Watson and Jeopardy: computer vs. people
I watched “Jeopardy” last night to see what all the fuss was about Watson, the computer who’s been coolly cleaning the clocks of previous mega-winners Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter.
I don’t like Watson. Seems to me that, although his skills (and those of his programmers) are formidable, they are exactly what you’d expect and not so very interesting, and based mostly on his speed. The most exciting thing about him is his ability to respond to human speech with humanoid speech, to decipher some of the meanderings and indirections and come up with an answer based on the voluminous information stored within his huge files.
More interesting to me is what Watson lacks: emotion, humor, and what we might call nuance. Although I’ve read a bit about artificial intelligence, I don’t see how computers can ever come to have wit or creativity or the ability to understand a joke or make a quip. Jennings and Rutter showed Watson up by clowning around at his expense at the very end of the show (fortunately, Watson’s feelings didn’t seem too badly hurt):
“I don’t like Watson. Seems to me that, although his skills . . . .”
“HIS?”
Neo, with all respect, does this speak to how quickly all of us human-types project our attributes onto non-human forms (think Bambi, Thumper and PETA, here)?
“Its” perhaps, or am I being too sensitive here?
T is correct.
And while A.I has made great strides over the past 10 years and actually looks to be able to displace a great many human workers of all industries that don’t require a human touch in the next ten years, the fact is “true” intelligence for computers is probably many years down the road and may happen accidentally. Certainly it won’t be anything like Watson.
T:
To be fair to Neo, they did give their computer what is widely regarded as a male name.
T: far too sensitive, and infinitely more sensitive than Watson—who, as Brad points out, has a male name after all. I was just being politically correct and going with his preferred gender assignment. Although it wouldn’t bother me if he wanted to use the ladies’ room.
The “he” in those last two sentences referred to Watson, not Brad.
I heard a story where Dwight Eisenhower was supposedly in a room with a huge state of the art computer for its day. Being prompted to ask the computer a question, Eisenhower asked “Is there a God?”. The computer whirrz and buzzes for a minute and finally spits out a printout that says “NOW THERE IS”.
Brad,
No disrespect ever intended to Neo. Watson is the name of (Thomas Watson) the founder of IBM (who’s company motto was “THINK,” by the way), also remember Dr. Watson of Sherlock Holmes fame. While they are both men, Watson is a last name and does not denote sex.
Her point about emotions is well taken. In a former life, I taught the history of art. When discussing abstract forms of art I was often met with the challenge that if you give an animal a loaded brush (an elephant, a chimpanzee, etc.) it can produce similar things; how can abstract art, then, be so special?
Said challenge misses two points. First, the elephant doesn’t voluntarily and consciously pick up a loaded brush, it must be given to it; second, the chimpanzee and elephant don’t call it art; WE do.
Neo points out that Watson lacks emotion, humor and nuance. It is exactly that self-introspection that makes us human; that makes ART art, and that keeps Commander Data from ever being human, his effort notwithstanding (should be “its effort,” see, I do it, too)
When we project those unique human tendencies onto lesser forms of life we delude ouselves into believing a (false) intrinsic equivalence, hence the absurd comment by an animal-“rights” activist that “Animals are people, too.”
SteveH’
Love the Ike story.
Watson behaves like an idiot savant…
which while amazing, is less amazing than a person not so specialized that they are dysfunctional, like the competing champions. if the show allowed such savants to play, they too would crush the competitors, but we socially wouldn’t like them and would be bored very fast as we cant pretend we are someone else we like better than ourselves.
Artfldgr,
Spot on, except I think that w/ Jeopardy, it’s not just knowledge of or access to facts, it’s also about the timing of pressing that devilish little button at exactly the right time. This is where Watson has the edge (unless they built in a .75 sec reaction time), and this is where, perhaps, an idiot-savant (don’t we have a better term for that?) would not be able to compete.
In all fairness, the voice that IBM chose for Watson sounded male to me. Also, as T pointed out, the name Watson refers to IBM’s founder, who was also male. For those reasons, it seemed to me that IBM had assigned “him” a male persona as part of the same personalization effort that put “him” – or at least, “his” avatar — behind a podium just like Jennings and Rutter.
Neo’s humor on the subject of gender assignments and ladies’ rooms is just what Watson cannot do, male, female, or other!
“Although it wouldn’t bother me if he [Watson]wanted to use the ladies’ room.”
Does this redefine “computer whiz?”
You could probably give Watson some of Neo’s spambot phrases to decipher and watch his rectangular little head explode.
