1594: "Human Subjects"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Psykar
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:32 am UTC

1594: "Human Subjects"

Postby Psykar » Fri Oct 23, 2015 5:10 am UTC

Image



Title Text: After meeting with a few of the subjects, the IRB actually recommended that you stop stressing out so much about safety guidelines.

"Your double blind subjects were *literally* blind"
"I don't discriminate"
"But you were testing visual response times..."

User avatar
rhomboidal
Posts: 788
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:25 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1594: "Human Subjects"

Postby rhomboidal » Fri Oct 23, 2015 5:14 am UTC

The arson arrestees were in the impulse-control-issues group.

Mikeski
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1594: "Human Subjects"

Postby Mikeski » Fri Oct 23, 2015 5:48 am UTC

Where's panel five? I need to know if the moisturizing creams worked on the electrical burns.

...

The problem in panel 3 could be solved by not running the experiment in Washington DC.

doctorray
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 9:04 pm UTC

Re: 1594: "Human Subjects"

Postby doctorray » Fri Oct 23, 2015 6:50 am UTC

Need a thread for the Bill Gates blog comic.

Anyone else try for an alt text, and then was disappointed?

User avatar
Eternal Density
Posts: 5547
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Contact:

AH, BLITZ YOUR WEIRD BUT RIVERISH BETRAYAL!

Postby Eternal Density » Fri Oct 23, 2015 8:27 am UTC

*googles IRB*
International Rugby Board?

Oh, the renamed that. It's the other IRB, the Institutional Review Board. Okay.
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC film-making war, we're all winners.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2936
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: AH, BLITZ YOUR WEIRD BUT RIVERISH BETRAYAL! (WTF?)

Postby orthogon » Fri Oct 23, 2015 8:51 am UTC

Eternal Density wrote:*googles IRB*
International Rugby Board?

Oh, the renamed that. It's the other IRB, the Institutional Review Board. Okay.

That was the first thing that came to mind for me, too.

This renaming thing is getting a bit annoying, and the latest vogue, of which "World Rugby" is an example, is particularly stupid. Instead of a noun-phrase whose head is a word like "board" or "institute", which is what the referent is, the head is a word for the activity or people that the organisation represents. It makes it difficult, particularly in speech, to distinguish between the organisation and the general concept that would be expressed using the same words. A year or so ago, the London Cycling Campaign renamed itself "London Cyclists", making it 100% ambiguous in many cases whether the speaker is referring to the organisation formerly known as the LCC or cyclists in London generally. (In fairness, World Rugby isn't quite as bad, since we have the phrase "International Rugby", but still).
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
pkcommando
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:22 pm UTC
Location: Allston, MA

Re: 1594: "Human Subjects"

Postby pkcommando » Fri Oct 23, 2015 11:39 am UTC

In all fairness to panel 3, how do we know the participants weren't already familiar w/ the Prisoner's Dilemma and were simply trying to speed things along?

If anything, we should commend that 80% for their commitment to efficiency.
"The Universe is for raptors now!" say Raptors, as they take over all of Universe.

User avatar
pkcommando
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:22 pm UTC
Location: Allston, MA

Re: 1594: "Human Subjects"

Postby pkcommando » Fri Oct 23, 2015 11:40 am UTC

doctorray wrote:Need a thread for the Bill Gates blog comic.

Anyone else try for an alt text, and then was disappointed?

Yeah :(
"The Universe is for raptors now!" say Raptors, as they take over all of Universe.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3406
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1594: "Human Subjects"

Postby rmsgrey » Fri Oct 23, 2015 11:49 am UTC

pkcommando wrote:In all fairness to panel 3, how do we know the participants weren't already familiar w/ the Prisoner's Dilemma and were simply trying to speed things along?

If anything, we should commend that 80% for their commitment to efficiency.


But the relative sizes of the rewards is crucial. If defecting only increases your payout by $0.01, while co-operating increases the other guy's payout by $1,000,000, then mutual co-operation is much more attractive...

