Twice at the University of Utah, it was suggested in classes that I was in that waiting for sex until after marriage was sheer stupidity. Students said 'how could anyone leave something so important with a big question mark until after the wedding iteself? After all, sexual compatibility is important.' Or something to that effect.
Being a believer in Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, it is my belief that God has commanded his children to have no sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. This includes premarital sex (fornication), post-marital sex with other partners (adultery), sex by yourself (masturbation), and sex with others of the same gender (homosexuality).
I also believe that God commands things because they are right, not that they are right because he commands them. That being the case, there should be something demonstrably bad about breaking commandments. I think it should be obvious that we can't expect strong scientific evidence for everything that Heavenly Father says as soon as He says it, but I believe that over the long term, His commandments are for our good. And this is one example.
Science has shown that God is right in the case of not having sex before marriage, in purely temporal marital duration terms. For a believer, my claim that 'God is right' isn't very interesting... it's like saying the sky is blue. Even for the atheist or the agnostic (at least the well-educated ones) it isn't a surprise that "traditional belief systems evolve in a highly beneficial way to their adherents."
Many studies have shown that those that have sex before marriage have a somewhat higher risk of divorce. Apparently the group of those that have had sex before marriage is much larger than the group that hasn't.
So why the divorce rate difference? In my view, sex is like a bond. In a marriage, there are multiple relationship bonds or links. Living together, friendship, sex, experiences together, maybe intellectual similarities, personality similarities, etc. So more bonds is good. The person who doesn't have the sex and living together bonds, but still has enough relationship bonds to get married, gets those two more links for their relationship when they get married. More bonds, less divorce.
So that's one reason of mine on why God commands his children not to have sex outside of marriage. Of course it's not an all or nothing thing. It's not 100% divorce for premarital sex and 0% for the premaritally faithful. I can't find any of the actual studies online for free at the moment, but I'd guess there's only a few percentage points greater probability of divorce for those who don't wait.
The same research also shows some other interesting factors. Women who only had sex with the person they married had the same rate of divorce as those that waited until marriage. Women with multiple premarital partners obviously had a significantly higher rate of divorce.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Sunday, July 18, 2010
In the thick of thin things & the slow movement.
Over the past few years I've thought about the ways that I and others use time. During the industrial revolution it wasn't uncommon for people to work 100+ hours per week. Among those that don't make a living wage, working more than 50 hours per week is still common. Indigenous peoples often 'work' only 1 to 3 hours per day. The time that it takes to find food.
So what do we do with all of this spare time? I think most of us pay homage to the gods of the screen or of song. I waste way too much time playing video games, checking news, and facebooking. I'm 8+ books behind, as in, I own the books, I just haven't read them. But I think there is a fairly simple and objective way to distinguish between time wasted and time well spent. It has something to do with permanence.
I think blogging, improving relationships, learning things, teaching things, producing things, etc. is usually time well spent. The difference in time well spent and time wasted for me is how useful will this time be for me in a few years. Many kinds of entertainment and some kinds of socializing really aren't very useful in the long run.
A lot of people talk about how, although all kinds of inventions supposedly give us more time to do what we want, really no one has time to do anything because we are so busy in this 24/7 world. I don't believe that. I think that when a person feels that way, it's usually because they are wasting pretty much all of their free time. Then they don't have time to think, plan, prepare, or remember. I think we need quiet times to think as people. I think the lack of sleep or unhealthy sleep schedules, like those retards that write blogs at 1:00 AM instead of sleeping (me), can add to this effect.
Having kids also reduces free time drastically, but I think a parent's increased motivation to succeed, what they learn through raising children, and how they change are all positive steps most of the time, and they make up for the lost free time and more.
Earlier this evening I saw a couple that I home teach laying in the grass reading books. I was so jealous. One day I will do that. Even if I have to wait until Christian turns 10 or 11. Sleep calls. I must answer. Good night.
