Why i stopped being a nerd

As an intelligent and studious person, i am proud to say that i have dropped the "nerd" label. From personal experience, i used to dress somewhat properly and correct others with the facts when they made mistakes. I adhered to using proper grammar shortly after being interested in science. A science nerd is In later years, i've fallen out of the nerd label for many different reasons:

* Being a nerd isolates you from the world -

They say that the most intelligent people are often the loneliest. While it's partially because of their intellectual superiority, it's also because nerds tend to make themselves misunderstood. I've learned that if i socialized with only those who are intelligent, i won't thrive. The mark of a true genius is to make himself understood to a general audience. As a scientist, i am compelled to inspire the uneducated to learn more about science. This cannot be done when i am only stating facts and shunning modern society.

With that, i walked into a science group wearing illustrated jeans, a black shirt and sweater, and long hair. I looked like a complete amateur and i got many condescending stares from university scientists. It seems that the nerd stereotype has breached even the scientific community. This is ironic as Albert Einstein, one of the greatest minds to walk the earth, presented himself in such a bizarre fashion. Take a look at this picture of him:



Do you truly expect to take him seriously posing like that? What i don't appreciate about academically minded people is that some are intolerant of amateurs and anyone not enrolled in a university. The goal of the scientist should be not simply to seek knowledge, but also to inspire others and help build a new generation of scientists from all walks of life.

* Mainstream society should not be deemed as ignorant - Refusing to associate with popular activities, media, and fashion to pursue knowledge rather than ignorance is ironically being ignorant. Everything from sports to games, music to gambling, and shopping to dating are all worthy of scientific investigation. One of the main problems with standardized education is that many teachers fail to make science interesting. This is why art and popular activities help bridge understanding with those who are not scientists. What inspired me to become a scientist was not endless facts, but imagination and creativity through science fiction. While i am very bright, i don't have my head in the books all the time. I also enjoy other hobbies such as music and poetry. I realize that there is more to life and human nature than just factual knowledge.

* Emotions and intellect are in conflict - There is a misconception among some nerds that intellect and emotion are somehow opposed to each other. This can be a depressing mode of thinking. I find that typically people who have this mindset struggle in dealing with their own emotions. Both must be balanced for your mental well-being. Emotions are necessary for survival. The solution is to nourish both intellect and emotion rather than believe yourself to be "robotic."

Stereotypes arise when we fill in the gaps about a social group due to our lack of knowledge. The solution is to break stereotypes by conforming to values that will help us reach our goals.

My dream of a cybernetic breed

When i was a child, i was inspired by sci-fi depictions of human and cyborg hybrids. I wanted to resolve a common problem in the world - crime. I researched what science had to say on cyborgs. I found the singularity, a hypothetical era in which A.I machines will be fully independent of humans. No longer will they depend on human programming to thrive.

I wanted to design a race of cybernetic "police" or supersoldiers. I already had some ideas inside my head by studying the human body. I imagined the sounds they'd make and their mechanical movement. I thought about their energy source and their exterior design. They would look something like the above picture but much more frightening and chillingly inhumane. Why? Because i wanted criminals to fear them. In other countries like Singapore, fear works very well in keeping crime rates low. I thought of precautions to take for every weapon, fighting strategy, and so forth. When sending out my cyborgs, i didn't want them to kill criminals. The goal was to inflict enough excruciating pain until the criminals are reformed. If they don't fear human cops then they will fear cybernetic machines. These cyborgs would be rather mysterious to both civilians and criminals. I would also ensure they'd engage in psychological warfare when pursuing those who break the law.

What changed? I thought of the disastrous consequences that could occur should the singularity take place. Once A.I break away from human control, there's no stopping them from what they deem is "necessary." Worse, governments and other criminal organizations would use this advanced technology for corrupt purposes. It was also unethical. I didn't want to create a world run by fear and a lack of compassion.

Ultimately, i felt humanity could create a force nothing could stop. I am convinced that the human race should not have too much power over any global problem. The technological singularity would encourage a degradation of what makes us human. Other scientists such as Stephen Hawkings agree with me. My only hope is that scientists would consider the possible consequences and not be drawn into too much ambition.

Why people are undefeated

I lost a debate in favor of an undefeated champion despite presenting the more reasonable argument and wondered "why do people favor the undefeated?" A spark of curiosity led to many other questions in my head. I did my research online to see if there was an already an explanation but found nothing. I wasn't sure if it was because i didn't search thoroughly enough or that there wasn't enough scientific research on the matter. With that in mind, i decided to search for the answers myself.

Ronda Rousey, former undefeated UFC champ, shocked the UFC world when she lost against Holly Holm. I expected the sports world to judge skilled competitors more fairly than in the debating world but i was surprised at what i found. Strangely enough, Dana White defended Ronda Rousey by claiming she was stressed thus she couldn't perform to her uttermost potential (see the link below).

I've observed within the Sports world that managers give undefeated champions weaker opponents. This creates a rather unfair balance between less experienced and more experienced competitors. This type of behavior is found in many types of competition.