User avatar
Armadillo Al
Posts: 934
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:17 pm UTC
Location: Illinois

Re: 1594: "Human Subjects"

Postby Armadillo Al » Fri Oct 23, 2015 11:54 am UTC

I fail to see the problem. Isn't the whole idea of human interaction to do unto others before they can do unto you?
Compiling.. wrote:xkcd... where EVERYONE loves EVERYONE...

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2936
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1594: "Human Subjects"

Postby orthogon » Fri Oct 23, 2015 1:11 pm UTC

Mikeski wrote:Where's panel five? I need to know if the moisturizing creams worked on the electrical burns.

That raises an interesting question: do moisturising creams have a long-lasting effect on a person's electrical resistance? (Full disclosure: I may use this as evidence next time my wife attempts to apply such products to parts of my anatomy: "sorry, sweetheart, I work with electronic equipment; it's too risky").
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

richP
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:28 pm UTC

Re: 1594: "Human Subjects"

Postby richP » Fri Oct 23, 2015 2:13 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
Mikeski wrote:Where's panel five? I need to know if the moisturizing creams worked on the electrical burns.

That raises an interesting question: do moisturising creams have a long-lasting effect on a person's electrical resistance? (Full disclosure: I may use this as evidence next time my wife attempts to apply such products to parts of my anatomy: "sorry, sweetheart, I work with electronic equipment; it's too risky").


Yes, they do, but your hypothesis actually supports use of moisturizers. In electronic manufacturing facilities located in dry climates it's not uncommon to find moisturizers near ESD wrist strap testing stations. Dry skin has higher resistance, and can cause the strap test to fail. Applying moisturizer to the wrist reduces the resistance, allowing the strap to pass the test (and, presumably, to properly dissipate charge).

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2936
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1594: "Human Subjects"

Postby orthogon » Fri Oct 23, 2015 2:18 pm UTC

richP wrote:
orthogon wrote:
Mikeski wrote:Where's panel five? I need to know if the moisturizing creams worked on the electrical burns.

That raises an interesting question: do moisturising creams have a long-lasting effect on a person's electrical resistance? (Full disclosure: I may use this as evidence next time my wife attempts to apply such products to parts of my anatomy: "sorry, sweetheart, I work with electronic equipment; it's too risky").


Yes, they do, but your hypothesis actually supports use of moisturizers. In electronic manufacturing facilities located in dry climates it's not uncommon to find moisturizers near ESD wrist strap testing stations. Dry skin has higher resistance, and can cause the strap test to fail. Applying moisturizer to the wrist reduces the resistance, allowing the strap to pass the test (and, presumably, to properly dissipate charge).

Good point: I was thinking of cases where you don't want to conduct electricity very well, like working with high voltages, but actually for most of my work a lower resistance is better.
(Thanks also for a vague tie-in with my favourite ever xkcd)
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

ChakatFirepaw
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 8:22 pm UTC

Re: 1594: "Human Subjects"

Postby ChakatFirepaw » Fri Oct 23, 2015 5:44 pm UTC

Good news subjects! You all get to take a trip to work with an outside researcher.

Caroline will be waiting for you up in Michigan, my apologies if she's a bit shy and doesn't meet you face to face.

User avatar
Coyoty
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:56 pm UTC

Re: 1594: "Human Subjects"

Postby Coyoty » Fri Oct 23, 2015 6:34 pm UTC

They're just testing the creams' EPF (electricity protection factor). It can get real staticky outside sometimes.

User avatar
Keyman
Posts: 296
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:56 pm UTC

Re: 1594: "Human Subjects"

Postby Keyman » Fri Oct 23, 2015 7:43 pm UTC

richP wrote:
orthogon wrote:
Mikeski wrote:Where's panel five? I need to know if the moisturizing creams worked on the electrical burns.

