Video: Exclusive – Arthur Brooks Unedited Interview Pt. 1 | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

Check out the rest of this awesome interview at .

I have to admit, I find it harder and harder to find their unedited interviews – it’s like comedy central hides them on purpose. *shrugs* But they ARE there. you just have to hunt for them. And it is SOOOO worth it.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

An intellectual argument.

I have a failing.

If I like a video enough, especially if it’s a video about science or technology, I can’t help but read a few of the peanut gallery responses to the video.

That last video I posted up… you know, the one from TED? yeah, I read some responses.

Like this one.

Mar 16 2009: If you look at the progression of the human race in the last 100 years, with every major advancement in technology, it seems to be accompanied with even greater stories of crime, paedophilia, drug misuse, man-made disasters, and climate change. I’m not saying that technology is bad — far from it — but major advancements need to be watched carefully because the misuse of power can wreck people’s lives, even disrupt entire nations!

If you could biologically enhance yourself or reconfigure your genome, imagine how people might misuse such power? It is a sad fact that most people are naturally selfish, motivated by their own lusts.

Since I disagree wholeheartedly with his statement,  for obvious and logical reasons, I *sigh* created an account and posted up a reply.

And since the reply was lengthy, and I sweated a little over my phraseology, I figured I’d share it wit’ youse guys, since I’m basically lazy/morally bankrupt. ^^

My response:

“Less than 5 minutes ago:

I’d like to see your statistics for those statements about crime. From what I can remember of my history and sociology classes, crime rates are (and have been for the last hundred years or so) on a comparative downswing, with an illusory upswing as crime detection technology improves. For example, while pedophilia was certainly just as rampant in Victorian England as today, there were comparatively few trials, and very little public acknowledgment that such things were even possible.
In other words, the reason we see so much more crime is because we catch it much more effectively now than a hundred years ago.
Of course I could be wrong. However, whether or not crime is on an upswing, it’s extremely unlikely technology has anything to do with it.
As any economics student can tell you, drawing a causal link between two isolated data sets borders on hubris if done without strong outside evidence.”

So THAT’s how that Paolini kid got popular.

This is what smart people read, among other things.
This is what smart people read, among other things.
Aaaaand this is what the public read. *sighs*
Aaaaand this is what the public read. *sighs*

I picked this up on, specifically here.

“A lot of the people who read a bestselling novel, for example, do not read much other fiction. By contrast, the audience for an obscure novel is largely composed of people who read a lot. That means the least popular books are judged by people who have the highest standards, while the most popular are judged by people who literally do not know any better. An American who read just one book this year was disproportionately likely to have read ‘The Lost Symbol’, by Dan Brown. He almost certainly liked it.” – The Economist

This may also be why that orange-filter *expletive deleted*, Michael Bay, keeps on getting high box office returns on his films. It just seems to make so much sense!

My god, he even shot the TOY shuttle in orange filter! *gags*
My god, he even shot the TOY shuttle in orange filter! *gags*

I also recommend that you check out the article here, also by, in which he discusses recent criticism of the Kindle, and why they’re all A) wrong, and B) a bunch of whining sissies. ^^

Again with the graphs ^^

So I was bopping around the nets, and I found this nifty little graph about how economists calculate income distribution (which is another way of saying ‘how wide the gap is between rich and poor people’) in any given country. Take a look, HERE.

I happened to notice that there were quite a few comments… *sighs* and most of them were political.

How, I hear you ask, can anyone in politicise an educational graphic about math?

I’ll tell you.

The three example countries picked to show off the differences between countries with high, low, and median income distributions, were America, Namibia, and Sweden.

According to the math at the time the graphic was published, Sweden had the lowest income distribution in the world (in other words, least difference between the richest and poorest people), the U.S. had a middle-high distribution, and Namibia had the world’s highest.

Of course, any time America isn’t the absolute best at anything, things get political. *rolls eyes*

So, because I had a moment, I posted there, and I’ll post here, too, just exactly what is wrong with making a political judgement about a mathematical/scientific tool :

You know, I hate to feed trolls, but let me respond really quickly to some of the comments left here by those seeking to politicize science.

1) – You’re politicizing science. Bad. Bad boy/girl. Drop it. No biscuit. Bad.

2) – Even if I agreed with your particular political cant, I wouldn’t agree with the idea of saying that a scientific tool is ‘useful’ or ‘not useful’, ‘good’ or ‘bad’ based upon how closely the results of using the tool resemble the political doctrine espoused by your leaning. That’s just not good science.

3) This infographic isn’t good or bad in and of itself; it just explains facts that economists around the world agree on, and explains (in brief) the method those economists used to agree with each other.

4) Those economists (like any scientist) had to look past their own personal political agenda to see where the data took them. why can’t you?
Okay, I’m done.