Now my question is what are QUARKS made of and why in the world would you say “its unlikely” quarks are made of something smaller?

Well, matter can’t be made of quarks, because without electrons orbitting a proton- that’s- made- of- quarks, there is no atom, and matter in all its forms…gas, liquid, solid…is made of atoms.

How do they know quarks aren’t made of anything else? Well that’s tricky because it’s hard to study quarks (for a lot of reasons which are in this conversation beside the point), but even given that, the behavior of quarks does not indicate that there’s anything beyond them. It’s the same with electrons. Meanwhile they even discovered quarks in the first placve because protons did funny things when studied that indicated they were not elemental or irreducible, so that fact was suspected long before the nature of quarks was reveated.

It’s not a TOTAL mystery. There are mysterious elements to the question “what is everything made of.”

We can say some things definitively.

For example, dark matter can’t be made of something, which, say, in your hypothetical take, quarks might be made of. The reason for that is simple. Quarks interact with at least 2 of the major forces defining the universe—electromagnetism and the so-called “strong force.” Dark matter by definition does not interact with either force, or if it does it does so so weakly it is still undetectable. That has at least one consequence. If dark matter does not interact with the electro magnetic force, then it can’t be seen. One effect of not interacting with e-m is that it does not reflect, absorb, or otherwise have anything to do with photons, so it is inherently NOT seeable. It also means that it can fly right by and/or through normal atoms without any effect (because the interactions between atoms has to do with electromagnetic attraction and repulsion). So for all you know billions of dark matter particles are flowing right through you right now. We know about dark matter because it interacts with only one elemental force—gravity. So masses of dark matter can be detected because we can measure its effects on large bodies such as galaxies. This has been shown, in very precise detail.

They have actually devised incredibly sophisticated ways of testing and measuring all of this (ie. the behaviors of quarks, electrons, and protons etc.) The science of that is uber-sophisticated. So when people say it’s unlikely quarks and electrons are made of something else, it’s based on real evidence and real study. It’s not just this shot in the dark.

…

Rich Eisen @richeisen
My colleague @MikeSilver was in the room when the Rams drafted @MichaelSam — does he think a conspiracy was afoot?

Michael Silver ‏@MikeSilver
Come on, man

wv wrote:

ut how do you wrap your head around the idea that something is made of nothing but…itself? Is it absurd, illogical, or just hard to understand?

It looks like I didn’t understand your question?

Anyway in terms of that bit…I don’t find that proposition absurd at all, or hard to understand. I can see how when you analyze the universe down you end up with these irreducible things that are, yes, made (in each case) entirely from the same substance, so consist of nothing but themselves. So an electron is all whatever it is, a photon is all whatever it is, and a quark is all whatever IT is.

I mean…why not. What’s strange about that.

Apparently there’s more dark energy and dark matter in the universe than what we think of as energy/matter.

That’s not how I would have done it but then no one asked me.

wv wrote:

One also has to ask, if Balzer knew about this,
why is it just coming out now

Just speculating, but, if it IS real, why is it coming out now? Former employees left behind, maybe one is in the mood and now free to talk.

Rams agreed with NFL to not do ‘Hard Knocks’ in 2014 if they drafted Michael Sam: report

BY EBENEZER SAMUEL

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/rams-agreed-draft-michael-sam-avoid-hard-knocks-article-1.2575617

Michael Sam was selected in the seventh round of the 2014 NFL Draft but it may have only been because of a deal the Rams cut with the NFL.
On Wednesday, the Rams were named the subject of this year’s edition of “Hard Knocks,” the HBO show that takes you inside training camp with an NFL team, but according to a tweet from veteran NFL journalist Howard Balzer, they could have been in the show two years earlier were it not for a behind-the-scenes deal with the NFL.

Balzer, citing “sources,” tweeted Wednesday that the Rams avoided the 2014 edition of “Hard Knocks” because of their decision to select Michael Sam, the first openly gay player to declare for the NFL draft, in the seventh round that year.

