1413: "Suddenly Popular"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

rmsgrey
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1413: "Suddenly Popular"

Postby rmsgrey » Mon Sep 01, 2014 9:55 pm UTC

schapel wrote:
niky wrote:
schapel wrote:I wasn't aware of the connection between gluten and autism until your post. The first page that came up on a Google search explains that although there is little research to confirm that gluten can make autism worse, there is some scientific merit to believing there may be a connection between autism and gluten in some cases. So this isn't pseudoscience either.


The only connection is via the unproven "leaky gut syndrome", of which any evidence is purely anecdotal and theoretical.

According to WebMD, some children with autism may have a sensitivity or allergy to gluten. There's not enough scientific evidence to say for sure whether this is true or not, but believing it is not pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is when you state something is scientific when it's not plausible or there is lots of scientific evidence against it.


I am absolutely convinced that there are children who both have autism and a sensitivity to gluten. I am also convinced there are children with a sensitivity to gluten who are not autistic. I believe, but am less certain that there are autistic children who are not sensitive to gluten. For completeness, I'm also sure there are children with neither condition.

It's unsurprising if there are children in all four regions of the Venn diagram - what would be interesting would be if there were none in some region, or if the numbers in each region were disproportionate in some way (showing a correlation) but even then, it would be not conclusive, but merely suggestive...

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 835
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1413: "Suddenly Popular"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Mon Sep 01, 2014 10:28 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
schapel wrote:
niky wrote:
schapel wrote:I wasn't aware of the connection between gluten and autism until your post. The first page that came up on a Google search explains that although there is little research to confirm that gluten can make autism worse, there is some scientific merit to believing there may be a connection between autism and gluten in some cases. So this isn't pseudoscience either.


The only connection is via the unproven "leaky gut syndrome", of which any evidence is purely anecdotal and theoretical.

According to WebMD, some children with autism may have a sensitivity or allergy to gluten. There's not enough scientific evidence to say for sure whether this is true or not, but believing it is not pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is when you state something is scientific when it's not plausible or there is lots of scientific evidence against it.


I am absolutely convinced that there are children who both have autism and a sensitivity to gluten. I am also convinced there are children with a sensitivity to gluten who are not autistic. I believe, but am less certain that there are autistic children who are not sensitive to gluten. For completeness, I'm also sure there are children with neither condition.

It's unsurprising if there are children in all four regions of the Venn diagram - what would be interesting would be if there were none in some region, or if the numbers in each region were disproportionate in some way (showing a correlation) but even then, it would be not conclusive, but merely suggestive...

Besides, they say some children with autism have elevated peptide levels in bodily fluids. They don't even say some children with autism are sensitive to gluten (which is still meaningless by itself as you explained). I think the step from elevated peptide levels to gluten insensitivity is quite a big leap.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10336
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1413: "Suddenly Popular"

Postby addams » Tue Sep 02, 2014 12:11 am UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
schapel wrote:
niky wrote:
schapel wrote:I wasn't aware of the connection between gluten and autism until your post. The first page that came up on a Google search explains that although there is little research to confirm that gluten can make autism worse, there is some scientific merit to believing there may be a connection between autism and gluten in some cases. So this isn't pseudoscience either.


The only connection is via the unproven "leaky gut syndrome", of which any evidence is purely anecdotal and theoretical.

According to WebMD, some children with autism may have a sensitivity or allergy to gluten. There's not enough scientific evidence to say for sure whether this is true or not, but believing it is not pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is when you state something is scientific when it's not plausible or there is lots of scientific evidence against it.


I am absolutely convinced that there are children who both have autism and a sensitivity to gluten. I am also convinced there are children with a sensitivity to gluten who are not autistic. I believe, but am less certain that there are autistic children who are not sensitive to gluten. For completeness, I'm also sure there are children with neither condition.

It's unsurprising if there are children in all four regions of the Venn diagram - what would be interesting would be if there were none in some region, or if the numbers in each region were disproportionate in some way (showing a correlation) but even then, it would be not conclusive, but merely suggestive...

There are Children.
That is a Fact.

Those Children tend to Grow Up.
Autisic people need to Grow Up and move on with their lives, too.

I had a friend.
It's true.

We've been through this.
I had a friend.

Well..? I was his friend.
I am not sure he was my friend.

He was Autistic.
What a Weird Guy, sometimes.

The Joy of knowing him often outweighed what a Pain in the Ass he was.
He was super sensitive to Milk and all things Milky.

So funny.
He would watch me drink milk and double over with Pain.
Then he would be angry at me for drinking milk.

He was a Smart Guy.
We could reason it through.

It's like sex in Public, I guess.
I'd warn him. Then pour and drink.

I did cut down on my dairy for a while.
I'd look at a block of cheese and hear him Bitching.

His Gut was ....Something...
I watched him.

He was metabolizing protein.
The amount of protein he needed was Amazing.

Loggers that weigh 240 pounds and are Working don't put away that much protein.
On top of that he was a picky eater.

Black Hat Guy with a mood disorder?
Nope. Black Hat Guy with Autism.

Might it be something in the way that group of people metabolizes food?
Maybe.

