Thanks Daily Wire
And, oh yeah, read about his parasite problem…
Professors usually spend about 3-6 months (sometimes longer) researching and writing a 25-page article to submit an article to an academic journal. And most experience a twinge of excitement when, months later, they open a letter informing them that their article has been accepted for publication, and will therefore be read by…
Yes, you read that correctly. The numbers reported by recent studies are pretty bleak:
– 82 percent of articles published in the humanities are not even cited once.
– Of those articles that are cited, only 20 percent have actually been read.
– Half of academic papers are never read by anyone other than their authors, peer reviewers, and journal editors.
That’s rough, and definitely a problem…
I’m cheating a bit since I’m in chemistry… but… its nice to be in the top half, not the bottom half.
14 cites on one paper and 5 on the other (my third paper is much closer to the average… with 2 cites…) Its not like these are great high-impact papers… but at least one or two people not in my research group and not the editors/reviewers has read them, and that’s fun…
Looks like Trump and real republicans might be winning some kind of internal campaign. Jeff Flake joins Bob Corker in not running for reelection. Now if we could only convince every Senator over the age of… say 80 to retire and let their governors appoint successors we might get a few more gallons of swamp drained…
(Although like Corker, he probably is not running for reelection so he is free to unleash the full fury of his previously somewhat hidden leftism for the next year and a half. Bearing this in mind, everyone who says that the Republican 52 seat majority is in jeopardy is spewing BS… the Republicans actually have a minority in the senate, maybe 45 senators… )
Everyone is a propagandist… and cognitive science is scary.
Also, these things seem to be able to be actively encouraged and fomented: Transgender Social Contagion Reminds School Counselor of Salem in 1692
This analysis I thought was really thorough and fascinating. With entirely wrong conclusions. It really does show you a great example of what Scott Adams calls ‘two movies on one screen‘.
I think you ought to read it. But before you go, think about this: what is a coup? A coup in the context of a Republic like ours would the overthrow of the legitimate government by illegitimate forces. The timescale and the bloodiness of the coup are irrelevant. What really matters is this: what is the legitimate government of the United States of America? Is it:
A) The President, elected via the electoral college as laid out in the constitution, along with (and checked by) the Senate and House, elected by their individual States, with an independent Judiciary?
B) The layers on layers of administrators in, say the State Department…
The article cites the Guardian in this quote, but it is indicative of what the author believes the answer to that question is.
… another point worth highlighting: “In the past, the state department has been asked to set up early foreign contacts for an incoming administration. This time however it has been bypassed, and Trump’s immediate circle of Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, son-in-law Jared Kushner and Reince Priebus are making their own calls.”
Well… I suppose the power that the administrators have had in the past must always be honored! You shouldn’t dare bypass them! And the President, you know, the commander in chief, has to kowtow to their wishes. (Definitely not fire them… heh…)
Which brings me to my final point. I’m not sure that many Trump voters would disagree with the analysis here. Trump appears to be actively taking power and authority from the administrators. So the question is, is Trump the coup? Or is the long (but exponential) growth of the administrative class; who make laws without being elected by calling them ‘regulations’, impose punishments without due process or trial by jury (looking right at the EPA fine system and the Title IX kangaroo courts), and otherwise usurp the power given in our constitution to the President and congress and courts alone, is that the coup? If the answer is the second, then indeed, we are living through a second American civil war, one that hopefully will remain in the political sphere alone. And that would mean that Trump is the people’s response to their government being overthrown by a tyrannical oligarchy of administers.
(Almost all of these links were found, over time, on Instapundit…)
I’m about to poke a wasp’s nest: not one of those 2 hour old ones with, like 5 wasps on it, but a big full one…. Are women funny?
(I was going to just put “Answer: No… :)” here, but I decided that perhaps some people would stop reading immediately then…)
From anecdotal evidence: I have a funny wife (not just claimed to avoid the couch…) a funny mom and a sister who sometimes borders on the amusing. Naturally, I’m the funniest one (NB ‘Eat the Curds of fortitude’ is exhibit A), but yes. On to the article which was… wrong… on the internet…
The article begins with an anecdote about a TA:
A few years ago, Laura Mickes was teaching her regular undergraduate class on childhood psychological disorders at the University of California, San Diego. It was a weighty subject, so occasionally she would inject a sarcastic comment about her own upbringing to lighten the mood. When she collected her professor evaluations at the end of the year, she was startled by one comment in particular:
“She’s not funny,” the student wrote.
We could start to theorize why this women wasn’t found to be funny by her students, but I think as you read the article (which is interesting on several levels) you will start to form a picture as to what might have counted as ‘a sarcastic comment’. (Also note: sarcasm is hard, you have to be very good natured, funny in other ways, and perhaps even self-deprecating to pull off sarcasm in front of students. Like everyone else, students will find untempered sarcasm to be just nastiness, not humor, from male and female alike.)
The article discusses much interesting research into humor, but the odd thing about this article is the tone… It is hard to place at first, and then one finds increasing levels of bitterness. Somewhere closing in on the end comes the moment of enlightenment for the reader.
Welp… that’s your problem right there. Feminism is fundamentally Nietzschean, where the interplay of the sexes is actually a battle for power over each other. Also, apparently humor is only about power. Women who have spent their lives absorbing all this poison are also women who automatically dismiss criticism from men as sexist and misogynistic. (How can you learn to make men laugh if you assume that the only reason they don’t is that they hate women?) By assuming that every man that doesn’t laugh is a misogynist, these women cut off their learning feedback and so will never actually be funny. They may be adept at mockery and witty spite, but belly laughter will always elude them.
Humor comes from a real desire to have other people laughing and at ease. This can be honed by lots of trial and error, wherein if something makes your audience laugh you do more of it, and if it doesn’t, you take the instant feedback and try something else. Its possible that, if the women who are angry that men don’t think they are funny just tried and tried until they found some things that work… maybe they’d be funny too. If you look at the research discussed in the article, you’ll find that that is how men are perceived to be funny, they just try more times and more things.
Watch out pitiful human. Commit hubris and you insult the gods. Once you insult the gods, to hell with a logical plot. When you insult the gods you’ve entered quantum territory where the cat’s simultaneously dead and alive and the gods themselves may destroy you. Now anything can happen, from the subtle to the surreal. Why, the committer of hubris might do something depraved like unknowingly marry his mother (ask Oedipus) or, like, she might have her national security crimes exposed by a sexting pervert after she thought her political-media machine and The Clinton Foundation had managed to control or corrupt every potential threat to your presidential coronation—even the FBI.