Morning everyone!
I did my first posting in The Science Lab and it gave the motivation to stem another thread based on my enthusiastic manner.
Based on my posting in relation of Einstein and his significant equation of E=mc2...here's a stem which I would like to share.

We do believe (Why would I include "we"?, it represents the human community, gamers and graduates in particular as a whole entity, rather than one subject individual). Actually, the initial intention for the existing of this thread for gamers and graduates in particular (It might spam from other "forumers" as well, AHHH...what the heck, eh?).

What would I like to bring upon this morning? Here's the woodworks:

Correlations are useful even if we have NO THEORY to explain them. In the example of gaming and grades, we might not know why the correlation exists. That does not matter if all we want to do is make predictions. All we need is a reliable correlation. We do not even care if the observations of gaming are accurate or valid, as long as people are consistent in their observations. (For simplicity I would say ceteris peribus comes into play)

If the observed relationship between observational gaming and grades lasts into the future (if it is reliable) then we can make a prediction based on people's observations. "People who say they play X amount of hour in GAMING will end up with a grade-point average of about Y."

It is also possible that different factors are important at different schools, or in different countries. In Korea, being GODLIKE in Warcraft might not correlate with bad grades at all. (I'm NOT SURE of Malaysia but for me, based on my life experience as a gamer and a student, my parents were skeptical on my gaming sessions which can be endless hours in one particular day). Hence heavy duty gaming correlates negatively with grades.

A typical observation of a correlation is based on one group of people (gaming individuals), at one time, in one place. It DOES NOT necessarily reveal a universal truth. This is another reason replication is important. When an important finding is replicated at different places and times, or with different groups of people non gamers, we find out how robust or dependable is the correlation. We may also get hints about the factors that underlie a correlation.

So as for conclusion: Is CORRELATION is SCIENCE or SCIENCE is CORRELATION? V(^o^)V

Regards, Joey~~~

p.s: Okie! Now my brain is all dried up after OC-ing my brain. Better grab a Coke downstairs to chill out!

This post has been edited by Joey Christensen: Jun 23 2009, 09:20 AM

I don't understand what you mean in the bolded sentence. Okay, so you consider gaming as a form of art. Well, my opinion is that moderate gaming (or any other hobby you enjoy) might serve to boost work efficiency because it serves a reward for working hard. I think working without such motivations would cause efficiency to be lower unless you're the type who sees the work as an end to itself. If you know that you only have x number of hours to work and play, you'll try to finish the work as soon as possible so that you can use the rest of your time to play. This is true only if you have the discipline to stop when it's time work again. Otherwise, it would serve as a hindrance to work. I think such studies would be done by social scientists or humanitists.

Dear "Thinkingfox",

Firstly, yu need to understand the meaning of CORRELATION. That's the first step before yu post in reply to my question.
Secondly, yu need to understand the three terminologies; namely; Correlation coefficient, negative correlation and positive correlation.

It is easy to misinterpret correlational measures. They tell us NOTHING at all about CAUSE and EFFECT.

Here's another light bulb for enlightenment. For example, suppose that yu measured the annual income of post secondary students and postgraduates from age 13 to age 35. You would probably find the two VARIABLES—income and age—to be POSITIVELY CORRELATED.

The wrong way to interpret that correlation is to say that growing working professionals causes people to earn more money. Of course, that isn't true. The correlation can be explained in other ways. Obviously, a 13-year-old fella can't earn money the way an 35-year-old or a 25-year-old can. Measures of correlation, such as the correlation coefficient, simply tell whether two variables change in the same way or not without providing any information as to the reason for that relationship.

Of course, scientists often design an experiment so that a measure of correlation will have some MEANING. A nutrition experiment might be designed to test the effect of feeding rats a certain kind of food. (I love seeing those rats being harmed in a way or two)

The experimenter may arrange conditions so that only one factor—the amount of that kind of food—changes in the experiment. Every other condition is left the same throughout the experiment. In such a case, the amount of food is the independent variable and changes in the rat (such as weight changes) are considered the dependent variable. Any correlation between these two variables MIGHT THEN SUGGEST (but WOULD NOT APPROVE) that the food being tested caused weight changes in the rat.

