explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1594: Human Subjects

2022-05-17T19:37:53Z

172.68.226.193:

The responses in panels 1, 3, and 4 show that Megan is trying to downplay the issues despite better knowledge. This is probably done to surprise the reader of the dialogue for better dramatic effect. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.159|162.158.91.159]] 05:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

In the second panel, Megan makes a good point which Ponytail misses. If the control group had a high incidence of arson, while the experimental group did not (and assuming that proper protocols were followed in assigning subjects to groups), there is a possibility that the drug has the side-effect of suppressing the urge for arson [[User:Sysin|Sysin]] ([[User talk:Sysin|talk]]) 06:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
: Where is the point? "People where arrested for arson" - "Side effects" - "They where in the control group". That's not really a point for the side-effect of surpressing the urge for arson, is it? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.114.217|162.158.114.217]] 09:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
::If only people from the control group have been arrested, it is or could be. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.213|162.158.91.213]] 10:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
:::In this case both the control and the test group must be full of arsonists and the question is why did Ponytail let them lose to commit arson in the first place. May bye a double-blind test?[[User:Jkotek|Jkotek]] ([[User talk:Jkotek|talk]]) 13:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
:::Maybe both groups were arsonists and the thing helps prevent the person from getting arrested somehow. [[User:Mulan15262|Mulan15262]] ([[User talk:Mulan15262|talk]]) 14:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
:: Where were they arrested? Where was the control group? Where is the "where"? That's not really a question to be asking, is it? 22:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

:Another interpretation of the second panel is that Ponytail went fishing for patterns in the data, and happened to find the apparent cluster of arson arrests. There is no obvious reason why arson arrests would have any bearing on a drug trial. (Of course this depends on the drug, but the experiment in the last panel is about moisturizing cream; since no more specifics are given there is no reason to assume it is a psychologically active substance.) If you look at enough variables about a group of people (be they ever-so carefully randomly selected) you will probably find some "unusual" pattern - some way that they differ from the entire population.
:A classic example of this is the observation about Israeli fighter pilots having predominantly girl children. However, when one looks at subsequent births to Israeli pilots, they show the usual gender distribution. The only reason for looking at the gender distribution of children of Israeli fighter pilots was because somebody noticed this pattern in some data set. See "Science of the Discworld" by Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.112|199.27.128.112]] 23:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

did [[Danish]] cut her hair? --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.8|108.162.216.8]] 11:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
:I agree, this is more typical of [[Danish]], so either she cut her hair or is wearing it up in some manner. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.118|108.162.218.118]] 00:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

also, the title text could allude to the fact that sociopaths (or successful ones at least) tend to be really adept at getting other people to write off or engage in their behaviours. that is, the IRB, despite the apparent awfulness of the actions of the subjects, on meeting them thought they were pretty cool and people should lay off. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.8|108.162.216.8]] 11:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Are those "citation needed" of any use? There is already a link to Wikipedia for sociopathy. Also, the invoked reasons ("Is an arsonist defined as a sociopath?", "Is a masochist the same as a sociopath?", "Is there an agreed upon definition of 'truly sociopathic behaviour', and is this it?") are not sound to me. Sociopathy is defined as "antisocial behavior", so are arson and sadism. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.66.23|141.101.66.23]] 11:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

: I elected to simply remove references to sociopathy. I think the comic uses the phrase "awful" people, and I don't think it is necessary to instill the article with controversy by defining the people as sociopaths or any other term. Simply describing their traits and noting that it is unusual and why should be sufficient. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.31|108.162.216.31]] 14:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I realize that this area is for discussing the subject of the comic, but of all the comic strips out there this is the last one I would ever expect to include the "word" ''snuck''. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.26|108.162.216.26]] 13:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
:This area is mainly for discussing the improvement of the article. Unlike Wikipedia, here we also can discuss the subject of the comic. I addressed your comment, because I never had heard the word (no scare quotes) ''snuck'', but immediatly knew it was an alternate past tense of ''sneak''. I added this: ''Snuck'' is a dialectal past tense of ''sneak''.[http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/g08.html]. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.17|108.162.221.17]] 13:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

