Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on January 21, 2019, 08:36:05 PM
-
Seems a bit UK biased.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles/xfhZH9qWPt1G8F2mbN2fVc/meet-the-icons
-
Wonder how they got to the final selection: if there was going to be someone representing jazz I'd have thought the likes of Miles Davis was a more influential and iconic figure than was Billie Holiday, and as regards acting I'm surprised to see Marilyn Monroe is thought to have been more iconic than, say, Audrey Hepburn.
-
Keller and Pankhurst would be at the top of my list.
-
Keller and Pankhurst would be at the top of my list.
Pankhurst, yes.
Helen Keller?
Hmmmm....while, yes, she was iconic in the deaf.blind breakthrough movement, the 'language' of fingerspelling she helped invent is not the one used today in either tthe UK or most of the U.S.
-
Pankhurst, yes.
Why Pankhurst? From a UK perspective, she is obviously an extremely important person but from a global perspective?
Anyway, how a list of four 20th century scientists with Albert Einstein in it could have a different winner is beyond me.
-
Why Pankhurst? From a UK perspective, she is obviously an extremely important person but from a global perspective?
Anyway, how a list of four 20th century scientists with Albert Einstein in it could have a different winner is beyond me.
-
THATCHER?! They're taking the fucking piss!
-
THATCHER?! They're taking the fucking piss!
First woman prime minister. Plus, good or bad, she had quite an influence on politics in the UK. Of course, we also have to ask why Stalin, Mao and Hitler are not on the list, if we are not rejecting the bad.
-
Rubbish! No Bobby Moore.
-
Rubbish! No Bobby Moore.
In global terms he is a non entity.
-
THATCHER?! They're taking the fucking piss!
I couldn't stand the woman, but she certainly made a HUGE impact, not least because she was the first British woman PM.
-
I couldn't stand the woman, but she certainly made a HUGE impact, not least because she was the first British woman PM.
Her impact was entirely bad. As someone else pointed out, if we're ignoring morality and just going for historical impact, where are Hitler, Mao, and Stalin?
-
Seems a bit UK biased.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles/xfhZH9qWPt1G8F2mbN2fVc/meet-the-icons
Overall a fairly rubbish list.
Too UK-centric and also too much retrospective pandering to the modern diversity agenda. We may now recognise that (for example) women and people with disabilities weren't provided with the opportunities they might be now, or certainly that they should be but that doesn't mean we 'retrofit' our modern mindset to historical reality.
Interesting to see the winners so far however.
-
It's also much too broad to have meaning. How do you compare a great artist with a great scietist, or either with a great politician?
-
It's also much too broad to have meaning. How do you compare a great artist with a great scietist, or either with a great politician?
I agree with you, I better lie down, I feel faint! ;D
-
I agree with you, I better lie down, I feel faint! ;D
There is also the issue that in many cases the selection is based not only on their contribution to their 'field' - e.g. science or music or sport - but on the basis that they suffered adversity and were an activist. I think this blurs categories - the most iconic musician or artist of the 20thC to me is the person who produced the most iconic and game-changing music or art. That they might also have been an activist is interesting but not really the point.
So I'm struggling to see how Billy Holiday's contribution to music is somehow deemed greater than Miles Davis. To me the latter is streets ahead in terms of his game changing contributions to music and how influential his music has been to more recent generations of musicians. Holiday didn't even write the song that according to the article defines her iconic status - Strange Fruit.
-
There is also the issue that in many cases the selection is based not only on their contribution to their 'field' - e.g. science or music or sport - but on the basis that they suffered adversity and were an activist. I think this blurs categories - the most iconic musician or artist of the 20thC to me is the person who produced the most iconic and game-changing music or art. That they might also have been an activist is interesting but not really the point.
So I'm struggling to see how Billy Holiday's contribution to music is somehow deemed greater than Miles Davis. To me the latter is streets ahead in terms of his game changing contributions to music and how influential his music has been to more recent generations of musicians. Holiday didn't even write the song that according to the article defines her iconic status - Strange Fruit.
