared to straight males. Therefore gay men are fated to be more effeminate.
* The left side of the brain is associated with logical thinking, and the right, with visual and artistic thinking. Therefore people divide into "left-brain" or "right-brain" types, depending on how good they are at using each side.

There are several problems with this kind of reasoning. First, most studies identify correlation, not causation. Brains are plastic; they can be shaped by experience. For example, if, in a given society, the females are taught to mind their appearance, and the males are taught that aesthetic considerations are unmanly, then of course the female brains will end up with more developed aesthetic centers. In other words, behavior and capabilities aren't always ''determined'' by the brain. Sometimes it's the behavior that shapes the brain; sometimes a third factor (e.g., malnutrition) shapes both.

Second, even when the brain is actually a cause of the behavior, it's far from the only piece in the puzzle. Many studies on brain differences are correlation studies, often about very small effect sizes. Unfortunately the popular science media tends to gloss over the statistical concept of "effect size". For example, imagine a study that says that male-type brains have more attention-deficit disorder (ADHD). Journalists are prone to report it simply as "STUDY SHOWS THAT MALES HAVE MORE ADHD", and this becomes a conversation soundbite. But what if the study found that males are merely 0.01% more likely to have ADHD than females (a small effect size)? This effect would be a lot less important than, say, genetics, or pregnancy smoking.

Another kind of excessive neuronal reductionism is the overemphasis on brain modules ("scientists identify brain area responsible for religious faith", and the like). Though it's true that the brain has specialized areas, it's also true that the processing is very complex, messy, and distributed all over. Some varieties of brain damage can often be overcome by learning to use undamaged areas of the brain.

The comic illustrates the problem by analogy to some better-understood general-purpose computing hardware: the CPU in a smartphone. Cueball and Megan have used their phones to take pictures of the same event: a triathlon, that is, an athletic competition comprising three modalities (e.g., swimming, cycling, and running). Cueball wonders why is it that Megan's photos are more popular. Megan gives a reductionist explanation (starting with the typical "research shows that"): Cueball's phone only has two cores. In a CPU each core is, roughly speaking, capable of acting as an independent computer. Megan thinks that this means Cueball's smartphone can only capture two events at the same time. She misunderstoods how the specialized modules work; the number of cores is unrelated to how many events can be captured. This is like saying that male brains are better at spatial reasoning, and therefore males are better photographers.

A CPU with more cores could process pictures faster, speeding up facial recognition or color filters. So it's true that Megan's CPU makes it slightly easier for her to take pictures. However, this has, at best, a very small effect in the number of "likes". There's a lot more going on with photography than the GPU of the phone: Megan's photographing skills, her luck in capturing interesting scenes, the number of online friends she has, etc.

So Megan misunderstands: the modularity of CPUs; the small effect of the CPU on the quality of her photography; and the actual causes of her success, much like people who reduce ability to brain advantages.

The title text is mocking reductionist explanations based on [[wikipedia:Magnetic resonance imaging|magnetic resonance brain imaging]]. One of the most famous (and [http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/08/gender-gap-in-spatial-reasoning-mia-in-matrilineal-society/ disputed]) claims about gendered brains is that women's brains are (slightly) worse at spatial reasoning. In the title text, a larger spatial reasoning brain area is associated with enjoyment of 3D Doritos® – a three-dimensional variation of the popular junk-food snack.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball hold his smartphone looking at it while talking to Megan who is holding her smartphone in her hand.]
:Cueball: Your photos from the triatholon got so many more likes than mine.
:Megan: Yeah - My phone is quad-core. Research shows that iPhones like yours have just two cores, so they have a hard time capturing scenes with three different events in them.

:[Caption below the frame:]
:If we talked about phone hardware the way we talk about brain hardware

==Trivia==
*There is a spelling error in Cueball's comment where he says triath'''o'''lon instead of triathlon. (Maybe it will be corrected by [[Randall]] when he notices?)