::With respect, I don't think the word "snuck" is uncommon or in any way unique to this comic. I don't think there is any valid need to include a line defining a common verb. If people don't know what the word "snuck" is, dictionary websites are aplenty, but let's not turn this site into one of those ones where every word is a link to a definition. Unless it's jargon or technical or a proper noun that needs explanation, I don't think definitions or links are really needed. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.31|108.162.216.31]] 14:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
:: Why use a dictionary when Conan can do it for you? :-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmoHSczX8pU {{unsigned ip|108.162.238.84}}

This comic could be referencing the growing realization that that the subjects of almost all psychology studies are not representative of the world population at large and of the great variety of humans found in the world. The subjects in psychology experiments are usually psychology students or other undergraduate students. Thus the subjects of these experiments are WIERD (Western Educated Industrialized Rich Democratic), these subjects are not close to worldwide normal. See this [//www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/psychology-studies-biased-toward-we-10-08-07/ Scientific American article] for more information. Thus this biases the results of psychology experiments in systematic ways, just as having a bunch of sociopaths as subjects would also systematically effect the results. --[[User:Benjamin|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjamin|talk]]) 15:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Might this comic be related to the increased effect of placebo in medical studies? The "awful people" explanation is one of the ones mentioned in the article: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34572482 [[Special:Contributions/141.101.79.49|141.101.79.49]]

:: Not really [[Special:Contributions/162.158.252.197|162.158.252.197]] 04:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Does antisocial behavior really invalidate non-neuro/psychological drug trials? I don't think personality would change the progression and nature of other diseases. --[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.137|199.27.128.137]] 09:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that in the Milgram experiments, the subjects continued to administer harsher shocks when told to "Please continue," or other similarly anodyne statements, but when they were actually ordered to continue, none did. This was the subject of this week's Radiolab episode, presumably coincidentally. [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 03:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

[[Special:Contributions/172.68.226.193|172.68.226.193]]The comic is about selection bias. Megan maybe got the subjects from a narrow area (maybe a mental insitution or a prison), explaining why the subjects acted this way.

;World Polio Day Comic

At the top of xkcd.com is a link to Bill Gate's blog http://www.gatesnotes.com/Health/XKCD-Marks-the-Spot which currently contains one of Mr. Munroe's strips. Is this an appropriate subject for this wiki? and if so how?--[[Special:Contributions/198.41.235.101|198.41.235.101]] 20:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

http://i1.theportalwiki.net/img/d/d3/GLaDOS_sp_laser_powered_lift_completion02.wav [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.65|108.162.221.65]] 23:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

(How'd I miss this strip? I think I was busy, that day and the next few.) ''Certainly'' not directly related, but recently I've seen a documentary about the effects of video-gaming on people in which a (not-linked) student study to see how many randomly moving dots a person could remember as having been of initially one state or another (shown at the start, before made indistinguishable) after they've been mixed up. The student conducting the research got unexpectedly high results from his group. It turns out he used many of his friends, in particular friends who all played videogames with each other, which it seems gave them the skills (and/or greatly self-selected against those lacking the skills) enabling them all to go on to do far better than the expected average on the test. Interesting, I thought, if not directly connected with the comic. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.75.185|141.101.75.185]] 13:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

2142: Dangerous Fields

2022-05-11T18:06:14Z

172.68.226.193: Undo revision 265468 by 👖🔥 (talk)

{{comic
| number = 2142
| date = April 26, 2019
| title = Dangerous Fields
| image = dangerous_fields.png
| titletext = Eventually, every epidemiologist becomes another statistic, a dedication to record-keeping which their colleagues sincerely appreciate.
}}

==Explanation==
This is a graph of fields of study, ordered by how likely one is to die because of something that that field studies, with mathematics being the least dangerous and gerontology being the most. Gerontology, the scientific study of old age, is shown as much more dangerous than the other fields, so it is far on the right side of the graph. The joke is in the distinction between the danger of studying the thing, and the overall death rate from the thing. Studying aging doesn't put you at much more risk of aging than the general population. However, studying volcanoes is likely to put you in dangerous environments.