Just re-read the start of the thread and Gordon's comment - we are in agreement.
-
Why Pankhurst? From a UK perspective, she is obviously an extremely important person but from a global perspective?
I agree - too UK-centric.
Anyway, how a list of four 20th century scientists with Albert Einstein in it could have a different winner is beyond me.
Which comes back to my point about the activism/suffering adversity.
Was Turing a greater scientist than Einstein - nope. Did Turing's scientific discoveries have a greater influence on science than Einstein - nope. But Turing was treated dreadfully by the UK because of his sexuality. That's why he won, not for his science. Now I'm not in any way condoning the actions of the authorities against Turing and it is correct that we should look to 'right wrongs' as best we can. But that doesn't make him the most important or iconic scientist of the 20thC.
-
Anyway, how a list of four 20th century scientists with Albert Einstein in it could have a different winner is beyond me.
I think there is also a problem that science is often done collaboratively.
So it seems bemusing that someone related to the discovery of the structure of DNA is not included as this is arguably the most significant scientific discovery of the 20thC - but who would you choose as the 'iconic scientist' involved - Watson (hmm, his activism counts against him), Crick (but why just him), Franklin?
-
I agree - too UK-centric.
Which comes back to my point about the activism/suffering adversity.
Was Turing a greater scientist than Einstein - nope. Did Turing's scientific discoveries have a greater influence on science than Einstein - nope. But Turing was treated dreadfully by the UK because of his sexuality. That's why he won, not for his science. Now I'm not in any way condoning the actions of the authorities against Turing and it is correct that we should look to 'right wrongs' as best we can. But that doesn't make him the most important or iconic scientist of the 20thC.
I'm not sure that is why he won. It is probably a part of it but I would suggest that the people voting might have thought that computers, for which Turing is the representative in the list, had more impact on their day to day lives, and that the part he played during the war was more relevant to them. And that's without considering how good the advocate for each on the show wad.
-
I'm not sure that is why he won. It is probably a part of it but I would suggest that the people voting might have thought that computers, for which Turing is the representative in the list, had more impact on their day to day lives, and that the part he played during the war was more relevant to them. And that's without considering how good the advocate for each on the show wad.
I think the arc of Turing's fame and prominence is interesting. For a variety of reasons he was pretty well unknown amongst the general public until relatively recently. I first came across him when studying developmental biology as an undergraduate in the late 80s (he developed a mathematical model of limb development). I suspect if I'd mentioned Turing to people then I'd have got completely blank looks.
I think his rise to prominence is largely on 2 groups - first the involvement in the war time code breaking (and critically a blockbuster film) although he was very much part of a team. Secondly a recognition of the appalling way he was treated due to his homosexuality, leading to his very early death.
-
I think the arc of Turing's fame and prominence is interesting. For a variety of reasons he was pretty well unknown amongst the general public until relatively recently. I first came across him when studying developmental biology as an undergraduate in the late 80s (he developed a mathematical model of limb development). I suspect if I'd mentioned Turing to people then I'd have got completely blank looks.
I think his rise to prominence is largely on 2 groups - first the involvement in the war time code breaking (and critically a blockbuster film) although he was very much part of a team. Secondly a recognition of the appalling way he was treated due to his homosexuality, leading to his very early death.
I think this missed that he is in general seen as the 'father of computing', and that was becoming the general idea well before the film. Now I think that is an incorrect view, but most people aren't that bothered about the detailed history of computing. Anyone with a passing interest in AI would have been aware of the Turing test for as far back as I can recall. It's nearly always good to have a thing named after you in polls.
-
I think this missed that he is in general seen as the 'father of computing' ...
No he is sometimes referred to as the 'father of computing', but then so are a bunch of other people - so at best he is a 'father of computing' along with many others. Perhaps better referred to as a 'pioneer of computing'
The IEEE lists a whole host of people it considers to be 'pioneers of computing', including Turing.
https://history.computer.org/pioneers/index.html
Anyone with a passing interest in AI would have been aware of the Turing test for as far back as I can recall. It's nearly always good to have a thing named after you in polls.