Jeff
So what do we do with all of this spare time? I think most of us pay homage to the gods of the screen or of song. I waste way too much time playing video games, checking news, and facebooking. I'm 8+ books behind, as in, I own the books, I just haven't read them. But I think there is a fairly simple and objective way to distinguish between time wasted and time well spent. It has something to do with permanence.
I think blogging, improving relationships, learning things, teaching things, producing things, etc. is usually time well spent. The difference in time well spent and time wasted for me is how useful will this time be for me in a few years. Many kinds of entertainment and some kinds of socializing really aren't very useful in the long run.
A lot of people talk about how, although all kinds of inventions supposedly give us more time to do what we want, really no one has time to do anything because we are so busy in this 24/7 world. I don't believe that. I think that when a person feels that way, it's usually because they are wasting pretty much all of their free time. Then they don't have time to think, plan, prepare, or remember. I think we need quiet times to think as people. I think the lack of sleep or unhealthy sleep schedules, like those retards that write blogs at 1:00 AM instead of sleeping (me), can add to this effect.
Having kids also reduces free time drastically, but I think a parent's increased motivation to succeed, what they learn through raising children, and how they change are all positive steps most of the time, and they make up for the lost free time and more.
Earlier this evening I saw a couple that I home teach laying in the grass reading books. I was so jealous. One day I will do that. Even if I have to wait until Christian turns 10 or 11. Sleep calls. I must answer. Good night.
Jeff
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
It's on like Donkey Kong!
There's news of a group that has sent names, addresses, SSNs, birthdates, etc. of 1,300 people to media and government outlets in Utah. According to the anonymous creator of the list these are all people that are illegal. The news says that it is likely that someone at the department of workforce services or another state entity has been gathering these names and information during the course of their work. This is an illegal and unauthorized use of information. Not everyone on the list is illegal. How would you feel if your name, address, SSN, and birthdate was sent to all of these groups. If this list is publicized, then everyone on it has a chance of being victimized by identity thieves, vigilantes, and others.
On KSL one article that supposedly dispels myths about illegal immigration says the following:
With an issue as volatile as illegal immigration, it is important to have the facts. Getting the facts, though, isn't easy, primarily because so many voices cloud the emotional discussion with simplistic bumper sticker rhetoric and hearsay.
The comments section of this story was capped after 20 comments. As far as I could tell, all but one or two of the posted comments were posted be people that are extremely angry and vehemently opposed to this article on illegal immigration. The level of sentiment against these immigrants is scary. They are called dogs in one comment, and parasites in another. Several of the comments passed judgment on 'them' by referring to names in databases or experiences with hispanics. These comments pass judgment on hispanics in general, with no reference to legal status. When a person has strong negative sentiments against a race of people, what is that called? I call it racism.
I have lived and been friends with many hispanic people, mostly because of my Spanish speaking abilities and my wife Islena. Hispanic people are as good a people as are white people. There is no way that I could tell the difference between legal and illegal immigrants, unless they told me or papers were checked. I believe this is because illegal immigrants, taken as a whole, are not bad people. In any large group of people there will be criminals. Just like anyone else criminals who are illegal should be punished according to their crimes. In this case, if we can get rid of criminals by sending them to a home country, then let's do it. But the action of crossing the border without documentation doesn't make them criminals. Any more than not using your turn signals when changing lanes, jay walking, speeding, or setting foot on private property without permission makes you or me a criminal.
The infraction itself is equally benign. It is a law meant to maintain societal order that is broken. It is a problem. It needs to be resolved. There are some really bad people that we really don't want in this country, and there are some really good people that we really do want in this country. There are some illegal hardened criminals, and there are some illegal 2 year old girls. Illegal hardened criminals in the United States are just as exposed and subject to our justice system as legal hardened criminals. Probably even moreso.
The laws on the books are inadequate to do what is right. If you ask me in person, I'll tell you two stories that I know of personally, of people that are/were illegal that should be legal. You will agree with me that the wrong action was taken, and it was taken in accordance with our laws.