“Sources say NFL agreed not to have Rams on Hard Knocks in 2014 if they drafted Michael Sam,” Balzer tweeted.

Balzer clarified the tweet several hours later, stressing that it was a predraft arrangement between the league and team to save face and insure that the first openly gay player to declare for the NFL draft did not go undrafted.

“That’s correct,” he tweeted. “Rams didn’t want Hard Knocks even without Sam. League concerned he wouldn’t be drafted. Deal made.”

Neither the NFL nor the Rams responded to emails for comment. But none of this shocked Sam. Sam, who has been out of the NFL since October 2014 and is currently under contract with the Montreal Allouettes of the CFL, retweeted Balzer to make that point.

“I’m not surprised at all,” Sam tweeted.

If true, the report paints a highly questionable picture of Goodell as a commissioner who essentially manipulated the back end of the NFL draft. And it paints the picture of a league desperate to avoid a PR nightmare in 2014.

Entering the 2014 NFL draft, Sam was widely considered a fringe prospect, with little buzz. After his public announcement, his draft stock seemed all over the board, with some analysts pointing to his status as SEC defensive player of the year and pegging him as a fourth-round pick.

Others, though, noted his slow 40-yard dash time (4.91 seconds at the NFL Scouting Combine), lack of pass rush moves, and tweener size (261 pounds) and suggested he was a late-round pick at best, undrafted at worst. The baggage he carried seemed destined to torpedo his stock even further.

“You have the theory, which is the right theory, which is what every official is going to say,” one NFL agent said at the time. “And then you also have the reality. How is it going to affect my team chemistry? That is the unspoken analysis that is going to take place in every war room.”

According to Balzer, that set the stage for the Rams to serve as the league’s safety net. The Rams drafted Sam with the 249th overall pick, just seven picks before the end of the final round of the draft.

The Atlanta Falcons, meanwhile, wound up serving on “Hard Knocks,” as the Rams avoided the show, which most NFL teams view as a training camp distraction because of the constant presence of HBO’s television cameras.

Sam did not last long with the Rams, either, failing to make the final 53-man roster just before the start of the regular season.

He was beaten out by another defensive lineman, undrafted Ethan Westbrooks, supposedly because Westbrooks could play multiple positions while Sam was strictly an undersized defensive end.

Even after Sam cleared waivers, the Rams had so little interest that they did not add him to their practice squad. The Dallas Cowboys signed Sam to their practice squad in early September only to cut him the following month.

Sam has not played in the NFL since, although he tried unsuccessfully to rekindle interest from the league at last year’s NFL Veteran Combine, where he clocked a 4.99-second 40-yard dash.

wv wrote:

“…And of all the historical products of the human imagination, perhaps the most decisive and far-reaching has been the idea that there exists such a thing as an “intelligence”, installed in the heads of each and every one of us, and that is ultimately responsible for our activities.” (2000:419)

Whats he saying there?

w
v

It’s following a revolution in various sciences including psychology but others as well.

The idea is that there’s no single measurable mental capacity called “intelligence”—what we call “intelligence” is many different kinds of things, which each of us have in varying degrees. The writer in that case is taking advantage of what he believes to be his readers awareness of this shifting in thinking, away from “intelligence” being a single measurable capacity to it being a variety of different cognitive practices which can vary in their relative strength.

Wiki stuff——>

From “Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns” (1995), a report published by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association:

Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a given person’s intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria. Concepts of “intelligence” are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena. Although considerable clarity has been achieved in some areas, no such conceptualization has yet answered all the important questions, and none commands universal assent. Indeed, when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen, somewhat different, definitions.