Very true - although the Turing test is more a philosophical statement rather than a scientific advance.
-
Of the categories voted on so far, I agree with some and disagree with others. I would have gone for Mandela in the leaders category, and Ali in the sports category was easy. For the activists, don't have a problem with MLK but might have gone for Ghandi. For scientists are, I'm with jeremyp and would have gone for Einstein. The entertainers, of the choice avaiable, Chaplin, but thought Elvis should have been in there. I am a huge Bowie fan but not sure the global impact is as wide. The explorers category is just odd, but Shackleton seems bizarre. Of the choice there, Armstrong.
The artists category, yet to be voted on seems a bit of a motley. Given a free vote, I would likely have chosen Dali. Of the four already chosen, Picasso.
When it comes to the overall head to head, which I agree with earlier posts is a nonsense, but then the whole thing is, I would hope that it will be Mandela from MLK, and would probably have Ali next
-
No he is sometimes referred to as the 'father of computing', but then so are a bunch of other people - so at best he is a 'father of computing' along with many others. Perhaps better referred to as a 'pioneer of computing'
The IEEE lists a whole host of people it considers to be 'pioneers of computing', including Turing.
https://history.computer.org/pioneers/index.html
Very true - although the Turing test is more a philosophical statement rather than a scientific advance.
Not sure why you have taken issue with the comment that in general he is seen as the father of computing, when I already covered that I think it is an incorrect view. This is a public vote and the general perception is what is important in terms of the reasons people vote.
-
Just to note that the BBC site for the programme both calls Turing the 'father of the computer' and states that he invented the computer. These may be incorrect simplifications, but I suspect that it was probably what motivated a lot of the votes.
-
This is a public vote and the general perception is what is important in terms of the reasons people vote.
Indeed it will - and that general perception is likely to be driven by the campaign to pardon him and a 2014 blockbuster film, linked to the public recognition of Bletchley Park.
Even in academic circles, although there are now a plethora of Institutes, colleges, statues etc - pretty well every one is from the past 20 years, aligned with the campaign to pardon him and incidentally also the campaign to save Bletchley Park.
All I am saying is that his stratospheric rise to prominence in the past decade or so has little to do with the significance of his contributions to science.
-
Her impact was entirely bad.
No it wasn't. Like all prime ministers, she did some bad things and some good things.
-
Indeed it will - and that general perception is likely to be driven by the campaign to pardon him and a 2014 blockbuster film, linked to the public recognition of Bletchley Park.
Even in academic circles, although there are now a plethora of Institutes, colleges, statues etc - pretty well every one is from the past 20 years, aligned with the campaign to pardon him and incidentally also the campaign to save Bletchley Park.
All I am saying is that his stratospheric rise to prominence in the past decade or so has little to do with the significance of his contributions to science.
Except that isn't all you were saying was it? The first thing you suggested was that he won as some collective guilt of how his homosexuality was treated. When I pointed out the code breaking, you have now added that in as if it was in your original point. It wasn't. And now you are insisting that having changed your argument, you know why he won, which is simle assertion.
-
Her impact was entirely bad. As someone else pointed out, if we're ignoring morality and just going for historical impact, where are Hitler, Mao, and Stalin?
Comparing Thatcher to Hitler, Mao, and Stalin is specious nonsense.
-
I'm not sure that is why he won. It is probably a part of it but I would suggest that the people voting might have thought that computers, for which Turing is the representative in the list, had more impact on their day to day lives, and that the part he played during the war was more relevant to them. And that's without considering how good the advocate for each on the show wad.
In the field of computer science, John von Neumann (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann) is the outstanding person of the 20th century. I'd put Turing second.
-
In the field of computer science, John von Neumann (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann) is the outstanding person of the 20th century. I'd put Turing second.
I'm not arguing about that, I'm pointing out that the general perception that many people might have, and as was presented in the programme as being the 'father of computing' and 'inventing the computer' would mean people might vote for him rather than simply about how society treated his homosexuality. The lists are obviously Ukcentric so Turing got the aren't computers amazing vote.