There is so much anger and hyperbole on this issue that it sickens me. People blame the illegal immigrants for ruining the economy. They want someone to blame. Apparently the big corporations, bad lending practices, and the housing bubble aren't enough. People are calling them names that are dehumanizing. That is stage 3 of the 8 stages of genocide. I don't say that to imply that the country or the government would ever participate in genocide. But some individuals, left to their own devices, might certainly take murderous actions. Google "8 stages of genocide." It's interesting stuff.
People are saying that the 'illegals' are responsible for a high crime rate. This is where they invariably forget to distinguish between hispanic and illegal. In either case, those stubborn facts and data saying that they are not more criminal are brushed aside. The only statistic that I've seen (about hispanics, not illegals) that indicates that they do have a higher crime rate is obviously the result of a long search through crime statistics to pick out one rare type of crime for one year for one area. Cherry picked.
People say that the illegal immigrants steal their identities. One or some illegal immigrants may have done this. But we need to remember that there are several groups involved in this type of crime. Most illegal immigrants involved in this kind of crime are part of a scenario, where one guy or group obtains a long list of social security numbers. They are called 'Miqueros.' They will hang out on a street corner, and wait for illegal immigrants to come up and ask for 'papers.' The miquero assures the immigrant that they only sell SSNs etc. from dead people, so that no one will be harmed through this criminal transaction. The illegal immigrant then uses this id. Most of them will do the best they can to build and protect their credit using this false documentation. They will buy cars and houses, making payments and living their lives, etc. This is unfortunate, and it is criminal.
There is a very different type of crime, which is identity theft to steal money, where people steal others' identities to take out loans, get all they can, and then leave these others with the debt. This type of crime has no relationship to the illegal immigrant needing false papers. The illegal immigrant wants to treat their false paperes very well and very carefully, because they may be good people, but even if they aren't, to avoid any suspicious eyes and law enforcement that is brought in by stealing others' identities for illicit financial gain. My understanding is that the great majority of people that commit the more destructive kind of identity theft are citizens, born and raised, of the United States of America.
I don't understand this fixation that people have of race as a primary predictor of criminal activity. The statistics don't back it up. The attribute most associated with crime is gender. You want to reduce crime by taking action against a whole group, let's take all the men out. The second best predictor of crime is age. If you want to reduce crime, put all the 18 to 25 years olds in jail. So I ask "Why do we skip these attributes when deciding what group to be angry about and go directly to race or ethnicity?" To me it is very clear. We skip gender and age attributes because they are close to us. We are male, or were or will be 18 to 25 at some point. What is the attribute that represents the greatest difference between the angered citizen and the criminals in their minds? Race or ethnicity. We associate ourselves as white and legal and good, and them as minority and illegal and bad.
When we see someone that is white and criminal, we think "stupid criminal" and don't attach it to any other association. When we see someone that is minority and criminal, we connect the picture or name to the stereotype that we already have, and it reinforces the racist belief. I'm sure this phenomenon has a name. I don't know what it is. I saw a news article several weeks ago about a crime that made no mention of names, races, ethnicities, or legal status, and there was a disturbingly high number of comments made by people who were already 100% sure that the perpetrators were from one minority group or another.
I find it really upsetting the way that so many people who are completely unaffected by illegal immigration in any way can find the time to be so hateful. To me it is the result of the echo chamber effect. A person feels one way, and only listens to others who feel the exact same way. Everyone is saying versions of the same thing to each other, and the people involved see it as inherent evidence that their views must be correct. That is all they hear. They begin to feel very strongly against those of the opposing viewpoint. They simply cannot understand how any rational human being could hold the opposing view.