So, it's back to square one: Is CORRELATION IS SCIENCE or SCIENCE IS CORRELATION?

Regards, Joey

p.s: Is SCIENCE IS ART or ART IS SCIENCE? From splitting the atom to painting on the canvas...A possible correlation? Maybe, maybe not...Hmmm~~~

This post has been edited by Joey Christensen: Jun 17 2009, 09:57 AM

neither.

Correlation is used in science, as well as other disiplin.

actually i wanted to start : The Science of Art
just now also

but i wasnt sure of that topic and its correlation with yurs.

I don't understand why ordinary people want to talk like their scientist, I thought its about invention or new improvement, perhaps to correct the misconception of the public about certain thing like foolish assumption.

This post has been edited by 3dassets: Jun 17 2009, 11:09 AM

Dear "3dassets",

I would appreciate it if "ordinary" people like yu won't be bothering posting non compos mentis reply in my thread.

Yu did not understand the subject matter and yet yu commented. Why bothered to post? HaiZZZ...

Let this serve as a preposition for others to bring their lackadaisical understanding of the mentioned subject matter else where. Thank yu. This is YET another community service announcement.

Regards, Joey

p.s: The only individual that NEARLY yet so FAR to nailing the notion is "Thinkingfox". Anyway, I have high expection on this subject matter as it's a personal notion to begin with.

I know what correlation is. Wasn't it demonstrated in my response? I talked about moderate gaming and the threshold of when gaming is does and does not give a positive effect that I know of. What I didn't understand is the 'Is science is correlation' part.

The answer lies within my post script. Thank yu. Joey~~~

Did you mean is science, correlation and is correlation, science?'

Morning!
This posting may serve as a continuation from my initial posting in Correlation of Art & Science dated a few weeks back. I'll start things off with a quote from Philips Zimbardo.

"Human behaviour is incredibly pliable, plastic."~~~Philips Zimbardo

As this thread is tagged with a Psychology discussion in a Science section, I believe there is a correlation between the two entities. The hereafter entities are referred to as Art and Science.

Psychological studies vary in design. In correlational studies we looks for associations among naturally occurring variables: gaming and studies, whereas in experimental studies we introduces a change and then monitors its effects. Agreed upon? It is IMPORTANT to be able to distinguish between correlational and experimental designs, because only well-controlled experimental designs allow conclusions about CAUSE and EFFECT. It plays a significance manner as it is the equilibrium that ties ART and SCIENCE.

Hence, as unforgiving as the reality for truth, would this correlation break and sub divided into its own category? I would not know. It is intriguing to know how Science works and how Art performs harmoniously. This can be seen from a complex calculation done by a high end super computer mainframe to a human being's vitality being supported by organs.

Hey! Speaking of organs, yu got Highway System? Me too! Have yu heard of Circulatory System? Yu got your so called "efficient" Light Rail Transit (LRT) System? I think my Lymphatic System is more efficient. (I guess a lot of people would agree here, regarding our public transportation mode) Irrigation System? Oh yea! I got my Urinary System to back me up too. MUAHAHAHA~~~

I still remember the days I had conducted some experiments in my school laboratory. There is a set for "controlled experiment." Would it be practical to conduct such experimentation studies among this group of individuals? Would it yield an "acceptable hypothesis"?

Note: A controlled experiment generally compares the results obtained from an experimental sample against a control sample, which is practically identical to the experimental sample except for the one aspect whose effect is being tested (the independent variable).

Thoughts for today: More and more young people are attending Colleges and Universities today than ever before. Yet there is more juvenile delinquency and more "unwanted" cases among the young. Would this makes it crystal clear that these young individuals are being corrupted by their ~!@#$%^&* education? Ask yu? Ask me? Correlation of Art applicable? or Study of Science applicable? Hence there's a vortex created by these two entities.

Regards, Joey

p.s: Is ART regarded as a reflection of understanding of SCIENCE or SCIENCE regarded as a reflection of understanding of ART? I'll end this with a quote from Albert Einstein. How would yu interpret it and correlates it with my context? Ask yu? Ask me?

