Can any deep learning experts answer a related question I have? What's the state of the art in recognising rotated 3d objects?
I know that deep learning systems can recognise, e.g., different animal toys held in the hand, at different distances from the camera. How about shapes which are rotated? (I assume shapes rotated with the same face showing the camera are fairly trivial to recognise, I mean the other two rotations - 'pitch' and 'yaw').
I have a hunch that humans have a ton of perceptual hardware devoted to precisely this task, and that deep neural nets are going to have a hard time cracking it. Is my hunch accurate?
I'm really interested in which "intelligence" metrics can't be trained/learned. It seems obvious to me that playing with the specific blocks or diagrams used in an IQ test helps; and that practicing with one set seems to make me better able to do well with another only indirectly related set.
I'm not an expert, but I researched this once. You can train any particular question that's asked at an IQ test, but someone can always think of new IQ test questions that you will fail if you're not smart enough (i.e. your brain adapts to new problems fast enough). There is a training program (I forgot the name) that trains you at solving IQ test problems sort of in general but it's unclear if it just trains people at solving the sort of questions that IQ test people tend to think of.
The way I understand it the most reliable way of training for plasticity if it is possible at all is to learn as many different things as you can. That means: Learn to program, learn a language with a different root (Chinese), learn to dance, learn woodworking, learn to practice law, learn to do team sport, etc.. Basically have as many hobbies as you can. (Switching every X months) making sure they have as little in common as possible.
Here's a talk on how long it takes to become 'good enough' at anything:
You can develop your own IQ tests if you want, but chances are any IQ test you create will have a high concordance correlation with other IQ tests, and chances are the predictions you make from your new test will match the predictions of other IQ tests. In other words, it will probably validate the suspected construct behind IQ tests.
The construct behind the IQ test is known as g, or general mental ability, as opposed to domain-specific ability. While it's true that repeated practice with a specific IQ test will boost performance, it won't boost it that much, and it won't generalize very well -- that kind of domain-specific improvement is not that interesting.
One interesting IQ test you might want to peek at would be Raven's matrices. Raven's matrices involve a 2-dimensional grid of figures which progressively change due to some hidden factors. The goal is to rapidly generate hypotheses as to what factors might be controlling for the figures, and to make a prediction as to what comes next.
On an aside, I think that the golden objective of AI is to develop a general thinking machine. Such a machine, when bounded by a goal, would be able to develop its own hardware drivers or make software better than itself. It would be able to tackle a game like Go without fine-tuning by expert Google employees, and that same machine would be able to look at scientific data and develop its own causal theories -- as opposed to a domain-specific Go machine, or a domain-specific Chess machine.
> "helped boost retention rates for female engineering students by 20 to 30 percent."
Actually they do themselves a disservice with these numbers. while it is true that out of 100 students, 20-30 more will graduate, the pass (retention) rate goes up by 40-60%.
I wonder if playing (mono colored) tangram[1] a lot as a kid helped my abilities. My sisters also liked the game and didn't find the typical rotational tasks on IQ tests harder than any of the other tasks.
It's only 2d though, I'd be interested if solving 2d puzzles helps with understanding the 3d questions (like folding cubes).
I'd like to see them compare their course to other tasks that might seem intuitively helpful. Folding origami with instructions is one thing that immediately comes to mind.
So how do we apply this? I have a daughter struggling in math and I'd love to help her, if this is a magic bullet where do I find it. I only see mention of a "15 hour course" in this article.
The family of Sofia Kovalevskaya was so poor they used pages from math book as wallpaper.
I have to note that my father did that trick too (made a poster with algebraic defs, etc and put it above my study table). I am relatively good at math.
I saw comments asking for links to some of the program materials mentioned in the article, and while searching for those, I found a site[1] that appears to link to a wealth of information about spatial reasoning and training programs to improve spatial reasoning. Enjoy.
From the title, I was expecting this to be about navigation and map-reading, more than these classic spatial rotation problems. I'm not sure what it is, but I've certainly noticed that my mother, my sister, my aunts, all of my girlfriends, virtually everyone I've ever taken a roadtrip with with double X chromosomes, have struggled mightily with what I'll call "locational awareness" - tracking where they are vs where they have been vs where they are trying to go. Some of these have been brilliant people, but their brains just don't seem to work that way.
I don't know if the ubiquity of GPS is helping or hurting this phenomenon.
IMHO, there is a statistical bias. A woman would not take this course if she struggle with the other mandatory courses or if she is not very motivated in studies.
