Asymmetrical Information

I wouldn't worry about it. (And if for some odd reason you find yourself worrying, then just re-read the comments and smile! You look fine.)

:)

Would you kindly post a picture of your "below 300
pound" un-wart-iness for those of us who missed the opportunity to gaze upon your lovely visage?

Would you kindly post a picture of your "below 300
pound" un-wart-iness for those of us who missed the opportunity to gaze upon your lovely visage?

Would you kindly post a picture of your "below 300
pound" un-wart-iness for those of us who missed the opportunity to gaze upon your lovely visage?

Would you kindly post a picture of your "below 300
pound" un-wart-iness for those of us who missed the opportunity to gaze upon your lovely visage?

maybe because you told us that you look like an elf.

maybe because you told us that you look like an elf.

maybe because you told us that you look like an elf.

The "overgrown elf" comment I think lead many people astray. I hadn't put much thought into what you look like, but I'd have guessed... different. I saw a picture that Doc Weevil posted before he took it down and edited it and had many of the same thoughts that the below people did. I didn't suspect tall (okay, well I guess I knew tall), slender, and attractive... even though the "overgrown elf" description actually fits, albeit in a way that few saw coming...

You don't look like an elf - at least not from the pictures provided by Mindles. More like...southeast German stock. At least that's what the skull and the hair describe.

To reiterate: you look fine.

how did I convey the impression that I was 300 pounds and covered with warts?

Brooke and I have both arrived at the conclusion that you're a fabulous babe, and not simply because you're a slightly older, slightly taller clone of Brooke herself. (Well... partly...)

I think the dynamic behind all this is the assumption that a person is one thing or another.

Either a person is smart or cute...rarely both.

In the real world we come to expect trade-offs, so much so that we nearly automatically assume that a woman who's main "product" is an intellectual commodity has to be as sexy as Mr. Ed.

When we find that rare combination of beauty and brains we like to rave on and on...especially when the person in question is "accessible". Julianne Moore or Stevie Nicks are very lovely...but the odds are they will never see any positive comments from a shmoe like myself, much less fire off a response once in a while.

I don't know if that answers the question at hand, but there it is.

A very long time ago, in another century, I knew a wise and wonderful Lady, the mate of a photo, who looked much like you. She married a fun and witty, but totally wrong for her, guy named Eugene. All of this was in San Jose. You resemble that beauty of beauties who, incidentally had the best of all mothers. She was a McArdle. There is a resemblance. You also are Cover Girl gorgeous.

Jane,

Just saw the blog bit on media matters. I'd like to say a couple of things about your comment that journalists didn't go to school to be social scientists (though I did and still became a journalist).

It's a common slam against the media that they don't reflect the many segments, social and political, of society. And that they have corporate biases. And that they don't put thought into what they do—a lot is sloppy.

There is a lot wrong with the media. TV news is often bland retelling of what the print media put out. Some major dailies are, frankly, lifeless.

But , as somone who came to journalism late in life, I think the media do get lots right. Even the mainstream media. The Wall Street Journal, in spite of its right-wing editorial page, broke some of the most important corporate scandal stories of the past two years. The New York Times broke the story that the White House had already worked up war plans for Iraq.

Locally, alternative and mainstream outlets have broken important stories well ahead of social scientists. ;-) The Boston Phoenix, for example, broke the story on widespread church sex abuse in Boston (althought the Globe is credited).

But it's also important to understand a couple of things. First, news gathering is not a neat and tidy business. That's why stories develop and why they change with more time and reporting. A Monday story isn't the end of the story.

Second, newspapers are in some cases fighting for resources from stingy parent companies. It's hard to keep talent when you can't pay people what a corporate PR job pays. Some daily reporters are so young that while they may basically be good reporters they don't have the insttutional knowlege so critical to seeing beyond what initially appears to be the story. (That's more true for small dailies and some of the majors, rather than the NY Times and WSJ, for instance.)

Finally, reporters are human. We make mistakes.

I certainly don't expect reporters to be superhuman. But on the Enron story, for example, most papers, including the Times, repeatedly misreported what had happened. I saw countless instances of ignorant journalists frothing about some perfectly normal accounting standard, such as booking 103% of revenue on commodity trades. On the subjects where I know something, it is often apparent to me that the reporter has absolutely no idea what's going on. Or, recognizing their ignorance, they present a useless "he-said, she-said" format as if the guy who's claiming there are cancer clusters on Long Island is on the same scientific footing as the scientists pointing out that they're statistically meaningless. We get story after story that should never have been written at all, based on some snazzy but weak statistical data-mining. Stories about "gun show loopholes" in which it is apparent that, aside from reading VPC press releases, the reporter has no idea what the loophole consists of. Etc.

I've written some freelance pieces and I know how very hard it is to get it right. But reporters need to either get numerate, or get a deeper appreciation of the handicap their inummeracy represents.

those who can, do; those who can't, teach

oldie but a goodie, and it applies to very many things (not just teaching, but journalism, politics, government service)

most people who go to j-school have "a mission", and are tought by profs who believe in "a mission"... you don't go to j-school if you absolutely love math and science, or business...

there will never be any way for professional journalists in mainstream publications to be remotely competent on what they have to say on technical subjects, especially business, economics, science or anythnig to do with stats(if they are competent and knowledgeable they'll probably work for a trade pub where they'll work on something they enjoy, with likeminded people)

stats is a very hard subject for people to handle (counterintuitive alot of the time) because are brains are naturally biased in our patter recognition capabilities (for all sorts of good and reasonable evolutionary reasons)

getting people who didn't take highschool math or science to talk intelligently about these kinds of things is impossible on a broad scale. There is too much knowledge in the world for someone to be of use across all disciplines (see engineers, writing and social skills; doctors, handwriting techniques etc) What is really freaking annoying is when people are ignorant of their own ignorance. It gets reporters and others in trouble all the time, and is how you can tell when someone's faking things (going to a sushi restaurant and sending the sashimi back cause it's undercooked...)

so if you're a reporter, admit that a) you don't know what the hell you're talking about b) that you are trying to find people who can talk intelligently about these things c) this is what various people who work in the field say d) this is what experts in the specific techniques say about the work of the field experts (i.e. stats experts, chem experts... talkingabout the methods taht the epidemiologists, historians, or whatever came to their conclusions)

if you can't fit this into the article, at least do the leg work so that you aren't going to look like a freaking moron. remeber that every field has orthodoxies and controversies, and frequently gets lots of crap wrong, so you have to check the experts on their work (especially their stats work... letting a humanities person anywhere near a spreadsheet, a z-score table, or a calculator should almost be a felony)

then you'll at least have tried your best, and people who know the subject will understan, becuase they get fooled all the time just like you.. rather than complaining that you didn't do any checking or leg work, just went with what you thought felt "right"

If it's any consolation, I never picked up on the warts thing. I always pictured you a very pretty, but in more of a tall blonde comic book heroine sort of way. It's always a bit odd to see pictures of people whose writing you've read for a while.

Two thoughts:

Jane: You've got a point. But you seem to be harshing on what I said even though you echo it. It would be interesting to see how much of what you write stands up to scrutiny, btw.

Libertarian Uber Alles: On your point of reporters looking like morons: You need to work on basic punctuation, etc.

In any event, I' m new to blogs and thought I could make a nice point without getting "flamed," as I think they used to call it. (And perhaps still do.) Guess not. I guess blogs are no different from the userlists of the old days, full of sound and fury. Have fun with your blog. I've no use for this.

I agree with the author

Hello. I just wanted to give a quick greeting and tell you I enjoyed reading your material.

Comments are Closed.