Might it be something in the way that one man metabolizes food?
Maybe.

I don't know and I never will.
What difference will it make?

Like Down's Children;
Knowing exactly what chromosome and what part of that chromosome is at fault
does not change the Fact that people with Down's have Down's and have to Live With It.

What does Gluten have to do with it?

Some people are sensitive to Lactose.
Some people are Not.

Some people are sensitive to Gluten.
Some people are Not.

Is our nation being drowned in Autistic People?
Are The Autistic such a large and dysfunctional portion of our society that our society is beginning to collapse?

Is that it?
Is that why we Want To Know about what causes Autisim?

Of course, Immunizations are a good ScapeGoat.
Or; We were conquered from within. (shrug)

How many do we have? How many Autistic do we have?
What is the running percentage of MissDiagnosis?

I bet it is as High as Fuck.
Is Jonny a Spoiled Out of Control Jerk?
Or; Is sweet little Jonny Autistic?

Who is writing the Check?
What do Mommy and Daddy want?

People!
We do stuff like that.
Last edited by addams on Tue Sep 02, 2014 1:17 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3103
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1413: "Suddenly Popular"

Postby orthogon » Tue Sep 02, 2014 12:44 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
orthogon wrote:It's frustratingly difficult to prove, since Google ngrams measures incidence in books rather than everyday speech, but I'm sure that ordinary people in the UK used to call them "tidal waves" at least until the late 1980s. Perhaps those other words were exotic but more easily anglicised, whereas the difficult initial ts- was too tricky for us. Maybe we've become more international since then, with the arrival of foreign cuisines, footballers and martial arts, and so more receptive to foreign words as a result. Or maybe increased availability of information via the interweb has made us more careful in our use of terminology. Who knows?


Incidentally, the correct Czech version of the word is "Cunami", which makes sense, since the word is Japanese, not English, but the Anglicism is very prevalent. And the Czech version just feels wrong for some reason.

Well, the Hepburn romanisation widely used for Japanese uses "ts", so if you feel as though it's still a foreign word rather than a fully naturalised Czech word, it might make sense to prefer the "foreign" spelling. Interestingly, Hanyu Pinyin does use a "c" for the equivalent sound, perhaps owing something to the Russian involvement in its development (they didn't go for Cyrillic letters, but probably used as a starting point the "Roman Slavonic" values of the Roman letters, rather than their Western European values).
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1413: "Suddenly Popular"

Postby Klear » Tue Sep 02, 2014 6:07 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
Klear wrote:
orthogon wrote:It's frustratingly difficult to prove, since Google ngrams measures incidence in books rather than everyday speech, but I'm sure that ordinary people in the UK used to call them "tidal waves" at least until the late 1980s. Perhaps those other words were exotic but more easily anglicised, whereas the difficult initial ts- was too tricky for us. Maybe we've become more international since then, with the arrival of foreign cuisines, footballers and martial arts, and so more receptive to foreign words as a result. Or maybe increased availability of information via the interweb has made us more careful in our use of terminology. Who knows?


Incidentally, the correct Czech version of the word is "Cunami", which makes sense, since the word is Japanese, not English, but the Anglicism is very prevalent. And the Czech version just feels wrong for some reason.

Well, the Hepburn romanisation widely used for Japanese uses "ts", so if you feel as though it's still a foreign word rather than a fully naturalised Czech word, it might make sense to prefer the "foreign" spelling.


I don't see how using foreign-English spelling makes sense for a foreign-Japanese word. Besides, the "ts" just makes the word needlessly long. It's pronounced the same as "c". We got rid of most of that digraph nonsense ages ago.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26833
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1413: "Suddenly Popular"

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Sep 02, 2014 6:56 pm UTC

Sure, but most languages using the Roman alphabet have more sounds than there are letters, so the choices are ambiguity, digraphs, or diacritics. I don't know why either of the latter two choices should be considered more nonsensical that the other, and both are generally preferrable to the ambiguity option. (English, unfortunately, has ended up taking a mixed ambiguity+digraph approach.)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 835
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1413: "Suddenly Popular"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Tue Sep 02, 2014 8:32 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Sure, but most languages using the Roman alphabet have more sounds than there are letters, so the choices are ambiguity, digraphs, or diacritics. I don't know why either of the latter two choices should be considered more nonsensical that the other, and both are generally preferrable to the ambiguity option. (English, unfortunately, has ended up taking a mixed ambiguity+digraph approach.)

A fourth choice would be expanding the alphabet, starting with reintroduction of the "þ".

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5487
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1413: "Suddenly Popular"

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:39 pm UTC

We have that. It's called IPA. Nobody but linguists (and Wikipedia) use it.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3103
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1413: "Suddenly Popular"

Postby orthogon » Wed Sep 03, 2014 10:53 am UTC

Klear wrote:
orthogon wrote:
Klear wrote:
orthogon wrote:It's frustratingly difficult to prove, since Google ngrams measures incidence in books rather than everyday speech, but I'm sure that ordinary people in the UK used to call them "tidal waves" at least until the late 1980s. Perhaps those other words were exotic but more easily anglicised, whereas the difficult initial ts- was too tricky for us. Maybe we've become more international since then, with the arrival of foreign cuisines, footballers and martial arts, and so more receptive to foreign words as a result. Or maybe increased availability of information via the interweb has made us more careful in our use of terminology. Who knows?