T:
I think some animals are conscious and do a rudimentary form of thinking. I’ve looked into this a lot over the years and in any case, animals such as elephants can be aware they are alive, have some primitive amount of memory and can feel pain. I hardly regard them unfeeling automations to be used, and when the glorious day comes that they can culture meat instead of having to kill for it, I’ll gladly switch over to that. I don’t of course consider all lifeforms the same, and the less pain/consciousness it has the more I feel free to use or experiment on it.
T: that Times piece I linked gets into the issue of the buzzer and speed:
Brad,
I do not disagree; animals feel pain and have rudimentary thought processes and can learn. The key word here is “rudimentary.” But that is why we are a higher FORM of life.
They show no evidence of contemplating their existence outside of themselves. There is only the present (they do not plan for the future. Even a squirrel does not remember where all the nuts are buried), they do not contemplate their own being (my dog does not choose to go or not go to church) or the possibility of a higher power.
Although they may have fun at play, as Neo writes, they, like Watson, do not employ or comprehend humor, nor dance for the purpose of expression. It’s not life v. non-life, but lower and higher levels of perception of the world around us.
So far, excluding the discussion of a divine being, evidence points to the fact that we sit at the top of that pyramid.
Neo,
Thank you. I missed that link.
Although they may have fun at play, as Neo writes, they, like Watson, do not employ or comprehend humor
One of my cats likes to watch Mets games with my landlady. The vet’s take on that is that the kitty has to have a sense of humor to be a Mets fan. (He added that if the cat starts rooting for the Cubs, to bring her in for a checkup).
Neo,
Your Times excerpt seems to drive home my initial point:
“When it was less confident. . . .”
AI notwithstanding, Watson is not sentient and can not have a level of confidence. It is not human, and yet the Times reporter describes it as such. I can see it coming: “Computers are people, too!”
PA CAT,
And when kitty starts phoning the bookies to bet the odds on the Mets, then you’re really in trouble.
T: Kitty knows a) the other two cats and the human in the household are Phillies fans; b) the human controls access to the cat food and other goodies. But I probably should make sure to keep the heretic away from the phone and PC keyboard.
I’ve watch all the Terminator films and don’t recall seeing the part where we turned over game shows to Skynet. Probably a deal behind the scenes somewhere…
Watson will be a fully qualifiying AI (Turing test-wise) when HE learns to cheat.
Neo writes, Although I’ve read a bit about artificial intelligence, I don’t see how computers can ever come to have wit or creativity or the ability to understand a joke or make a quip.
1. The danger is that they may learn to mimic these qualities in a manner that is effectively sociopathic.
2. Speaking of sociopathy, some comic geniuses whose art moves the human heart to its depths are said to be monsters in their interpersonal relations.
3. This essay strikes me as a bit ominous.
I for one welcome our computer overlords.
Lag,
RE: Watson learning to cheat. This is true on so many levels. Cheating is essentially learning to work around restrictions, real, imposed or otherwise. It’s exactly this pattern of thought that allowed the human animal to make the leap from hunting-gathering to the age of metals to the nuclear age to the cyberage.
We are computers. Just more mathematically complex.
IRA Darth Aggie: that’s what Ken Jennings said. See this.
Oh oh SteveH, I think you may have just stepped in a big steaming pile of
doo-doocontroversy. See also this and this.We are computers.
Who wrote our programming?
A long read on the topic of computers and art/emotions/etc. : http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture-society/triumph-of-the-cyborg-composer-8507/
It’s long, but very interesting. It’s about a program that composes music using pattern analysis and deviations and such. It’s arguably passed a Turing test for its field, which can be very uncomfortable people who consider artistic creativity to be a strictly human endeavor.
edit: not that long. I was about 80% through when I posted the link, but was fooled by the scroll bar in the browser. There’s apparently a lot of comments :p
The idea of The Singularity is wrong, and having no emotions is not the same as having negative emotions.
Never mind the touchy-feely jibber-jabber.
I want to see the bigtime systems loudmouths, Ellison or Oracle and the Google propellerheads put up their iron against IBM on Jeopardy.
Unless they don’t have what it takes!
Alan Turing, who created computer science before there were any computers, gave an example of the kind of conversation a computer would have to be capable of to be considered as “thinking” in a human sense:
Interrogator In the first line of your sonnet which reads ‘Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day’, would not ‘a spring day’ do as well or better?
Computer It wouldn’t scan.
Interrogator How about ‘a winter’s day’? That would scan all right.
Computer Yes, but nobody wants to be compared to a winter’s day.
Interrogator Would you say Mr. Pickwick reminded you of Christmas?
Computer In a way.
