Several unexpected obligations and occurrences over the weekend (resulting in lack of sleep) pretty much derailed my update plans and I’m still catching up. But I hope to get the final BEA post, the latest Tanenhaus watch, and my thoughts on the book-length version of James Kuntsler’s The Long Emergency up in the next few days. In the meantime, I’ve posted a writeup of the book I nominated for the LBC.
Category / Uncategorized
Quick Bites
- Which famous modern American poet are you? (Me: Sylvia Plath, apparently.) (via Gwenda)
- There’s an interesting niche blog, Living with Legends, which caters to books for residents of the Hotel Chelsea. This is a nice supplement to the literary map of Manhattan.
- The new Bookslut issue is up and there’s a good interview with Jon Scieszka.
- Still behind on email backlog. Bear with me.
- And my final BEA post should go up sometime this weekend (I hope).
McGraw Hill: When Will They Learn?
In 2003, Diane Ravitch’s The Language Police chronicled the often ridiculous lengths that school textbook publishers resort to not to offend anyone. For example, according to some of the mandates, a dinosaur can’t be mentioned because this implies the theory of evolution. Further, no stories or pictures of a mother cooking dinner are allowed because this reinforces a stereotype. (Unsurprisingly, many of these ideas, which involve preposterous gender-neutral rephrasings of questions and promoting abstinence over contraception, were whipped up by McGraw-Hill. One professor, Sean G. Massey, was so furious that he initiated a boycott.)
As if publishing approaches to school textbooks wasn’t absurd enough, McGraw-Hill is now hoping to target children in Canada with ads placed within their textbooks. The Toronto Star reports that McGraw-Hill has been “quietly trying to coax companies into buying advertising space in their texts.”
McGraw-Hill has a history of doing this. In 1999, a McGraw-Hill mathematics textbook featured an equation asking students to figure out how much money they needed to save to buy a pair of Nikes. The outcry resulted in AB 116, banning commercial images in public school textbooks in California.
Hopefully, the Canadians might take a cue from this.
House Kills Public Television Funding
A House subcommittee has voted to cut all federal funds for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting within two years. That’s $400 million a year, comparative chump change in the federal budget, to destroy a broadcasting conduit that offers educational and alternative programming to the public.
These creeps truly want the public to remain uneducated. Super Bowl, yes. Sesame Street and Frontline, no.
Fun with Face Analyzer
According to Face Analyzer, the following “personality” can be determined from my face:
Intelligence: 6.5 (Average Inteligence)
Risk: 4.2 (Low Risk)
Ambition: 6.2 (Average Ambition)
Gay Factor: 1.5 (Very Low Gay Factor)
Honor: 4.8 (Average Honor)
Politeness: 6.2 (Average Politeness)
Income: 6.4 ($30,000-$50,000)
Sociability: 5.1 (Average Sociability)
Promiscuity: 3.5 (Low Promiscuity)
My archetype, apparently, is Beta Academic.
Even more shocking, the celebrity face that I match up most with is Richard Gere. I’m not entirely certain about that. He has more hair than I do. But apparently I’m more polite than he is.
Because I’m suffering again from insomnia, I tried seeing if I could hack this system by submitting multiple images of my face in various poses (using the same lighting, the same red tee, the same stubble and the same white wall). When I stuck out my tongue, my income level dropped and my intelligence level dropped nearly a full point. Even stranger, my honor level went up when I took a photo of my face in crazy mode.
Nothing, however, fluctuated beyond a point. Sadly, my promiscuity score remained stable in all poses. I had hoped my gay factor would shoot up, but there was little I could do to get it beyond 1.6.
Whatever one thinks of the accuracy of this test, it does serve as a nice counterpart to Malcolm Gladwell’s “The Naked Face” — an essay from several years ago. The Face Analyzer has a 87% success rate determining race and gender. Unfortunately, there’s little on the Face Analzyer site that indicates how the personality attribute score is calculated. All we know is that the picture is sent to a facial recognition engine, which is purportedly the world’s most accurate software. Too bad they couldn’t name the software they’re using or the engineers and scientists who developed it.
[UPDATE: Tito runs some tests of his own. Apparently, the pre-jailed James Brown is a “white collar” type.]