Big Data shows Male-Female Imballance in Arts

Just for fun, and because the time between the years (i.e. 25th of December till 6th of January) generates silly ideas, I tried my first big data analysis today. I was inspired by the frequent notion of woman curating arts exhibitions. Was it just my selective perception, or is there something real behind ?

I used a public German website that provides information on all arts exhibitions during a selected time period. The site http://www.kunstausstellungen.de/suche/ I searched for all exhibitions between 01.01.2018 - 31.12.2018. I got a long list (perhaps still anything from complete) of 210 events, covering private galeries, municipal exhibiton halls and big and famous museums of national and international fame. Of those 210 exhibitions, 181 could be associated with a single artist (the remaining 29 were group exhibitions). Counting the male and female artists, these are the results:

144 male artists (79.6 %)

37 female artists (20.4 %).

The common (PC) interpretation of such a gender inequality is always, that men in their networks support each other, and restrict access of the talented woman. 

Well, we all know who selects the artists to be exhibit in museums and galeries, and these are the above mentioned curators.  

Thanks god, at least for some of the 210 exhibitions, also the names of the curators are listed in www.kunstausstellungen.de. But in particular the big and famous institutions (like Munich Pinakothek, Schirn Kunsthalle Frankfurt, Museum Ludwig Koeln etc) don't like to give names. But of the 123 exhibitions were the curators are known, the picture looks almost like a mirror image than what I found for the artists. Here the gender distribution is as following:

34 male curators (27.5%)

89 female curators (72.5%).

In a nice graphic as the consulting folks do it their whole life through, it looks like this:

Distribution of men and woman among artists and curators of 210 randomly selected exhbitions in Germany (2018) 

So this simple analysis easily disproves that male decision makers (i.e. curators) are responsibility for a larger presence of male artists in public life. At least in Germany, and at least in the year 2018, there must be another reason for the imballance of male versus female artist. The same is also true for film directors, and even more for the conductors of orchestres or composers played in the concert hall. 

Other interpretation are required, since if one wishes to reach an equal representation in the creative business of male and female actors, one has to understand the reasons for the current un-equallity. And at least the stereotypic explanation that influential men support only other men and at the same time suppress woman, seem to be vastly wrong.

More Light, (please)

From yesterday on (December 22nd or winter solstice), day length increases again (at least north of the equator). This gives me more happiness than
More sun increases our vitamin D and serotonin level, whereas Christmas usually only increases our caloric uptake.
Anyhow, to be a nice and friendly son, I took the bus today from Munich to visit my parents and sisters family in Berlin. No snow, unfortunately, so we will all sit together and tell stories of our rich skying adventures from the last 40 years. These are our Christmas carols.

Christmas festivities, which the early christian missioners set for shear marketing purposes on the same days as the pagans celebrated jule feast and the persians and ethnicities following mithraism celebrated jalda.

Higher Individual Religiosity Linked to lower Science Literacy

Past research suggests that religion and science may conflict on which is a better tool for explaining the world. This conflict implies that religiosity might negatively impact both attitudes toward science and science knowledge. However, past research has focused mostly on religious affiliation and has not consistently identified such a relation using a general religiosity measure that assesses religious beliefs and religious practice. A meta-analysis done at Rochester University recently published in PlosOne shows that religious people know less about science, possibly because they view science less positively. Surprisingly, parental religious beliefs were related to their children's attitudes about science nearly 20 years later in life.Using two large, nationally representative datasets as well as two original datasets, and controlling for relevant demographic variables, four studies (N = 9,205) showed that general measures of religiosity are negatively associated with science knowledge, a relation that was partially mediated by an association between religiosity and negative attitudes toward science. Study 2 also showed that parents’ reports about their religiosity and its role in their children’s upbringing predicted, some 20 years later, their children’s attitudes toward science. The studies are correlational but the longitudinal relations in Study 2 suggests that religiosity might undermine science literacy.

Mediation model depicting the relationship between religiosity, science attitudes, and science knowledge in stud 1.

Standardized coefficients are displayed; coefficient in parentheses is the total effect before controlling for the mediator; ^†p = .050, **p < .001.