Interrogator Yet Christmas is a winter’s day, and I do not think Mr Pickwick would mind the comparison
Computer I don’t think you’re serious. By a winter’s day one means a typical winter’s day, rather than a special one like Christmas.
Watson probably has a ways to go to pass this test…
T, you said it better than I did.
SteveH, biologically too reductionist.
And, if we speak mathematically, show me the proof. BTW, you do know that there are limits (sorry) to that approach? (See Kurt Gé¶del; Incompleteness Theorem, The)
Who wrote our programming?
no one, its an emergent property.
different functional parts of the system as it works across time in iterative fashion have evolved a biological equivalent to programming using some of the same principals, and many others we dont use.
what we call mind is an illusion of placing our consciousness into a internal model of the world we live in. its predictive in nature, since its job is to erase the distance between perception and the thing we think we exist in, which is ‘now’. its why we have the kinds of fantasies and ideas we have, its why mental disorders can have such weird effects that are not easily explained by one model. and its why we can abstract and extrapolate and understand beyond our own positions to other locations, we dont mentally move in the real world, we mentally move in the model.
the model is constantly learning and aligning with reality, including the artificial reality you watch on TV that breaks real world properties, and real world principals. The better the quality of the information and broader you put into it, the more powerful its intuition gets and the more able the model is to intuit things through it. Einstein imagining is such an example, in that he can manipulate that model with imagination and engage or disengage rules he intuits as he worked on things.
the model also has lots of twists and skews in it as it was not made for what we generally use it for. think of them as evolved artifacts aligned with living and culture. including the very important ones we dont even have awareness we have and that number in the hundreds and more. like face recognition, and even reading the twitches that happen too fast to see and give you a feel. a lot of our social skills, and even our focuses come either pre skewed towards, or get fixed during some key event on a certain day.
by the way, its why we cant always tell whether we have woken up, or are still dreaming if we are groggy… same model, different use.
as to the issue of creativity as brought up by ninja..
i would not be so upset if i was they, as what the machine does is not what they do. it only arrives at the same set of acceptable forms based on learning from them.
its the ultimate homage machine.
from my perspective in math, they are both expressing into a limited space, and so, both spaces share the same answers.
the process that our minds are using to get there, and to establish what is the right thing to select, or not, is different than the process which can look at that and compute a mimicry by converging on the solution space, and varying it around a strange attractor of such acceptability.
while art can be derivative, and certainly is often enough, the processes that a human uses and the reasons behind those processes are not the ones behind the machines, no matter how much it can figure a trend by assembling together what we present it as art.
and no matter how good it gets using feedback to get better, it still is not the same. its still ingratiating to what we think, based on what we think, and for our approval.
while one may say or consider approval as one part of art that not all artists care about, its certainly not the complete and utter focus of it to the exclusion of all else (even critics).
that is just a incomplete part of a service system not have desire for remuneration, or even knowlege that it has needs…
Alan Turing, who created computer science before there were any computers
ah… no, he was a code breaker who fancied himself so much like sno white thats how he commited suicide, with a poisoned apple.
anyway… he came way after computers were concieved… babbage was the first with his inference engine, but software if you want to consider it was thought of by people like ada lovelace (daughter of lord byron).
Electronic Numerical Integrator And Computer was basically the first real stored program computer. eniac.
The Colossus was at bletcly park…
they held their program when shut off since it was rewired logically. more like a FPGA today than anything else we have (but not like them too).
turing has his place, but he is not the biggest.
look up jon von neuman, and neuman architecture vs harvard architecture.
also konrad zuse had many of the same ideas as turing.
babbage though really was the first, not turing… (but turing was gay, so guess who now has to win).
oh… and others believe the real precursors where the automated jaquard looms.. which later inspired the paper inputs (when i started my career it was tapes, paper tape, and cards were still around in late adopters, and desk machines were still years to come)
I believe one of the IBM people said that Watson could not (yet?) pun. A major shortcoming; very tough to program. Also, likely, cannot tell a joke the way it should be told — see, “My Favorite Year”. Finally,
Watson sounded like HAL of 2001.
Artfl….Turing developed the theoretical superstructure of computer science, which was done without benefit of any actual computers to run programs on. (His proof that there is no general algorithm to solve the halting problem has an interesting conceptual similarity to Goedel’s proof, which somebody mentioned above.) In codebreaking, he created many improvements to the electromechanical Bombes, but was not the originator of Colossus: that honor belongs to Tommy Flowers, a practical engineer who worked for the British Post Office. ENIAC, btw, in its original incarnation was not a stored program machine; it was programmed with a plugboard.
