Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
I wanted them both to lose.Or explode.
I didn't feel like going for the usual underdog thing..somehow watching the second ball fumble irritated me.
Blue balls make me sad.
pm317 said..."I didn't feel like going for the usual underdog thing..somehow watching the second ball fumble irritated me."That's also what went through my head. I want to root for a competent underdog.
That's probably how Binomial invented his famous distribution, in some early science survey.
If she named the first one Lance Armstrong, the results would change.Unless she named the second one Oprah.
I want them to roll properly downhill and stay round.
Well, we know that survey ain't shit.'Cause it's rolling uphill.
..."and stay round."Ha. That bugged me, too.
It looked to me like the one that was winning was actually rolling backward, while moving uphill. The one that was losing looked like it was rolling forward. Accordingly, I chose the underdog, because it appeared to follow the laws of nature, not because it was a loser.
I felt sorry for the uncoordinated losing ball, so I voted for it.
It looked like the second ball helped the first ball over that little hump in the hill by bumping into it and, as a result of transferring some of its energy to the first ball, lost momentum and fell behind.
Good for her. She uses the available technology to make her project better.
There's no option for "I had no particular emotional response to that jerky animation"...This is not how one does science.
"This is not how one does science."Except climate change science.
"When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.” - Osama bin Laden
I voted for the one that Isabella kept from winning.
I voted for the winning ball.
I had no desire for either ball to "win" or "loose" (nor did I perceive those animated doodles as balls) therefore for me there was no appropriate answer to the first question. Ergo the survey is fundamentally flawed, and any data collected through it is untrustworthy.The 10 y.o. girl gets an F. Sorry.What's really sorry is the distinct possibility an accredited science teacher whose duty it was to advise her student in the design of the experiment either failed to advise her, or worse still approved of the design. No wonder our national academic achievement is so disgraceful.
In english does Quaestor mean douchebag?
Sorry, Isabella, but two balls rolling up hill gather no moss, let alone win anything.
SPOILER ALERT!!! Isabella is testing whether people have a tendency to root for the underdog. If you voted for the ball that was not winning the race, then you naturally root for the underdog. If not, then you naturally root for the expected winner.I think this will lead Isabella to skewed conclusions.Following the physics of my first comment, it's not about being the underdog (in terms of initial endowments) so much as how one views transferring the work effort of one to advantage another.What Isabella might interpret as a positive disposition toward "underdogs" and an associated desire to "level the playing field" may in fact be a negative reaction to the unfairness of transferring the work of one to another, irrespective of their underdog status or initial endowment.I suppose that's what happens when you confuse sociology with an actual science like physics.
Isabella needs to read the story about The Ant and the Grasshopper. I'll bet they don't teach that one in school. Underdog my ass.
I'm still searching for clues as to which one has the advantage of White Privilege.Disqualified...
Man, Pixar is really getting slack these days.
I too was peeved at the stumbling second rate ball. No way did it win
There was no selection for "I really don't, um... care". When I got to that third question I just sat there looking at it for several seconds, trying to find a preference, but to no avail. So, I just picked the non-underdog.
Short answer: no.Long answer: Nooooooooo.Tell the little gun-hating bitch to go get Obama to do it for her.
"Please contribute to a 10-year old girl's science experiment."What do I look like? You're not going to fool me with that one... again.
Mick and Keith as youngsters.
Hope you will tell us where and when her results are published.
David Carlson wrote:In english does Quaestor mean douchebag?Evidently your teachers were as lax as Isabella's. It's not English at all. A quaestor was a Roman magistrate whose duty was to accurately and honestly audit public expenditures. When a quaestor called on you it was his job to listen to you account for the money entrusted to you, hence our modern accounting term audit which is Latin for "He listens".So I'm a douchebag for issuing a F to an ernest little girl? In science intent means nothing, nor does a sincere effort. If the little girl in question really wants to be a scientist she ought to learn that fact right now. It's attitudes like yours that have helped make American public education the international joke that it is, douchebag.
AllenS said...Isabella needs to read the story about The Ant and the Grasshopper. I'll bet they don't teach that one in school. Underdog my ass.Aesop was a Dead White Guy, don't forget.
Aesop was a Dead White Guy, don't forget.He was also a slave, so he ought to get some respect in the public elementary schools for that reason alone.
I honestly didn't care which ball won, but I did care about a six year old girl I don't even know and wanted to help her out, so I picked one. What does that say?
Donald said... Blue balls make me sad.Hah.I didn't answer because "it never ocurred to me to 'root' for a ball" wasn't an option.
In order for the second ball to win the first ball would really have to screw up -- Bill Buckner, Fred Merkle, Greg Norman screw up. I do not root for games to be decided by mistakes.I was rooting for the ball to obey gravity.
I voted for the first one, too, precisely because incompetence annoys me. Glad to see I wasn't alone in that thought.Pity that she likely won't control for that.