Tim Berners-Lee, the brain behind WWW, proposes the next step

"I’ve always believed the web is for everyone. That's why I and others fight fiercely to protect it. The changes we’ve managed to bring have created a better and more connected world. But for all the good we’ve achieved, the web has evolved into an engine of inequity and division; swayed by powerful forces who use it for their own agendas.

Today, I believe we’ve reached a critical tipping point, and that powerful change for the better is possible - and necessary.

This is why I have, over recent years, been working with a few people at MIT and elsewhere to develop Solid, an open-source project to restore the power and agency of individuals on the web."

Tim Berners Lee created the world wide web in 1990, while working as external contrator for CERN. I'd be curious as to what degree the inflationary use of Twitter and other social media by Donald Ivanovich Trumpowski has prompted JB Lee to suddenly become so critical.

CNN wont make me feel guilty

Without advocating a militant Green-Peace agenda and complaining about the modern society with its addiction to more and more convenient life style, I usually feel quite in good partnership with the world and nature. I hate fast food, burgers, any convenience food (because it usually tastes like shit), I use my bike to ride to work on 95% of the time of the year, and we heat our house with renewable energy (wood pellets). And of course as good citizens, we separate our domestic waste into recyclable and organic stuff.

So in general, I have little reason to feel environmentally guilty as a member of the developed world.

But today, while watching me most favorite news channel CNN, I nearly found myself sitting right in the dock accused of spoiling the world with a torrent of micro-plastic. They argued that one of the most ignored sources of plastic waste in the environment (and finally in the world oceans) is CHEWING GUM !!!!

Shit, I thought, now they got me. Since childhood I am a regular chewer, since I could convince my West-German uncle to regular send me Wrigley's Hollywood, Juicy Fruit or Fix and Foxy for doing something good to his nephews teeth. An estimated 50 years of regular chewing gum consumption, one 50 gram pack per day, would amount to a huge 900 kg mass. I guess one would need a truck to carry this away, and most likely the local EPA authorities would classify this as hazardous waste, and charge me 10 x times more for its removal than what it had originally costed in the supermarket.

After sorting out what might have happened with 900 kg of chewing gum after I chew out all of the peppermint and juice fruit flavor from it, I realized that in fact I acted environmentally friendly right from childhood on, since I hated to spit out the chewing gum on the street or in the waste basket, but used to swallow it instead. So now the question arises what happened with 900 kg of chewing gum (which according to CNN is made out of synthetic rubber) in my stomach and further down the intestinal tract ? They argue that after it is broken down into tiny pieces, it accumulates in vertebrate organism such as fish or human beings. But this would violate the physical law of conservation of mass, since I myself weight 71 kg, and the 900 kg chewing gum must have left a trace. Without going much into detail, I also can confirm that no chewing gums ever left my body together with the other types of excretions. Not even the clinical analysis done during regular medical check ups gave any reason to suspect of micro-plastics in the various biological samples that I provided to them.
So it seems that our digestive system is able to degrade chewing gum completely and even turn it into something nutritionally useful. So maybe each pack of chewing gum should carry a warning saying: "To protect the nature from micro-plastic, please swallow the chewing gum after use".

Another such victory and I will be totally ruined ...

“Victory belongs to the most persevering” (Napoleon Bonaparte)

What would really interest me, if Napoleon coin this phrase before or after his invasion of Russia ended in a completed desaster and half a million french soldiers losing their life.
One should always be cautious with the egocentric and arrogant reflections of great man AND woman, in particular when they have just reached the climax of success, usually before they have to deal with the first strokes of fate. I don’t know if , on average, men are more prone to this. But there are also “successful woman” who think that they have to teach the whole world how to do it right. Usually it is just a matter of time before the house of cards start to deteriorate. Have a look to the short period of fame around the THERANOS company and its over-hyped founder Elizabeth Holmes. Still in 2014, Homes was profiled in Fortune and subsequently featured in Forbes as “the youngest self-made female billionaire in the world.” In reality, however, the company’s technology was dangerously flawed and produced erroneous results, although that did not stop Ms Holmes from launching a service that carried out tens of thousands of tests.
Read the story by John Carreyrou in the New Yorker and follow a reading at YouTube

And I think I should soon write about some fellow scientists I know myself, who were once placed on a pedestal, only to take a plunge. I would not say, however, that they experienced a sort of great misfortune. This might also happen, but usually people can recover. What is more characteristic is that people with an initial phase of success start to lose their own self-control, ignore warnings by others, and in particular in science they develop the attitude of "Fake it until you make it". This way, they become so much convinced that they are destinies darlings, that whatever they do, it must be their next big victory.