Also it is interesting how "small" effect is, is it absolutely or relatively small?
Anyway, my small experiment had told me that even girly girls who participate in more or less manly sport activity (namely, karate) would score quite high in the tests from article. I actually tested several girls from karate group with the test like that, they were better than boys (though boys were older than girls).
I can't help but think VR will make for some amazing "hands-on" experiences when it comes to teaching spatial concepts or abstract ones that have good analogs. Being able to poke and prod literally infinite shapes, from the real world or not, will probably make science and engineering more fun for everybody.
However, I may be a bit biased. I did back the Oculus kickstarter.
> “If it was only cultural, it should be different in some cultures. It has to be some kind of biological factor, whether it’s hormones or evolution,” says Sorby.
By this logic, the use of fire for cooking is "some kind of hormones or evolution thing", not culture. (Or are there any cultures that never cook?)
> By this logic, the use of fire for cooking is "some kind of hormones or evolution thing", not culture.
That's not impossible at this point: humans don't fare that well on completely raw diet with studies of raw vegan diets show increases in amenorrhoea, underweightness, dental erosion and lower bone densities (raw non-vegan diet being possibly even riskier due to high concerns of food poisoning and food-borne diseases). Richard Wrangham has argued that modern humans are in fact obligate cooks (though he's also argued that modern human evolution was triggered by cooking, I know most anthropologists disagree with the latter, not sure about the former, could be an interesting question to ask in /r/askscience)
OK, but if you raise a group of people somewhere in the middle of nowhere on 100% raw food, I'd hazard the guess that they'll sooner die of malnutrition or diseases than instinctively approach some fire and start cooking.
And if this isn't culture then I don't know what is.
This view means that men also have to take credit for every war, famine, genocide, etc... Men do all the killing. There is no female Hitler.
Take a moment and think about what your response would be if the post was talking about how male brains are inherently evil. That almost all the suffering throughout history has had a male name attached. I bet you would be quick to jump up and say women would be the same as men given the opportunity.
There are massive differences between male/female brains. Chess world, STEM, imageboard demographics, this forum--90% men, etc show this.
As far as I know, we are very far away from understanding how brain biology affects imageboard demographics. Are you a neurobiology expert? Have you considered any alternative hypotheses? Have you listened to women talk or write about why they avoid the kinds of places you mention?
we are very far away from understanding
how brain biology affects
That is very true and can't be repeated often enough.
But it cuts both ways. There is nothing in our current state of understanding of neuroscience that categorically rules out biologically based differences in higher cognitive abilities between men and women.
This gender essentialist bullshit is demonstrably false.
STEM is 90% men because of the way young people are socialized and then harassment, discrimination, and oppression that are endemic in the industry.
What about Marie Curie or Rosalind Franklin? If you know jack about the history of computing, what about Ada Lovelace, Margaret Hamilton, and Grace Hopper?
This gender essentialist bullshit is demonstrably false.
No.
We do not, at this point, understand brain development well enough to prove or disprove sex essentialism / sex culturalism. The article says it: "Cause-and-effect is tough to tease apart". What it should have said is "Cause-and-effect are impossible to tease apart with 2015 technology". That is the only credible position to hold in 2015. What we do know is that there are observable biological differences between men and women, even at the level of the individual cell. To what extent they influence higher cognitive functions and their relationships to environmental stimuli is not clear.
what about Ada Lovelace, Margaret
Hamilton, and Grace Hopper?
Except that women are 200% preferred over men on STEM.
The only discrimination and oppression is against men and the only harassment is for people who point out the data.
Btw, PhD students as well as professors have been ripped off since forever - it is what makes a lot of people leave academia. You only focus on Marie Curie or Rosalind Franklin etc. because they are women.
Men hate other men because they want to prove themselves - it is genetically wired among our brains. Women have been using that to select mates since the dawn of time. It doesn't make them immoral, but let us not got so much carried away that "facts" and "science" look less important to us.
Except that women are 200% preferred over men on STEM.
No one could reasonably think that's always been the case though, so saying "There's been no female Isaac Newton" during the past 400 years of patriarchal society believing women are inferior and incapable is a bit unfair. I have no doubt that there have been women (and men) of equal ability but circumstances stopped them fulfilling their potential.
The person you are replying to is clearly a troll, but I would like to question the logic you have about why STEM is 90%.
The list of academic disciplines which has over 90% of participants in a single gender is quite long, with only a minor few topics which has a balanced 50%/50%. In Sweden, only about 10% of work professions are considered to have a fair balanced between the genders, and on university level, female students outnumber male students by 2:1 and are the dominating group in every disciplines except STEM.