Why is this? Why do people seem to rationalize an undefeated champion's shortcomings rather than a standard competitor? What makes undefeated competitors so appealing? If we see a flaw in their talents, how would we respond psychologically?

With these questions in mind, i did my research and came up with the following hypothetical ideas. This type of behavior may stem from our early ancestors. At one point in ancient history, human societies developed until groups could favor one individual who fit their ideal perception of a leader (ex. strength, size, etc.) Perhaps favoring that specific leader was essential to their survival. Interestingly, certain neurons and neurotransmitters trigger defensive mechanisms when confronted with different opinions. The brain releases the same chemicals used to survive in dangerous situations. Rational thought is then limited, causing close-mindedness.

From what Social Psychologists have learned, we internalize the expectations of other groups into our own self images. We also associate certain traits with members of specific groups. This can create an "us vs. them" mentality and also creates stereotypes when we are ignorant of other social groups. Surprisingly, popular figures can influence us in many ways. For instance, a study mentioned in "Why Women Have Sex: Understanding sexual motivation from adventure to revenge" by Cindy M. Meston and David M. Buss shows that women are more likely to find a popular man sexually attractive based on the number of women who are already attracted to him.

I predict that we support specific individuals when they posses certain characteristics we value (personality, femininity, dominance, gender, strength, etc.) We then form an ideal image of that person in our minds. When they gain enough influence and eliminate competition by being the most dominant individuals, our beliefs are reinforced. However, it is mostly due to popularity rather than skill. When undefeated champions lose, we face cognitive dissonance. We can either rationalize it like Dana White did with Ronda Rousey or abandon our previously held beliefs. Our motives for defending an undefeated champion is to protect what we value most.



To test this hypothesis, i planned to give a survey asking a set group of people the qualities they valued and why they tend to favor those who are undefeated like Ronda Rousey. The problems i face is making a more accurate experimental design.

Hopefully, i'll be able to see the results in the near future along with the correlation between skill and popularity. I can only imagine the implications this will have on cognitive biases and social competition.

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/12/dana-white-said-ronda-rousey-was-exhausted-before-holm-fight

Why i think it's possible for a Swordsman to take down a gunman

It's popular modern belief that a gunman can easily take down a charging swordsman with just the click of a trigger. While this may be true in many cases, it doesn't always work. Here's a few myths on guns and swords:

Myth: "A gunshot can immediately kill a target"

People die from blood loss which takes many minutes. There have been cases where people are still able to move and react despite being shot multiple times. The idea of a gunshot immobilizing a rushing person only works in the movies.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/national/man-continues-drive-car-despite-being-shot-twice/nnsbt/

Myth: "Guns are deadlier than Swords"

Because a hand-gun relies on poison through gunpowder and blood loss, it's less deadly than a sword. A sword can cut through flesh, cut arteries, sever limbs, damage internal organs, and so forth.

Myth: "Swordsmen must land a powerful killing blow to stop a target"

As I've learned in Sword-fighting, the goal is not to kill but survive. Usually, slashing an opponent will not kill. It's alot easier and safer to simply incapacitate an enemy than land a fatal blow.

With this in mind, imagine a gunman face-to-face to a knifeman. Who do you think will react quicker? It depends on so many factors such as who is more adapt to the environment, training, reaction time, distance, speed, the types of weapons, etc. One would expect the gunman to react faster as opposed to the knifeholder. According to the 21 foot rule, this isn't the case for officers. Officers must stand within 21 feet in order to stay safe from a knife-attack. Stand 15 feet near your attacker and you won't have time to pull out your gun. Officers have very little time to react and despite standing 21 feet, it is still dangerous.

Now imagine a swordsman charging in. The sword covers more distance and take into account what i said earlier. It only takes a few feet for a swordsman to quickly strike their opponent. Depending on how mobile your sword is, i'd say it's possible to strike a gunman from a distance.

How would the Swordsman get a slight chance of approaching the gunman without being stopped?

There's no way to "dodge" bullets. There's a huge chance your going to get shot and probably die from a gunshot wound. However your survival depends on many things such as speed, distance, agility, mobility, where you attack, balance, reflexes. Once the trigger is pulled, there is little hope of dodging bullets. Nevertheless, it's possible for someone to improve reaction time to guns. Who knows how this would turn out in a real life application, but it could minimize the number of gunshot wounds.

Guns move faster than humans, but a gunman does not. Thus there are many ways that can hinder him or her from firing an accurate shot. Moving too quickly decreases accuracy. Getting knocked off balance, distractions, or getting sand in your eyes can cause a gunman to miss shots. Shooting a moving target is even more difficult as opposed to someone standing still.

A study was done to determine whether or not running in a zig-zag pattern was more effective than rushing in a straight line. While running in a zig-zag pattern didn't make a much of a difference, it was slightly more effective than running a straight line. It surely made it less likely for a shooter to hit vital areas. This makes all the difference in landing a strike on a gunman.

There are certain shooting patterns that people have and are essential in moving out of the way before the trigger is pulled. If your a gunman, you surely don't want to miss your first shot if your not using an automatic. If your a swordsman, you don't want to dance around avoiding bullets. You also don't want to miss your first strike either.

