@yacc143
I bet if the lines on the graph broke each time the math/definition/diagnostic criteria changed there'd be less confusion.
dsm4 autism: red
dsm5 autism: yellow
"What's causing this?!" Umm, the dsm5 aka the slow grind of human knowledge
Just like there's more adhd now because we literally didn't call it that before... it was ADD or hyperwhatever or "just being a spacy kid, man" or "could do better if they just applied themselves".
Even a vertical rule on the graphs for each revision of the book would provide some clue, but knowning which version the study used would be nice
@yacc143
> practices were totally divergent.
> So I'm totally confident in numbers being absolutely comparable.
How's that work? The total percentage of the population its the same but the division of categories differs?
@EndlessMason @ichbindabomb @isotopp I have no idea, that was over a decade ago, and my focus and knowledge about that stuff back then wasn't as intense as say 5 years ago.
But as a guess, validating the classification systems (our first "complete" classification system was an AU one, and hence we had pre-classified training data from AU, while surprise, the first paying and important customers were from the US/UK).
@yacc143
The classification of papers? Or of humans?
@EndlessMason
Of texts as such. But obviously if your definition of diagnosis X does not match my definition of diagnosis X, than we will qualify patients differently.
Because of we use your definition of X, then suddenly my bibliography on topic X is only classified as X at 10% hit rate, than obviously the classifier dies not think that my bibliography is about X at all. Not your X at least.
Hah! "could do better if they just applied themselves"...
My equivalent in middle school was "Keith is bright, but bone idle". Nope; I just didn't understand the point of tests.
@bytebro @EndlessMason @ichbindabomb @isotopp What shall I say, I was notorious for having a "2" (a B in US grades) in maths, not for not being able to get an "1", but because I didn't care. (Austrian universities, especially back then worked not by application, but by registration, you chose what you wanted to study, and things like grades, etc were irrelevant if you had your Matura certificate)
1/4
But for abstract thinking my personal benchmark is if a person can understand the concept of nested loops, even in pseudo code.
You would be surprised how many people have problems understanding nested loops even with lengthy explanations.
And for these I don't see a career in software development or STEM in general. Experience suggests is that these people can manage up to a certain level (even entry level uni) by learning by heart, but they tend lack an understanding and 2/4
the ability to apply the principles to new stuff.
(Basically, e.g. our maths course at uni teaches Fourier transforms with an atypical period. The TA even admitted that this is basically because the number of exercises that can be done sensibly without a CAS is limited, so they had to change the exercises somehow to make them un-googleable. 3/4
Now teach them about recursion 😂
Their heads will explode. And if they don't, then they do not understand stack-frames....
Schneewittchen
Andreas K
EndlessMason
Bytebro 🇬🇧 🇺🇦 🇬🇱
Franchesca
Mark Pauley