Of course sometimes I may be quite one-sided in my opinions, as you've read. But just for the record, I don't think that all illegal people should be unconditionally legalized. The borders do need to be sealed, as much as is possible. I do think we need to recognize that a total seal is impossible. I think the best way to stop drug trafficking and violence is to stop the problem at its source. The source of the problem is the American people who want and pay for drugs. The way to stop the problem is by educating young Americans in school about the entire issue. As far as stopping terrorist cells coming across the border, the main border to worry about is 1) airports, 2) Canadian border. Honestly, if you were a terrorist, which border would you cross, the northern border that is almost totally unprotected, or the southern border that has never been protected as well as it is now? I mean seriously...
Back to defending my objectivity and neutrality... as if that's possible. :) After the borders are protected as well as can be done (and the best terrorist protection isn't border guards, it's education and PR in the Middle East) right. So, after the borders are protected, then illegal immigrants who are here should have to pass a number of hurdles to become legal. Have committed no crimes. Have paid taxes. (Don't tell me none of them do. Some do. I know this to be fact.) Pay some monetary penalty to cover costs of legalization. What else? Anyway, after all of this is done, then better workplace verification laws need to come into play. This will take care of the good people. But those that are wanted for crimes, or broke more laws than just crossing, won't come forward. Those that need legitimate work will be forced out. Those that don't need legitimate work will be caught only through regular law enforcement channels, as is done currently.
I don't know. It just seems like, to me, the 'crime' of illegal immigrants was crossing a physical line. The federal government didn't say they could cross it, and they did. To me, the act itself is no more serious than stepping into a yard with a keep off sign posted, or going 66 in a 65 mph area. The penalty (being kicked out) for this crime is fine for a person that's been in country a week. The penalty for the child that grew up here, or even the parents that have lived most of their lives here, doesn't fit the crime. Maybe there should be a statute of limitations at least, like there are for more serious crimes. A couple of decades maybe. Or, say, if a person has demonstrably lived for more than half of their life here, then they can (having passed all hurdles) become residents.
On KSL one article that supposedly dispels myths about illegal immigration says the following:
With an issue as volatile as illegal immigration, it is important to have the facts. Getting the facts, though, isn't easy, primarily because so many voices cloud the emotional discussion with simplistic bumper sticker rhetoric and hearsay.
KSL applauds our sister news organization, the Deseret News, for a recent article exploring "the myths and realities of illegal immigration," and for astutely researching and declaring what is fact and what is fiction. Here is a sampling:
"Illegal immigrants cause most local crime, crowding prisons." Deseret News reporters found the statement to be categorically false.
"Illegal immigrants are taking away jobs." Mostly false, according to Deseret News research.
"Illegal immigrants don't pay taxes." Some do, some don't was the conclusion.
"Americans spend billions to educate children who are here illegally and crowd our schools." Again, the reality arrow points toward that statement being mostly false.
"Billions of dollars a year are spent on Medicaid for illegal immigrants." That statement, too, according to the Deseret News is false.
KSL welcomes this in depth look at a very contentious issue. We encourage you to read the entire article in the paper's June 27 edition. You can find it online at www.deseretnews.com. We hope you'll do it with an honest desire to better understand the hot-button issues surrounding the immigration debate.
The comments section of this story was capped after 20 comments. As far as I could tell, all but one or two of the posted comments were posted be people that are extremely angry and vehemently opposed to this article on illegal immigration. The level of sentiment against these immigrants is scary. They are called dogs in one comment, and parasites in another. Several of the comments passed judgment on 'them' by referring to names in databases or experiences with hispanics. These comments pass judgment on hispanics in general, with no reference to legal status. When a person has strong negative sentiments against a race of people, what is that called? I call it racism.
I have lived and been friends with many hispanic people, mostly because of my Spanish speaking abilities and my wife Islena. Hispanic people are as good a people as are white people. There is no way that I could tell the difference between legal and illegal immigrants, unless they told me or papers were checked. I believe this is because illegal immigrants, taken as a whole, are not bad people. In any large group of people there will be criminals. Just like anyone else criminals who are illegal should be punished according to their crimes. In this case, if we can get rid of criminals by sending them to a home country, then let's do it. But the action of crossing the border without documentation doesn't make them criminals. Any more than not using your turn signals when changing lanes, jay walking, speeding, or setting foot on private property without permission makes you or me a criminal.