-
No it wasn't. Like all prime ministers, she did some bad things and some good things.
Name the good things.
-
I would have gone for Mandela in the leaders category,
On balance, I think I agree with you. It's clear he did a magnificent job as South Africa's first democratically elected leader, and events since and elsewhere have shown just how good he was.
and Ali in the sports category was easy.
I really don't get that. Everybody assumes he was the greatest just because he said so.
For the activists, don't have a problem with MLK but might have gone for Ghandi.
Agreed
For scientists are, I'm with jeremyp and would have gone for Einstein.
Obviously!
The entertainers, of the choice avaiable, Chaplin, but thought Elvis should have been in there. I am a huge Bowie fan but not sure the global impact is as wide.
Of the choices there, I would go for Bowie.
The explorers category is just odd, but Shackleton seems bizarre. Of the choice there, Armstrong.
Shackleton because he was a proper explorer and when everything went wrong, he made an almost super human effort to rescue his crew. Armstrong was just the point man in a huge team effort. Had it not been for Gus Grissom's death in the Apollo 1 fire, it's likely few people would know who Neil Armstrong was.
The artists category, yet to be voted on seems a bit of a motley. Given a free vote, I would likely have chosen Dali. Of the four already chosen, Picasso.
I think Picasso is the outstanding artist of the 20th century.
-
Name the good things.
First one off the top of my head: destroying the ability of the NUM to hold the country to ransom.
-
Name the good things.
Going to be a little bit controversial here, but she did recognise the inportance of the EU to the UK economy and the need to be in it, contrary to the posturing she sometimes indulged in. I'd say that was a good thing.
-
The artists category, yet to be voted on seems a bit of a motley. Given a free vote, I would likely have chosen Dali.
Dali painted that dreadful kitschy thing with a crucifix suspended over a shore with a fishing-boat, and was notorious in his last years for commercialising his art by signing hundreds of copies of his artwork. He was also notoriously a supporter of Franco.
-
I really don't get that. Everybody assumes he was the greatest just because he said so.
On the Ali point I don't think it is a question of people thinking he was the greatest sportsperson, rather I think it's his impact as an entertainer as well, and the fact that he was an activist. It's the overall impact that I think is being looked at here.
-
Of the choices there, I would go for Bowie.
Weird selection and weird category - entertainers rather than artists (in a musical or theatrical/film sense). I don't think Bowie comes close to being a global icon in an artistic sense. I'm a fan, but ultimately he was an artistic magpie - good at taking other people's genre-changing musical ideas and creating a mainstream version. He was a follower of fashion, not a leader.
-
I think Picasso is the outstanding artist of the 20th century.
I agree wholeheartedly - astonishingly talented and his creativity was so diverse.
-
Weird selection and weird category - entertainers rather than artists (in a musical or theatrical/film sense). I don't think Bowie comes close to being a global icon in an artistic sense. I'm a fan, but ultimately he was an artistic magpie - good at taking other people's genre-changing musical ideas and creating a mainstream version. He was a follower of fashion, not a leader.
I think almost all entertainers and artists follow fashion. Genuine novelty is astoundingly rare.
-
Dali painted that dreadful kitschy thing with a crucifix suspended over a shore with a fishing-boat, and was notorious in his last years for commercialising his art by signing hundreds of copies of his artwork. He was also notoriously a supporter of Franco.
I think in terms of impact the commercialisation is the point. I don't see anything wrong with art being commercialised, indeed it always had some elements of it. As to his politics, not entirely sure of the relevance.
-
I think almost all entertainers and artists follow fashion. Genuine novelty is astoundingly rare.
Entertainers, sure. Artists, not so much - there are plenty that are genuinely groundbreaking and novel. And there is a missing piece - there is no place for the musical artist in their own right - musicians have been shoe-horned into the 'entertainers' section. There are plenty of musicians who wouldn't see themselves as entertainers, but as artists.