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]

Talk:1588: Hardware Reductionism

2015-10-09T13:39:03Z

108.162.216.104: Plausible

Is "TRIATHOLON" just a typo, or does it have a special comic value?
:At this moment of creation it exists in a limbo in which it is both a typo and a joke, but now that it is has been released for viewers to take measures, the function will soon collapse into just one of the possible states. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.197|162.158.34.197]] 13:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
::It's clearly a spelling mistake (not a typo). See http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Triathalon, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/athelete. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.149|173.245.50.149]] 13:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is just parodying left-brain right-brain myths. Rather, it's parodying neural reductionism of all kinds—the currently widespread myth that our selves are determined genetically by brain structure alone, minimizing the role of culture and the way experience rewires the brain. In particular, the part about "phones like yours" makes me think of "women are from venus"–style myths (where, say, a slight correlation is found between gender and size of spacial processing module, etc, and pop-sci media reports it as WOMEN ARE INHERENTLY BAD AT SPATIAL REASONING).
[[User:Leoboiko|Leoboiko]] ([[User talk:Leoboiko|talk]]) 13:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
:Seems plausible. Care to add? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.104|108.162.216.104]] 13:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

1588: Hardware Reductionism

2015-10-09T13:36:40Z

108.162.216.104: /* Explanation */ Copy editting

1588: Hardware Reductionism

2015-10-09T13:34:15Z

108.162.216.104: /* Explanation */ Acronym introduction

1588: Hardware Reductionism

2015-10-09T13:32:46Z

108.162.216.104: /* Explanation */ Contrast

1588: Hardware Reductionism

2015-10-09T13:32:04Z

108.162.216.104: /* Explanation */ Quotes

1588: Hardware Reductionism

2015-10-09T13:31:25Z

108.162.216.104: /* Explanation */ Four-word prepositional phrase rule

1588: Hardware Reductionism

2015-10-09T13:30:46Z

108.162.216.104: /* Explanation */ Tying paragraphs together

1588: Hardware Reductionism

2015-10-09T13:24:26Z

108.162.216.104: /* Explanation */ More technical detail (still rough)

1588: Hardware Reductionism

2015-10-09T13:15:20Z

108.162.216.104: Slight clean-up

771: Period Speech

2015-09-25T13:54:58Z

108.162.216.104: /* Explanation */ Fit translation to context rather than being so literal

{{comic
| number = 771
| date = July 26, 2010
| title = Period Speech
| image = period_speech.png
| titletext = The same people who spend their weekends at the Blogger Reenactment Festivals will whine about the anachronisms in historical movies, but no one else will care.
}}

==Explanation==
The actors on this stage are using language and technology from wildly differing time periods. For example, "Forsooth" is from {{w|Elizabethan era|Elizabethan times}}; "{{w|Grok}}" is a word from the 1961 Robert Heinlein novel Stranger in a Strange Land; "Jive" is African American slang from the 1940s to the 70s; "Me Hearties" is popular 'pirate speak'; and "Ten-Four" was popular during the 1970s CB radio craze. Put together, the exchange roughly translates to "Do you truly understand what I'm saying, my friends?"/"We understand!".) The characters also combine archaic weapons like a spear and a sword with a presumably modern handgun and a laptop, adding to the growing heap of anachronisms.

[[Randall]]'s contention is that hundreds of years from now, people will make similar errors that we do today when depicting historical items and language. Modern movies, fiction and other forms of media that depict history often confuse terms, items and equipment that were in one place and time period and place them in another, but few people notice because to them, all of it fits under the very broad category of "old, historical things" - only those with an interest in history really notice or seem to care. Thus following this trend, in the future, things like laptop computers and "grok my jive" will seem just as historical and "old-timey" as a spear or the saying "Forsooth!", except to those who participate in such things like "Blogger Reenactment Festivals", as mentioned in the title text.

