Category: Science

It’s time someone
praised and defended reckless teenage girls and young women who behave
badly, dress provocatively, engage in risky sex, and get pregnant. They
are the normal ones. The rest of us are the deviants. They are behaving
in the most natural way. The rest of us are mutants…

Sexually active
teenage girls, and sexually promiscuous women of any age, carry the
greatest social burden of judgements, punishments, restrictions and
risks because we haven’t got the child-care equation right.

That turns out to be a conservative argument, believe it or not.  Thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the pointer.

Gossip not only helps clarify and enforce the rules that keep people working well together, studies suggest, but it circulates crucial information about the behavior of others that cannot be published in an office manual. As often as it sullies reputations, psychologists say, gossip offers a foothold for newcomers in a group and a safety net for group members who feel in danger of falling out.

Here is the story.  Gossip is also a means of signaling ability.  It is not easy to gossip well and gossip discreetly.  What better way of sorting people by their social and communicative abilities?  So when you gossip, you are the one being tested and evaluated.

If you liked the chessboard you will also enjoy the Dragon Illusion.  A video at the link shows you what the illusion looks like but it’s more fun to make a dragon for yourself using the PDF (provided at the link) and some scissors and tape.  You will be amazed!

Thanks to Mitch Berkson for the link.

As scientists discover more about the "epigenome," a layer of biochemical reactions that turns genes on and off, they’re finding that it plays a big part in health and heredity…

The epigenome can change according to an individual’s environment, and is passed from generation to generation. It’s part of the reason why "identical" twins can be so different, and it’s also why not only the children but the grandchildren of women who suffered malnutrition during pregnancy are likely to weigh less at birth.

"Now we’re even talking about how to see if socioeconomic status has an impact on the epigenome," Szyf said.

The link is mine, but read more here.  Here is further explanation.

Today we have crayons called "Inch Worm," "Jazzberry Jam," "Tropical Rain Forest," "Manatee," "Bittersweet" and "Razzmatazz."  Or have you noticed you can’t understand half of the ice cream flavors these days?

Miller and Kahn discovered that there’s method — and perhaps even profit — to this maddening name game. In one test, 100 students taking part in an unrelated study were told that after they had finished the research task they should select jelly beans from six containers as a reward for their participation. They were told that each container held a different flavor of jelly bean. Half the students saw containers labeled with ambiguous names ("white Ireland," "moody blue"), while the other half saw those same containers with more specific descriptive names ("marshmallow white," "blueberry blue"). As the researchers had hypothesized, students took nearly three times as many jelly beans on average from a container that bore a vague name as from one that carried a specific name. In another study involving 60 students, participants were told to pretend they were ordering sweaters from a catalogue. The sweaters in question came in various colors, and these shades were described either ambiguously or using common descriptive names. Again, the students clearly preferred the vague names when making their buying choices. A third test turned up similar results.

Why does ambiguity seem to sell? Miller and Kahn theorize that, without real information, consumers try to understand why the product has such a jazzy name and fill in the blanks with imagined desirable qualities.

Here is the full story.  Here is another summary.  Here is the paper.  Here is one researcher’s home page.

Thermodynamics lets us make engines, refrigerators and much more.  But why does it work?  The usual answer is that physical changes are deterministic (i.e., one-to-one), and the early universe was highly ordered (i.e., flat).  But why was the early universe so ordered?  Various new fundamental principles have been proposed to explain early order, but so far these have not been fruitful.

A century ago Boltzmann suggested that the order we see (billions of light years of flat space) is a rare random fluctuation in a much larger universe.  One might hope that observer selection could explain why we see such a rare event; only if there is a big fluctuation can there be observers to see it.  But observer selection predicts a fluctuation just big enough to make one observer.  This is the “Boltzmann’s brain paradox;” the order we see is much larger than is needed to explain just your brain.

Andreas Albrecht explains that while technical problems remain, it now seems hopeful that inflation is the missing key here (along with assuming the universe is large).  Since early order is required to create inflation, inflation cannot by itself explain the order we see.  But inflation can eliminate the difference between brain-sized and visible-universe-sized fluctuations.  A fluctuation that creates inflation is more likely than one that just makes a brain, and any fluctuation big enough to make inflation creates order on the scale we see.

Perhaps we now just need ask: why is the universe so big?

Well, sort of human, compared to other existing robots, check out the photos.

Research has shown that bosses tend to crack
more jokes than do their employees. Women laugh much more in the
presence of men, and men generally tell more jokes in the presence of
women. Men have even been shown to laugh much more quietly around
women, while laughing louder when in a group of men.

Read more here.

Here is the best short discussion I have seen to date.  You can follow intelligent rants on this issue on Autism Diva.

Type in your zip code and look at it here.  Here is my mother’s night sky.  Here’s mine at home, if only Fairfax did not have so much light pollution…

Thanks to Eric Rasmusen for the pointer.

If there is life on Titan, we might know soon.

BoingBoing serves up a menu of extremes.

Earlier I wrote, "We will soon need a new word for people who eat meat but not animals."  Most of the suggestions I got were awful (no, not your suggestion that was great).  Seriously, thanks to everyone who wrote.  Here are a few that I thought especially interesting.

From Brock Cusick, synthetarian.   I like it but I fear that synthetic still has negative connotation and we want a word that will be adopted by those who practice it.

From Chris Rasch, Cultivore, Cultivarian or Ameglians (scroll to Dish of the Day.)

From Travis Corcoran, Soylent-atarians.  Also good but a mite obscure.

In the end my choice is for VeggieTechie or VT, as in I’m a VT (also good for putting on restaurant menus).  Thus in the hopes of scoring a Google cascade:

Definition: VeggieTechie – a person who eats vegetables and synthetic meat but not meat harvested from an animal.

In the meantime AntiGravitas has another question, Is it cannibalism to eat vat-grown human meat?