The Mathletes and the Miley Photoshop 555
On June 24, a Tennessee man was arrested for possessing photos that showed the faces of three underage girls, including Miley Cyrus, superimposed onto the nude bodies of adult women. Assistant District Attorney Dave Denny said of the arrest, "When you have the face of a small child affixed to a nude body of a mature woman, it's going to be the state's position that this is for sexual gratification and that this is simulated sexual activity." The phrase "simulated sexual activity" apparently refers to a Tennessee sex crimes law which states in part: "It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess material that includes a minor engaged in simulated sexual activity that is patently offensive."
Assuming this is the crime that the D.A. plans to charge him with, to me it seems obvious that the defendant didn't violate the law as written. For one thing, if the nude women in the pictures were just standing there (and neither the article nor the D.A.'s statement suggests otherwise), then there was no "sexual activity" in the photos of any kind, real or simulated. But even if the nude adult women in the photos had been engaged in sexual activity (even just striking a mildly sexy pose), the law still would not apply, because the law requires an actual minor to actually be engaged in something, even if that "something" is simulated sexual activity. So if a video showed a real minor that appeared to be masturbating or having sex with someone in a manner that was "patently offensive", that could violate the law. (Hopefully the "patently offensive" clause would exclude artistic movies like The Tin Drum, although that defense has not always worked.) But if the girls' faces were simply cut and pasted onto the bodies of the women in the photos, then the minors in question were not "engaged in" anything. The D.A. appears to have confused "material that includes a minor engaged in simulated sexual activity" with "material that simulates a minor engaged in sexual activity". And the D.A.'s statement that "this is for sexual gratification and that this is simulated sexual activity" — clearly implying that the pictures are for sexual gratification and therefore this is "simulated sexual activity" — is ridiculous. The defendant probably used pictures of Miley with her clothes on for "sexual gratification" — does that make the photos "simulated sexual activity"? (Dave Denny's office did not respond to my request for comment.)
But I was more interested in a different question: What would people in a survey think about whether the defendant violated the law? And, would people who are good at math, answer the question differently from everyone else? And would those people answer the question differently from people who are good at, say, English composition?
That might seem like an odd twist to put on it. But if you can show that a certain answer correlates with mathematical ability, that indicates something special about that answer. And if you can show that that answer appeals to people with math skills, but not to people with English/writing/composition skills, then that indicates something interesting not just about that answer, but about mathematical ability as well, as opposed to writing ability. Whether that answer is "right" or "wrong" (or whether you think those terms are even meaningful for a legal opinion), it is a fact, not an opinion, that people with self-reported higher math skills are more likely to pick that as the correct choice.
By contrast, when the D.A. makes a public statement about the criminality of the defendant's actions, the implication is that we should give some weight to his statements because of his qualifications, such as being a member of the bar. But if we were to ask other bar members to decide independently of each other whether the defendant committed a crime, would they converge on the same answer? If not, then why should we listen to him, as opposed to someone else with the same credentials? When an expert cites their credentials in support of an opinion, if it's not true that other experts with the same credentials would back them up on that opinion, I don't think people realize the extent to which there is no there there.
So in the survey, I described the man's alleged actions and the Tennessee statute, and asked people if they thought he had violated the law. I also asked respondents to rate their math skills as "Excellent"/"Very good"/"Good"/"Fair"/"Poor" and to rate their English/composition skills as "Excellent"/"Very good"/"Good"/"Fair"/"Poor". The survey was posted on the Amazon Mechanical Turk site, where you can post "tasks" for people to complete in exchange for small payments of, say, 25 cents apiece. Some companies use this for grunt work (like hiring people to review user-submitted profile photos to make sure they don't contain nudity), but I use the site mainly to conduct surveys.
I think it's unlikely that the Mechanical Turk users are a representative cross-section of the population, but I use it more to find significant relative differences between demographic groups. If 60% of women on the site answer a question one way and 80% of men answer it the other way, that probably suggests that in a real cross-sectional survey of the population, men and women would largely disagree on the answer as well. (The alternative would be that the kind of men and women who use Mechanical Turk are predisposed to answer the question differently along gender lines in a way that average men and women are not, but that seems unlikely.)
For this survey, I offered users 25 cents apiece for completing this survey and collected 127 responses. The results in a nutshell:
- About two-thirds of all respondents (85 out of 127) said that the man did violate the law.
- However, among the respondents who rated their own math skills as "Excellent", only 44% (12 out of 27) said he violated the law, and 56% (15 out of 27) said that he did not. Out of all ten ability groupings (five different ability groupings for math, from "Excellent" to "Poor", and five for English), this was the only group where a majority said that the defendant didn't violate the statute.
- Respondents who self-rated their English/composition skills as "Excellent", were also more likely than average to vote that the man did not violate the law, but a majority of them still voted that he did.
These results are significant at the 99% level, which you can check using an online statistical significance calculator. In other words, despite the modest sample size, the answers given by the respondents with self-rated "excellent" math skills are so starkly different from everyone else's, that there's less than a 1 in 100 chance that the difference is due to coincidence. Almost certainly, something about mathematical ability is correlated with a person's likelihood of giving the "not guilty" answer. (At this point I'm going to give in to my bias and hereinafter refer to that as the "right answer.")
