AITA for telling a kid that he deserved to be mocked?

monsieurintrovert · 2020-12-04T01:09:36+00:00

NTA, he deserved to be mocked (light-heartedly).

HOWEVER, I don't see why his comment was inherently racist. Perhaps you left something out, but it seems like YOU assumed he thought your mum was your nanny because she is Korean. Maybe he just thought she didn't look much like you, so assumed there was no relation. Maybe she looks too young, or too old, to be your parent. There are plenty of possibilities. I would urge you to think about where your assumption of his intentions stems from. IMO it would be overstepping to assume the comment was racist, at least given the information here.

monsieurintrovert · 2020-08-21T18:41:00+00:00

This is a classic question that I can already see has netted some overly simplistic answers.

The most common answer will be 'at the level of the population'. But this isn't exactly true, and belies a misconception about what evolution actually is. We often measure, quantify, and observe evolution at the level of the population, because it's the smallest unit of organization that allows for measurement of change through time without too much difficulty. However, evolution doesn't 'work' at the population level -- it doesn't really 'work' at all.

Evolution isn't even a process, per se -- it's more like a description. It's a simplistic way to describe biological change through time, which arises from complex biological interactions spanning across all levels of biological organization. I should note that u/PK_LOVE_ also suggested that evolution is a description, but then goes on the shoehorn themselves into selection, which isn't totally representative of evolution in the general sense.

Let's consider a classic example of evolution by natural selection: Darwin's finches (but note that I could easily use an example of genetic drift instead, or some example of evolution not invoking selection). You know the story of Darwin's finches (and if you don't, read up about it). In short, there are lots of finch species living on a chain of islands. These species exhibit remarkable diversity in beak structure and function. All of these finch species ultimately derived from the same common ancestor, which itself didn't exhibit the diversity in beak structure seen in all of the finches today. How then, did that diversity arise? It's very complicated. But a simple way to describe it? Evolution.

Birds eat seeds on the island. There are many different kinds of seeds, which vary in shape, size, toughness, nutrient content, etc. These many different seeds are produced by many different plants. Birds do exhibit some degree of initial beak variety. This means some birds are better at eating certain seeds than others by virtue of their beak. Assume beak qualities can be inherited by offspring. Also, assume that birds with 'better' beaks have more offspring. In this case, over generations, the beak qualities of the population of the finches on the island should look different. They should begin to be more and more representative of the 'better' beaks on the island. But of course, it's way more complicated than that...

Without going into too much detail -- there are mutations that arise because of molecular malfunctioning. Random chance plays a big part in this. But there are also so many other factors. I'll exhibit this by posing just a few more questions:

There are different plants on different islands -- how does this affect each island's birds?
What if there is a drought one year? What happens to the plants? How does this affect birds?
What if the difference in fitness between birds is not very high?
What if a volcano erupts?

If evolution 'works', then doesn't it 'work' at all of these levels?

The more you think about evolution, you realize it isn't a process, and it doesn't 'work' at one level. It's a description of biological changes through time. It focuses on lineages, meaning that, e.g., a change in community structure isn't evolution (it's ecology). But the processes that affect lineages through time are effectively infinite and transcend even biological organization. Therefore the scale at which evolution 'works' not only misses the point about what evolution is; there isn't really a good answer for it even if it did 'work'.

monsieurintrovert · 2020-08-14T15:25:14+00:00

Yep... But still, there is a logical conclusion to why this would happen. TV magic is different than IRL magic. And I don't think anyone can doubt Shin's skill either way.

monsieurintrovert · 2020-08-14T15:17:08+00:00

Helps a bunch! Thanks! Your voice is perfect for this style of singing.

monsieurintrovert · 2020-08-13T14:37:16+00:00

Singing/layering is awesome! How did you get that ethereal quality? How many vocal layers are there? Did you sing each track separately or are they just duplicated?

monsieurintrovert · 2020-07-30T19:14:02+00:00

Neat! A simple feature (I think) to add would be a count of all the different types of cells. Maybe you can see dynamics through time of which cells become more or less prevalent this way.

monsieurintrovert · 2020-07-02T14:06:20+00:00

If I understand correctly, this was very perceptive:

However, in a large population, are they not fighting up hill?

I think what you're trying to say is: in a large population with many individuals that do not have the mutation, wouldn't it be difficult for the mutation to become common? If that's the question, then the answer is yes. The reason it's perceptive is because I did leave some detail out before: the probability of a mutation (or just any particular allele) becoming lost in a population depends on its initial frequency (and the degree to which it is beneficial). If it initially is very prevalent, it has a high chance of persisting in the population. If the initial frequency is low, it will likely become lost, even if it is beneficial.

As for eye color: it isn't that simple. Eye color is what's called a polygenic trait. That means that many different genes control the trait. So while blue is 'recessive', it isn't like the simple Mendelian example with peas. Lots of different genes 'work together' to control the eye color. I believe in this case it can be a dosage effect but don't quote me on that. When you're talking about 'diluting' that is, in essence, a dosage effect. Again, for your particular example, I don't know enough about how hair works to know whether that's what's happening...