For instance, take a suit of full plate armor. To most people, plate armor is a "Medieval thing". So thus, when depicting King Arthur, a figure from 500 to 800 AD (if he even existed at all), one would (and has) put him in a suit of full plate because he is "medieval" and that is the stereotypical equipment of a Medieval figure. In actual fact, plate armor only came about after 1350, quite literally centuries after any story about King Arthur is set, and it coexisted alongside firearms for a very long time. King Arthur would have worn chainmail, but all of this would be lost on an average person watching a movie about King Arthur, to whom chainmail and full plate are interchangeable under the label of "historical armor" in their minds. It is not much of a jump from a span of 500 to 800 years of equipment being considered interchangeable to 1500 years of equipment and language being interchangeable.

The title text likely refers to [[239: Blagofaire]], which features the said "Blogger Reenactment Festivals".

==Transcript==
:[A sword-wielding Cueball on a stage addresses three others; one has a spear, another a handgun and a knife, and the third a laptop.]
:Cueball: Forsooth, do you grok my jive, me hearties?
:Actors: Ten-four!
:A few centuries from now, all the English of the past 400 years will sound equally old-timey and interchangeable.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Language]]

1582: Picture a Grassy Field

2015-09-25T13:50:44Z

108.162.216.104: /* Explanation */ Stronger argument for the second creature's escape abilities than the first creature's fear (fear may be irrational, for example)

{{comic
| number = 1582
| date = September 25, 2015
| title = Picture a Grassy Field
| image = picture_a_grassy_field.png
| titletext = Wait, I can fix this. Picture another field. In the middle sits the only creature the first creature is afraid of. Now just-- wait, where did THAT one go?
}}

==Explanation==

In this comic [[Megan]] asks [[Cueball]] to imagine a creature that can escape from imagined scenes, and then tries to convince him that it has indeed escaped from the imagined scene, and will appear in Cueball's daydreams. (This is similar to the idea behind [[248: Hypotheticals]]).

The title text tries a proposed solution to the creature in the imagination, namely making a creature that the first fears. However, that creature, for the first to actually be pursued by it, would have to also be able to move through brains easily and escape from imagined scenes, so the problem is now worse.

==Transcript==
:[Megan and Cueball are walking together.]

:Megan: Picture a grassy field.
:Megan: In the center sits a small, pale, big-eyed creature with the power to escape from any visualized scene and move freely through the brain that imagined it.
:Megan: It glances around nervously and-
:Megan: -whoops, where'd it go?
:Megan: Sorry about that! Keep an eye out for it in your daydreams.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

1582: Picture a Grassy Field

2015-09-25T13:46:47Z

108.162.216.104: /* Explanation */ Removed very tangentially related trivia per discussion

{{comic
| number = 1582
| date = September 25, 2015
| title = Picture a Grassy Field
| image = picture_a_grassy_field.png
| titletext = Wait, I can fix this. Picture another field. In the middle sits the only creature the first creature is afraid of. Now just-- wait, where did THAT one go?
}}

==Explanation==

In this comic [[Megan]] asks [[Cueball]] to imagine a creature that can escape from imagined scenes, and then tries to convince him that it has indeed escaped from the imagined scene, and will appear in Cueball's daydreams. (This is similar to the idea behind [[248: Hypotheticals]]).

The title text tries a proposed solution to the creature in the imagination, namely making a creature that the first fears. However, that creature, for the first to actually fear it, would have to also be able to move through brains easily and escape from imagined scenes, so the problem is now worse.

==Transcript==
:[Megan and Cueball are walking together.]