Remember what i said about swordsmen not needing to delivering fatal blows? Assuming the gun-man has no formal training in hand-to-hand combat or martial arts, the gun-man stands little chance in avoiding a blade. Cutting the muscles in a gun-man's forearm will almost certainly force him to let go of his firearm. Severing an artery in the abdomen can cause the gun-man to collapse, giving you time to disarm him. Once he's on the ground, you have the upper hand.

I'm just speculating. Who knows if this will work in a real life situation. Regardless, i hope perhaps one day i can test this theory. Nonetheless, swords should not be underestimated in our modern age. Despite the advances of modern technology, a sword can be a devastating weapon.

http://readingwithavengeance.tumblr.com/post/87716139612/does-a-person-die-immediately-when-theyre-shot

http://prepcabin.com/2013/11/13/running-zig-zag-pattern-actually-effective/

http://www.nextlevelgamer.com/game-strategy/can-you-dodge-a-bullet

http://writeworld.org/post/39568468890/a-summary-of-how-people-die-and-dont-in

Scientific observations

Scientists make observations to use for data in an experiment. It's not simply seeing, but also formulating ideas and paying attention to detail. The most vital questions are:

* Ask the who, what, where, when, and why - Who are the subjects participating in the study? What do they look like? What are they doing? How are they interacting with each other if at all? What's the environment like? Is the environment affecting their behavior?

Observations must also be able to answer the questions you ask. When tests need to be reproduced, observations need to be compared among different observers. Measurements involve comparing and recording different observations at different times by different people according to a standard shared by all participants. Counting how many standard units are comparable to the object. Measurement reduces observations to a lower recordable number. Two observations resulting in the same number are equal according to measurement.

There are two types of observations

1. Quantitative data - Observations requiring measurement of numbers.

2. Qualitative data - Descriptions of the observations you make.

There are several ways to record observations:

1. Data Tables

2. Lab illustrations

3. Description of a story

4. Digital camera

5. Notebooks

6. Spreadsheets

These are only a few ways of recording observations. There are various tools scientists use to do so.

Observations are essential in scientific hypotheses, experiments, and theories. They are the core components of the scientific method.

Scientific hypothesis

We all may be very familiar with a scientific hypothesis. Some may even think of it as a guess but a scientific hypothesis has a more precise definition. A scientific hypothesis is an explanation about natural phenomenon in the world. There are several distinct features within a hypothesis:

1. It must be falsifiable -  Scientific tests must be done in order to prove it's validity. A hypothesis can be tested but if it's not falsifiable, it's not scientific. Take the hypothesis "There are U.F.O's with aliens among us." We can capture them and use tools to study them, proving them to exist. This can only be proven right but it cannot be proven wrong as the possibility that there are U.F.O's still stands.

2. It must be testable - Scientific hypothesis follow an "if-then" statement with the idea being able to be proven right or wrong depending on the evidence or observation.

3. It must lead to more knowledge - A hypothesis must be able to explain further phenomenon in the future.

Coming up with a scientific hypothesis is like coming up with a poem. It requires a wild imagination and creativity. As Einstein once said: "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Take a moment and write down a list of questions, observations, and comments you have about the natural world. Be wild and free with your ideas so that you can test them later on. Scientists base their hypotheses on what is already scientifically known. Simple hypotheses are preferred among the scientific community.

 Hypotheses are either accepted or rejected based on evidence. But because hypotheses can be wrong, they can still be rejected later when new evidence arrives. In some cases, scientists simply reform the hypothesis according to new information. Here, hypotheses are not wrong, simply incomplete without the latest information.

Now what if two different hypotheses are supported? Scientists generally pick the simpler one.

Scientific hypotheses are an essential part of the scientific method. Scientific hypotheses help us better understand the world through models that we build. Those that are supported further our knowledge and those that aren't still give us insight into what is uncertain or wrong.

Basic assumptions of science

Just as there are assumptions in philosophy, there are also assumptions in science although these are different. Scientific assumptions are used when performing experiments. They are as follows: 

1. There are natural causes to the world - If we observe for example a mutation in an animal, there must be an explanation for why that is so. 

2. Evidence helps us learn about causes - We can do experiments and create models helping us to understand the world such as testing the effects of a certain drug in the human body and what causes them. 

3. Causes are predictable - The same causes can occur repeatedly in many situations. For example, observations of gravity in one setting can also be applied to another. 

4. Nature has order - There is structure to the universe around us. Nature has a pattern repeating itself. For example, Darwin noticed variations between finches and theorized that there was an underlying cause for why this was so. The theory of Evolution is widely applied to explain many sorts of natural phenomenon because of it's order in biological life. 

5. We can know about Nature - We can use our senses to make conclusions about how nature works. 

6. Nothing is obviously true - Meaning that we should not believe something because it's just common sense. If i told you that sneezing kills your brain cells, would you take my word for it or test this idea? It's essential to assume that our ideas can be wrong and to do tests in order to see if they are or not.