Wednesday Brain Teaser 4-10-13
Apologies in advance, but this has nothing to do with math…but I thought it was fun, so it’s going up.
Do scientists need math?
I was exactly one sentence in to this Wall Street Journal article about how you don’t need math to do science when I thought “huh, I bet this guy’s a biologist”. I was right.
EO Wilson is a Harvard biologist/naturalist who leads the world in the study of ants, and he wants people to know that you don’t need math to be a scientist. Now this is a good point. From the acronym STEM to the more colloquial ways of referring to geeks, we tend to conflate being good at math with being good at science and vice versa. For some sciences, there really is not a good reason to do this.
On the other hand, I’m not sure I loved the execution in this article. A few things about this:
- What seems to annoy Wilson most is calculus requirements. I won’t quibble with him on that. However, I think a basic understanding of statistics is critical for any scientist…otherwise how will you read/interpret nearly any paper in your field? Statistics is often lumped in with math, so I would have liked to hear his thoughts on this.
- As so often happens, Wilson left the entire field of medicine out of his discussion about science. Walk in to any group of freshmen bio majors, and you’ll find a huge percentage of them are pre-med. Many med schools require math/stats classes for admission. That’s a big reason why these kids are taking math classes to begin with.
- It’s not until paragraph 11 that Wilson mentions that if you’re bad at math, you should pretty much stay away from chemistry and physics. So while the headline says “scientists don’t need math” what he means is “some types of biologist don’t need math”.
- He estimates that only 10% of mathematical models of biological phenomena hold any water. Given my blog posts last week, I thought that was really interesting.
Kill your television
I saw an interesting headline today: “Broadcasters Worry about ‘Zero TV’ homes”. At first, this confused me…why was “Zero TV” in quotes? Is this some new grammar issue I’m not aware of?
So despite my better judgement, I decided to read the article. I discovered that “Zero TV” does not, in fact, mean a house with zero TVs. Apparently it’s a marketing category for people who don’t pay for cable, satellite TV, or a digital antenna. Thus, they can own a TV, but must use it in a “non-traditional” way…like for watching movies on DVD or streaming online or something.
I was pretty disappointed by that definition. I mean, when I think of using a TV in a non-traditional way, I think of things like this:
or this:
But using a TV for watching movies or shows that you’re downloading or streaming as opposed to buying cable? That’s hardly avant garde.
Also, anyone with a TV, should not be called “zero TV”. That’s just annoying.
I was, however, happy to find out that the Nielsen Company apparently has a “Senior Vice President of Insights”. That manages to sound both pretentious and like something out of a cartoon all at the same time.
I like it.
Friday Fun Links 4-5-13
I have a very narrow taste in April Fools Day jokes. I don’t like jokes that attempt to humiliate others for laughs, make people looks stupid, etc. I do however, like a good kitty in a backpack joke.
If you can’t out run them, take a cab. Here’s a visual of how cab drivers earn their money.
For your education this week: 7 misused science words.
Now just for the hell of it, infomercial gifs. I kind of really love gifs.
A little math carnival
Wednesday Brain Teaser 4-3-13
This is one of the more interesting puzzles I’ve seen in a bit. I liked it. Also, I put up the rationale for the second answer to last weeks problem in the comments section there.
Alright, read this left to right, top to bottom, and tell me what the next two rows are (the question marks show the current number of numbers for the missing rows:
1
1 1
2 1
1 2 1 1
1 1 1 2 2 1
? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Sex, models and housework
Sorry, not sex with models (or models doing housework) but mathematical models about sex and housework. The first study I wanted to look at in my discussion of the use of models in data reporting actually got sent to me a while ago. The headlines around this were things like “Want to have more sex? Men, stop helping with the chores!“, and a concerned (male) reader sent me the link with a “what’s up with this???”.
Essentially, the study took answers from a large survey that asked people about their household division of labor, their marriages in general, and their sexual frequency. The authors were attempting to prove or disprove several notions about how housework and sex relate in marriage. They came to the conclusion that the more housework conformed to traditional gender roles, the more sex was had by all. A few notes about the study up front:
- The data was collected in 1992, with a mean age of 43 for women/46 for men. This is notable because people’s expectations for marriage have change dramatically over the past few decades (divorce rates peaked in the 80s), so the generalizability may be limited. However, this data set was used because it’s the largest in existence that has all this information. The authors acknowledge this limitation.
- The authors divided chores in to traditionally female (core) and traditionally male (non-core) tasks. Core tasks include meal prep, cleaning, grocery shopping, etc and non-core tasks include lawn maintenance, bill paying and driving. The finding was that the more men did the core work, the less sex the couples had, but the more non-core work they did, the more sex they had:
So the headlines that more chores = no sex are wrong…it was the “wrong” kind of chores that influenced things. - The authors never studied (nor claimed to study) the effects of changing chore arrangements on sexual frequency. In fact all of their conclusions are based on the entire marital arrangement, so do NOT take the headline writers advice and start shaking things up assuming that this will have a particular result.
- I found it fascinating that the authors specifically ruled out coercion as a factor here. Satisfaction was fairly high across the board.
- As the data is presented here, I do not argue with their conclusion. While I think we could all quibble about the mechanism that causes this to be true, the data as presented in the paper supports what they say it does.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go do some dishes.
Church attendance and predictive models
Happy Easter, to those of you who celebrate!
Friday Fun Links 3-29-13
Oh man, here’s one that’s appropriate…a gif of winter disappearing!!!
This one’s personal, because this is my field. Even if this doesn’t quite live up to expectations, every weapon in the arsenal gives all of us a better shot.
This is possibly the most interesting theory I’ve seen on why women don’t stay in STEM. In case you’re curious, using SAT scores as a measure, my math and verbal skills are identical to within one point.
This is my pick for gif of the week.
Now here’s my favorite dinosaur site this week. It might even teach mr how to say archaeopteryx correctly!