That raises an interesting question: do moisturising creams have a long-lasting effect on a person's electrical resistance? (Full disclosure: I may use this as evidence next time my wife attempts to apply such products to parts of my anatomy: "sorry, sweetheart, I work with electronic equipment; it's too risky").


Yes, they do, but your hypothesis actually supports use of moisturizers. In electronic manufacturing facilities located in dry climates it's not uncommon to find moisturizers near ESD wrist strap testing stations. Dry skin has higher resistance, and can cause the strap test to fail. Applying moisturizer to the wrist reduces the resistance, allowing the strap to pass the test (and, presumably, to properly dissipate charge).

THAT is what you got from his final sentence?? :wink:
A childhood spent walking while reading books has prepared me unexpectedly well for today's world.

Mental Mouse
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:31 pm UTC

Re: 1594: "Human Subjects"

Postby Mental Mouse » Sun Oct 25, 2015 11:04 am UTC

First thought: This is the problem with doing experiments on prisoners. Especially prisoners at the Max-Security Facility for The Criminally Insane.....

Second thought: Are you sure those are actually human subjects?

Apeiron
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:34 pm UTC

Re: 1594: "Human Subjects"

Postby Apeiron » Sun Oct 25, 2015 5:10 pm UTC

Sneak is a regular verb.

Fuck is not the past tense of feak. Squck is not the past tense of squeak. Puck is not the past tense of peak. Cruck is not the past tense of creak. Luck is not the past tense of leak. Cluck is not the past tense of cleak. Duck is not the past tense of deak. Huck is not the past tense of heak.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5773
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 1594: "Human Subjects"

Postby Angua » Sun Oct 25, 2015 5:14 pm UTC

Funny, the OED seems to think you can use snuck. It does say it's mainly North American, but it is still a word.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/snuck
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

rmsgrey
Posts: 3406
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1594: "Human Subjects"

Postby rmsgrey » Sun Oct 25, 2015 5:28 pm UTC

"Sneaked" is a horrible word to try to say, so it's not at all surprising if people prefer to use some other word for the past participle.

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 891
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1594: "Human Subjects"

Postby da Doctah » Sun Oct 25, 2015 6:36 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:"Sneaked" is a horrible word to try to say, so it's not at all surprising if people prefer to use some other word for the past participle.

Then why not "snought"?

xtifr
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:38 pm UTC

Re: 1594: "Human Subjects"

Postby xtifr » Sun Oct 25, 2015 8:24 pm UTC

da Doctah wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:"Sneaked" is a horrible word to try to say, so it's not at all surprising if people prefer to use some other word for the past participle.

Then why not "snought"?

Because then you wouldn't have asked that question. And you asking that question has been the goal of a centuries-long conspiracy. It was foretold in the Great Prophecy of Glick, and now that the moment we have all been waiting and hoping and praying for has finally arrived...we'll have to find something else to do. :)
"[T]he author has followed the usual practice of contemporary books on graph theory, namely to use words that are similar but not identical to the terms used in other books on graph theory."
-- Donald Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Vol I, 3rd ed.

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2019
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1594: "Human Subjects"

Postby Flumble » Sun Oct 25, 2015 8:47 pm UTC

da Doctah wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:"Sneaked" is a horrible word to try to say, so it's not at all surprising if people prefer to use some other word for the past participle.

Then why not "snought"?

You snought not use that word. Moreover, I just snought and there was a lot of snought coming out my nose. :roll:

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1594: "Human Subjects"

Postby Copper Bezel » Mon Oct 26, 2015 12:15 am UTC

Angua wrote:Funny, the OED seems to think you can use snuck. It does say it's mainly North American, but it is still a word.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/snuck

And to people in regions where it's dominant, "sneaked" sounds exactly as unpleasant on the ear as "weeped", "kneeled", " leaped", and "proved".
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2936
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1594: "Human Subjects"

Postby orthogon » Mon Oct 26, 2015 8:54 am UTC

Wait, what's wrong with "proved"? Are you talking about the past participle "proven", or do you have an irregular simple past form in mind?