-
Entertainers, sure. Artists, not so much - there are plenty that are genuinely groundbreaking and novel. And there is a missing piece - there is no place for the musical artist in their own right - musicians have been shoe-horned into the 'entertainers' section. There are plenty of musicians who wouldn't see themselves as entertainers, but as artists.
And a few 'artists' who might see themselves primarily as entertainers? I wonder about Hitchcock here.
-
And a few 'artists' who might see themselves primarily as entertainers? I wonder about Hitchcock here.
True, but there isn't really a place for a non-visual artist who didn't think of themselves primarily as an entertainer. Hence my comments (in agreement with Gordon) about Miles Davis being far more iconic and influential as a musician than Billy Holiday. But Holiday was certainly more of an entertainer.
-
Shackleton because he was a proper explorer and when everything went wrong, he made an almost super human effort to rescue his crew.
I think Shackleton is a strong contender, but largely because of his leadership and heroism in adversity. What strikes me as strange is that Roald Amundsen isn't even seen as a contender. Surely his achievements as an explorer are markedly greater than Shackleton (first to the South Pole, first to both poles, first to traverse Northwest passage) - and unlike the latter he actually lost his life in an attempt to save others stranded in a polar expedition - and it wasn't even his expedition so he had no obligation to help.
But Amundsen wasn't British ::)
-
Weird selection and weird category - entertainers rather than artists (in a musical or theatrical/film sense). I don't think Bowie comes close to being a global icon in an artistic sense.
Really?
I'm a fan, but ultimately he was an artistic magpie - good at taking other people's genre-changing musical ideas and creating a mainstream version. He was a follower of fashion, not a leader.
Double really?
-
Really?
Yes really - I cannot think of anything that Bowie did that was genuinely groundbreaking. I love loads of his stuff, but groundbreaking, nope.
Double really?
Absolutely, he was fantastic at latching on to genres and new ideas and being a kind of key early adopter, turning groundbreaking stuff that might have been a bit underground into something much more mainstream.
-
But Amundsen wasn't British ::)
More than that: Amundsen was the antagonist in the Scott of the Antarctic story. For British people like me who went to school in the 70's, his name only came up as the bad guy that beat Scott to the South Pole.
-
Yes really - I cannot think of anything that Bowie did that was genuinely groundbreaking.
Apart from all that music and the whole Ziggy Stardust and Aladin Sane stuff. Also, he and Mick Ronson produced what might be the best album of all time - Transformers.
Absolutely, he was fantastic at latching on to genres and new ideas and being a kind of key early adopter, turning groundbreaking stuff that might have been a bit underground into something much more mainstream.
I would agree that there are more influential individuals in 20th century music, but they generally did their work as part of a group e.g. John Lennon, Lou Reed and they weren't on the list.
-
Apart from all that music and the whole Ziggy Stardust and Aladin Sane stuff.
Ziggy - great album but almost a by-word for taking existing influences and genres and merging them into a hugely satisfying whole. Great - yup, ground-breaking - no. Musically it is massively influenced by the harder hitting earlier glam rock stuff, plus (of course) Lou Reed & Velvets and Iggy & the Stooges plus others.
Conceptially there's nothing innovative about playing the part of a different person in a concept album (see Tommy 3 years earlier) nor a kind of made up band (St Pepper). And surely the notion of the visiting space alien was pretty hackneyed by 72.
Also, he and Mick Ronson produced what might be the best album of all time - Transformers.
I agree - the question is who was the more influential ground breaking talent - Lou Reed or Bowie/Ronson - great combination, but Reed was already a major influence on Bowie - Bowie/Ronson helped him become mainstream.
-
I would agree that there are more influential individuals in 20th century music, but they generally did their work as part of a group e.g. John Lennon, Lou Reed and they weren't on the list.
I think most jazz/rock/pop musicians work in a collaborative manner, regardless of whether they saw themselves as a solo artist or in a band. You made the point yourself talking about Ronson - sure Bowie was nominally a solo artist, but how much of the creative stuff was jointly Bowie and Ronson. And sometimes you cannot work out the key creative content from the writing credits on songs.
