= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I'd like to see gamification components - a point system, leaderboard, badges/achievements, etc.
Leaving people to believe they just killed a cat, maybe to regret it later, isn't being kind to the people.
As with the original experiment, the "cat" would be far enough onto the shoulder that it would only be hit if the driver intentionally swerved off of the road. For safety reasons (and to reduce confounds), I'd set it up on a straightaway with wide lanes.
Frankly, if someone is going to regret making the decision to deliberately harm an animal, I'd rather they have their change of heart after "killing" a dummy and not the real thing.
I really, really want to repeat this test with something furry. Anybody know of an affordable toy mammal that might withstand getting hit by an SUV repeatedly?
I once hit some sort of large bird on the highway when it flew directly into my lane from a cluster of bushes off the shoulder. It was so close to me when it entered my lane that all that registered was "white, flying." There was no way I could have avoided hitting it, but I had to pull off the road to bawl over it for a few minutes. I don't expect people to react the same way I did, but I definitely expect them to not intentionally kill roadside wildlife.
EDIT: It would also be a great idea to run a test with a fake cat. People have all sorts of reasons for discounting the suffering of animals, but it would be very, very difficult to justify killing something that is somewhat likely to be someone's beloved pet. It would also be more visible than a tarantula, snake, or turtle, which might prevent the number of hits from being deflated as the result of a certain percentage of drivers not seeing the dummy at all.
In response to
What have you recently tried, and failed at?
I've become an insufferable list-maker. I've been meaning to start a blog, largely to improve my ability to organize and effectively communicate challenging concepts. Every time I sit down to "start work on the blog," I find myself ending up with a stack of lists - what needs to be done, topic ideas, features of the website design, people to partner/affiliate/guest blog with, hooks for a viral video blog, and so on. Rinse and repeat - a new stack of lists every time.
In response to
CFAR website launched
I think the designer of the website needs to make a comment here claiming her work so we can all give her massive karma. hint hint :)
Thanks, daenerys! :)
In response to
CFAR website launched
Where did the picture of an Intel processor come from? Tineye isn't helping very much.
In response to
[Meetup] NYC Megameetup - Location and Potluck Info
Even if you assume that societies are more likely to structure their gender constructs around innate psychological traits than physical traits
Eugine's argument was that the probability of societies structuring their gender constructs around innate psychological traits has to be updated upwards on seeing culturally universal gender stereotypes that have something to do with psychology. It doesn't need assumption of high prior on the hypothesis.
you've got a major confound when assessing the strength of the effect.
That's true, but irrelevant with respect to the parent comment.
It is difficult to show that people of a gender that is generally trained to work with refrigerators have, as an innate feature of their psychology, an effective strategy for searching fridges.
Do the test with cooks of both genders; their experience of using fridges is unlikely to differ significantly in length. Do another test with women raised in feminist families and compare to general population.
I didn't dispute Eugine's argument - I just thought it worthwhile to point out that the evidence itself is obviously confounded. If we consider the confound itself - the gender-based training - evidence of the hypothesis, we're stuck in a tricky chicken-and-egg situation. It wasn't a refutation of Eugine's comment, but I hardly think it's irrelevant.
Do the test with cooks of both genders; their experience of using fridges is unlikely to differ significantly in length.
Unless female cooks are more likely to become professionals as the result of early and consistent pressure (as opposed to other motivations) and more likely to do the grocery shopping/cooking at home, etc. You can try to control for gender conditioning, but it's pervasive enough to be a significant challenge.
Do another test with women raised in feminist families and compare to general population.
I'm not sure 'feminist household' is equatable to 'egalitarian household,' in practice - but even if it were, self-identifying as feminist is not the same thing as somehow overcoming all early gender conditioning.
One of the major challenges to evo-psych hypotheses about gender is never really tackled in the original comment thread: that women and men are conditioned differently in almost all current and historical societies,
This fact (or rather the fact you seem to mean, i.e., that the differences have a similar character across almost all societies) is itself evidence for the evo-psych hypotheses about gender.
Even if you assume that societies are more likely to structure their gender constructs around innate psychological traits than physical traits (or that the former would result from the latter), you've got a major confound when assessing the strength of the effect.
It's not difficult to show that biological sex predicts some features of perceptual/cognitive ability. It is difficult to show that people of a gender that is generally trained to work with refrigerators have, as an innate feature of their psychology, an effective strategy for searching fridges.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I think car purchasers are much more likely to be insane than car manufacturers. Cupholders seem like exactly the sort of thing that someone might forget to look into when purchasing a car, but it is one of the most common complaints due to constant daily interaction.
How many buyers do you think actually walk away from cars due to shoddy cupholders? I think the amount of complaining indicates that most people go on to buy cars and then complain.
This was my first reaction, too. I recall my car-buying experience consisting mostly of me trying to keep up with my impressions about seat-feel, head space, visibility, dash design, etc. and trying to somehow aggregate that information with numbers that I really didn't know how to process in the first place (e.g. safety ratings, scores from reviews, prices vs. upkeep costs). It wasn't until I'd pretty much picked out my car that I made an effort to mentally simulate a typical drive.