## Silence: an experiment

Just back from the NICAR, the tribal gathering of all data-oriented journalists, where I gave a talk about the importance of talking openly about uncertainty.

Last night at the conference there was a moment which, for reasons having to do with the demographics of mathematics, was unusual for me:  I was standing in a circle of five people, talking about a technical subject, centered on a talk I hadn’t attended, and the four people other than me were all women.  And it occurred to me:  this is actually a situation where it would be totally natural and appropriate for me not to contribute to the conversation.  So let me try.  Let me try to actually let this discussion go on for five minutes without opening my mouth.

And first of all let me say that I successfully did it.  But it was hard.  I felt twitchy and uncomfortable, just standing there silently.  And it was hard for me to learn about the topic being discussed, because some portion of my mind was still working hard at autogenerating answers to “What could I say now?”, interfering with my ability to listen.

I’m not proud of this.  I think when you’re a man, and you get older and acquire some amount of professional status, you start to feel like it is a kind of universal physical fact that people need to hear your view about the topic under discussion.  Whatever topic it is!  Whether you actually know anything about it or not!

Or maybe it has nothing to do with general social forces, and it’s just me.  In either case, I’m going to try being silent more often and see if I can get used to it.

Tagged , ,

## Michael Harris on Elster on Montaigne on Diagoras on Abraham Wald

Michael Harris — who is now blogging! — points out that Montaigne very crisply got to the point I make in How Not To Be Wrong about survivorship bias, Abraham Wald, and the missing bullet holes:

Here, for example, is how Montaigne explains the errors in reasoning that lead people to believe in the accuracy of divinations: “That explains the reply made by Diagoras, surnamed the Atheist, when he was in Samothrace: he was shown many vows and votive portraits from those who have survived shipwrecks and was then asked, ‘You, there, who think that the gods are indifferent to human affairs, what have you to say about so many men saved by their grace?’— ‘It is like this’, he replied, ‘there are no portraits here of those who stayed and drowned—and they are more numerous!’ ”

The quote is from Jon Elster, Reason and Rationality, p.26.

## Idle question: are Kakeya sets winning?

Jayadev Athreya was here last week and reminded me about this notion of “winning sets,” which I learned about from Howie Masur — originally, one of the many contributions of Wolfgang Schmidt.

Here’s a paper by Curt McMullen introducing a somewhat stronger notion, “absolute winning.”

Anyway:  a winning set (or an absolute winning set) in R^n is “big” in some sense.  In particular, it has to have full Hausdorff dimension, but it doesn’t have to have positive measure.

Kakeya sets (subsets of R^n containing a unit line segment in every direction) can have measure zero, by the Besicovitch construction, and are conjectured (when n=2, known) to have Hausdorff dimension n.  So should we expect these sets to be winning?  Are Besicovitch sets winning?

I have no reason to need to know.  I just think these refined classifications of sets which are measure 0 yet still “large” are very interesting.  And for all I know, maybe there are sets where the easiest way to prove they have full Hausdorff dimension is to prove they’re winning!

## Erotische Flugblaetter

I was working in Memorial Library yesterday. Whenever I’m over there, I like to pull a book off the shelf and look at it.  (E.G.) I feel I have some kind of duty to the books — there are so many which will never be taken off the shelf again!

Anyway, there has never been an easier choice than Flugblatt-Propaganda Im 2.Weltkrieg:  Erotische Flugblätter.  How was I not supposed to look at that!  And I was richly rewarded.  The Nazi propagandists knew their business; the leaflets are written in perfect colloquial English, assuring American troops that the US government is purposely prolonging the war to keep unemployment low at home, that their kids and wives are pleading for them to come home alive by any means necessary (especially:  surrendering and riding out the rest of the war in a comfy German POW camp, with movies, sports, and the same food the German soldiers get) and, most of all, that their girlfriends back home, tired of waiting, are taking up with draft-dodgers and war-profiteers (especially the ruthless “Sam Levy.”)  UK troops got their own version:  their girlfriends weren’t making time with shifty Jews, but with US soldiers, who were “training” in England while the British men died at the front.

Some highlights:

## Rachel Kushner (w/ comma poll)

From Rachel Kushner, The Flamethrowers:

I realized I’d been wrong.  She was not the pedigreed rich.  He was and she was not.  Sometimes all the information is there in the first five minutes, laid out for inspection. Then it goes away, gets suppressed as a matter of pragmatism. It’s too much to know a lot about strangers. But some don’t end up strangers. They end up closer, and you had your five minutes to see what they were really like and you missed it.

This is great!  My one question is about the commas in the last sentence.  If it had been me I probably would have omitted the comma after “closer,” but I sort of think Kushner’s version is better.  Then I wonder:  what about leaving the one after “closer” and adding another after “like”?

Hey, this is a good opportunity for a poll!  I’ve never put one in here before, let’s give this new WordPress functionality a swing.  (Non-standard comma used there on purpose, pedants.)