:Megan: Picture a grassy field.
:Megan: In the center sits a small, pale, big-eyed creature with the power to escape from any visualized scene and move freely through the brain that imagined it.
:Megan: It glances around nervously and-
:Megan: -whoops, where'd it go?
:Megan: Sorry about that! Keep an eye out for it in your daydreams.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

771: Period Speech

2014-10-29T18:49:54Z

108.162.216.104: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 771
| date = July 26, 2010
| title = Period Speech
| image = period_speech.png
| titletext = The same people who spend their weekends at the Blogger Reenactment Festivals will whine about the anachronisms in historical movies, but no one else will care.
}}

==Explanation==
The actors on this stage are using language and technology from wildly differing time periods. For example, "Forsooth" is from {{w|Elizabethan era|Elizabethan times}}; "{{w|Grok}}" is a word from the 1961 Robert Heinlein novel Stranger in a Strange Land; "Jive" is African American slang from the 1940s to the 70s; "Me Hearties" is popular 'pirate speak'; and "Ten-Four" was popular during the 1970s CB radio craze. Put together, the exchange roughly translates to "Do you truly understand the things I'm saying, my friends?"/"Understood!".) The characters also combine archaic weapons like a spear and a sword with a presumably modern handgun and a laptop, adding to the growing heap of anachronisms.

[[Randall]]'s contention is that hundreds of years from now, people will make similar errors that we do today when depicting historical items and language. Modern movies, fiction and other forms of media that depict history often confuse terms, items and equipment that were in one place and time period and place them in another, but few people notice because to them, all of it fits under the very broad category of "old, historical things" - only those with an interest in history really notice or seem to care. Thus following this trend, in the future, things like laptop computers and "grok my jive" will seem just as historical and "old-timey" as a spear or the saying "Forsooth!", except to those who participate in such things like "Blogger Reenactment Festivals", as mentioned in the title text.

For instance, take a suit of full plate armor. To most people, plate armor is a "Medieval thing". So thus, when depicting King Arthur, a figure from 500 to 800 AD (if he even existed at all), one would put him in a suit of full plate because he is "medieval" and that is the stereotypical equipment of a Medieval figure. In actual fact, plate armor only came about after 1350, quite literally centuries after any story about King Arthur is set, and it coexisted alongside firearms for a very long time. King Arthur would have worn chainmail, but all of this would be lost on an average person watching a movie about King Arthur, to whom chainmail and full plate are interchangeable under the label of "historical armor" in their minds. It is not much of a jump from a span of 500 to 800 years of equipment being considered interchangeable to 1500 years of equipment and language being interchangeable.

The title text likely refers to [[239: Blagofaire]], which features the said "Blogger Reenactment Festivals".

==Transcript==
:[A sword-wielding Cueball on a stage addresses three others; one has a spear, another a handgun and a knife, and the third a laptop.]
:Cueball: Forsooth, do you grok my jive, me hearties?
:Actors: Ten-four!
:A few centuries from now, all the English of the past 400 years will sound equally old-timey and interchangeable.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Language]]

1132: Frequentists vs. Bayesians

2014-10-02T13:55:43Z

108.162.216.104: Moved image up

{{comic
| number = 1132
| date = November 9, 2012
| title = Frequentists vs. Bayesians
| image = frequentists_vs_bayesians.png
| titletext = 'Detector! What would the Bayesian statistician say if I asked him whether the--' [roll] 'I AM A NEUTRINO DETECTOR, NOT A LABYRINTH GUARD. SERIOUSLY, DID YOUR BRAIN FALL OUT?' [roll] '... yes.'}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|The core subject matter, as well as the interpretation of the last panel, is open to debate.}}

This is a comic about probability theory. Based on the setup, there are two possibilities: either the sun has exploded and the detector is telling the truth, or else the sun ''hasn't'' exploded and the detector is lying.

The Frequentist considers what he knows about the detector. Since the detector rolls two standard dice and only lies if they both land on 6, there is only a 1/36 chance that the detector is lying. He references the concept of {{w|P-value|p}}<0.05, which is a scientific research standard where a result is presumed to provide strong evidence against a "null hypothesis" if there is less than a 5% chance that the result occurs given that the null hypothesis is true. (For instance, if you test a new medicine and find that it appears to help your test subjects, and you find that, statistically speaking, the chance that the test subjects improved from the placebo effect alone is less than 5%, you would consider this strong evidence that the medicine is really working.) He notes that the P-value in this case is less than 0.05, and thus the standard threshold has been met. Simply put, the Frequentist notes that it is unlikely for the detector to lie, and therefore the sun has probably exploded.