There’s no question that the Jacquard Loom was extremely influential; it appears that the Jacquard was known to Hollerith when he invented the punched card machine. I would guess it was also known to the inventors of punched tape as used for telegraphy in the mid-1800s but have never seen a source on that.
I bet there are still numerically-controlled machine tools running off punched tape in factories, and am pretty sure there are still Jacquard looms in commercial operation.
Gosh, from the way some of you are talking I’m worried that Cylons could be real…..
I’ll consider AI to be more or less human when an AI critter can understand any one of these expressions: $#%& you and the horse you rode in on. Fold it five ways an stick it where the sun don’t shine. Louder than a cow pissing on a flat rock. Meaner than a bull in fly time. I haven’t seen her in a month of Sundays. Cat got your tongue? And on and on and on.
Ain’t gonna happen before I’m pushing up daisies.
I wonder if the Eisenhower story SteveH mentioned at 3:35 was inspired by Fredric Brown’s short-short, “Answer.” [Pauses to search.] I see someone has posted it to the Web.
This is probably related to having a lack of emotion or wit, but I thought it was more generally relevant to the game of Jeopardy itself. Watson very clearly lacks understanding.
There is an interview in Slate where Jennings talks about playing against Watson, and he says that Watson displays some of the same thought processes that he uses for Jeopardy. Jennings breaks clues down into key words, associates them with other words in his memory, and discovers the answer, much like Watson.
If you look close at Watson’s answers, however, you will see that he really does not UNDERSTAND the language. Of course, determining what understanding even means in the context of computing will be difficult to pin down, but I can say with 100% certainty that Watson hasn’t figured it out yet.
There are shortcuts to understanding that Watson takes, and he clearly does a good enough job to beat the best players in the world. However, Watson is still nothing more than a glorified calculator.
Art, wouldn’t it have been easier to say, “I don’t know” and move on?
I miss Hugh Downs and Don Pardo.
Given boundless time, which 13 billion years arguably amounts to, it seems almost inconcievable that we are the lone pioneers in creating animated intelligence. I’d be neither hurt or offended to discover we are indeed products of such technological experiments before us.
“The trouble with programmers is that you can never tell what a programmer is doing until it’s too late.” (Seymour Cray)
And it seems I missed this earlier, “engineers from the University of Southampton have developed what they say is the world’s first control system for programing satellites to think for themselves”
http://www.gizmag.com/sysbrain-allows-satellites-to-act-autonomously/17899/
Combined with Watson, you can see where this leads.
Hugh Downs?
If I remember correctly Hugh Downs never hosted jeopardy, that was Art Fleming.
Don Pardo, on the other hand, served as the off screen voice for virtually every game show ever telecast.
david foster…
i have been a computer scientist since high school at bronx sciecne on their mainframe… that was in the 70s.. back then turings work was less than 30 years old… as was the machine he worked on.
.Turing developed the theoretical superstructure of computer science, which was done without benefit of any actual computers to run programs on.
no.. your wrong on this,. and i tried to show you and hint at it. RATHER than read, look, check, you decide to plow on.. (and someone else decided to key in their chant with an i dont know when i DO know)
i pointed out that there is a decidedly progressive movment to sublimate heterosexuals or christians, and uplift gays and islam (and secularists)
so back years ago, we had it described who did what first… but since babage never built his infernce engine, the progressives decided to denude him of his place…
and since ada lovelace was not a feminist, like emmy noether, they erased her contribution too.
did you decide to scratch deeper than progressive hostoricist rewriting of history.
OR
did you decide to keep saying the same thing your progressive teachers taught you?
NOW PAY ATTENTION SON..
when was alan turing born?
Born, 23 June 1912
yes? easy fact.. yes?
Ada Lovelace
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace#First_.22computer_program.22
First “computer program”
now.. pay attention to the BOLDED PARTS…
alan turing born 1912, babbage speech and the source of what a computer is, 1842…
do you see a slight disparity here?
dissonance anyone?
and if your blind you wont see this deconstruction reconstruction to place gays as the secret superior beings who provided us everything that is good!!!
like:
Elton John: ‘Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man’
here is a site page that tries to give both side of the current deconstructino and reformation of christ in terms of secular reformatino of history and goals….
AS WAS DONE TO THE CHURCH IN THE SOVIET UNION
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jegay.htm
Was Lincoln Gay?
THE INTIMATE WORLD OF
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
By C. A. Tripp.