A famous biologist’s view of this comes from Gould. Also wiki stuff—>

The Mismeasure of Man is a 1981 book by evolutionary biologist, paleontologist, and historian of science Stephen Jay Gould, who was then a professor of geology at Harvard. The book is both a history and critique of the statistical methods and cultural motivations underlying biological determinism, the belief that “the social and economic differences between human groups—primarily races, classes, and sexes—arise from inherited, inborn distinctions and that society, in this sense, is an accurate reflection of biology.” The principal theme of biological determinism—that “worth can be assigned to individuals and groups by measuring intelligence as a single quantity“—is analyzed in discussions of craniometry and psychological testing, the two methods used to measure and establish intelligence as a single quantity. According to Gould, the methods harbor “two deep fallacies.” The first is the fallacy of “reification”, which is “our tendency to convert abstract concepts into entities” such as the intelligence quotient (IQ) and the general intelligence factor (g factor), which have been the cornerstones of much research into human intelligence. The second fallacy is “ranking”, which is the “propensity for ordering complex variation as a gradual ascending scale.”

The revised and expanded, second edition of the Mismeasure of Man (1996) analyzes and challenges the methodological accuracy of The Bell Curve (1994), by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, which re-presented the arguments of what Gould terms biological determinism, which he defines as “the abstraction of intelligence as a single entity, its location within the brain, its quantification as one number for each individual, and the use of these numbers to rank people in a single series of worthiness, invariably to find that oppressed and disadvantaged groups—races, classes, or sexes—are innately inferior and deserve their status.”

Are they sure it’s not the other way around?

zn wrote:

There have been studies of gender by historians, sociologists, anthropologists, cultural theorists, philosophers, pyschologists, and so on, for decades now. The evidence is piled sky high and covers many fields of inquiry. Knowing as much as I can about all that in its own right is what interests me, personally.

Anthropology, Sex, Gender, Sexuality: Gender is a Social Construction

BY JASON ANTROSIO

link: http://www.livinganthropologically.com/2012/05/16/anthropology-sex-gender-sexuality-social-constructions/

What does it mean to say “gender is a social construction”? Too much ink and internet time has already been spilled on such questions, but definitional issues and conceptual difficulties remain entrenched, even in academia where people should know better.

A first issue is ongoing confusion around shorthand phrases like “gender is a social construction” or the phrase “race is a social construction.” I avoid such shorthands because they so quickly lead to an assumption that by “social construction” there is a denial of reality, or an implication that–as one biologist put it–people “generate their own truths based on their own experiences and imaginations.”

What “Gender is a Social Construction” Does Not Mean

When social scientists use shorthand phrases like “gender is a social construction” they are

in no way denying that humans vary biologically in many different ways, or claiming that biology is irrelevant;
not trying to say that these social effects are somehow not real or important; and
not saying that they are necessarily subject to extensive individual manipulation.
Those shorthands simply indicate that many observed behavioral characteristics and life experiences are heavily influenced by social expectations, norms, and roles. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t real–they are quite real and can become biologically real as well. One example of a social construction–look no further than ideas about Gun Control.

The reality of social constructions is something anthropologist Jeremy Trombley succinctly tackled:

We have to get past the idea that things that are socially constructed are somehow not real. I encountered it again today in something I was reading. “X is socially constructed” or “X are social constructs” as if to say they are only or just social constructs–as if to say X is not real. But social constructs are real–that’s what makes them so powerful. Race, Class, Gender–these are all social constructs, but it is because they are socially constructed that they have tremendous effects on the lives of people who live in a particular society.
Trombley has also recommended The Reality of Social Construction(now in paperback). From the book-jacket:

“Social construction” is a central metaphor in contemporary social science, yet it is used and understood in widely divergent and indeed conflicting ways by different thinkers. Most commonly, it is seen as radically opposed to realist social theory. Dave Elder-Vass argues that social scientists should be both realists and social constructionists, and that coherent versions of these ways of thinking are entirely compatible with each other.
I agree with Trombley on the need to emphasize the reality of social constructions, but Elder-Vass’s book would never have needed to be written if the idea hadn’t been misinterpreted from the beginning. Social construction and realism never should have been opposed.

A related example: Money is obviously a social construction. We all choose to believe that pieces of paper with pictures of people on them (or electronic bits without any visible reality) have value and can be used to purchase real things in the world. We trust that when we exchange something for those bits of paper or computer bytes, it is because the next person in the chain will also accept that as real currency.

