Are modern artists, con artists?

You be the judge. This has been going on at least a century.

http://www.artinsociety.com/the-controversies-of-constantin-brancusi-princess-x-and-the-boundaries-of-art.html

In person, ordinary lighting:

More like Princess XXX.

See also:

http://livehopething.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/tin-of-shit-valued-at-8000000.html

“Critics of modern art will at least applaud the irony. The Tate Gallery has paid £22,300 of public money for a work that is, quite literally, a load of excrement.”

At least they’re not taking the piss.


That’s this one.

Similar postmodern horrors at http://www.oddee.com/item_98781.aspx

You think the poo emoji is bad? They want to make an Emoji Movie.
You haven’t seen the like of Shit Fountain.

http://weburbanist.com/2010/12/19/poop-culture-11-examples-of-excellent-excrement-art/

21st century. No flying cars, this degeneracy.

Some of it is self-aware in a good way.

“Seeing your ideas live on in the works of others”
If feminism were this witty, I’d be one.

I know that one by experience.

I see you rip-off merchants, and I won’t be blogging (here) forever. I’m getting tired of the meme thing and looking into other arts, one day I’ll submerge from this.
Good luck finding me again to pinch things wholesale when that happens.

 

Tech journo Milo Yiannopoulos has lost his claim to ethics

When he does an opinion piece on a point of active science. (Minus experts to support his specious claims). I have lost my former high regard for him. He became a sophist. Oh, the things I am sent by infuriated research psychologists. You should see how blue the air turned at this one.

Title: Sorry girls! But the smartest people in the world are all men!

Think of the stereotype of trolling - white straight male aka Patriarchy. Did they appropriate the term?
(patronizing Buzzfeed-esque address)+(claim to scientific authority against presumed naive reader)+(geniuses+polymaths subgroup)
= claim: no women (ever, at present or in future)

Operative absolute highlighted for your scorn.

I won’t link to the troll and the article is a patronizing piece of shit. You can tell he has no critical training in the field of data interpretation even if you took a drunken night class 10 years ago for a semester. It’s that painfully bad. Either he didn’t do the research (his actual job) into the history of females in that group, or he would’ve immediately found this, to look for the negative evidence, the black swan OR he knew, he bloody knew and left it out. The disclaimer required. The distinction to be made. One line:

It is fine to critique performance, but impossible to disprove potential.

Rarity speaks nothing of ability. As we say, to omit this distinction would remove all claim to both internal and external validity. Rendering it totally invalid….?
The ethical obligation (journalists take training courses) must have …slipped his mind. To get the clicks from the fake MGTOWs putting down women (a group) as if that has anything to do with individual variance (themselves), as I’ve stated before in excruciating take-down style detail. I believe someone actually linked to me for it, I see clicks on the traffic.
He’s become the enemy, a clickwhore lying about science for political grievance (his ‘side’ doesn’t make it right). He cherry-picked a study like Anita does with male violence and his foundation of relative morality has evaporated.
It would be as specious, unethical and rampantly dishonest as if I had said that, say, drugged-up Ritalin boys were innately retarded instead of <insert alternative nurtured explanation here>.

I guess you could say, it’s about ethics in psychometrics journalism.

burn gif

After his great and professional work on Gamergate and he pulls this shit.

tyra rooting for you
I feel so betrayed, and I’d been defending him to people, too.

Wikipedia could prove this bitch wrong. WIKIPEDIA. THINK ABOUT THAT.
Here are the actual categories and stratification of IQ scores. Look at the words.

IQcategories1 IQcategories2 IQcategories3

IQcategories4 IQcategories5

I guess the whole research field is fucking wrong, and Milo Yiannopoulos is right.
#GalileoGambit I guess no adult woman is in the Superior Group over IQ130.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=girl+mensa+age&tbm=nws
Pass Go. Collect your Nobel.