The Bayesian uses a more comprehensive approach. Based on what he knows about the detector, it is unlikely that the detector is lying. But based on what he knows about the ''sun'', it is ''extremely'' unlikely that the sun has suddenly exploded. (Modern astronomy tells us that the sun will retain its current condition for at least 5 billion years, aside from minor variations in its output.) The unlikeliness of the detector lying is greatly outweighed by the unlikeliness of the sun exploding. (In Bayesian reasoning, in this context, the knowledge about the probability of the sun exploding is called a {{w|Prior probability|"prior"}}.) Therefore, he concludes that the sun has ''not'' exploded and the detector is lying. (This line of reasoning is not made explicit in the comic, but it is typical of how an ordinary Bayesian would approach the situation.)

The Bayesian's line, "Bet you $50 it hasn't", could be taken as a simple expression of confidence, based on the reasoning above. It could also be taken to mean that the Bayesian has had a further thought: If the sun ''has'' exploded, civilization will quickly collapse and money will become worthless. Thus, even if he loses the bet, he really loses nothing at all. This again references the idea that Bayesians tend to consider things in context, whereas Frequentists have a narrow focus. (It's also a tongue-in-cheek reference to the absurdity of the premise.)

The title and the last two frames suggest that "frequentist" interpretation of statistics is somehow wrong, which has prompted debate. Many believe that the Bayesian and the frequentist interpretations of probability theory are not mutually exclusive and neither is wrong. One argument states that the Frequentist in the comic is actually misusing P-values, in a way that violates standard frequentist practice. P-values are usually used only for numerical values that are known to fall along a specific distribution — in this case, it is used to determine the significance of a discrete event, which is wrong. Others believe that the use of prior knowledge by The Bayesian enables him to reach his conclusion. For more views on this issue, see the discussion box.

The labels on the bottom two panels were applied as an after-thought, according to Munroe's post [http://web.archive.org/web/20130117080920/http://andrewgelman.com/2012/11/16808/#comment-109366 here]; he states his intention was "to illustrate a case where naïve application of that significance test can give a result that's obviously nonsense."

[[File:Nate Silver Tweet.png|.@JoeNBC: If you think it's a toss-up, let's bet. If Obama wins, you donate $1,000 to the American Red Cross. If Romney wins, I do. Deal?|right]]

Arguably, this is another comic about the accuracy of presidential election predictions that used Bayesian statistical models, such as Nate Silver's ''538'' and Professor Sam Wang's ''PEC''. Thomas Bayes studied conditional probability — the likelihood that one event is true when given information about some other related event. From {{w|Bayes Theorem|Wikipedia}}: "Bayesian interpretation expresses how a subjective degree of belief should rationally change to account for evidence". The Bayesian's bet may refer to a well-publicized bet that Nate Silver tried to make with Joe Scarborough regarding the outcome of the election (see tweet on the right).

The title text refers to a classic series of logic puzzles known as {{w|Knights and Knaves#Question 3|Knights and Knaves}}, where there are two guards in front of two exit doors, one of which is real and the other leads to death. One guard is a liar and the other tells the truth. The visitor doesn't know which is which, and is allowed to ask one question to one guard. The solution is to ask either guard what the other one would say is the real exit, then choose the opposite. Two such guards were featured in the 1986 Jim Henson movie ''[[246|Labyrinth]]'', which is referenced in the text.

==Transcript==
:Did the sun just explode? (It's night, so we're not sure)

:[Two statisticians stand alongside an adorable little computer that is suspiciously similar to K-9 that speaks in Westminster typeface.]
:Frequentist Statistician: This neutrino detector measures whether the sun has gone nova.
:Bayesian Statistician: Then, it rolls two dice. If they both come up as six, it lies to us. Otherwise, it tells the truth.
:Frequentist Statistician: Let's try. [to the detector] Detector! Has the sun gone nova?
:Detector: ''roll'' YES.

