Interesting visuals change the way in which people engage with a diagram. You can think of it as an aspect of storytelling. Personally I find my eyes much more likely to be drawn to these isometric diagrams, compared to a 2D equivalence. The 3D aspect draws my eyes in and keeps them there. So what's being added doesn't need to be raw information that changes the facts of a diagram, it can be an aid to processing. There's a reason that visual design is a thing.
Really interesting study. Matches well with my own experiences.
I used to have recurring dreams (both specific instances recurring and themes recurring) which mostly revolved around being chased, being attacked, most often with knives (I grew up in Glasgow, and there's lots of them about).
I realised at some point that as my self-confidence grew (due to various factors), instead of getting caught in the dreams I would manage to escape and run away. And then eventually (with greater amounts of confidence) I started fighting back and winning.
These themes still recur when I'm in various states of high or low self-esteem/self-confidence. And there are separate themes related to separate fears which also follow this pattern.
It's a shame that so many people will blast studies like these for being too small, but it's the start that needs to happen before we get to the end, and I think it's fascinating work.
I hope to see more detailed investigations like this in future, and a building body of literature on the subject.
Thank you very much for sharing your experience with dreams! I have made a website to gather scientific research on this interpretation https://docbt.org/ (Dream Orientated Cognitive Behavioural Therapy) and we are on twitter too https://twitter.com/docbt1. I know that the gold standard of studies are random control trials, but to begin the argument I think that more qualitative studies can be useful to establish an idea. That was my intention with this paper.
Seems a bit similar and might be worth checking out. (One of the authors, Corriere, later lost his licenses to practice psychology -- but it doesn't necessarily invalidate their theory.)
I too have experienced this. These days my self confidence is much higher. But I think the mechanism is different. I would say I encounter similar situations, but it is my conscious mind which determines how I respond. The unconscious creates the scenario, and you react to it naturally.
I also have the chasing dreams when I'm feeling insecure, and when I'm feeling confident and satisfied with my life I can fly in all my dreams. It's a useful barometer for my general state of mind. :)
It's interesting to see an outside perspective on a place you're so familiar with. One point that was pretty funny was the idea that London is pedestrian friendly with all those little streets to walk along. I think it's more down to London being haphazardly constructed over the last ~2000 years, and even when it all burned down they refused to change the layout.
Which does make it fun. You don't get the line of sight you find in other European cities, and you can twist and turn around the place to your heart's delight.
I have lived in London for the last 5 years, and although it's much more pedestrian friendly than any city in the US, I find it less accomodating than other (admittedly smaller) cities in Europe. European cities embrace plazas and squares and usually have long, wide and straight boulevards leading to them as the main features. London doesn't have a straight road longer than a few hundred meters. The biggest pedestrian-only space is probably Trafalgar square, and it's so packed with tourists that you lose the benefit.
When I moved to London I was shocked how hostile to pedestrians it was. Oxford street should not have cars on it (there's an ongoing project but it's taking forever). Same for other neighbourhood thoroughfares, like Regent St, Piccadilly, Bishopsgate, Fleet St, etc. It would be a much better city if that was the case.
I think it partly comes down to what you look like and how you act on the street. Of the people I know who have had their phones snatched the common denominator was usually being too comfortable standing on a street staring at their phones. It's hard to miss kids on bikes/mopeds if you're watching for them, but if you're not and they appear then they'll go for you.
I think it's important for us to gain some kind of perspective here. Whatever current science (or "science") says on the matter, that's not the point. These arguments seem to be of the following: women are inherently less capable of being good engineers, therefore they should be underrepresented in engineering.
Okay, now let's extend that argument out from the engineering sphere.
Using the same logic, the following attitudes should be accepted:
1. physically disabled people are inherently less suited to being mobile, so we shouldn't put in effort to allow them to be as mobile as non-disabled people
2. Men are inherently less suited for child care, so we shouldn't put in effort to help them be as good at child care as women
I wouldn't be surprised if some of you endorsed the attitudes I've just presented, but that would make you immoral by modern standards, so you could then assume that you're being immoral on the gender diversity issue.
This whole thing comes down to a fundamental lack of empathy. If you're not going to have empathy for women in tech, there's no reason that anyone should have empathy for you in areas that you're not suited to. So, if you accept one, accept the consequences of the other.
>women are inherently less capable of being good engineers
The article doesn't say that at all. It just says that on average women have certain traits that mean they are less likely on average to want to go into an engineering job.
>Men are inherently less suited for child care, so we shouldn't put in effort to help them be as good at child care as women
But men are inherently less likely to want to go into child care, for obvious reasons. However nobody is saying that they shouldn't be allowed to do so.
I think the main problem with the memo is this line:
"Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race"
I don't see any problem with those programmes myself, and I think he would have gotten more empathy and less hostility if he hadn't advocated removing those programmes to help women.