The infraction itself is equally benign. It is a law meant to maintain societal order that is broken. It is a problem. It needs to be resolved. There are some really bad people that we really don't want in this country, and there are some really good people that we really do want in this country. There are some illegal hardened criminals, and there are some illegal 2 year old girls. Illegal hardened criminals in the United States are just as exposed and subject to our justice system as legal hardened criminals. Probably even moreso.
The laws on the books are inadequate to do what is right. If you ask me in person, I'll tell you two stories that I know of personally, of people that are/were illegal that should be legal. You will agree with me that the wrong action was taken, and it was taken in accordance with our laws.
There is so much anger and hyperbole on this issue that it sickens me. People blame the illegal immigrants for ruining the economy. They want someone to blame. Apparently the big corporations, bad lending practices, and the housing bubble aren't enough. People are calling them names that are dehumanizing. That is stage 3 of the 8 stages of genocide. I don't say that to imply that the country or the government would ever participate in genocide. But some individuals, left to their own devices, might certainly take murderous actions. Google "8 stages of genocide." It's interesting stuff.
People are saying that the 'illegals' are responsible for a high crime rate. This is where they invariably forget to distinguish between hispanic and illegal. In either case, those stubborn facts and data saying that they are not more criminal are brushed aside. The only statistic that I've seen (about hispanics, not illegals) that indicates that they do have a higher crime rate is obviously the result of a long search through crime statistics to pick out one rare type of crime for one year for one area. Cherry picked.
People say that the illegal immigrants steal their identities. One or some illegal immigrants may have done this. But we need to remember that there are several groups involved in this type of crime. Most illegal immigrants involved in this kind of crime are part of a scenario, where one guy or group obtains a long list of social security numbers. They are called 'Miqueros.' They will hang out on a street corner, and wait for illegal immigrants to come up and ask for 'papers.' The miquero assures the immigrant that they only sell SSNs etc. from dead people, so that no one will be harmed through this criminal transaction. The illegal immigrant then uses this id. Most of them will do the best they can to build and protect their credit using this false documentation. They will buy cars and houses, making payments and living their lives, etc. This is unfortunate, and it is criminal.
There is a very different type of crime, which is identity theft to steal money, where people steal others' identities to take out loans, get all they can, and then leave these others with the debt. This type of crime has no relationship to the illegal immigrant needing false papers. The illegal immigrant wants to treat their false paperes very well and very carefully, because they may be good people, but even if they aren't, to avoid any suspicious eyes and law enforcement that is brought in by stealing others' identities for illicit financial gain. My understanding is that the great majority of people that commit the more destructive kind of identity theft are citizens, born and raised, of the United States of America.
I don't understand this fixation that people have of race as a primary predictor of criminal activity. The statistics don't back it up. The attribute most associated with crime is gender. You want to reduce crime by taking action against a whole group, let's take all the men out. The second best predictor of crime is age. If you want to reduce crime, put all the 18 to 25 years olds in jail. So I ask "Why do we skip these attributes when deciding what group to be angry about and go directly to race or ethnicity?" To me it is very clear. We skip gender and age attributes because they are close to us. We are male, or were or will be 18 to 25 at some point. What is the attribute that represents the greatest difference between the angered citizen and the criminals in their minds? Race or ethnicity. We associate ourselves as white and legal and good, and them as minority and illegal and bad.
When we see someone that is white and criminal, we think "stupid criminal" and don't attach it to any other association. When we see someone that is minority and criminal, we connect the picture or name to the stereotype that we already have, and it reinforces the racist belief. I'm sure this phenomenon has a name. I don't know what it is. I saw a news article several weeks ago about a crime that made no mention of names, races, ethnicities, or legal status, and there was a disturbingly high number of comments made by people who were already 100% sure that the perpetrators were from one minority group or another.