:Frequentist Statistician:
:Frequentist Statistician: The probability of this result happening by chance is 1/36=0.027. Since p<0.05, I conclude that the sun has exploded.

:Bayesian Statistician:
:Bayesian Statistician: Bet you $50 it hasn't.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Statistics]]
[[Category:Physics]]

1132: Frequentists vs. Bayesians

2014-10-02T13:54:32Z

108.162.216.104:

{{comic
| number = 1132
| date = November 9, 2012
| title = Frequentists vs. Bayesians
| image = frequentists_vs_bayesians.png
| titletext = 'Detector! What would the Bayesian statistician say if I asked him whether the--' [roll] 'I AM A NEUTRINO DETECTOR, NOT A LABYRINTH GUARD. SERIOUSLY, DID YOUR BRAIN FALL OUT?' [roll] '... yes.'}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|The core subject matter, as well as the interpretation of the last panel, is open to debate.}}

This is a comic about probability theory. Based on the setup, there are two possibilities: either the sun has exploded and the detector is telling the truth, or else the sun ''hasn't'' exploded and the detector is lying.

The Frequentist considers what he knows about the detector. Since the detector rolls two standard dice and only lies if they both land on 6, there is only a 1/36 chance that the detector is lying. He references the concept of {{w|P-value|p}}<0.05, which is a scientific research standard where a result is presumed to provide strong evidence against a "null hypothesis" if there is less than a 5% chance that the result occurs given that the null hypothesis is true. (For instance, if you test a new medicine and find that it appears to help your test subjects, and you find that, statistically speaking, the chance that the test subjects improved from the placebo effect alone is less than 5%, you would consider this strong evidence that the medicine is really working.) He notes that the P-value in this case is less than 0.05, and thus the standard threshold has been met. Simply put, the Frequentist notes that it is unlikely for the detector to lie, and therefore the sun has probably exploded.

The Bayesian uses a more comprehensive approach. Based on what he knows about the detector, it is unlikely that the detector is lying. But based on what he knows about the ''sun'', it is ''extremely'' unlikely that the sun has suddenly exploded. (Modern astronomy tells us that the sun will retain its current condition for at least 5 billion years, aside from minor variations in its output.) The unlikeliness of the detector lying is greatly outweighed by the unlikeliness of the sun exploding. (In Bayesian reasoning, in this context, the knowledge about the probability of the sun exploding is called a {{w|Prior probability|"prior"}}.) Therefore, he concludes that the sun has ''not'' exploded and the detector is lying. (This line of reasoning is not made explicit in the comic, but it is typical of how an ordinary Bayesian would approach the situation.)

The Bayesian's line, "Bet you $50 it hasn't", could be taken as a simple expression of confidence, based on the reasoning above. It could also be taken to mean that the Bayesian has had a further thought: If the sun ''has'' exploded, civilization will quickly collapse and money will become worthless. Thus, even if he loses the bet, he really loses nothing at all. This again references the idea that Bayesians tend to consider things in context, whereas Frequentists have a narrow focus. (It's also a tongue-in-cheek reference to the absurdity of the premise.)

The title and the last two frames suggest that "frequentist" interpretation of statistics is somehow wrong, which has prompted debate. Many believe that the Bayesian and the frequentist interpretations of probability theory are not mutually exclusive and neither is wrong. One argument states that the Frequentist in the comic is actually misusing P-values, in a way that violates standard frequentist practice. P-values are usually used only for numerical values that are known to fall along a specific distribution — in this case, it is used to determine the significance of a discrete event, which is wrong. Others believe that the use of prior knowledge by The Bayesian enables him to reach his conclusion. For more views on this issue, see the discussion box.

The labels on the bottom two panels were applied as an after-thought, according to Munroe's post [http://web.archive.org/web/20130117080920/http://andrewgelman.com/2012/11/16808/#comment-109366 here]; he states his intention was "to illustrate a case where naïve application of that significance test can give a result that's obviously nonsense."

