THE (ALMOST) UNDELETED

Check out this site.

Pretty much complete bullshit, but interesting.

That guy went to my high school! And my college, for a period of time, thought he didn't graduate from here. He's also responsible for the WikiScanner, which made a lot of waves in the media a few months ago.

That said, I'm pretty sure it's a joke. Upon further inspection, I'm absolutely certain it's a joke. It's the kind of humor that too many graduates of my high school end up with, myself included. Something about being confined to six acres with the same 300 people for 2-3 years has this weird effect on one's mind, I swear.

Interesting reading list

Rob

The guy even acknowledges the logical fallacy of correlation not equaling causation yet he still posts his "research" anyway. Silly.

GamePlayer wrote:The guy even acknowledges the logical fallacy of correlation not equaling causation yet he still posts his "research" anyway. Silly.

I feel obligated to come to his defense on this.

First, it's not research. It's just a personal project that he found interesting, then posted on the internet. He does a lot of serious work, but decided to do something that amused him in his off-time. I'm sure he's also aware that facebook is only a limited sample of students at any given college, since not everyone has a facebook, and not everyone puts their favorite books on their facebook. He's just seeing if he can do something interesting in his spare time. I for one, was interested and amused.

Second, scientists find correlations all the time. A lot of those "X causes cancer!" things aren't based on evidence of causation, they're based on a lot of people doing X getting cancer. Scientists do this kind of thing all the time, and it's usually taken pretty seriously. What Virgil Griffith came up with here doesn't imply that the Bible makes you stupid or that stupid people read the Bible, but it is interesting to note that, on average, it seems like people who read the bible are less intelligent than people who read Atlas Shrugged.

To quote Virgil near the end of his text, "You all lack any sense of humor."

If you must. But my criticism wasn't an attack. I know it's bollocks; Griffith knows it's bollocks; and all I said is it was silly, which it is.

Regarding this work, it is what it is: research. If one wants to wrap it up in a nice bow it's best to sell spin somewhere else. Also, correlations found during real research versus layman correlations are two completely different methodologies. It's like "discovering" half the population doesn't like film, neglecting to mention the films are all "chick flicks" and half your population sample is male.

In other words, it's silly

GamePlayer wrote:If you must. But my criticism wasn't an attack. I know it's bollocks; Griffith knows it's bollocks; and all I said is it was silly, which it is.

Regarding this work, it is what it is: research. If one wants to wrap it up in a nice bow it's best to sell spin somewhere else. Also, correlations found during real research versus layman correlations are two completely different methodologies. It's like "discovering" half the population doesn't like film, neglecting to mention the films are all "chick flicks" and half your population sample is male.

In other words, it's silly

I don't mean to make a big deal out of this, but I have to disagree with one of your points.

It's not research. You make a distinction between "real research" and "layman correlations," but you still call this project research? When I say research, I don't mean something like asking a few people some questions and writing a brief report on what you told them. I mean research as in "research university," "research grant," or "published research." I've been involved in a couple research projects(never got to the point of publication, though), and what this project is is definitely not research.

Calling this work research is comparable to the argument that evolution is "just a theory." Both arguments are based on a total misunderstanding of the appropriate usage of the term in question.

As for it being "silly," that may or may not be so, but I'll just go ahead and quote Griffith again- "it's an awesome result regardless"

What's the difference between "The Bible" and "The Holy Bible"?

You mean talking about the importance of "context" but then taking my second argument out of context in order to debate the first argument?

I'll clarify my "context."

The act of "research" does not lose it's definition because Griffith's research was a joke. The definition is just fine, without the spin. Griffith took the time to collect, correlate and organize data for the sake of presentation as discovery, no matter how silly. It's silly research that reaches a silly conclusion, but research it remains.

Correlation does not equal causation. Finding correlations in the cause of fighting cancer does not have the same relevance as some layman attempting to find a correlation by counting the mushrooms in his soup. The process of finding correlations is still correctly defined as "research" whether its a scientist seriously researching at his lab computer or some bored soup eater actually taking the time to count and record mushrooms per bowl with a pen and paper pad.

If there's a better word than "research" to fit the act of collecting, correlating and presenting data, I'm at a loss. Perhaps the word "joke" would better fit Griffith's process, his webpage and the argument we're having.