I find it really upsetting the way that so many people who are completely unaffected by illegal immigration in any way can find the time to be so hateful. To me it is the result of the echo chamber effect. A person feels one way, and only listens to others who feel the exact same way. Everyone is saying versions of the same thing to each other, and the people involved see it as inherent evidence that their views must be correct. That is all they hear. They begin to feel very strongly against those of the opposing viewpoint. They simply cannot understand how any rational human being could hold the opposing view.
Of course sometimes I may be quite one-sided in my opinions, as you've read. But just for the record, I don't think that all illegal people should be unconditionally legalized. The borders do need to be sealed, as much as is possible. I do think we need to recognize that a total seal is impossible. I think the best way to stop drug trafficking and violence is to stop the problem at its source. The source of the problem is the American people who want and pay for drugs. The way to stop the problem is by educating young Americans in school about the entire issue. As far as stopping terrorist cells coming across the border, the main border to worry about is 1) airports, 2) Canadian border. Honestly, if you were a terrorist, which border would you cross, the northern border that is almost totally unprotected, or the southern border that has never been protected as well as it is now? I mean seriously...
Back to defending my objectivity and neutrality... as if that's possible. :) After the borders are protected as well as can be done (and the best terrorist protection isn't border guards, it's education and PR in the Middle East) right. So, after the borders are protected, then illegal immigrants who are here should have to pass a number of hurdles to become legal. Have committed no crimes. Have paid taxes. (Don't tell me none of them do. Some do. I know this to be fact.) Pay some monetary penalty to cover costs of legalization. What else? Anyway, after all of this is done, then better workplace verification laws need to come into play. This will take care of the good people. But those that are wanted for crimes, or broke more laws than just crossing, won't come forward. Those that need legitimate work will be forced out. Those that don't need legitimate work will be caught only through regular law enforcement channels, as is done currently.
I don't know. It just seems like, to me, the 'crime' of illegal immigrants was crossing a physical line. The federal government didn't say they could cross it, and they did. To me, the act itself is no more serious than stepping into a yard with a keep off sign posted, or going 66 in a 65 mph area. The penalty (being kicked out) for this crime is fine for a person that's been in country a week. The penalty for the child that grew up here, or even the parents that have lived most of their lives here, doesn't fit the crime. Maybe there should be a statute of limitations at least, like there are for more serious crimes. A couple of decades maybe. Or, say, if a person has demonstrably lived for more than half of their life here, then they can (having passed all hurdles) become residents.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Why waves of attacks in Afghanistan?
I was wondering why the insurgent forces in Afghanistan planned a bunch of attacks at the same time, instead of keeping up a steady stream, and I realized that it was similar to 18th century European tactics, when you wanted all of your soldiers in a line to fire at the same time.
I always thought that it was tactically stupid to have everyone fire at the same time because some targeted enemies will get hit several times, while others won't be hit. If they fired one after another in a never ending line, the guys that get hit go down, and the next guys aim at someone that was still standing.
Both 18th century and Afghan warriors recognize something. War isn't won by killing all of the enemy. It's about morale. In the 18th century, seeing a guy drop every second wasn't nearly as frightening as seeing twenty guys suddenly fall over at once. You didn't have time to watch and see them fall one after the other anyway. But you would notice when twenty guys fall over at once. The enemy in Afghanistan realize they can never win be killing all of the allied forces. The only way they can win is by demoralizing the nations of their enemies. They don't do the waves of attacks to destroy the enemy completely. They do it to get on the news. Every news article about dead American/allied troops strikes a blow at the morale of the enemy. There are few/no news articles about single/small attacks. It's only big/coordinated waves of attacks that give them the news stories.