Arguably, this is another comic about the accuracy of presidential election predictions that used Bayesian statistical models, such as Nate Silver's ''538'' and Professor Sam Wang's ''PEC''. Thomas Bayes studied conditional probability — the likelihood that one event is true when given information about some other related event. From {{w|Bayes Theorem|Wikipedia}}: "Bayesian interpretation expresses how a subjective degree of belief should rationally change to account for evidence". The Bayesian's bet may refer to a well-publicized bet that Nate Silver tried to make with Joe Scarborough regarding the outcome of the election (see tweet on the right).

[[File:Nate Silver Tweet.png|.@JoeNBC: If you think it's a toss-up, let's bet. If Obama wins, you donate $1,000 to the American Red Cross. If Romney wins, I do. Deal?|right]]

The title text refers to a classic series of logic puzzles known as {{w|Knights and Knaves#Question 3|Knights and Knaves}}, where there are two guards in front of two exit doors, one of which is real and the other leads to death. One guard is a liar and the other tells the truth. The visitor doesn't know which is which, and is allowed to ask one question to one guard. The solution is to ask either guard what the other one would say is the real exit, then choose the opposite. Two such guards were featured in the 1986 Jim Henson movie ''[[246|Labyrinth]]'', which is referenced in the text.

==Transcript==
:Did the sun just explode? (It's night, so we're not sure)

:[Two statisticians stand alongside an adorable little computer that is suspiciously similar to K-9 that speaks in Westminster typeface.]
:Frequentist Statistician: This neutrino detector measures whether the sun has gone nova.
:Bayesian Statistician: Then, it rolls two dice. If they both come up as six, it lies to us. Otherwise, it tells the truth.
:Frequentist Statistician: Let's try. [to the detector] Detector! Has the sun gone nova?
:Detector: ''roll'' YES.

:Frequentist Statistician:
:Frequentist Statistician: The probability of this result happening by chance is 1/36=0.027. Since p<0.05, I conclude that the sun has exploded.

:Bayesian Statistician:
:Bayesian Statistician: Bet you $50 it hasn't.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Statistics]]
[[Category:Physics]]

1132: Frequentists vs. Bayesians

2014-10-02T13:52:53Z

108.162.216.104: Major edit for clarity

{{comic
| number = 1132
| date = November 9, 2012
| title = Frequentists vs. Bayesians
| image = frequentists_vs_bayesians.png
| titletext = 'Detector! What would the Bayesian statistician say if I asked him whether the--' [roll] 'I AM A NEUTRINO DETECTOR, NOT A LABYRINTH GUARD. SERIOUSLY, DID YOUR BRAIN FALL OUT?' [roll] '... yes.'}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|The core subject matter, as well as the interpretation of the last panel, is open to debate.}}

This is a comic about probability theory. Based on the setup, there are two possibilities: either the sun has exploded and the detector is telling the truth, or else the sun ''hasn't'' exploded and the detector is lying.

The Frequentist considers what he knows about the detector. Since the detector rolls two standard dice and only lies if they both land on 6, there is only a 1/36 chance that the detector is lying. He references the concept of {{w|P-value|p}}<0.05, which is a scientific research standard where a result is presumed to provide strong evidence against a "null hypothesis" if there is less than a 5% chance that the result occurs given that the null hypothesis is true. (For instance, if you test a new medicine and find that it appears to help your test subjects, and you find that, statistically speaking, the chance that the test subjects improved from the placebo effect alone is less than 5%, you would consider this strong evidence that the medicine is really working.) He notes that the P-value in this case is less than 0.05, and thus the standard threshold has been met. Simply put, the Frequentist notes that it is unlikely for the detector to lie, and therefore the sun has probably exploded.