Incidentally, the correct Czech version of the word is "Cunami", which makes sense, since the word is Japanese, not English, but the Anglicism is very prevalent. And the Czech version just feels wrong for some reason.

Well, the Hepburn romanisation widely used for Japanese uses "ts", so if you feel as though it's still a foreign word rather than a fully naturalised Czech word, it might make sense to prefer the "foreign" spelling.


I don't see how using foreign-English spelling makes sense for a foreign-Japanese word. Besides, the "ts" just makes the word needlessly long. It's pronounced the same as "c". We got rid of most of that digraph nonsense ages ago.

I would dispute that the Hepburn romanisation is particularly "English". Hepburn himself may have been an American, but Wikipedia claims the system was "based on the phonology of English and Italian", and there are a number of features that aren't particularly English. For example the the letter "i" is rarely pronounced in English like the vowel written "i" in Hepburn, whereas the pronunciation in most other languages written in Roman letters is closer to the Japanese pronunciation. Similarly, "u" can be pronounced a bit like the Japanese-Hepburn "u" (e.g. in super), but it can also be pronounced in other ways (e.g. in put). A system designed to be pronounced by untrained English speakers would probably have used "ee" and "oo" respectively, i.e. we would write something like "tsoonamee". Another decidedly un-English aspect is the preponderance of single consonants with nothing to protect the vowels from each other: a word like shiitake is in danger of being pronounced like "shit-ache", and "sake" is actually homographic with an English word of rather different pronunciation. I'm more inclined to think of Hepburn as an alternative writing system for Japanese: one with a simple 1:1 mapping (almost) to kana but quicker to learn for users of Roman letters. But like all romanisations one needs to learn both the system itself and, in the process, the phonology of the language it represents. In this sense, the Hepburn romanisation "tsunami " is the Japanese word itself.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1413: "Suddenly Popular"

Postby Klear » Wed Sep 03, 2014 12:35 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:I don't know why either of the latter two choices should be considered more nonsensical that the other, and both are generally preferrable to the ambiguity option.


Just compare Czech and Polish some day =P

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 835
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1413: "Suddenly Popular"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Wed Sep 03, 2014 3:44 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
Klear wrote:
orthogon wrote:
Klear wrote:
orthogon wrote:It's frustratingly difficult to prove, since Google ngrams measures incidence in books rather than everyday speech, but I'm sure that ordinary people in the UK used to call them "tidal waves" at least until the late 1980s. Perhaps those other words were exotic but more easily anglicised, whereas the difficult initial ts- was too tricky for us. Maybe we've become more international since then, with the arrival of foreign cuisines, footballers and martial arts, and so more receptive to foreign words as a result. Or maybe increased availability of information via the interweb has made us more careful in our use of terminology. Who knows?


Incidentally, the correct Czech version of the word is "Cunami", which makes sense, since the word is Japanese, not English, but the Anglicism is very prevalent. And the Czech version just feels wrong for some reason.

Well, the Hepburn romanisation widely used for Japanese uses "ts", so if you feel as though it's still a foreign word rather than a fully naturalised Czech word, it might make sense to prefer the "foreign" spelling.


I don't see how using foreign-English spelling makes sense for a foreign-Japanese word. Besides, the "ts" just makes the word needlessly long. It's pronounced the same as "c". We got rid of most of that digraph nonsense ages ago.

I would dispute that the Hepburn romanisation is particularly "English". Hepburn himself may have been an American, but Wikipedia claims the system was "based on the phonology of English and Italian", and there are a number of features that aren't particularly English. For example the the letter "i" is rarely pronounced in English like the vowel written "i" in Hepburn, whereas the pronunciation in most other languages written in Roman letters is closer to the Japanese pronunciation. Similarly, "u" can be pronounced a bit like the Japanese-Hepburn "u" (e.g. in super), but it can also be pronounced in other ways (e.g. in put). A system designed to be pronounced by untrained English speakers would probably have used "ee" and "oo" respectively, i.e. we would write something like "tsoonamee". Another decidedly un-English aspect is the preponderance of single consonants with nothing to protect the vowels from each other: a word like shiitake is in danger of being pronounced like "shit-ache", and "sake" is actually homographic with an English word of rather different pronunciation. I'm more inclined to think of Hepburn as an alternative writing system for Japanese: one with a simple 1:1 mapping (almost) to kana but quicker to learn for users of Roman letters. But like all romanisations one needs to learn both the system itself and, in the process, the phonology of the language it represents. In this sense, the Hepburn romanisation "tsunami " is the Japanese word itself.

This is not consistent among romanisation methods though. I think it's "t" in Kunrei-siki.

Morgan Wick
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:21 pm UTC

Re: 1413: "Suddenly Popular"

Postby Morgan Wick » Mon Sep 08, 2014 10:37 pm UTC

I have Asperger's. I was put on a gluten-free diet once. I think we reached the conclusion that it made my anger issues worse.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests