11-08-2024, 09:27 PM
Curiosity is a wonderful thing. Did you look at the video and are you determined to be more curious?
Did you wonder why The Bad Guys (academics, People With Wrong Ideas) are frequently drawn with blue clothing instead of neutral colors, like yellow, purple, orange, green? If those images were recolored, would it make a difference in the subtext?
What about the Bell Curve of "curiosity" -- does the Bell Curve automatically remind you of IQ distribution? Is there actually a "Bell Curve" of curiosity? It seems ("level of perceived knowledge") to suggest that the higher the IQ and education, the less curious a person is.
But doesn't that then imply that Einstein wasn't curious about anything and that his education (got his PhD at an early age) destroyed his curiosity and his ability to think outside the box (their education was far more rigorous and rigid than ours, by the way) Should we then conclude that Richard Feynman (I know people who knew him -- this was the highly acclaimed physicist who demonstrated to the world how the O-rings in Challenger shattered and caused the space shuttle to explode) had no curiosity and that his education left him hopelessly box-bound within the confines of his narrow knowledge?
Is intelligence and education the same as "great ability to debate", as they suggest? If you sharpen your debating skills to a very high level, will you become a Nickola Tesla-like figure? Or turn into Neil DeGrasse Tyson? Or a Heisenberg? Or DaVinci? Euler? Ramanujan? Newton? Bach? Benjamin Franklin?
How solid is evidence like an article from a tabloid? In my experience, tabloids DO tend to go "out of the box" in the direction of "Gordon Ramsay Sex Dwarf Eaten By Badger (real tabloid headline, folks: https://imgur.com/a/gordon-ramsay-dwarf-...er-r3Arr4E) but I tend to discount heavily articles on science from many news sources.
Curiosity.... an interesting thing. Were you curious about the information shown?
Did any of you look up the papers that were briefly shown?
I did.
So how about the "The Racist Roots of Fighting Obesity" one? Did you look at the second line, or did your eyes miss it -- "Prescribing weight loss to Black women ignores barriers to their health" (Scientific American) It talks about how often people get diagnosed as "fat" and the rest of their problems are trivialized. ("your diabetes will go away if you lose weight" ... lots of people with Type I diabetes get told that (Type I is genetic and one of the results of untreated Type I is... obesity.) ...and it's a VERY complex situation where the insulin that keeps them alive may be contributing to obesity)
Were they curious enough to read the paper themselves and understand the background or did they simply read the headline?
How about the article on The Fat Acceptance Movement which is on a site for eating disorders?
Did they read the history or did they simply pick it as a great headline to make a point (while ignoring the rest of the article)?
Did you wonder why they conflated sex (xx, x, xxy, xyy, xy, xxyy etc (details, details...) which is NOT a spectrum) with the social construct of gender (a "woman" is not someone that you've strapped to a table for genetic and physical examinations but rather a legal adult who is presenting as female within the context of their society. A "girl" is not a "woman". But the age at which someone presenting as female is considered a woman varies wildly across the world (12 in some areas to 18 in others)?
We are shown a picture of a cat and two people and a monkey ... are they suggesting that people socially identified as men/boys/males are as genetically different from women/females/girls as cats and monkeys?)
Don't they know the difference?
Curiosity is an interesting thing... but there's excellent curiosity and unthinking curiosity... think of it as the difference between being curious about light sockets and investigating them by sticking a finger in them -- as opposed to being curious about them and sticking a voltmeter in them.
How's your curiosity?
Did you wonder why The Bad Guys (academics, People With Wrong Ideas) are frequently drawn with blue clothing instead of neutral colors, like yellow, purple, orange, green? If those images were recolored, would it make a difference in the subtext?
What about the Bell Curve of "curiosity" -- does the Bell Curve automatically remind you of IQ distribution? Is there actually a "Bell Curve" of curiosity? It seems ("level of perceived knowledge") to suggest that the higher the IQ and education, the less curious a person is.
But doesn't that then imply that Einstein wasn't curious about anything and that his education (got his PhD at an early age) destroyed his curiosity and his ability to think outside the box (their education was far more rigorous and rigid than ours, by the way) Should we then conclude that Richard Feynman (I know people who knew him -- this was the highly acclaimed physicist who demonstrated to the world how the O-rings in Challenger shattered and caused the space shuttle to explode) had no curiosity and that his education left him hopelessly box-bound within the confines of his narrow knowledge?
Is intelligence and education the same as "great ability to debate", as they suggest? If you sharpen your debating skills to a very high level, will you become a Nickola Tesla-like figure? Or turn into Neil DeGrasse Tyson? Or a Heisenberg? Or DaVinci? Euler? Ramanujan? Newton? Bach? Benjamin Franklin?
How solid is evidence like an article from a tabloid? In my experience, tabloids DO tend to go "out of the box" in the direction of "Gordon Ramsay Sex Dwarf Eaten By Badger (real tabloid headline, folks: https://imgur.com/a/gordon-ramsay-dwarf-...er-r3Arr4E) but I tend to discount heavily articles on science from many news sources.
Curiosity.... an interesting thing. Were you curious about the information shown?
Did any of you look up the papers that were briefly shown?
I did.
So how about the "The Racist Roots of Fighting Obesity" one? Did you look at the second line, or did your eyes miss it -- "Prescribing weight loss to Black women ignores barriers to their health" (Scientific American) It talks about how often people get diagnosed as "fat" and the rest of their problems are trivialized. ("your diabetes will go away if you lose weight" ... lots of people with Type I diabetes get told that (Type I is genetic and one of the results of untreated Type I is... obesity.) ...and it's a VERY complex situation where the insulin that keeps them alive may be contributing to obesity)
Were they curious enough to read the paper themselves and understand the background or did they simply read the headline?
How about the article on The Fat Acceptance Movement which is on a site for eating disorders?
Did they read the history or did they simply pick it as a great headline to make a point (while ignoring the rest of the article)?
Did you wonder why they conflated sex (xx, x, xxy, xyy, xy, xxyy etc (details, details...) which is NOT a spectrum) with the social construct of gender (a "woman" is not someone that you've strapped to a table for genetic and physical examinations but rather a legal adult who is presenting as female within the context of their society. A "girl" is not a "woman". But the age at which someone presenting as female is considered a woman varies wildly across the world (12 in some areas to 18 in others)?
We are shown a picture of a cat and two people and a monkey ... are they suggesting that people socially identified as men/boys/males are as genetically different from women/females/girls as cats and monkeys?)
Don't they know the difference?
Curiosity is an interesting thing... but there's excellent curiosity and unthinking curiosity... think of it as the difference between being curious about light sockets and investigating them by sticking a finger in them -- as opposed to being curious about them and sticking a voltmeter in them.
How's your curiosity?