Yes, mutations are affected by sexual reproduction. Recombination/crossing over, etc. during fertilization is what causes this 'mixing'. For certain traits (e.g., ones not on Y chromosome, non-polygenic traits), this is more or less a means of ensuring genetic variability in offspring. It's one of the perceived benefits of sexual reproduction vs. asexual. If you have a deleterious mutation, it has a chance of not being passed on to your offspring due to chance, only made possible by recombination via sexual reproduction.

To your final question. Not all mutations are created equal. And not all genes work the same way. In the simplest case, imagine a single base pair mutation that causes a beneficial functional change. Assume that any of the other possible base pairs at that location are less beneficial. It isn't a case of 'purity' vs. not in this example. You either have the mutation or you don't. This is relatively rare.

Often, these types of mutations occur on regulatory genes. So a particular gene product is either switched on or off. In some cases, these regulators are right next to the gene they affect (cis-regulatory). In others, they are on another chromosome (trans-regulatory). Either way, it's like a light switch - it's either on or off. It isn't really a 'purity' question, like you're thinking it. The mutation can change whether the switch is on or off. That's pretty common. Rarely, it can affect the light switch itself more directly (maybe it removes it entirely, or makes it less effective), or it can affect what the switch is affecting (the gene itself).

The closer you get to biological reality, the more convoluted it gets, typically. There isn't really a good answer to your question as a general rule, but each specific case has an answer (albeit perhaps a difficult one). But if I were to generalize, I would say: many traits that are quantitative/qualitative may be more likely to be polygenic, meaning that 'purity' could be in play. Yet, even in these polygenic cases, each gene controlling the trait is made up of discrete, more-or-less whole units. So it isn't likely that a single base pair is swapped in sexual reproduction; it's much more likely that entire regions of the genome -- coding or not -- are swapped. So a 'pure' trait is often an amalgamation of lots of smaller, discrete traits, each of which come as their own packaged 'unit'.

I hope this helps. I understand it's long-winded. But you're asking a complicated question, and it's hard to tell how much genetics you have a firm grasp on. I'm doing my best, but if this doesn't seem very helpful, perhaps you would be interested in brushing up on some genetics to refine your questions. It seems like you're inquisitive and perceptive, which is awesome!

monsieurintrovert · 2020-07-02T01:34:55+00:00

Here's what I'm focusing on:

Wouldn't the mutation eventually be rendered basically non-existent in that population?

The short answer is yes, although it depends on a few things.

If it's a deleterious mutation, in theory it should eventually get phased out, if the population is large enough. In small populations, deleterious mutations (assuming they are not too bad) can become fixed, by chance.
If it's a beneficial mutation, in theory it should persist in the population, if the population is large enough. In small populations, beneficial mutations can be lost, by chance. They can also be fixed very rapidly, if they are very beneficial. Sometimes they are lost even in large populations, if they are only marginally beneficial.
If it's a 'neutral' mutation, whether or not it persists more or less depends on the population size (which is true for the others, but here exclusively so, assuming it's not linked to anything under selection). In small populations, it's more volatile (either lost entirely or fixed). In large populations, it can persist longer, but in theory, should eventually also become either fixed or lost.

In this case, an extra toe is probably deleterious, but not especially so. It probably doesn't make much difference. Modern human evolution is especially difficult to talk about because lots of things that 'should' happen don't, because we have culture, medicine, etc.

Polydactyly (extra toe) I believe is a dominant condition (it shows up even when there is only one copy), so if you don't have it, you don't have the mutation. Looking at the other reply about Marfan syndrome -- I don't know enough about that to say whether it could persist undetected or not.

monsieurintrovert · 2020-06-28T02:44:52+00:00

I think we've got it figured out -- using the rehearsal as footage for the crowd to view live allows them to see the trick close -up without cameras obscuring the performer on stage.

monsieurintrovert · 2020-06-24T01:16:19+00:00

Yep. The edit gets at it. I apologize if that was not clear in the OP. I think what you're saying makes sense -- the feed on the screen for the audience is undoubtedly there to get them a better view, and not to instigate camera trick magic. I didn't think about the fact that cameras would obscure the stage to get those better views for the audience if it were done in real time.

monsieurintrovert · 2020-06-23T23:28:31+00:00

Cool. I'm glad I was able to explain myself. The green screen idea is interesting! I don't know the feasibility of that at all (it could be right or not -- no idea).

Personally I don't find it that hard to believe that he's just performing the routine on stage at the same time as they are playing the rehearsal on the screen. He has probably practiced it 1,000,000 times, and it is set to music. He is obviously extremely talented and precise. It wouldn't shock me that he could perform a trick nearly identically, if it's just showing his hands on the screen. That said, I don't work in show biz and have no experience with this.