Edited by Lewis Gannett.
query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9f05e5d61439f93aa35752c0a9639c8b63
by the way… the whole of the reconstruction takes a bizarre turn as you type in masculine people at random.
i just tried chesty puller
Lieutenant General Lewis Burwell “Chesty” Puller (June 26, 1898 — October 11, 1971) was an officer in the United States Marine Corps. Puller is the most decorated U.S. Marine in history, and the only Marine to receive five Navy Crosses.
and waht did i get? a person named cha cha who wants to know if he was gay… why? because the more they can make taht way, the more the lgbt can claim dadt as an issue.
not only that, but when a real conflict happens, the women in military will insure that the one that can hold out longest will win, as a long war will need children (as known in history)
if you want you can read about the process of ligitimizing through social engineering things as an arbitrary thing…
how about the other side… social engineering a false dialogue as to womens chauvanism being valid to get more of them to give their lives to science (and as ayn rand said, give up their responsiblity to themselves and family for a stranger and a lie).
you can read the feminists trying to credit Mileva as the math behind einstein…
while compeltely ignoring the obituary he wrote for emmy noether crediting her!
why?
because the mileva story follows the social engineered answer which they feel will enduce a certain believe which grants them power as long as its beleived, not refuted, and the innocents clubs follow it as if it was real
they went so far as to make a film “einsteins life”
becasue we learn more about a false reality we belive is real through TV (as the frankfurt schoolw as so quick to latch on to and send people to hollywood)
In 2003 the prestigious Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) in the United States broadcast the documentary “Einstein’s Wife”, with extensive website material to accompany the programme. The documentary purports to provide viewers with the facts about the supposed contributions that Einstein’s first wife Mileva Marić made to his work. Before I discuss the documentary itself, it is worth noting that the blurb on the DVD box indicates that reliable information is unlikely to be a feature of the programme:
“Marić, a brilliant mathematician, collaborated with [Einstein] on three famous works: Brownian Motion, Special Relativity Theory and Photoelectric Effect, which won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1921.”
so another example of pushing down the inconvenient truth, teaching a lie, and estabilshing a new truth at a new level which if believed changes the natural direction of the subject under social engineered control (which is deemed to be more efficient than OVERT slavery – as the slaves never realize their condition and so cant rebel having no ideas).
The contention that Marić was a brilliant mathematician is erroneous. Although she consistently achieved high grades in mathematics at school, this is not the case for her diploma course at Zurich Polytechnic. On the contrary, in the final diploma exam in 1900 her grade in the maths component was less than half that of any of the other four candidates, and it was largely due to this poor result that she failed the exam
another example of a women in college when they were not allowed…
the TRUTH is that they DID underperform the men..
which is why today we keep the performig men out of academia so that we can fix the numbers!!!
you can read how a white, jewish, or chinese student has to get a higher score to beat out a lower scored woman, or race candidate…
that is, the equal people get in on a score 100 points or more less than the less equal people.
The contention that Marić was a brilliant mathematician is erroneous. Although she consistently achieved high grades in mathematics at school, this is not the case for her diploma course at Zurich Polytechnic. On the contrary, in the final diploma exam in 1900 her grade in the maths component was less than half that of any of the other four candidates, and it was largely due to this poor result that she failed the exam
again… lets raise up the mediocre as great
and where do we erase the great?
Emmy Noether
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether
Amalie Emmy Noether, German pronunciation: [ˈné¸ËtÉ], (23 March 1882 — 14 April 1935) was an influential German mathematician known for her groundbreaking contributions to abstract algebra and theoretical physics. Described by David Hilbert, Albert Einstein and others as the most important woman in the history of mathematics,[1][2] she revolutionized the theories of rings, fields, and algebras. In physics, Noether’s theorem explains the fundamental connection between symmetry and conservation laws.[3]
so why dont we know her?
for the same reason we dont know ADA and someone like you believes that turing did things he didnt. the TIMELINE shows it to be impossible.
She was born to a Jewish family in the Bavarian town of Erlangen; her father was the mathematician Max Noether. Emmy originally planned to teach French and English after passing the required examinations, but instead studied mathematics at the University of Erlangen, where her father lectured. After completing her dissertation in 1907 under the supervision of Paul Gordan, she worked at the Mathematical Institute of Erlangen without pay for seven years. In 1915 she was invited by David Hilbert and Felix Klein to join the mathematics department at the University of Gé¶ttingen, a world-renowned center of mathematical research. The philosophical faculty objected, however, and she spent four years lecturing under Hilbert’s name. Her habilitation was approved in 1919, allowing her to obtain the rank of privatdozent.
for a time that was said not to allow women to be educated, i sure find the very few who all were educated and by great universities and such!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
how to resolve this quandry?