But I'll stick with "silly," the definition of which certainly applies

Ultimately, whether or not the research is supported by real world testing or is thorough enough to give a real slice of life, the user gets what the user gets from the results. The question should not be "Is this reality?" The question should be "Do I see any truth at all in these results?" I probably dont, but it is interesting nonetheless, especially in that the method is sound in theory, even if the work done to gather data is not deep enough.

I thought it was cool, though.

Freakzilla wrote:What's the difference between "The Bible" and "The Holy Bible"?

About 138 points on the SAT.

But really, it's because human beings input data on their "favorite books" into Facebook, and some people use one term, and some people use the other.

The act of "research" does not lose it's definition because Griffith's research was a joke. The definition is just fine, without the spin. Griffith took the time to collect, correlate and organize data for the sake of presentation as discovery, no matter how silly. It's silly research that reaches a silly conclusion, but research it remains.

Correlation does not equal causation. Finding correlations in the cause of fighting cancer does not have the same relevance as some layman attempting to find a correlation by counting the mushrooms in his soup. The process of finding correlations is still correctly defined as "research" whether its a scientist seriously researching at his lab computer or some bored soup eater actually taking the time to count and record mushrooms per bowl with a pen and paper pad.

You still don't seem to realize that there IS a difference between "research" as a scientific term, and "research" in the popular vocabulary. Research isn't "to collect, correlate and organize data for the sake of presentation as discovery." Maybe in the popular lexicon, but not as scientists use it.

If there's a better word than "research" to fit the act of collecting, correlating and presenting data, I'm at a loss.

Well, you're in luck, because the term you're looking for is data mining. Coincidentally, that's how Griffith describes his own work.

Ultimately, whether or not the research is supported by real world testing or is thorough enough to give a real slice of life, the user gets what the user gets from the results. The question should not be "Is this reality?" The question should be "Do I see any truth at all in these results?" I probably dont, but it is interesting nonetheless, especially in that the method is sound in theory, even if the work done to gather data is not deep enough.

I thought it was cool, though.

I think it's unfortunate that the work is limited, but I do think it's interesting to know(among facebook-using college students) just how SAT scores and reading interests match up. And it's not entirely unexpected, so that's cool, too.

Phaedrus wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:What's the difference between "The Bible" and "The Holy Bible"?

About 138 points on the SAT.

But really, it's because human beings input data on their "favorite books" into Facebook, and some people use one term, and some people use the other.

Is the graph generated automatically? If not you'd think the compiler would combine those.

Freakzilla wrote:Is the graph generated automatically? If not you'd think the compiler would combine those.

I was confused for a second. I thought you meant the compiler, but you mean the person who did the project.

He had the option to combine them, but chose not to.

Virgil Griffith wrote:Shouldn't "The Bible" and "The Holy Bible" be grouped into the same book?
No, they shouldn't. For at least three reasons.

1. It's just how facebook groups them. For example, Sam Houston University has "The Bible" at #1, and "The Holy Bible" at #3. This is true of most schools that have "The Holy Bible" on their list. Second-guessing all of Facebook's groupings is an exercise in meticulous data-grooming.
2. Look at the bookdetails for each book -- they are completely different. Not a single school above the mean (1071) has "The Holy Bible" on their list. http://booksthatmakeyoudumb.virgil.gr/b ... Holy+Bible http://booksthatmakeyoudumb.virgil.gr/b ... =The+Bible
3. "The Bible" and "The Holy Bible" is like the difference between "Muhammed" and "Muhammad (pbuh)".

Phaedrus wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:Is the graph generated automatically? If not you'd think the compiler would combine those.

I was confused for a second. I thought you meant the compiler, but you mean the person who did the project.

He had the option to combine them, but chose not to.

Virgil Griffith wrote:Shouldn't "The Bible" and "The Holy Bible" be grouped into the same book?
No, they shouldn't. For at least three reasons.

1. It's just how facebook groups them. For example, Sam Houston University has "The Bible" at #1, and "The Holy Bible" at #3. This is true of most schools that have "The Holy Bible" on their list. Second-guessing all of Facebook's groupings is an exercise in meticulous data-grooming.
2. Look at the bookdetails for each book -- they are completely different. Not a single school above the mean (1071) has "The Holy Bible" on their list. http://booksthatmakeyoudumb.virgil.gr/b ... Holy+Bible http://booksthatmakeyoudumb.virgil.gr/b ... =The+Bible
3. "The Bible" and "The Holy Bible" is like the difference between "Muhammed" and "Muhammad (pbuh)".

Thanks for taking the time to explain that, I guess I should have read the FAQ.