===Fields===
*{{w|Mathematics}} is such a pure non-physical field that the probability of it being the direct cause of death is extremely low. The study of it might cause death through workplace disputes or absent-mindedly wandering in front of traffic while pondering (as in [[356: Nerd Sniping]]). Famously (though likely apocryphally) {{w|Hippasus}} was thrown overboard a ship by {{w|Pythagoras}} for demonstrating irrational numbers. {{w|Archimedes}} was killed for not following an invading soldier's command because he was wrapped up in his own thoughts trying to solve a geometry problem.

*{{w|Astronomy}}, the study of stars and space. Astronomy is slightly more dangerous than mathematics, though, since it studies physical objects instead of abstract concepts. In addition to meteor or asteroid impacts, astronomical phenomena that might cause death include solar flares, nearby supernovae, distant magnetar quakes, a solar nova (the likelihood of which will increase over the next billion-odd years), perturbations in earth's orbit, increased or decreased solar radiation, and alien invasion. Given that the density of magnetars and potentially hostile alien civilizations in the stellar neighborhood is completely unknown, and not all past mass extinctions are explained, this one might be misplaced a bit. Although these are all rare events, just one could kill all living and potential future astronomers. That non-astronomers would also be affected seems poor consolation. While astronomers do not study aliens, as such—that would be exobiology—some have sought evidence of alien activity.

*{{w|Economics}} is the study of markets. Markets can kill you by depriving you of goods and services you need to survive. Goods can become unavailable (e.g., cartels, embargos) or unaffordable (through job loss, inflation), in depressions or recessions. The study of such markets usually does not involve great risk, unless the markets are illegal (e.g., illicit drug markets), the economy being studied has put people under great stress, or one's findings are really unpopular.

*{{w|Law}} in this context refers to the rules people have to follow in society, and given the nature of laws (civil and criminal), the odds that your death is related to law is usually low. Possible causes of death more-or-less directly related would include prosecution for a capital crime, persecution under legal authority (such as being killed by an officer of the law), attack by a guard, or for lack of medical treatment, while incarcerated, or death by exposure after expulsion from one's repossessed or otherwise legally confiscated home. However, when large groups of people are dispossessed, or have the protection of law removed, casualties can be quite high. For instance, the {{w|Partition of India}} in 1947 resulted in 200,000 to 2 million deaths. The laws of the {{w|Great Leap Forward}} contributed to the starvation of tens of millions of Chinese, disproportionally many of them lawyers and law professors. Perhaps most ironically, a lawyer who committed a capital crime in a country that practices capital punishment (such as the United States, China, or Iran), and was executed for it would be directly killed by the thing they study. In 2000, approximately 300,000 died from war and collective violence.

*{{w|Criminology}} is very similar to law, but is the study of crime, meaning it's more dangerous than just "law." Criminologists may be directly involved with criminals in the course of their studies, increasing their exposure to potentially life-threatening behavior. There were 520,000 deaths from violence (excluding war, suicide, and accidental or incidental deaths resulting from criminal activity) in 2000.

*{{w|Meteorology}} is the study of weather. Encountering powerful weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, floods, and thunderstorms brings the distinct possibility of injury and death. Curiosity to see a storm in person, or (if working for television news) exposing yourself to the weather event in order to file a report, may expose you to lightning, wind-blown projectiles, cold, water, etc., any of which can negatively affect your survival. Less dramatic weather also kills — hot weather can lead to heatstroke and dehydration. Adverse weather events kill about 100,000 to 200,000 annually.

*{{w|Chemistry}} is the study of chemicals and reactions of those chemicals. Since, under terrestrial conditions, everything is made up of chemicals (and chemists often use especially reactive or dangerous chemicals), the likelihood of a chemist's death being caused by chemistry (e.g., explosions, poisoning, chemical burns, suffocation) is not insignificant. Unintentional poisoning is identified as the cause of death for about 200,000 people a year, chemical assisted suicide kills over 300,000 yearly. Many other causes of death, such as snakebite (100,000), drug and alcohol disorders, some respiratory disorders, and cancers are more or less directly caused by chemicals.