Furthermore, while respondents with "excellent" English/composition skills were also more likely than average to get the right answer (a difference that is also significant at the 99% level, given the collected data), they were considerably less likely to do so, than the users with self-reported "excellent" math skills (again, significant at the 99% level). I tabulated all the responses.
If I could afford to pay a larger sample, I would investigate whether the effect of "excellent" English/composition skills disappears entirely when you control for math skills. In other words, it's possible that the people with excellent English/composition skills were more likely than average to get the right answer, but only insofar as their English/composition skills were correlated with excellent math ability — and maybe people with "excellent" English/composition skills, but only average math ability, score no better than the average respondents.
One thing that jumps out at me: Even though 44% of the 27 people with "excellent" math skills said the man did violate the law, when you look at the 58 people who self-reported "very good" math skills, 74% of them said he violated the law. This would appear to confound my original hypothesis that good math skills lead people to converge on the correct answer. But I suspect that many people with self-reported "very good" math grades were probably just good students who studied hard and did the practice problems and got good grades in math, but without necessarily having the insight that makes someone an "excellent" math student. Without that insight, there was no reason to expect them to be better than average at answering a question that has no resemblance to their textbook's practice problems.
In fact, I suspect that many of the people who self-reported their math skills as "excellent", and who still answered "yes" to the question of whether the man violated the law, probably fell into that studious-but-not-insightful category as well. It would be interesting to test whether if you required respondents to actually answer a math question — not a standard textbook question, but a tricky question that required people to demonstrate an understanding of what is actually going on — if the correlation between correctly answering that question, and "correctly" answering the legal question, is even stronger.
But what I think is even more important than the correlation of the correct answer with "excellent" math ability, was the significantly lower correlation of the correct answer with "excellent" English skills. I've been saying for years that you can use excellent prose to defend an illogical idea, or you can use poorly crafted prose to defend a good idea, and so if you care about the quality of an idea and its impact on the real world, you have to look at the substance of an argument, not the style. Economics professor Steven Landsburg writes in his forthcoming philosophy book The Big Questions,
The bane of a college professor's existence is the student who has been taught in a writing course that there is such a thing as good writing, independent of having something to say. Students turn in well-organized grammatically correct prose, with the occasional stylistic flourish in lieu of any logical argument, and don't understand why they've earned grades of zero.
I call such people "vocabulemics", who seem to think the purpose of a discussion is to vomit up as many SAT vocab prep words as possible, rather than to form a coherent point. I've tried, and I can't think of any coherent point that could be made in order to argue that the Miley photoshopper really did violate the Tennessee law.
If you're still unconvinced by the results of a survey of mathletes, consider that they do match up well with the comments provided to me by Mark Rasch, a lawyer and computer security specialist with Secure IT Experts and the former head of the Department of Justice Computer Crimes Unit:
First, an image of a minor engaged in simulated sexual activity is not the same as a simulated minor engaged in sexual activity... In other words, if you posed actual minors, nude, and made it look like they were having sex, it would be a crime, even though there was no "actual" sexual activity. In most other contexts, when the legislature says "simulated sexual activity" they mean real people engaged in what appears to be sex. The government is trying to apply this theory to real sex but simulated minors. I don't think that passes statutory muster.. its not what the statute prohibits... Under that rationale, if you had, for example, a picture of two dogs mating, and glued pictures of kids on the dogs faces, this would be "simulated sexual activity" but would not be prosecutable. Where do you draw the line? Under federal law, you typically draw the line at the use and posing of real kids.
Depending on how you look at it, you may think that this opinion from credentialed expert Mr. Rasch, vindicates the opinion of the math aficionados who voted that the defendant did not violate the law. I think it's the other way around — the fact that this answer was correlated in the survey responses with mathematical ability, vindicates the opinion of Mr. Rasch.
Re:This just in: (Score:5, Interesting)
I know you're just trolling, but I'll bite. I've gone through two radically different forms of mathematics education in my lifetime. The one was largely a "how to solve" system of rote numbers and formulas, and the other was proof-based calculus. None of it ever got terribly high up the latter in terms of cutting-edge math; the most difficult stuff included properties of Hilbert spaces and Dirichlet's function. Anyway, the latter sequence was all taught at the level of comprehension through the proof.
I turned out to be much better about the proof-based math and enjoyed it a lot more even though it cost more time and labor. I actually felt like I was learning something about the properties of the world and not just serving as a second-rate calculator. Anyway, my experience was that the creative and literary types were much better at comprehending math through proofs than discrete calculations. It appealed more to their abstract and critical reasoning skills, and the outcomes really reflected that.
Of course I don't mean to say that a Hemingway is automatically a Lebesgue, but I've really come to believe that the gap between the kind of thinking required for "real" math and for "real" critical reading is much smaller than anyone will admit. The real problem is pedagogy in primary and secondary education, especially the false division between the humanity and ineffability of literature and the objectiveness and determinacy of mathematics. Both are the endeavors of human beings attempting to understand and describe the world around them. They rely on different patterns of thought that develop from the same raw ability.