We could also do an anthropological tour through different times and places and marvel at all the different kinds of objects pressed into the service of currency–that’s one part of an answer to What is Anthropology? We can readily agree that money is a social construction. But that doesn’t make it not real! It has a direct influence on life chances, experiences, ability to do things. It can have very real biological effects, like hunger and even starvation–the bodies and motor habits of the poor and rich can turn them into quite biologically different creatures. Moreover, simply imagining or believing that I have more money does not make it so. I may be able to use my imagination to do something to “make money,” but my efforts are far from guaranteed.

Clarifying Sex, Gender, and Sexuality

With that in mind, we can return to the issue of sex and gender. Initially, social scientists sought to distinguish sex from gender. As my introductory anthropology textbook defines sex: “observable physical characteristics that distinguish the two kinds of human beings, females and males, needed for reproduction” (Lavenda and Schultz 2015:375). As is clear in this definition, sex is mostly experienced as dimorphic, although the textbook does talk about various ways “genetic or hormonal factors produce ambiguous external genitalia.” So there are some ways biologically in which we might talk about a male-female continuum, or even contemplate other-sex categorizations. It is useful to recognize that the human primate seems to be something of an outlier in comparison to the standard measures of sexual dimorphism in non-human primates, and there is still a lot of evolutionary explanation needed for why human primates are unlike other primates in this way (see Adam Van Arsdale’s The complexity of human sexual dimorphism for an interesting contemporary take; Greg Downey on The long, slow sexual revolution; and The Phallus Fallacy by Agustín Fuentes for more on the range of variation in genitalia and the cultural dimensions of phallus-focus).

But understanding human sex difference would be frighteningly incomplete without considering gender, or “the cultural construction of beliefs and behaviors considered appropriate for each sex” (Lavenda and Schultz 2012:365). Social scientists introduced the term gender as a way of talking about all those expectations and beliefs we load onto people with certain physical characteristics. And we could do a tour through history and different cultures to find out how very different those expectations and beliefs can be, which is why we say they are “socially constructed.” However, that does not mean there is no biological variation, nor does it mean those beliefs and expectations don’t have very real effects, nor does it mean a particular individual can “generate their own truth” about gender. In fact, our beliefs and expectations can have quite dramatic biological effects, in terms of how boys and girls are differently fed and the spaces and activities they are assigned. And in some cases, most notably with eunuchs, there is the deliberate fashioning of a third-sex role (we are hardly the first or only society to engage in sex operations).

Gender roles and identity have often come as a duality, but there are a number of societies where “supernumerary gender roles developed that apparently had nothing to do with morphological sex anomalies” (Lavenda and Schultz 2012:368). Many of these cases are from the peoples indigenous to the Americas, which very often had a third-gender (or even fourth-gender) roles for “Two-Spirit Peoples” (which the French denigrated as berdache). These people typically took on tasks appropriate to the other gender; they often but did not always “cross-dress,” and many had special ceremonial roles in their communities. While some have glossed this as “homosexual,” it really does not correspond to such designation, and many contemporary Native Americans have rejected this gloss. (For an elaboration on Two-Spirit peoples, see Two Spirits: A Map of Gender Diverse Cultures: “Hundreds of distinct societies around the globe have their own long-established traditions for third, fourth, fifth, or more genders.”)

Update 2013: Debates around marriage equality have revived interest in the idea that dichotomous sex and reproduction is rooted in nature. See Nature’s Case for Same-Sex Marriage by David George Haskell: “The facts of biology plainly falsify the oft-repeated notion that homosexuality is unnatural. Every species has evolved its own sexual ecology, and so nature resists generalizations. . . . A wide, living rainbow arcs across the natural world. Diversity rules in sexuality, just as it does in the rest of biology.