either the progressive feminsits are lying to their constituency for personal gain, muich to the ruin of their constituency…
or, the right are even more devious, and were able to anticipate their assault, and plant all these false women and histories to be foudn and so confound the truth of femnism, progressivism, and the soviet, i mean American way!!!
so far every one of them were in college and with degrees and msot before the soviet revolution of 1917!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Noether remained a leading member of the Gé¶ttingen mathematics department until 1933; her students were sometimes called the “Noether boys”. In 1924, Dutch mathematician B. L. van der Waerden joined her circle and soon became the leading expositor of Noether’s ideas: her work was the foundation for the second volume of his influential 1931 textbook, Moderne Algebra. By the time of her plenary address at the 1932 International Congress of Mathematicians in Zé¼rich, her algebraic acumen was recognized around the world. The following year, Germany’s Nazi government dismissed Jews from university positions, and Noether moved to the United States to take up a position at Bryn Mawr College in Pennsylvania. In 1935 she underwent surgery for an ovarian cyst and, despite signs of a recovery, died four days later at the age of 53.
colleges here, colleges there… taught great men..
made herself.. was Jewish… and so on..
anyone see a trend that i do?
you wont see it if you dont knwo the history as it really is, but know it as they tell it to you in lies, and half truths.
type this phrase into google
women were not allowed to go to college
6,790,000 results
Early College Women:
Determined to be Educated
http://www.northnet.org/stlawrenceaauw/college.htm
When the Women’s Rights Convention was held in 1848 in Seneca Falls, NY, one of the complaints documented in the Declaration of Sentiments was that “The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpation’s on the part of man toward women, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. …He had denied her the facilities of a thorough education, all colleges being closed against her.” One of outcomes of the convention was a demand for higher education.
want to laugh?
The conveners of the Convention were justified in their complaint. Women did not have access to higher education before 1848. While a few women might attend a female seminary or academy, they were not allowed into colleges and universities.
the conveners of the convention went to college!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“…a girl could study and learn, but she could not do all this and retain uninjured health, and a future secure from neuralgia, uterine disease, hysteria, and other derangements of the nervous system,” according to Dr. Edward Clark in his widely respected Sex and Education published in 1873.
but do the research..
you will find that its mostly a careflly constructed lie based on half truths.
like a card house it only stands if you dont dig into it to see how they made it.
if you do, it falls apart, or you see the glue
return to the link i put up before
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women%27s_colleges_in_the_United_States
1742: Bethlehem Female Seminary: Founded in Germantown and later moved to Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. It received its collegiate charter in 1863 and in 1913, it became the Moravian Seminary and College for Women. In 1954, it merged with the male institution Moravian College and Theological Seminary and became the coeducational school, Moravian College [2]
1772: Little Girls’ School (now Salem College): Originally established as a primary school, it later became an academy (high school) and finally a college. It is the oldest female educational establishment that is still a women’s college, and the oldest female institution in the Southern United States.
i thought they also claim that the southerners are dumb and hate women, and blacks?
Women did not have access to higher education before 1848
* 1787: Young Ladies’ Academy of Philadelphia [2]
* 1792: Litchfield Female Academy: Founded in Litchfield, Connecticut; it closed in 1833.
* 1814: Louisburg Female Academy (now Louisburg College): Founded in North Carolina; Louisburg Female College, founded in 1857. Later merged with Franklin Male Academy
* 1814: Troy Female Seminary: It became the Emma Willard School in 1895
* 1818: Elizabeth Female Academy: First female educational institution in Mississippi; it closed in 1843
* 1821: Clinton Female Seminary: Georgia. Forerunner to Wesleyan College [3]
* 1822: Athens Female Academy, now Athens State University. Athens, Alabama
* 1823: Hartford Female Seminary: It closed towards the later half of the 19th century
* 1827: The Linden Wood School for Girls (now Lindenwood University): Founded in St. Charles, Missouri; it became coeducational in 1969.
* 1828: Ipswich Female Seminary: It closed in 1878
all womens colleges and all before the meeting in ny claiming otherwise..
and thats the US… it was only born less than 100 years bfore that, and had no socialism in its state and taxes to pay for women who could not pay themselves
AND THATS THE KEY as they are projecting todays new socialist normal to the past (as the do with morals to other things) and so the claim of no school leaves out NO STATE SCHOOLS under the control of a benificient state who gives things to special groups!!