I couldn't participate because I didn't want either to win.For this to be valid, there has to be another option.
Why should I favor either one? I don't know. So, I favor neither, and do not enter the test.
It's cute, but she'll learn more science if someone makes a list of her methodological flaws and explains why they are flaws.Conversely, she could run multiple iterations of the same experiment, changing the wording of the question and seeing the variation in the results. "The ball behind ended up winning the race. Does that make you happy or sad." Still, pretty precocious for ten.
None of the above? Is this a liberal v. conservative post?
Science or social science?
It fumbled twice in the brief segment we're given with no chance of prevailing. I reject the premise, it's not an underdog ball it's a dumbass ball and I have no sympathy for it whatsoever. The first ball is all, "WE ARE SPARTA!" and the second ball is all, "wut? wut? a race?" I hope this little six year old girl, if she's a real girl, is held back for formulating crap premises.
The slow ball was not stumbling. It was shuckin' and jivin', or courageouly moving "Forward", it was being muscular, and leading from behind.You guys are old.
"Please contribute to a 10-year old girl's science experiment"I made the mistake of responding to this email title before, but:• she was rich• and a Nigerian.The check didn't clear.
I wanted to help but it didn't even occur to me that it was a race and that there would be a winner.There was no choice for that.
Re: "it was being muscular, and leading from behind."Todays' Jeopardy answer is: "Who is Andrew Sullivan?"
I didn't give a shit which ball won the race but that wasn't an answer option, so I didn't answer at all.
I'd like to know if the child actually designed this "experiment" to find out whether people root for the underdog (underball?). I'm not sure whether a 10 year old ought to know that (a) many participants won't see the question that way, and (b) even if they do, it's meaningless as a measure of societal values because it's not a random sample.But if this is supposed to just be a clever game -- which is what I think -- then good for her!
Quaestorfeel free to google satire. It's something most of us learned in jr. high. Others, not so much.
I liked the one in front because it was rounder
BTW, for browndog:http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/141/184
Some people can be so mean. This is a simple survey a little ten year old girl is doing for a science project. Why are you all trying to make it a big deal. Give her credit for coming up with an idea and doing her project.
David Carlson wrote:feel free to google satireGoogle it yourself. Your sense of humor hasn't matured since Junior High, and it shows.Calling me a "douchebag" isn't satire. It's just jejune abuse.
"I voted for the one that Isabella kept from winning."Oh I know! That's it, isn't it? You know that the hand of god (in this case, Isabella) has decided who will win and who will lose. Grrr... so unfair!I think that might actually be a prerequisite for favoring the underdog. Someone in a situation they've no control over has already been given the losing hand. So if they pull it off, it's extra awesome. If the contestants are on an even playing field... all tall and strong, smart and beautiful... then you cheer on the fellow or gal who worked the hardest, or even just the one wearing the right jersey.
mamamolly wrote:This is a simple survey a little ten year old girl is doing for a science project...[jadda jadda]...give her credit...[jadda jadda]Presumable Isabella built this website (or someone did it for her) because she has an interest in science, perhaps to become a scientist herself.If the point of this exercise was to create animation, using Flash or some other tool, post it to YouTube, and then embed the video into a SurveyGizmo page, then I would give her a B. However, the point is not web technology and its use, the point is the test of a scientific hypothesis, i.e. an experiment, an unfortunately Isabella's experiment is so poorly designed that no valid conclusion can be drawn from it.Evidently you want to pat the cute little thing on the head and thus reward failure as if it were indistinguishable from success. If so you are harming Isabella, and you are hindering any ambitions she may have to become a scientist.
"If you voted for the ball that was not winning the race, then you naturally root for the underdog. If not, then you naturally root for the expected winner."No, there are other possible explanations. The first one that comes to mind is voting for the ball that appears to be trying harder.
What is this bullshit. I thought 10yo were geniuses these days.
In english does Quaestor mean douchebag? ... A quaestor was a Roman magistrate whose duty was to accurately and honestly audit public expenditures.It would have been simpler just to answer, yes.
It's just jejune abuseThe irony of that statement, considering your initial comment where you so bravely take down a 10 year old, is breathtaking.
David Carlson wrote:[considering] your initial comment where you so bravely take down a 10 year old...So that's your idea of the role of the teacher -- please don't offend the little darlings, reward and praise their failures because nothing takes precedence over the self esteem of children. I accused your douchebag attitude as being of part and parcel of the ruination of American education, and given your subsequent comments I see that I am right as usual.
well I think Isabella aka Izzy I bet may actaully have distracted you from her real test. You are given the opportunity to provide first name and age right? I sure hope it isnt a bunch of old men replying. So she can compile results by age and maybe even sex if she makes some assumptions about names. She may not even klnow Ann posted this so comments are probably harmless. It would have been ibteresting had the balls been different colors such as white or black, red or blue, pink and blue. It says this Isabella experiment is part 2 where's part I
Quaestoryou must be a very blissful person
Post a Comment