Should we argue that the primary reason for this is harassment, discrimination, and oppression?
> STEM is 90% men because of the way young people are socialized and then harassment, discrimination, and oppression that are endemic in the industry.
That's just a theory.
My theory is that it's not gender but differences in hormone balance, meaning circuits is same but without sufficient level of hormone needed to drive them, they won't function well.
Testing this theory should take much shorter time and less resources than yours. Another interesting yet controversial test could be whether raising the need for the circuits to work can change hormone balance.
What is more is it is a theory backed up by a taboo. (Which is pretty similar to how religous dogmatism sustains)
There are strong social pressures to shut up people who disagree with the 100% social explanation (as if life would ever be as black and white as that). The debate is like a boxing match where one of the other fighter has his hands tied, and everyone pretends as if this isn't the case ...
So what if different groups of people are actually different? That is genuine diversity and valuable in its own way. Unlike this perpetually frustrated vision of the modern world. Aiming for a future where gender and ethnicity are just meaningless character skins.
Hormones in young age in boys may push for a need to solve things, to explore how things work in order to make things more efficient, mechanically or in any other STEM areas.
Also, the urge for boys to measure strengths against each other, physical or mentally, may be a drive for more involvement in games that are more directed into exploring the physical environment, in effect enhancing spatial capabilities.
when i looked to google for "gender essentialism" the top result says: "Gender essentialism is the idea that men and women have inherent, unique, and natural attributes that qualify them as their separate genders."
well yeah i'd agree with that.
also you say it's demonstrably false but don't demonstrate anything.
Males and females have totally different social behaviours, instincts, communication styles, interests and temperaments. The different hormones in our bodies alone make a massive difference. This is also true in the animal world. We have different brains, evolved for very different tasks.
> Males and females have totally different social behaviours, instincts, communication styles, interests and temperaments.
Are you basing this on personal observation, or some documented studies, research etc?
I disagree with you completely, but I'd like to know on which specific grounds I should debate this topic with you.
EDIT: Just to be specific, I think that individuals will have "totally different social behaviours, instincts, communication styles, interests and temperaments". You can't just say "Males and Females", as you could just as easily insert any two discernible groups into that sentence. Inuits vs. !Kung would fit the bill just as well. Males and Females aren't defined by their gender, but by all the other things that make up their individual personalities.
Not him, but there's a Norwegian documentary series called Hjernevask you might be interested in. It contains interviews with a bunch of gender researchers on both sides. It's on YouTube[1].
Well Marie Curie died of her discovery but Ill concede you that she did discover something. can you please also enlight us as of why there are 90% of males garbages collectors, construction workers, 99,9% militaries, miners and in pretty much any tough field?
is it a discrimination toward men or just the way society is forcing women to pick up easy jobs?
I'm going to gamble that you're in your 20s, possibly 30s, and male. The rich experience of life will teach you many things in the coming decades, if you are open to receiving the lessons.
For now, no doubt you're in the mood for an empirical, evidence-based ruckus. Arguing only entrenches beliefs, so instead I'll say this: your world is what you make it. If you want to believe what you've written here, you'll see evidence for it everywhere. If you're so right, why would people argue with you? Is it conceivable that everyone is fallible, including you?
His post cited well-known differences in achievement between genders. You, on the other hand, speculated on the OP's personal characteristics. Maybe you see your argument as more rational than the OP's because you profoundly disagree with him, but the fact remains that the OP is making statements about the real world (statements that happen to be true), while you are merely making statements about the OP.
Perhaps you disagree with my sentiment that _monster_ shoud open his/her mind to a more positive perspective on women?
Perhaps you disagree with my suggestion that "your world is what you make it"?
Either way, your point isn't clear.
"Argue or shut up" is a pretty aggressive requirement for conversation, here or elsewhere. Frankly my comment was meant more in the spirit of sympathy and suggestion instead of outright argument.
On HN, though, please don't make snarky, shallow dismissals of new work. (It's far from obvious that you can learn any new skill by taking a class on it, and there's other interesting stuff in this article.)
I know that deep learning systems can recognise, e.g., different animal toys held in the hand, at different distances from the camera. How about shapes which are rotated? (I assume shapes rotated with the same face showing the camera are fairly trivial to recognise, I mean the other two rotations - 'pitch' and 'yaw').
I have a hunch that humans have a ton of perceptual hardware devoted to precisely this task, and that deep neural nets are going to have a hard time cracking it. Is my hunch accurate?