I made a chart too, Milo! About my opinion, of your opinion!

fucksgivenme

The IFLScientism Crowd will be totes impressed! Because the scientific method is like Mythbusters, anyone can do it! If you do a random thing, like find a thing and write about it, you can throw on a lab coat and call it a day. You earned that degree, that PhD in Internetz. If I write in a diary about an ice cream I just consumed, it’s science! And going by your logic, nobody can claim otherwise! If I claim the ice cream opened a portal to another dimension, and made a moral value judgement that it was, in fact, evil, an evil ice cream, I am under no positive Burden of Proof for this negative opinion, in fact, the burden shifts onto everyone else! Isn’t science fun? You can just make it up, all day! It counts! And I made charts so it’s legit, fam! It has Hindu numerals and shit!
Because dissent isn’t the natural process of scientific progress or anything, it’s a conspiracy theory like Patriarchy!

You would think that a technology journalist, who rely on personal popularity, wouldn’t alienate half the STEM field? How is this a plan for career longevity, exactly? I know people who are now blacklisting him for this, since he clearly doesn’t expect people he works with, in-industry, to have read it.

Milo, if you’re reading this;tyra take responsibility

UPDATE: 48h later, I can see comments defending Milo for the article.
Comments from feminists. I leave you to your conclusions.

Sex differences in the nervous system

http://www.neuroscientistnews.com/neuroinsights/neural-fundamentals-sex-differences-nervous-system

It’s a worthwhile article.


I see your feelings but science doesn’t care! 

It ends;

When Rhodes and Rubin examined sexual dimorphism in the CNS in the late 1990s, they had to create a whole new term. They defined diergism as functional or physiological differences, which is oftentimes a byproduct of sexual dimorphism. Rhodes and Rubin realized that the genetics underlying sexual differences in the CNS is more complex than just steroid-dependent mechanisms and the environment plays a role in sexual differentiation as well.  Current studies of dimorphism and diergism focus on furthering our understanding of the neurochemical basis of sexually dimorphic behavior and the mechanisms of disease.

The best proof of human sex differences yet (neuroscience ftw)

PDF at: http://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/papers/2014_Ruigrok_Meta_Sex_Differences.pdf

It’s a meta-analysis, the highest possible standard.
This is irrefutable.
It deserves a full-read.

clapping well done you tony

I want to bask in awe at this paper.

Liberals choose girlier names for their boys

No wonder they’re confused about their sexuality and sex.

http://www.livescience.com/37196-politics-baby-names.html

Quick, make a guess: Are Liam’s parents Obama voters, or did they pull for John McCain? How about Kurt’s mom and dad?

If your gut suggested that Kurt’s parents might swing conservative while Liam’s are liberal, congratulations. A new study of baby names does, indeed, show that parents in liberal neighborhoods are more likely to choose softer, more feminine sounds, such as “L,” for their babies’ names, while conservative parents go for macho-sounding K’s, B’s and D’s.

The same research finds that liberal, well-educated parents are more likely to pick obscure names for their children, while conservative, well-educated parents take a more conventional naming path. Both methods seem to be a way of signaling status, said study researcher Eric Oliver, a political scientist at the University of Chicago–though it’s unlikely parents realize what they’re doing.

Reminds me of

Denying reality: The Gnostic Left

article;

As George Weigel notes in his recent National Affairs article entitled “Reality and Public Policy,” in 2007, Spain’s Zapatero government enacted legislation allowing men to change themselves into women and women into men by simply declaring one’s newly recognized sex, with or without surgical alterations. The new man or woman could then be issued new national identity card reflecting the gender of choice. Weigel concludes, “It is hard to imagine a more explicit expression of personal willfulness overpowering natural givenness.”

In other words, reality be damned. The purely good will and spirit within the individual is to prevail over common sense and human tradition since time immemorial. I may look like a woman and actually be a biological woman, but if I decide I’m a man, who are you to question my inner light? Who are you to resist my truth about myself? As millions of American children are taught every day, “You can be anything you choose to be.”

As Weigel writes, “Reality may be, and often is, unpleasant. But policies rooted in a failure to grasp reality are dangerous, and too often deadly. […] A culture convinced that everything is malleable and that there are no givens in personal or public life is not a culture likely to sustain serious debates about serious public-policy options.

Oh, how the 22nd century will mock us!

Kirstie Allsopp: “Nature is not a feminist”

Well done, woman. You’ve gone up in my estimation.

Full interview: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/10868367/Kirstie-Allsopp-I-dont-want-the-next-generation-of-women-to-suffer-the-same-heartache.html

Go get 'em girlfriendHere’s the SCIENCE on female fertility, proving her completely correct: Ovarian reserve statistics.