The Bayesian uses a more comprehensive approach. Based on what he knows about the detector, it is unlikely that the detector is lying. But based on what he knows about the ''sun'', it is ''extremely'' unlikely that the sun has suddenly exploded. (Modern astronomy tells us that the sun will retain its current condition for at least 5 billion years, aside from minor variations in its output.) The unlikeliness of the detector lying is greatly outweighed by the unlikeliness of the sun exploding. (In Bayesian reasoning, in this context, the knowledge about the probability of the sun exploding is called a {{w|Prior probability|"prior"}}.) Therefore, he concludes that the sun has ''not'' exploded and the detector is lying. (This line of reasoning is not made explicit in the comic, but it is typical of how an ordinary Bayesian would approach the situation.)

The Bayesian's line, "Bet you $50 it hasn't", could be taken as a simple expression of confidence, based on the reasoning above. It could also be taken to mean that the Bayesian has had a further thought: If the sun ''has'' exploded, civilization will quickly collapse and money will become worthless. Thus, even if he loses the bet, he really loses nothing at all. This again references the idea that Bayesians tend to consider things in context, whereas Frequentists have a narrow focus. It's also a tongue-in-cheek reference to the absurdity of the premise.

The title and the last two frames suggest that "frequentist" interpretation of statistics is somehow wrong, which has prompted debate. Many believe that the Bayesian and the frequentist interpretations of probability theory are not mutually exclusive and neither is wrong. One argument states that the Frequentist in the comic is actually misusing P-values, in a way that violates standard frequentist practice. P-values are usually used only for numerical values that are known to fall along a specific distribution — in this case, it is used to determine the significance of a discrete event, which is wrong. Others believe that the use of prior knowledge by The Bayesian enables him to reach his conclusion. For more views on this issue, see the discussion box.

The labels on the bottom two panels were applied as an after-thought, according to Munroe's post [http://web.archive.org/web/20130117080920/http://andrewgelman.com/2012/11/16808/#comment-109366 here]; he states his intention was "to illustrate a case where naïve application of that significance test can give a result that's obviously nonsense."

Arguably, this is another comic about the accuracy of presidential election predictions that used Bayesian statistical models, such as Nate Silver's ''538'' and Professor Sam Wang's ''PEC''. Thomas Bayes studied conditional probability — the likelihood that one event is true when given information about some other related event. From {{w|Bayes Theorem|Wikipedia}}: "Bayesian interpretation expresses how a subjective degree of belief should rationally change to account for evidence". The Bayesian's bet may refer to a well-publicized bet that Nate Silver tried to make with Joe Scarborough regarding the outcome of the election (see tweet on the right).

[[File:Nate Silver Tweet.png|.@JoeNBC: If you think it's a toss-up, let's bet. If Obama wins, you donate $1,000 to the American Red Cross. If Romney wins, I do. Deal?|right]]

The title text refers to a classic series of logic puzzles known as {{w|Knights and Knaves#Question 3|Knights and Knaves}}, where there are two guards in front of two exit doors, one of which is real and the other leads to death. One guard is a liar and the other tells the truth. The visitor doesn't know which is which, and is allowed to ask one question to one guard. The solution is to ask either guard what the other one would say is the real exit, then choose the opposite. Two such guards were featured in the 1986 Jim Henson movie ''[[246|Labyrinth]]'', which is referenced in the text.

==Transcript==
:Did the sun just explode? (It's night, so we're not sure)

:[Two statisticians stand alongside an adorable little computer that is suspiciously similar to K-9 that speaks in Westminster typeface.]
:Frequentist Statistician: This neutrino detector measures whether the sun has gone nova.
:Bayesian Statistician: Then, it rolls two dice. If they both come up as six, it lies to us. Otherwise, it tells the truth.
:Frequentist Statistician: Let's try. [to the detector] Detector! Has the sun gone nova?
:Detector: ''roll'' YES.

:Frequentist Statistician:
:Frequentist Statistician: The probability of this result happening by chance is 1/36=0.027. Since p<0.05, I conclude that the sun has exploded.

:Bayesian Statistician:
:Bayesian Statistician: Bet you $50 it hasn't.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Statistics]]
[[Category:Physics]]