See also the articles in Marriage and Other Arrangements, the inaugural issue of Open Anthropology, a public journal of the American Anthropological Association. Also note Where a Gender Spectrum May Be Taking Us by Rosemary Joyce, who writes of how students have become incredibly attuned to these issues.
Of course given this biological sex variation and gender role variation, the question of sexual identity and sexual practices gets really tricky. We have typically thought of heterosexuality as both normal practice and identity. More recently there has been an idea that both homosexuality and heterosexuality are normal variants, and surely there are biologists searching for that “gene for homosexuality.” Others have talked about homosexuality and heterosexuality as a continuum. However, none of that gets at the even crazier range of human variation. For example, sex with a “Two-Spirit Person” would be considered neither strictly homosexual or heterosexual. There are also societies in which male homosexual practices are considered vital in order for men to later engage in heterosexual intercourse. Other societies gauge homosexual or heterosexual activity not by the biological sex of the partners but by their role in the sex act–a man can be perfectly “heterosexual” and have sex with other men, depending on the type of sexual practice involved. Hopefully we’ll soon be finding the genes to explain all that stuff…

Note: That last line was supposed to be a joke, based on the idea that it would be silly to search for genetic causation for that sexual diversity. However, I may have to be more circumspect, as the idea of faster genetic evolution combined with ethnicity–what I’m calling ethnobiogeny–may indeed result in such claims. See the end of Race Redux for more on ethnobiogeny.
As useful as it has been to think about the social aspects of gender and sexual identity as related to but potentially quite different from biology, there has been some frustration with these approaches. First, gender was almost immediately used as a euphemism for sex. After the 20-week ultrasound, many people ask “what is the gender of the baby?” I was tempted to joke: “The sex is female, but we haven’t decided on gender yet” (note however that parents play an important but only auxiliary role in fashioning gender expectations). Second, people immediately misinterpreted the “social construction” argument in the ways described above, as a denial of biological variation or difference.

Many analysts therefore wanted to push the point further, showing how our gendered social expectations actually become embodied, incorporated into our developing motor habits, musculature, and bodies, so that it was not just gender that was socially constructed, but sex too. In other words, the bodies we see as male and female are in part due to social environments. For example, many societies actively discourage females from participating in sports or other activities that would build muscle mass, as this would be unfeminine. While there are some who believe such differential expectations have lessened or disappeared in the industrialized world, I note the irony that technologies like the ultrasound now enable people to frontload gender expectations in ways that would have been impossible in the past–many people have their nurseries appropriately decorated and buy gender-coded baby clothes months before the baby is born!

Gender is a Social Construction–and Beyond

In the context of people who were already familiar with many of these assumptions, a philosopher colleague recommended a chapter from Georgia Warnke’s After Identity: Rethinking Race, Sex, and Gender. Warnke is precisely attempting to push some of these boundaries in order to critique assumptions that males are evolutionarily programmed to be bread-winning but promiscuous whereas females are similarly programmed to be at-home and choosy about mates. Warnke reviews much of the ethnographic and historical record I have referenced above–and is really drawing on a lot of anthropology–to conclude that these roles are hardly anchored in our genes or evolution, but are more a product of relatively recent gender expectations. What we see as science is influenced by what we already believe to be true about males and females.

When anthropology talks about human sex, gender, and sexuality, we insist that we must take account of what humans say, think, and believe about their activities. To do otherwise is arrogant, presumptuous, and a root cause for why people become suspicious of the people who call themselves scientists.

To say this is not to deny evolution, to deny science, to deny that humans are animals, or to claim some sort of ethereal special place for the non-material. It is simply to ask that a role for human activity and imagination be included as part of our understandings. And of all the products of the human imagination, the idea that organisms are ruled or determined by genes is surely one of the most bizarre–but apparently also one of the most far-reaching and pernicious.

My last sentence is borrowed from Tim Ingold’s The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill:

And of all the historical products of the human imagination, perhaps the most decisive and far-reaching has been the idea that there exists such a thing as an “intelligence”, installed in the heads of each and every one of us, and that is ultimately responsible for our activities. (2000:419)

Still one wonders if they are tendencies that are ‘hard wired’ below the level of Culture.

Of course there are.