FWIW I use "snuck", but then I like irregular forms in general, like "compole and lunk"
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1594: "Human Subjects"

Postby Copper Bezel » Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:54 am UTC

Past participle, sorry. = /
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

operagost
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:23 pm UTC

Re: 1594: "Human Subjects"

Postby operagost » Mon Oct 26, 2015 3:38 pm UTC

Wouldn't you expect there to occasionally be criminals in your control group? Or do we believe that the population contains no arsonists, murderers, thieves, or con men unless they've been exposed to nasty toxins, hard radiation, or high-fructose corn syrup?

ijuin
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 1594: "Human Subjects"

Postby ijuin » Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:51 am UTC

Yeah, but if your sample has a way higher rate of such criminals than the general population, then it is no more representative than if it has none.

Mikeski
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1594: "Human Subjects"

Postby Mikeski » Tue Oct 27, 2015 5:45 am UTC

ijuin wrote:Yeah, but if your sample has a way higher rate of such criminals than the general population, [...]

I would expect that, actually.

Crime rate is correlated to unemployment.

Unemployed people have more time to volunteer for medical trials. (And more incentive, if the trial pays them to participate.)

I'd also expect medical trials to oversample college students and retirees, unless they're targeting a specific age range that excludes them.

User avatar
Coyoty
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:56 pm UTC

Re: 1594: "Human Subjects"

Postby Coyoty » Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:35 pm UTC

I wouldn't be surprised to see a significant number of criminals in a cosmetics study. They'd have an interest in concealers.

Paradoxica
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 1:33 am UTC

Re: 1594: "Human Subjects"

Postby Paradoxica » Wed Oct 28, 2015 11:14 am UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:
Angua wrote:Funny, the OED seems to think you can use snuck. It does say it's mainly North American, but it is still a word.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/snuck

And to people in regions where it's dominant, "sneaked" sounds exactly as unpleasant on the ear as "weeped", "kneeled", " leaped", and "proved".


So how would one rewrite "he proved the conjecture" into a form that would accommodate "proven"
GENERATION -705 - 992 i: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum. Square it, and then add i to the generation.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3406
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1594: "Human Subjects"

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Oct 28, 2015 2:17 pm UTC

Paradoxica wrote:
Copper Bezel wrote:
Angua wrote:Funny, the OED seems to think you can use snuck. It does say it's mainly North American, but it is still a word.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/snuck

And to people in regions where it's dominant, "sneaked" sounds exactly as unpleasant on the ear as "weeped", "kneeled", " leaped", and "proved".


So how would one rewrite "he proved the conjecture" into a form that would accommodate "proven"


"The conjecture was proven by him"

Zinho
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 3:23 pm UTC

Re: 1594: "Human Subjects"

Postby Zinho » Wed Oct 28, 2015 9:15 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
Paradoxica wrote:
Copper Bezel wrote:
Angua wrote:Funny, the OED seems to think you can use snuck. It does say it's mainly North American, but it is still a word.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/snuck

And to people in regions where it's dominant, "sneaked" sounds exactly as unpleasant on the ear as "weeped", "kneeled", " leaped", and "proved".


So how would one rewrite "he proved the conjecture" into a form that would accommodate "proven"


"The conjecture was proven by him"

Alternately, in active voice:
"He has proven the conjecture."

For the record, I also prefer "proved" in this case: it's shorter, and acceptable in my idiom. I'd expect to get marked down for style in a technical writing class for saying "has proven" where "proved" would work.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2936
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1594: "Human Subjects"

Postby orthogon » Wed Oct 28, 2015 11:04 pm UTC

In fairness, CB did already concede that she was only thinking about the pp.

"Proven" makes me think of the verdict in Scottish law of "not proven", so it has more of a legal feel to it. It doesn't feel right in the context of a mathematical proof.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Pfhorrest and 33 guests