Phaedrus wrote:You still don't seem to realize that there IS a difference between "research" as a scientific term, and "research" in the popular vocabulary. Research isn't "to collect, correlate and organize data for the sake of presentation as discovery." Maybe in the popular lexicon, but not as scientists use it.

Well, you're in luck, because the term you're looking for is data mining. Coincidentally, that's how Griffith describes his own work.

You still don't seem to realize you're attempting to trump definition with context. The word and meaning of research, by definition, is not required to be "scientific" in nature or process. It can be, but is not limited to such. And yes, research very much can be to collect, correlate and organize data for the sake of presentation as discovery. Which is exactly what Griffith has done and it's a perfectly acceptable word with a perfectly relevant context to what I was originally commenting upon.

And a term like data mining almost immediately carries a profit-orientated business "context" to it which I find extremely ironic given the silly argument we're currently engaged in over that very distinction.

At any rate, I'm rapidly tiring over this, especially because it's clear you know full well what context was used for the word "research". As such, this argument is reaching new levels of pedantry and silliness.

There's that word again. Wasn't that someone's point about ten posts ago?

Did somebody say pedantry and silliness?!

I find nothing silly about the sexual abuse of underage boys by grown men! It's disgusting! Oooooor!

Oh...sorry, I thought pedantry was...nevermind.


Anyhoo...the key word isn't "scientific", it's "systematic".

GamePlayer wrote:You still don't seem to realize you're attempting to trump definition with context.

I read what you're saying, but all I hear is Q, Q, Q, Q, Q.

The Star Trek guy? From the Continuum?

"I can't believe the things that h-h-h-hu-hu-hu-human has done to me! Me! The horrible puny brained meat child!"

GamePlayer wrote:"I can't believe the things that h-h-h-hu-hu-hu-human has done to me! Me! The horrible puny brained meat child!"

Still sounds Star Trek-y, but I know you hate that. Sounds like one of those things that Quark was. The ones taht are always droning on and on about "gold pressed latnium." I think they were called the Ferengi.

Or maybe that robot from the Matt Groening SF show?

"KAHAHAAHAAAHAHA! The pathetic humans won't see THIS one coming!"

Hehehe, now I have both you and SC guessing

Um...Battlefield Earthlaxitiva?

I'm gonna google now to see if I'm right!

Edit:

No joy. And I misspelled laxative. Oh well.

SandChigger wrote:The Star Trek guy? From the Continuum?

Nope.

That's just silly

This?

I dont even know what the hell this is!

"Victory for ZIM!"



If I could give you a cookie Ompf, I would Well done. I knew one of you had to get it sooner or later

Thanks!

Now what the hell is it?

Invader Zim, a cancelled television show that's now a cult classic. It's about a hapless alien that belongs to a race of conquerers known as "Invaders", but Zim is a joke and the lowest of his society. So he gets sent to conquer some worthless planet in the ass end of the galaxy, called Earth

Zim is histrionic and completely unaware of his numerous shortcomings. He has a lust for power and engages in one failed plan after another. He's incredibly verbose and very emotional.

I can't put my finger on it, but for some reason Zim reminds me of a former member...

GamePlayer wrote:That's just silly

Is "silly" the new slang for "amazingly cool and funny"?

Now I'm just confused...

Now I am no longer confused!

GamePlayer wrote:"Victory for ZIM!"

Was taking a late lunch break and flipping through the channels (have had Anderson Cooper and Bertilusha and "Planet in Peril" on all morning) and came across this weirdly drawn animé that I'd never seen before...but which looked strangely familiar....

And then I remembered where I'd seen it. Here.

Ah...now at last have I seen an episode of "Invader Zim". And like midget farm porn, it was all I ever dreamed it would be.

Invader Zim never was a great show and I didn't really follow most of it. What I did see was basically hit and miss, but I can understand why it was canceled.

The show did succeed in some ways because of the over-the-top character so indicative of such bad sci-fi villains and as a gestalt of popular sci-fi parodies. The ridiculous dialog delivered with such maniacal intensity was good for a laugh and when they made fun of William Shatner's acting, you couldn't go wrong. "Megadoomer" is the only episode I still watch when I need a laugh

Well, I had a good chuckle or two. But I can't say that I'll be watching the schedule for it again.

(I didn't catch the title of the episode I watched, but it was about a building with a weenie stand on the ground floor turning into some kind of giant Transformer-style robot-thingy for depleting the energy at the Earth's core. Or something like that...the details were a bit vague.)