Personas Fail

MIT has a not-so-nifty new web program called "Personas" that can create a data portrait of a person based on information about that person on the web. Or, in their words:

"Personas is a component of the Metropath(ologies) exhibit, currently on display until Sept 09 at the MIT Museum by the Sociable Media Group from the MIT Media Lab (Please contact us if you want to show it next!). It uses sophisticated natural language processing and the Internet to create a data portrait of one's aggregated online identity. In short, Personas shows you how the Internet sees you."

Below is the Personas result for my online data. I, of course, added the descriptive text in the upper-right of the image:

Click to see full size.

Anyone who knows me will immediately recognize this as laughably, incredibly, incredibly, incredibly (I can't say this enough) inaccurate. Indeed, if I simply attempted to make a Personas chart based on the opposite of myself, it would look similar to the above. Let's break it down:

• Online:
Potentially the only accurate thing about this graph, although it's still questionable. I don't have a very large online presence - this blog, and a number of message boards I participate in, but that's it. No Facebook or Myspace, so that immediately puts me behind most people. B

• Fame:
If this category is about how famous I am, then it's a fail - I'm not famous enough to warrant a mention, let alone 1/7th of my Personas graph. If it's about how interested I am in celebrities, then it's an epic fail - there are few things I care about less than celebrities, the famous, etc. D-

• Sports:
This is one of them. The last time I played anything that could remotely be classified as a sport was maybe about 6 years ago. The last time I commented about a sport online was probably... never. This is probably the first time. Every pro sport in existence could cease to exist tomorrow and my life would not be an ounce different for it. F

• Genealogy:
Another category that means even less to me than fame! I can name my family members almost two generations upward - I know my mother and father's names, and three out of four of my grandparents' names (for my maternal grandfather, my guess is "James Higdon"). I don't particularly care to know more than this, and I can't imagine that my life would be different if I knew. F

• Education:
Whether this is accurate or not depends on what is meant by "Education". I dropped out of high school, refused to finish college, and actively try to convince people to do the same. Usually "education" in these contexts refers to the formal education that I so vehemently disbelieve in. I am, however, very "pro-learning", and I am for "education" when considering the actual meaning of the word. And since I write about it on occasion, I can't fault Personas for including this word on my chart. B

• Movies:
What? District 9 was pretty good, as was The Dark Knight... but don't ask me anything about any movies before, in between, or after them, because I have no idea. F

• Social:
Unlike "Education", above, this is a category I both hate and don't write about. The fact that I refuse to take part in social networks should be enough to dismiss this category out-of-hand. F- (yes, I had to make up a grade for this one)

Final score: D-

Yes, that means Personas is even less accurate than Bill O'Reilly. MIT, you've got some work to do.

Ideology, apparently, is everything

This post was prompted by a conservative friend of mine calling factcheck.org "liberal". Of course, Media Matters has their own problems with factcheck.org.

I’ve never been a fan of this recent “ideology trumps facts” political philosophy we find ourselves in today, but as a person who Cares About Things, somehow I’ve become mixed up in it. It's impossible to talk about politics now without sounding like an ideologue to the person who happens to be on the other side of whatever issue you're discussing. Forget what works best, or where the facts are - "what works best" is *always* what Your Side believes, and if you disagree with what you hear from any particular source, then that source must be biased!

I used to be a “Conservative” because I respect authority, rule of law, individual rights, balanced budgets, and I’m more practical than ideological. Now, even though my philosophy hasn’t changed, I’m a “Liberal” because I respect authority (scientists on global warming), rule of law (oppose “enhanced interrogation techniques”), individual rights (oppose the Patriot Act and “conservative” social policies), balanced budgets (opposed the Iraq War), and I’m more practical than ideological (progressive taxation). Even negative stereotypes of conservatism apply to me as well (fear of change, rigid routines, etc.). I still consider myself fairly moderate / conservative, but I've been forced to call myself "liberal" or "moderate liberal" because I happen to agree with scientists on global warming, or because I happen to agree with economists on progressive taxation.

For example, studies show again and again that Abstinence-only education is not an effective means of reducing teen pregnancy. That is all that I need to know in order to form an opinion on it. But now that I'm opposed to Abstinence-only education, I'm a "liberal", who apparently wants to encourage promiscuity and doesn't care about teenage sex, and hey, maybe I even hate morality as a whole and/or eat babies. NO! I just want to reduce teen pregnancy in the most effective way! Why must everything break down to "us versus them", and why must ideology trump common sense?

All I want is for what's best for the country and humanity. Whichever party offers the most practical solutions is the one I will support. Conservatism and liberalism have nothing to do with it, but unfortunately, politics is obsessed with these labels, and it is hindering our ability to work together to solve problems.