Women did not have access to higher education before 1848
* 1831: LaGrange Female Academy (now LaGrange College): Founded in LaGrange, Georgia, it became LaGrange Female College in 1851, and coeducational in 1953
* 1833: Columbia Female Academy (now Stephens College): Originally established as an academy (high school), it later became a college. It is the second oldest female educational establishment that is still a women’s college
* 1834: Wheaton Female Seminary (now Wheaton College, Massachusetts): Founded with the help of Mary Lyon; Wheaton became a college in 1912 and coeducational in 1987
* 1835: Livingston Female Academy and State Normal College (now University of West Alabama); It became coeducational in the 1950s
* 1836: Washington Female Seminary: closed in 1948
* 1836: Wesleyan College: Chartered as the Georgia Female College on December 23, 1836, Wesleyan is the world’s oldest women’s college. Still a women’s college
* 1837: Mount Holyoke Female Seminary (now Mount Holyoke College): It is the oldest (and first) of the Seven Sisters
* 1838: Judson Female Institute (Judson College (Alabama)): Founded in Marion, Alabama, it became Judson College in 1903 and later Judson College
* 1839: Farmville Female Seminary Association (now Longwood University): Founded in Farmville, Virginia; it became coeducational in 1976.
Women did not have access to higher education before 1848
havent even reached 1848 yet..
its kind of turning out to be a manufactured history to suuport a manufactured truth, that then raises peoples false conciousness to move for them.
* 1840: Saint Mary-of-the-Woods College
* 1841: Academy of the Sacred Heart (now Manhattanville College)
* 1842: Fulton Female Academy (now Synodical College): Founded in Fulton, Missouri, it closed in 1928
* 1842:Valley Union Seminary (now Hollins University): Established in Roanoke, Virginia as a coeducational school, it became a school for women in 1852, and was renamed Hollins Institute in 1855, Hollins College in 1911, and Hollins University in 1998
* 1842: Augusta Female Seminary (now Mary Baldwin College): Founded in Staunton, Virginia, it became the Mary Baldwin Seminary in 1895, and the Mary Baldwin College in 1923
* 1844: Saint Mary’s College (Indiana): Founded by the Sisters of the Holy Cross
* 1845: Limestone Springs Female High School: (now Limestone College) Founded in Gaffney, South Carolina, it began accepting a few male students in the 1920s (who did not live on campus) and became fully coeducational in the late 1960s
* 1846: Greensboro Female College: Charted in 1838 in Greensboro, North Carolina; it is now the coeducational school Greensboro College
* 1846: Illinois Conference Female Academy: It is now the coeducational school, MacMurray College
* 1847: Kentucky Female Orphan School (now Midway College): The school’s day program on its main campus remains all-female to this day. However, it offers coeducational programs on evenings and weekends at several satellite locations around Kentucky, as well as online. It will open a coeducational pharmacy school at a separate campus in 2011.
* 1847: Academy of Mount Saint Vincent: (now College of Mount Saint Vincent). Founded by the Sisters of Charity of New York; moved from Manhattan to current Riverdale, Bronx site in the 1850’s and began service as degree-granting, four-year liberal arts college in 1911. Became coeducational in 1974.
* 1848: Philadelphia School of Design for Women (now Moore College of Art and Design): It is the first and only art school which is a women’s college
* 1848: Chowan Baptist Female Institute; it is now the coeducational school Chowan University
* 1848: Drexel University College of Medicine: It is now, after several changes including becoming co-ed, Drexel University’s College of Medicine
have to stop now… i reached the end of the colleges that were created for women…
which dont exist..
and from higher learning
WOMEN AND THE ACADEMY
beatl.barnard.columbia.edu/learn/timelines/women.htm
and here is waht they teach the girls were teh colleges opportunitie for women
notice that the place is columbia, home of the TEACHERS college and franfurt school of social engineering.
1636 to l830s — Several dozen colleges founded, none with provisions for training women; similar pattern in Europe
1833 — Oberlin College opened and shortly thereafter began enrolling women, becoming the1st co-educational college in United States
1836 — Mary Lyon opened Mount Holyoke Female Seminary to prepare young women for the foreign missions; school not designated a college until 1880s
1836 — Georgia Female College chartered
1839 — Georgia Female College opened as a women’s college
hey! columbias and teachers college list is smaller than mine…
you think that if they use their list to teach the women mibht actually believe that they werent allowed?
of course..
i always wondered how my grandmother was able to be a researcher as i sat in school being told she couldnt have the education she did..
do you know Margaret Cavendish?
why not?