-
More than that: Amundsen was the antagonist in the Scott of the Antarctic story. For British people like me who went to school in the 70's, his name only came up as the bad guy that beat Scott to the South Pole.
Which is a real shame, because his achievements are huge. And he was an interesting combination of traditionalist (arguably he beat Scott by using dogs rather than technology), but later he embraced the use of technology for exploring and in particular he was a pioneer of exploring using aircraft.
-
On the Ali point I don't think it is a question of people thinking he was the greatest sportsperson, rather I think it's his impact as an entertainer as well, and the fact that he was an activist. It's the overall impact that I think is being looked at here.
And his courage and dignity in the face of Parkinson's.
-
Picasso wins the Artists & Writers section - quite rightly IMO.
However what do we make of the fact that although 12 out of the 28 nominees were women, all the section winners are men.
-
That equality of the sexes didn't exist in the 20th century and may not exist now.
-
That equality of the sexes didn't exist in the 20th century and may not exist now.
Sure, but I was thinking a bit beyond that. So I wonder whether the reason women are represented in the winners is (or a combination):
1. Lack of opportunities preventing them from demonstrating achievements sufficient to be seen as iconic
2. Opportunities and achievements but lack of profile so those achievements aren't well recognised or are attributed to men
3. Ongoing bias (perhaps unconscious bias) whereby the public still quote being iconic with being male.
I suspect all 3, but the final one is perhaps the most worrying as we cannot do anything about the first 2 in legacy cases and are hopefully working toward rectifying these issues in this day and age. But if we still have societal attitudes that regardless of the achievements and profile of such achievement that they are somehow deemed lesser if achieved by a woman then we still have a long way to go.
-
I think there was a bit of positive discrimination in the original selections going on to try to deal with 1 and 2 - Virginia Woolf being an example. (And as already suggested I think there was a UKish bias as well in the choices) Point 3 is, I think true, but given 1 and 2, particularly 1, then it's a bit difficult to conclude from this.
-
I think there was a bit of positive discrimination in the original selections going on to try to deal with 1 and 2 - Virginia Woolf being an example. (And as already suggested I think there was a UKish bias as well in the choices) Point 3 is, I think true, but given 1 and 2, particularly 1, then it's a bit difficult to conclude from this.
Probably true - I do worry however, that even if we deal with 1 and 2 ongoing bias (unconscious or conscious) will mean that the public will still tend to see the achievements of men as inherently more iconic than those of women.
Not sure if you've read Blink by Malcolm Gladwell - a good read - he has a section in auditioning brass players for a particular orchestra where the successful candidate almost almost ended up as a man. There was a perception, perhaps unconscious, amongst selectors that women were physically capable of playing to the same level as men. The orchestra (enlightened) started auditioning 'blind' with the candidate playing behind a curtain - suddenly women ended up being selected far, far more often.
-
Probably true - I do worry however, that even if we deal with 1 and 2 ongoing bias (unconscious or conscious) will mean that the public will still tend to see the achievements of men as inherently more iconic than those of women.
Not sure if you've read Blink by Malcolm Gladwell - a good read - he has a section in auditioning brass players for a particular orchestra where the successful candidate almost almost ended up as a man. There was a perception, perhaps unconscious, amongst selectors that women were physically capable of playing to the same level as men. The orchestra (enlightened) started auditioning 'blind' with the candidate playing behind a curtain - suddenly women ended up being selected far, far more often.
No disagreement from me that it is true. Which is why I posted that I thought it was true. But because of the influence of points 1 and 2, I just don't think that you can use the choice of 7 men here as evidence of it.
Is there any of the categories where you would have chosen one of the women candidates? Do you think they missed a woman candidate that you would have chosen?
-
Is there any of the categories where you would have chosen one of the women candidates?
No
Do you think they missed a woman candidate that you would have chosen?