For allied forces as well the war isn't about killing every single enemy combatant. It's about killing/capturing leaders, and convincing others' to defect from the cause by offering better opportunities. Still it would be extremely difficult to change the areas that have always looked to leadership from tribal chiefs to suddenly change and recognize a federal government from a far away place.
I always thought that it was tactically stupid to have everyone fire at the same time because some targeted enemies will get hit several times, while others won't be hit. If they fired one after another in a never ending line, the guys that get hit go down, and the next guys aim at someone that was still standing.
Both 18th century and Afghan warriors recognize something. War isn't won by killing all of the enemy. It's about morale. In the 18th century, seeing a guy drop every second wasn't nearly as frightening as seeing twenty guys suddenly fall over at once. You didn't have time to watch and see them fall one after the other anyway. But you would notice when twenty guys fall over at once. The enemy in Afghanistan realize they can never win be killing all of the allied forces. The only way they can win is by demoralizing the nations of their enemies. They don't do the waves of attacks to destroy the enemy completely. They do it to get on the news. Every news article about dead American/allied troops strikes a blow at the morale of the enemy. There are few/no news articles about single/small attacks. It's only big/coordinated waves of attacks that give them the news stories.
For allied forces as well the war isn't about killing every single enemy combatant. It's about killing/capturing leaders, and convincing others' to defect from the cause by offering better opportunities. Still it would be extremely difficult to change the areas that have always looked to leadership from tribal chiefs to suddenly change and recognize a federal government from a far away place.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Superman ice palaces. and the singularity of data.
Everyone seems to be putting cool pictures on their blog. This one is from the edge of a glacier near Tierra del Fuego. I think it's in Chile. 
Here's another picture. It's from when I made my first Crystal Superman palace, on Lake Baikal, the biggest (holds the most water) lake in the world. Can you guess what country it's in? 
These are some of the broken pieces from my first ice palace. It was destroyed by my arch-nemesis. Aahh the memories of lake Baikal... But that was in the good old days before 'Nam. Anyway, so I'm writing a goals baselines and methods document for the Speech and Hearing Clinic where I pay money to give therapy to clients who pay money to receive therapy, and I'm reviewing the previous semester report, and I see the phrase "Data were taken..." This is the classic English teacher versus Linguist situation... Should it be "Data is/was" or "Data are/were."
The English teacher (and most SLPs, and most other people) will say the word data is plural, and the word Datum is the singular form. Since "data" is (are:) plural, then data are or were taken is the correct form, and data is or was taken would be worthy of a derisive laugh. Or haughty chuckle.
The hardcore linguist (and me) would say "NO!" The reason for this is only understandable based on a series of facts, which will be presented right now!
1st, language is arbitrary. there's nothing about the written letters B-L-U-E or the spoken word "blue" that is inherently related to the color. English speaking society communally teaches and treats the word as a meaningful symbol. It is the fact that English speakers connect the word to the color/concept that makes the written and spoken blue mean the color. If the English speaking world were to use "Shazam" for blue, then it would mean the color/concept, and would be just as valid. For example "I like the shazam ice in your awesome picture Jeff!"
2nd, all languages change over time. Olde English (Ealde Englisce in Olde English) is very different, and almost entirely unintelligible, for English speakers today. The way they spoke then worked just fine for them. The way we speak now works fine for us.
3rd, there can't be a set in stone rule that says what is correct or incorrect in a language. It is arbitrary, and it changes over time. In some other European languages, there is an official body that makes rules to govern the language. This doesn't work of course, because the language changes over time, and the governing bodies invariably mandate that the 'proper' way to use the language is the way that it was used decades ago.
4th, while there can't be a right and wrong, there can be, and there always is, higher status and lower status dialects. This is unfortunate. It's also unfortunate that the 'correct' rules to follow for the language always are, or quickly become, the rules of the higher status dialects.
5th, the purpose of language is to communicate. The purpose of language should not be to determine or enforce status differences among speakers of different dialects of a language.