*{{w|Marine biology}} is the study of ocean life. Many marine creatures are venomous, many are very large. Death could result from storms, boat accidents, drowning, diving accidents, exposure to pathogenic bacteria, toxins (such as those produced by cone snails, and "red tide" dinoflagellates), allergies to shellfish, or water pollution, in addition to such perhaps more obvious (but overwhelmingly rarer) risks as shark attacks. About 360,000 people die of drowning annually. Unprovoked shark attacks kill an average of 6 people annually.

*{{w|Volcanology}} involves the study of {{w|volcanoes}}, {{w|lava}}, and {{w|magma}}, with obvious risks to the scientists studying them in the field. Volcanoes have killed an estimated average of 500 people per year; most deaths result from remote effects, such as tsunamis and climate disruption. At least 67 scientists have been killed in volcanic eruptions, as of 2017.

*{{w|Gerontology}} involves the study of aging, and of growing old in general. As (to general knowledge) everyone has to this point been observed to age and eventually die,{{Citation needed}} those who study gerontology are not immune to dying of old age even if they evade all the other possible causes of death — thus making it the most likely among all shown fields. A gerontologist still can die from something else first, but without the inherent risk factors of other professions such as active volcanoes or underwater diving, they're more likely to survive to retirement and thus meet their death of old age.

The title text is about {{w|Epidemiology}}, the study of health and disease conditions in populations. In the event of an epidemic, there is a strong chance that epidemiologists in the search for the cause, transmission, and treatment will be exposed and become victims of the disease in their own right. However, the title text refers more broadly to the role of epidemiology in maintaining detailed statistical records of diseases and other causes of death, such that eventually any epidemiologist (whatever the cause of death) will become one of their own statistics.

==Transcript==

:[A line chart is shown going from left to right with two arrows on either side. On the line are ten dots spread out unevenly from close to each end. The first four dots are clustered together on the left side. Then follows 5 more dots unevenly spaced, all to the left of center. On the far right of the line, near the end, there is one dot. Beneath each dot, there goes a line down to a label written beneath each line. Above the chart, there is a big title and below that is an explanation. Below that again, there is a small arrow pointing to the right with a label above it.]
:<big>Probability that you'll be killed by the thing you study</big>
:By field

:[Arrow pointing right, labeled:]
:More likely

:[Labels for the ten dots from left to right:]
:Mathematics (0 pixels from first field, 0.00% of overall range of fields)
:Astronomy (9px, 1.35%)
:Economics (16px, 2.40%)
:Law (22px, 3.30%)
:Criminology (77px, 11.56%)
:Meteorology (96px, 14.41%)
:Chemistry (156px, 23.42%)
:Marine Biology (166px, 24.92%)
:Volcanology (206px, 30.93%)
:Gerontology (666px, 100.00%)

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Rankings]]

Cory Doctorow

2022-05-11T18:05:32Z

172.68.226.193: Undo revision 266864 by 👖🔥 (talk)

{{Infobox character
| image = CoryDoctorow.png
| imagesize =
| caption = A cosplayer of Doctorow, seen in [[239: Blagofaire]]
| first_appearance = [[239: Blagofaire]]
}}

[[File:Cory Doctorow @ eTech 2007.jpeg|200px|left|thumb|{{w|Cory Doctorow}} wearing a red cape and a pair of goggles based on [[239: Blagofaire|his appearance]] in [[xkcd]]. Doctorow later wore the costume again while accepting a Hugo Award on Munroe's behalf.]]

'''{{w|Cory Doctorow}}''' is a journalist and novelist who commonly writes for [http://boingboing.net Boing Boing]. In [[xkcd]], he wears a red cape and goggles and blogs from a high-altitude balloon.

==See also==
[[:Category:Comics featuring Cory Doctorow]]

{{navbox-characters}}