Can't think of one
That may be because of reasons 1 and/or 2 - however I worry that it might be because of reason 3 and having done unconscious bias training myself I'm more that aware that however much we may consider ourselves untouched by prejudice most of us have deep-rooted and unconscious bias that is not deliberate but affects our judgements nonetheless.
-
No
Can't think of one
That may be because of reasons 1 and/or 2 - however I worry that it might be because of reason 3 and having done unconscious bias training myself I'm more that aware that however much we may consider ourselves untouched by prejudice most of us have deep-rooted and unconscious bias that is not deliberate but affects our judgements nonetheless.
Agree - but we know that 1 and 2 apply here, particularly 1.
-
Agree - but we know that 1 and 2 apply here, particularly 1.
Problem is - can you be sure the reason you (like me) didn't think a women should have won in the list and also that there wasn't a woman missing from the list who should have won is because of 3, not 1 and 2.
-
My choices from the limited selection available would have been(if I had voted):
Leaders: Winston Churchill
Explorers: Ernest Shackleton
Scientists: Albert Einstein
Entertainers: Charlie Chaplin
Activists: Mohandas Gandhi
Sports: Muhammad Ali
Artists and Writers: Pablo Picasso
However I only watched the first episode because I then decided that the system was flawed, as it did not allow a far broader mix, and lost interest in it.
When deciding on these choices above I took no account whatever as to whether they were male or female, but on how they were regarded at the time of their achievements and since.
-
Problem is - can you be sure the reason you (like me) didn't think a women should have won in the list and also that there wasn't a woman missing from the list who should have won is because of 3, not 1 and 2.
No, of course I cannot be sure. I haven't suggested otherwise, and I have already stated that I think 3 is true. I just don't think that the choice of the 7 men here is that good an argument for 3 because of 1 and 2
-
My choices from the limited selection available would have been(if I had voted):
Leaders: Winston Churchill
Explorers: Ernest Shackleton
Scientists: Albert Einstein
Entertainers: Charlie Chaplin
Activists: Mohandas Gandhi
Sports: Muhammad Ali
Artists and Writers: Pablo Picasso
However I only watched the first episode because I then decided that the system was flawed, as it did not allow a far broader mix, and lost interest in it.
When deciding on these choices above I took no account whatever as to whether they were male or female, but on how they were regarded at the time of their achievements and since.
The point that Prof D is that we might as a collective and individuals have unconscious biases and I don't see how we can declare that to be untrue. We all have unconscious biases.
-
The point that Prof D is that we might as a collective and individuals have unconscious biases and I don't see how we can declare that to be untrue. We all have unconscious biases.
Yes, Of course we might all have unconscious biases. The fact that my choices were all men might well be the result of an unconscious bias towards male rather than female icons, there again it might not. I see no way in which that can be established.
-
When deciding on these choices above I took no account whatever as to whether they were male or female, but on how they were regarded at the time of their achievements and since.
The point about unconscious bias is that you wouldn't be aware that you might have had a bias in favour of men when making your choice.
-
Yes, Of course we might all have unconscious biases. The fact that my choices were all men might well be the result of an unconscious bias towards male rather than female icons, there again it might not. I see no way in which that can be established.
Tricky to establish on this particular case but would be straightforward to devise a Harvard type unconscious bias test to check whether you had an underlying bias in favour of relating 'iconic' to 'male'.
If you haven't tried the test, suggest you should - doesn't take long and can be very revealing.
-
Yes, Of course we might all have unconscious biases. The fact that my choices were all men might well be the result of an unconscious bias towards male rather than female icons, there again it might not. I see no way in which that can be established.
In this specific case, I agree. Indeed that's the point I've been making. We can examine for unconscious bias in general.