Modern "Conservatives" aren't conservative

Those of you who know me are probably already aware of my opinion that modern day "Conservatives" aren't at all conservative. Either that, or the definition of "conservative" has changed abruptly since before the turn of the century. I used to consider myself approximately as liberal as I am conservative on various issues, and I still do when it comes to my own mindset and philosophies (among them: if it ain't broke, don't fix it), but I disagree with today's conservatives on almost every issue.

Anyway, I have several reasons as to why I don't consider the Republican party platform to be conservative at all, but David Brooks has argued them much more adeptly than I could accomplish, so I will link you all to his editorial on the subject:

The Republican Collapse (David Brooks, New York Times).

Somewhat questionable tactics on the part of the Chris Dodd campaign

Update (9/30/07): This blog entry originally had another email shown that claimed I had attempted to donate but the donation had not gone through. "Tim" from the Dodd Squad has left a comment on this post stating that the second email I received was not sent to everyone on the Chris Dodd campaign email list, and was simply sent to me in error. I have removed that email from this post.

Update (11/01/07): Slate has picked up on this...

I have donated money to Chris Dodd in the past, as I have to presidential candidates from both parties (Disclosure: more Democrats than Republicans), so I receive emails from the Chris Dodd campaign (and others) from time to time.

Below is a screenshot of one of the emails I (and presumably everyone on their email list) have received from the Chris Dodd campaign (I have blacked out my own email address). It's kind of shady.

Click to see larger screenshot.

The extremely informal "Hey," opener makes this email seem almost as though it were written only to the recipient from Chris Dodd himself. The request for "$23" (as opposed to $20 or $25) is meant to give the impression that he really is only $23 short of the goal, whereas a request for $25 would have been more readily recognized as a regular donations solicitation email.

Perhaps there's a better explanation than mine for the way this email was phrased, but it does seem pretty shady.

Rush Limbaugh edits a transcript so that he can accuse Media Matters of editing a transcript

This one is pretty funny, folks... except for the sad fact that those who are predisposed to believe either side of this fiasco will exit it with their beliefs yet stronger than they were entering...

You may or may not have heard about the Rush Limbaugh "phony soldiers" controversy. According to Media Matters for America, on his radio show, Rush called service members who support a withdrawal from Iraq "phony soldiers". (link)

Rush came back and accused Media Matters of quoting him out of context, and that he was actually referring to a man who had falsely claimed he had been in the military and had witnessed atrocities committed by U.S. service members in Iraq. He said his "phony soldiers" comment was directed towards this individual and others who were quite literally phony soldiers, and it was not a comment on the anti-war movement as a whole. NewsBusters has a video where Rush provides what he claims to be the entire audio transcript, with his comments in context. (link)

But wait! Things are about to get hilarious, folks. The transcript and recording that Rush provided to prove that Media Matters had edited his transcript had actually been cut and pasted itself! Media Matters provides the full transcript, including about a minute and a half of audio that had been cut from the transcript Rush provided. (link and link)

Go back and listen to the clip in the NewsBusters posting from earlier. You can actually hear where the edits occur.

Of course, there are die-hards out there that will stick with Rush on this one. I don't know what defense they intend to use - did Media Matters somehow insert the extra dialog between Rush and a caller into the audio? Maybe they hired some extremely talented voice-impersonators to create the content from the middle of that clip.

What is sad is there are those who will continue to support and believe Rush even after they have seen this evidence and realize that he must have edited his transcript and presented it as the whole thing. Why is this? I suppose there are those who don't realize that you are allowed to be a conservative and still recognize that Rush Limbaugh is dishonest. Just because Rush is a dishonest jerk doesn't mean there's anything wrong with conservatism itself.

Fox News isn't gonna' like this...

It looks like evidence of homosexual civil unions in medieval Europe has been found. So much for the historical precedent of the "nuclear family"...

Livescience: Gay Civil Unions Sanctioned in Medieval Europe

Justice John Roberts is officially a fucking asshole

Sorry about the language, but sometimes the truth hurts.

Update: Here's more.

The move is a success

I have relocated my old blog (from Deadjournal) here... all the posts from the old blog are reproduced below. Sorry, Deadjournal, but Blogspot just had the features I wanted.

Psychic believers owned

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/03/how_do_you_prov.html

Government meddling with science via injected politics, etc.

By now we all know that the government has been improperly censoring and meddling with science, blah blah blah. Well, here's a rather concise timeline on each individual occurrence of such interference. Pretty good reading, you know, if you care about reality.