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."~~~Albert Einstein

This post has been edited by Joey Christensen: Jun 24 2009, 11:30 AM

It would be hard to draw conclusion IMO, could be due to my knowledge of both academics is not GODLIKE..generally speaking, I would say SOME form of arts are science..namely those adopted geometry, optometry, colourism, perpectives, anatomy as their foundation of their artwork..for instance, impressionism, cubism..the artists have fundamental theories supporting their concepts which seems scientific..other facts like artists have some basic science knowledge about the art medium they use like charcoal, pastel, water colour, acrylic, terpentine for oil painting etc. in these situations whereby they experimenting how the mediums react, literally, i would say art is science..but, another part of art is somehow anthropological..which include emotions, a psychological phenomenon and not just science, the study of things that form this universe..that is not anthropological (unless we are in the matrix, it may be then)...but i like the fact that despite some laws seemingly governed the universe; it still favours to randomness, chaos.. art, to me.. tend to be random and chaotic as well..
but, if talking about MMA, mixed martial "art" i will say it positively correlates with science lolx..eg. the bjj is derived from scientific studies of human joint machinery etc. lolx..guess im off-topic...
okay, my conclusion for this is...art and science..the correlationship is linear perhaps..to me is neither positively or negatively correlate..the more the science knowledge doesn't post any greatness to the artwork created..on the other hand, understanding of science does not count on one's art cultivation..
once again, the definition of Art n Science, not to mention the topic itself, become obscure to me..xD

I think what joey means are subjects like palm reading, astrology, chinese horoscope, feng shui, superstitious belief. Can palm line actually tell so much of our past, present and most importantly, future? How about horoscope? Does it really forecast our future? Half (if not most) of the time they are correct! I believe this is what science correlation is all about. People observe the trend, come up with their own reasoning, and make more observation until they found the correlation between the less unrelated thing.

One of the thing that people like to argue about this type of correlation is that it is merely a coincidence. How many coincidence could we have?

How about genetic science? Scientists say each DNA represent a different characteristic of any living creature. There is no way to experiment with DNA, but by observing the different DNA of different people, noted their physical different and draw the correlation.

I think science correlation (or whatever it is called) is about anything that require a group of subjects to testify the relation. There is no way a correlation can be established with only 1 subject. It's like looking for consistency among the group of subject.

For gaming and academic, I think we can't draw up any relation between this 2 without first putting up a certain criteria, like breaking the group of people into more specific group.

I wonder, does psychology falls under this category? The way they tell about a person by looking at the picture drawn by them? I think so.

This is a tough topic. Where did you get the idea from?

This post has been edited by Aurora: Jul 1 2009, 12:24 AM

after reading what you posted at 5am, from my understanding of the complication posed by u - i have the opinion that correlation and science are interdependent. i would say CORRELATION is SCIENCE AND SCIENCE is CORRELATION.

the reason? well just look around. take statistics for example. it is a discipline, a science (math based) based on correlation (sometimes).

as there are so many unique cases in science, you can never safely say that science is built on correlation nor correlation is built on science. the fact of the matter is that they often work in interchangeably.

either that or i may have completely misinterpreted your post due to unclear language.

i need sleep.

The idea came flowing in from the posting that I did on the E=mc2 thread. I was composing for the thread and at the same time I was thinking of creating a new thread basking with my ideas.

Regards, Joey

---

Added on July 1, 2009, 12:59 pmYu hit the note with your third paragraph, last sentence. Yu have understood well.

Regards, Joey


This post has been edited by Joey Christensen: Jul 1 2009, 12:59 PM

I thought this thread was supposed to talk about art and science? All this correlation thing is...

Anyways, I think one interesting thing to note is the study of the golden ratio (1.618) proportion in nature and art, as it appears in almost everything around us from plants and crystals to even the music and the human body.

but wat does it got to do with art???

---

Added on July 22, 2009, 2:35 pmyeah...
some1 can open a thread and discuss abt the golden ratio??

This post has been edited by vivienne85: Jul 22 2009, 02:35 PM