Is Trump the only one lacking a conscious will ?

In reponse to N:

Hello N., this all amounts to the problem of free will, i.e. how responsible one is for the decisions he/she makes. In academia, this is still very controverse discussed. In the most extreme version, D.M.Wegner rejected the idea of a human free will altogether. He argued that our decisions are all governed by biochemical processes, leading to neuronal activities, which the physical body (muscles, vocal organs etc) have to follow. When we believe in our own free will, we might be misled by introspection illusion. But one can also find certain arguments against this reasoning. There are human conditions (mental disorder such as Tourette syndrome or addictions such as alcoholism or eating disorders) where people really feel driven by a sort of evil force to do something they don't want to do (unvoluntary). And they are fully aware of themself acting against their own will.
One can probably find arguments pro and against the general capability of people to make free decisions, in particular in a situation when one follows instincts rather than reasoning.
But if I understand properly your question, it has more to do with "Responsibility". And this means if one is allowed to sanction or punish a person for his/her evil activity. This is a moral question, and it definitely can vary in different times or social contexts. But one can also be indirectly be punished, for instance by refusing him/her certain jobs or career paths. For instance being an alcohol addict is not a crime, and in fact deserves psychatric assistance, it is very likely that he/she is refused to become a teacher. And if one easily looses self-control in an argument, you might blame the genes or hormones for this. But he/she might have bad chances to make a career in politics (I would not call D.Trumps max 4 years in office a career, I think it is rather a dead-end road). So there are most likely medical, psychological (childhood), or social reasons, which one can find for Trumps irresponsible activities. But these should not lead us to see him as a poor victim of his social background, his alcohol addicted grand-father, his poor grades in school, his physical ugliness, and give him a bonus as politician.
Best regards, Micha

The success of the intelligent leader

Soaring migrant birds exploit columns of rising air (thermals) to cover large distances with minimal energy. Trying to solve this optimisation task would be a challenging analytical work for a maths or physics student, or a ressources consuming task for a super-computer. Among migranting birds such as European white storks there seem to be a few individuals that show extraordinary tallent in solving this task. Following single storks in a flock on its way from Northern-Middle Europe to the Mediterranean and Africa, researchers at the MPI in Bavaria could identify a few "leaders" who were always able to pick the best route, making maximal use of natural thermal streams. Analyzing individual and group movements on multiple scales revealed that a small number of leaders navigated to and explored thermals, whereas followers benefited from their movements. Despite this benefit, followers often left thermals earlier and at lower height, and consequently they had to flap considerably more. Followers also migrated less far annually than did leaders. These flock leaders were not the birds with highest muscle mass, but seem to be outstanding in their intellectual performance.

 

The  strategy of the intelligent flock leaders:

• visual search for nearby thermals (most likely based on particular cloud patterns)
• estimate the gain of heights a particular thermal could provide
• estimate the distance of the thermal from the planned flight route
• ballance the gain of heigth in the thermal versus the required extra distance to reach it
• make a decision to stay on direct route or deviate to the next thermal

This way, intelligent storks (and the flock who is following) can bridge large distances without flapping its wings, simply by gently gliding. They will finally reach their destination thousands of miles away in a very relaxed state.

The strategy of the dull storks is much simpler:

• they orientate by fixed landmarks (coastlines, mountains, lakes etc.) and by the sun, maybe also by the earth magnetic field and follow a defined flight route of minimal length and maximal safety
• instead of gliding from one thermal rising air to the next, they have to flap their wings regularily

This way, they will be exhausted much faster. Sometimes they give up long way before raching their final destination and spend the winter time in mediterranean countries instead of Africa. Because of their exhaustive usage of wing muscles, they will grow stronger (like people going to a muscle shop). 

Nice to see that at least among birds, natural wisdom tells most of the members in a flock to follow the bright guy, but ignore the stupid muscle guy.