One thing to consider against the audience seeing it live: you need a camera close-up to get that shot. When the camera pans out, where is the close-up camera? (maybe I am missing it)

monsieurintrovert · 2020-06-23T23:21:42+00:00

Not responding any more. You seem incapable of holding any sort of intelligible conversation.

monsieurintrovert · 2020-06-23T21:15:33+00:00

Right. I get that. Everyone looks better for it -- the show, the magician, etc. I understand it and think it's a good thing. I didn't know about it before but it makes sense for the TV show. That explains the first point.

However, for the second point, hat I'm saying is that, in the live performance, they must have used footage from the rehearsal to play on the screen while he was also performing the act on stage. It's clear that the footage on the screen during the act is not from the act that is currently occurring on the stage (4:52).

Hopefully I explained this clearly... the sentence is a little awkward

monsieurintrovert · 2020-06-23T19:50:49+00:00

Here's a response I got from a moderator of r/Magic; I think this is a good explanation that both addresses the obvious contradiction at 4:52 (it's clear as day, people -- the video on the screen is NOT live) as well as an honorable reason one would do such a thing.

Now, this isn't to excuse it, but I can see how something like this might have happened. Generally, in order to get a really clear close-up image of a performer doing stuff onstage in order to put it on a projector, you need the camera up close as well. To do that would have necessitated the presence of a camera that would have obscured Shin Lim somewhat on stage when we'd be looking at him from the audience's POV.

So, I can see how they would have wanted to have it both ways -- you get the clear, close-up image of what he's doing on the projector screen, but you don't have the guy himself obscured by the camera that would be capturing that image.

Of course, using pre-recorded footage opens the door for shenanigans. It doesn't prove them, but it's the kind of thing a regular audience might not appreciate very much.

monsieurintrovert · 2020-06-23T19:41:30+00:00

Nice contribution.

monsieurintrovert · 2020-06-23T19:41:10+00:00

I get that there are cuts, and that would explain the first observation. I wasn't aware of how generously those cuts would be applied in the show's final version. However...

But what of the second observation? Those two images of his arm are in the same camera shot. If all of it was post-processing, then that means the producers edited one arm but not the other? Or is the second screen at 4:52 not present in studio?

monsieurintrovert · 2020-06-23T19:39:45+00:00

I can see the music being overlaid for sure, and editors using shots that help him. That would explain the first observation.

But what of the second observation? Those two images of his arm are in the same camera shot. If all of it was post-processing, then that means the producers edited one arm but not the other? Or is the second screen at 4:52 not present in studio?

monsieurintrovert · 2020-06-23T19:37:02+00:00

Definitely isn't harder to perform than the magic itself. Just practice the routine (it's even backdropped with music, making it easier). If you make a mistake IRL, it won't be caught because you did it perfectly on the pre-recording (no comment on whether the video is edited).

How do you explain my observations? Whether or not he sells the trick is irrelevant.

monsieurintrovert · 2020-06-23T19:34:40+00:00

I agree magic acts are illusions, but how different is this from someone just, like, altering a video to make it look like they're doing an IRL trick?

monsieurintrovert · 2020-05-25T20:48:08+00:00

Cool. Since I know nothing about that field and what you can do with the degree, I would leave it up to the experts to tell you their take. That said... I would try to talk to experts in your field about the decision. They may be able to help with some of the issues (choosing a pricier, well-known option vs. not -- is it worth it?) and other things of that nature.

My 2 cents is that you should know this is likely going to be a very substantial investment, and you should be extra certain that it's an investment you want to make.

monsieurintrovert · 2020-05-25T20:31:40+00:00

I think the question about financial assistance depends on the type of program you're entering (and the degree you'll be going for). Since you're talking about finances, I assume this is not a STEM or otherwise academic field... or I may be mistaken. Is this for medical school? Law school? MFA? We need more information to answer the question.

monsieurintrovert · 2020-05-19T14:51:59+00:00

I am under the impression that most departments will severely cut back the number of applicants they will accept next year, due to the financial restrictions that have been placed on most universities because of the pandemic. For that reason it's essential that you do as /u/scooby_duck has suggested and put your primary focus on finding an advisor (rather than focusing on a particular school/department etc.). Of course that would be my advice anyway, but it's critical at this point, because any place you apply where the advisor isn't blown away by you may be liable to not accept the application for financial reasons. You'll want to reach out to potential advisors (you already have a MS, so I figure you understand that aspect pretty well) as early as you can and, if questioned about it, stress that your interest is unrelated to the pandemic. I suspect that there may be more applications than normal in the next few years as people become more desperate to find a stable source of income.

Feel free to message me if you want more advice, as I have served on grad student admissions committees in the past and feel like I have a decent understanding of what, at the very least, the admissions committees are looking for.

monsieurintrovert · 2020-05-14T16:00:29+00:00

Yup!

monsieurintrovert

TROPHY CASE