-
My choices from the limited selection available would have been(if I had voted):
Leaders: Winston Churchill
Explorers: Ernest Shackleton
Scientists: Albert Einstein
Entertainers: Charlie Chaplin
Activists: Mohandas Gandhi
Sports: Muhammad Ali
Artists and Writers: Pablo Picasso
Leaders: Nelson Mandela (and a worthy winner IMO)
Explorers: Ernest Shackleton (out of the selection - but Roald Amundsen is more worthy in a directly comparable manner to Shackleton)
Scientists: Albert Einstein (agree)
Entertainers: Rubbish selection and rubbish category focussing more on fame than influence as a musician/actor - so would choose any of them
Activists: Toss up between Gandhi or Luther-King - both worthy winners
Sports: Section is more based on non sporting achievements (effectively another 'activist' category) - so none really rock my boat. If pushed would go for Pele as a genuinely sporting great. In terms of someone who completely dominated their sport - with achievements never likely to be matched, then perhaps Bradman
Artists and Writers: Pablo Picasso - worthy winner
-
Tricky to establish on this particular case but would be straightforward to devise a Harvard type unconscious bias test to check whether you had an underlying bias in favour of relating 'iconic' to 'male'.
If you haven't tried the test, suggest you should - doesn't take long and can be very revealing.
Just taken the test on gender.
My results stated the following:
Your data suggest a slight automatic association for Male with Liberal Arts and Female with Science.
To be honest, I'm none the wiser about any male/female biases I may have.
Incidentally, I wholeheartedly agree with you about the entertainment and sports categories. Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitgerald, Louis Armstrong and Elvis Presley would have been my personal choice. As far as sports are concerned I would also have included Bradman, despite cricket being a minority world sport. However I do find the whole idea of being an icon utterly confusing here. For instance why not include Dick Fosbury who transformed the whole technique of high jumping.
-
Just taken the test on gender.
My results stated the following:
To be honest, I'm none the wiser about any male/female biases I may have.
Typically the results show biases that link male terms to science and female terms to arts - so in this manner you show a slight counter-intuitive bias. There are other tests as well - worth doing I think. Also I think it is good not to use your first result as the approach is a bit weird and I think it a good idea to get used to the approach before really testing yourself.
-
Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitgerald, Louis Armstrong and Elvis Presley would have been my personal choice.
I think Elvis should have been there, but again this is more about performers than musicians - I'd have preferred a category that allowed really iconic musicians of the 20thC to be recognised, those people who both wrote and created music that changed the world, rather than people who were good performers of other people's creativity. With the exception of Armstrong on your list none of the others actually wrote music that was iconic and game changing.
As far as sports are concerned I would also have included Bradman, despite cricket being a minority world sport. However I do find the whole idea of being an icon utterly confusing here. For instance why not include Dick Fosbury who transformed the whole technique of high jumping.
The thing about Bradman is that his record is streets ahead of anyone else before or since - he really is in his own league, with just one person in it. I'm struggling to think of anyone else whose record is so much 'out on their own' in other sports.
-
And no category that composers sit easily in. The whole series seems ill thought out and restrcitive to me.
-
And no category that composers sit easily in. The whole series seems ill thought out and restrcitive to me.
I agree.
-
Mahatma Gandhi
Nelson Mandela
-
Glad Martin Luther King won a category, he being one of my all-time heroes.
-
Turing wins overall - thoughts please. Is he really the greatest person of the 20th century?
-
Turing wins overall - thoughts please. Is he really the greatest person of the 20th century?
I certainly wouldn't have given it to Turing. He made an important contribution to winning the war, and to computer science, but so did many others. His treatment by the authorities for his homosexuality was shameful, but he didn't do anything praiseworthy in that respect.
-
Turing wins overall - thoughts please. Is he really the greatest person of the 20th century?
Not for me. Of course, as already covered, he wouldn't be the greatest scientist of the 20th Century for me. I didn't watch the programme but the twitterati were very big on Chris Packham's speech being brilliantly effective. In the end these things are fluff.
-
Turing wins overall - thoughts please. Is he really the greatest person of the 20th century?
Dunno... can't engage with the basic idea of the programme ... and didn't watch.
-
Turing wins overall - thoughts please. Is he really the greatest person of the 20th century?
As already discussed, he is not even the greatest scientist.
-
I've since seen Chris Packham's speech as an advocate for Turing. It's very well done.