she was like ADA… on the political right and aristocracy as the left socialists paint the spectrum
Women who wanted to work in science lived in Germany, but came from a different background. There, the tradition of female participation in craft production enabled some women to become involved in observational science, especially astronomy. Between 1650 and 1710, women made up 14% of all German astronomers
thats more than later… but thenagain, the measure of normal is the plight of a baby boom mother!!!! who wanted to give up these thigns for family…
which is why if you compare numbers before the boom and during the boom and after, you learn the lie is founded on a big decline of women participation as the century turned…
and the socialists siezed upon this as a social crisis, and the big money guys and their children joined the lets adminsitrate everyones life party!!!
so if you get the details, you will find that more women went to college late 1800s and early 1900s than went druing the 40s through the 60s.. [they were doing other things they wanted until someone confinced them what they wanted was to be state mules for tax largess]
Marie Curie, the first woman to win a Nobel prize in 1903 (physics), went on to become a double Nobel prize winner in 1911 (chemistry), both for her work on radiation.
Lise Meitner played a major role in the discovery of nuclear fission. As head of the physics section at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin she collaborated closely with the head of chemistry Otto Hahn on atomic physics until forced to flee Berlin in 1938. In 1939, in collaboration with her nephew Otto Frisch, Meitner derived the theoretical explanation for an experiment performed by Hahn and Fritz Strassman in Berlin, thereby demonstrating the occurrence of nuclear fission.
The Erlangen program attempted to identify invariants under a group of transformations. On July 16, 1918, before a scientific organization in Gé¶ttingen, Felix Klein read a paper written by Emmy Noether, because she was not allowed to present the paper before the scientific organization herself. In particular, in what is referred to in physics as Noether’s theorem, this paper identified the conditions under which the Poincaré group of transformations (what is now called a gauge group) for general relativity defines conservation laws. Noether’s papers made the requirements for the conservation laws precise. Moreover, among mathematicians Noether is best known for her fundamental contributions to abstract algebra, where the adjective noetherian is nowadays commonly used on many sorts of objects.
Inge Lehmann, a Danish seismologist, first suggested that the inside the Earth’s molten core there may be a solid inner core in 1936.
Women such as Margaret Fountaine continued to contribute detailed observations and illustrations in botany, entomology, and related observational fields.
so tell me now i dont know!!!!!!!!!!!
College Freshmen In US And China: Chinese Students Know More Science Facts But Neither Group Especially Skilled In Reasoning
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090129140840.htm
by the way… here is an example of the game
you read emmy history
The philosophical faculty objected, however, and she spent four years lecturing under Hilbert’s name.
and the columbia page
On July 16, 1918, before a scientific organization in Gé¶ttingen, Felix Klein read a paper written by Emmy Noether, because she was not allowed to present the paper before the scientific organization herself.
see the HALF truth!!!
she was not allowed because AGAIN as with today, the philosophers dictated things NOT the scientists, the mathemeticians, not even the administration!
today they changed their minds, but their kick is to dictate their ideas so that people will experiment for them and they having no morals think that to ahve permission is not good.
but look at those two points from two different sources. one is historical, and the other is progressive historical
one puts blame on the philosophers and academics who today take the opposite side..
and the other IMPLIES that it was the whole of education, and society!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
now today, we have no knowlege of these whiny philosophers who didnt want to argue with women as totheir work (doubleing their trouble)…
and we believe that ALL men and great men like hilbert and others (mostly white) were the oppressors.
when in truth… their presenting her paper to get around the philosophers stupidity.
is no different than a ghost writer who was submitting plays to get around the philosophers of anti communism!!!!!!!!!!!!!
see.. historically speaking, you can find these idiots motivating people and then through thei rnoise getting the oil of the squeeky wheel.
yuo need to know the fine details to know what they leave out.
in this case, one department is expanded to all of society and expecially every man..
by the way, care to note the sexual orientation and atttudes of the philosophers compared to the conservative people, who believed in merit?
the philosophers hate that their made up bs is not as respected as the math guys.
so is it any wonder that ideologues the army of philosopers in poliitics, would erase their metrosexual whiny history, and misattribute it to others, so that they can gather to them what they lost by having that position ni the past?
not that they care waht position they take other than which leads to power. the philosophers that stopped her, had power. today, the ones that used that same position as a social weapon based on their past experience, are also using power.
ignorance is your enemy
ignorance is curable
but like psychology they have to want to be cured.
by the way, the system works the same
the philosophers shout, and the speakers they dont like dont get to speak
back then it was against women
today, they would have no standing if we knew that, and they would never get women to side with them if they knew, so better to correct that historical mistake, hand it off to someone else, and use it as a weapon, now we know what people really think (and so can use that info with theory of mind to power)
Pingback:How To Know The Best Idea Burger Shared | Lifestyle 24