6th, since no one can say what is objectively right or wrong, the only way to determine what should be used in a given case, is to use what is the most commonly used and commonly understood form. This will be the best way to successfully communicate with the largest number of people. It will change over time, and that's ok.
Finally, to get back to the data issue. I've found that by googling different forms, I can objectively see which are more common, and therefore which should be used. I googled "Data is" in quotation marks and got 70 million hits. I googled "Data are" in quotes and got 35 million hits.
Clearly, "Data is/was" is more common. The dictionaries say "data" is plural, but it is used as a singular case noun. What it is is what it is. The dictionaries are perpetuating the way it was used decades ago, and aren't accepting its newer and most common form. The dictionaries are WRONG!!!
SLPs are in an unusual neutral area between the English teachers that like to prescribe how language should be used, and Linguists that like to simply describe how language is used. The SLP, while educated in many ways similarly to a linguist, makes a job of moving people with abnormal language or speech skills into the normal language or speech skills category. I think that many SLPs naturally revert to 'English teacher prescriptionism' for the English language too much, and forget the basic theoretical principles that are fundamental to the understanding of all languages.
It is unfortunate that the prescriptionists are so well represented in the educational establishment. I think that many people conform to the old rules to avoid being looked down on by others. As an SLP, it would be hard to have my use of language criticized. But I would rather be criticized than follow empty rules. When my supervisor tells me that I should have written "Data were collected" instead of "Data was collected" in my document, I'm just going to... probably write an angry blog about it and do what she says. Come on, she's the great giver of good grades after all. And I need good grades like an American needs bottled water. :) I spent two minutes thinking of that last phrase. I like it.
Peace out y'all!
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Why urine rocks!
I was just on www.sciencedaily.com and there is a research article talking about how a simple urine test may be able to diagnose autism in the future. So awesome! My fascination with the properties of urine has increased dramatically over the past four years.
On inpatient rehab, I catheterized hundreds of people. It involves a red rubber catheter tube going up the urethra into the bladder. The sphincters are thus opened, and out comes the urine. But this must be done in a clean fashion, otherwise a urinary tract infection may be caused. Urine is clean you see. Not dirty. Getting dirty stuff in the bladder is bad.
Urine has been used by many peoples to wash their hands. The reason you get diaper rash or whatever with prolonged contact on the skin is because urine is like a cleaning material. Like bleach or something.
It is still best practice, if you're ever have an open wound and no cleaning materials, to urinate on it. This will help clean the wound.
Many years ago there were no good ways to test blood sugar in diabetes patients. So how did the doctors know blood sugar levels to provide treatment? They tasted the patient's urine! It's true!
Urine has been used in gun powder, dyeing clothing, and fertilizer. Urine gets used to diagnose a lot of different diseases and conditions. Urine rocks!
On inpatient rehab, I catheterized hundreds of people. It involves a red rubber catheter tube going up the urethra into the bladder. The sphincters are thus opened, and out comes the urine. But this must be done in a clean fashion, otherwise a urinary tract infection may be caused. Urine is clean you see. Not dirty. Getting dirty stuff in the bladder is bad.
Urine has been used by many peoples to wash their hands. The reason you get diaper rash or whatever with prolonged contact on the skin is because urine is like a cleaning material. Like bleach or something.
It is still best practice, if you're ever have an open wound and no cleaning materials, to urinate on it. This will help clean the wound.
Many years ago there were no good ways to test blood sugar in diabetes patients. So how did the doctors know blood sugar levels to provide treatment? They tasted the patient's urine! It's true!
Urine has been used in gun powder, dyeing clothing, and fertilizer. Urine gets used to diagnose a lot of different diseases and conditions. Urine rocks!
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
My new blog...
So up until now all posts were copied from my myspace blog. What can I say, I'm following the blogging bandwagon over here. I like connecting to others' blogs, and that they can connect to mine. Maybe that can be done at myspace, but I couldn't easily see how. So here I am.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)