For the record I'm a classical philologist, a research occupation which is more literary than mathematical but intensely dependent on critical reading skills in ancient Greek and Latin. Alan Sokal is as much our hero as he is to the so-called hard sciences.
Re:Austistic Spectrum (Score:3, Interesting)
The question isn't about "social norms" it's about "the law".
You've just demonstrated the original point and why juries are so easy to manipulate,
especially when both sides of the trial have done all they can to strip the jury of
anyone with any sense, expertise or education.
This isn't about what personally offends you but what will give the state the
right to PUT YOUR SORRY ASS IN A CAGE WITH ANIMALS.
Clearly many people don't have a full understanding of all the relevant consequences.
Re:Jury Nullification Nullified (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, if they want to screen for bias, etc, then fine; though I'm still against it but I understand why someone might want this. Find a third party with no affiliation or connection to anyone else in the trial and have them pre-screen. However, jury nullification should in no way be a reason for dismissal.
I would love to run the trial on its own and just give the jury a transcript after the fact. No emotions, no pandering to the jury by the defense/prosecution, and all the "stricken from record" items won't even be heard. Stick each juror in a hotel room to read it all and them let them meet to deliberate when they all finish. If they can't read, get them a computer with a voice synthesizer.
Re:How did you phrase the mechanical turk question (Score:3, Interesting)
He presented only the line from the statute, and the DA's 1-line argument, not his own interpretation. In my opinion, he actually provided too little context to make an informed decision, not too much.
Re:Fix your tags (Score:3, Interesting)
Quite clearly this man is guilty of Copyright infringment, as the photo was likely taken from promotional material and is property of Disney. Quick! Call the RIAA!
Re:Statistical significance in surveys (Score:5, Interesting)
The best one I saw recently was CNN soliciting email from people about how bad the recession was. Unsurprisingly people who had cable tv and internet access said that things were fine.
It's a classic mistake dating back to the dawn of polling: during the great depression a poll was done that showed that the great depression wasn't nearly as bad as everyone was saying! How was the sample set determined? They polled everyone who had a car license plate, and they called them on the phone to ask the poll questions.
When you have the face of a small child (Score:3, Interesting)
"When you have the face of a small child affixed to a nude body of a mature woman"
Hmmm
What if it was fixed beside the mature ladie's face giving a two headed monster?
What if it was attached to the elbow? The knee? Completely replacing her crotch? One copy over each breast like a bikini (so what if you made a real bikini with miley faces and a lady with big breasts wore it?).
What if it was attached to the body of a nude mature male?
How about a mature nude obese woman?
How about a mature very ill woman?
How about a *very* mature nude woman (in her 90s?)
I've seen a lot of frankensteins. My reaction to them was not sexual-- it was more of a novelty.
Funny story, a friend of ours always talked about his girlfriend, "X" and yet we never met her. We finally asserted that "X" was really him. Finally he brought a picture of him and her to magic the gathering night to *prove* that he had a girlfriend. While he played his first game, I scanned the picture and frankenstiened his head onto her body. When someone new showed up, we mentioned that he had brought the picture-- and showed it to the newcomer who broke out laughing-- which prompted him to look at his picture to see why it was so funny. It was the most amazing exasperated, surprised, amused reaction. Hysterical.
This is something I hope is NEVER MADE ILLEGAL (Score:4, Interesting)
What the hell is wrong with me?!? First... forget anything you know about this guy and look at the issue at hand.
1) We have a picture that's been photoshopped to have an underage persons on it.
The question at hand is if this should be illegal or not. Child pornography has become a major issue... and the definition of what child pornography is up in the air. My best friend was pulled on our way to canada and interogated for an hour about pictures and movies on his computer. It wasn't until after we left that we realized it was videos of his daughter doing the funky chicken dance.
To me this is EXTREMELY dangerous to say "yes... putting a kids head on a naked adult" is illegal.". That's a gray area to me as there are FAR too many possibilities for that happening. Jokes, funny images, etc.
What if he had Miley's face on some 90 year old dropping breast woman. Would it be the same to you? That's the problem... law has to be made so that anyone who reads it interprets it the same (or at least pretty damn close).
Tennessee law does NOT prevent what he did. It's not illegal according the law and whether it should be or not isn't the point. It's not.
People are screaming to burn this guy and they nothing about him nor care. There are thousands of creeps out there and this is like busting a pot head for wearing a shirt that shows a charicature of him smoking pot. SURE... I think this would be probable cause to search his house and home computer... but it's not illegal to do. And shouldn't be.
I love the right to be able to put Miley Cyrus's annoying face on midget porn. It's tasteless sick humor and we have hundreds of thousands of images that are similar. You may not like it and it's borderline crossing the law... but it's NOT. It disturbs me that so many people that are so conservative they can't accept peoples rights to do this. It's so stiffling.
Again... this guy is a creep and I think that HAVING pictures like this should be probable cause for investigating him further but it's stupid to try to put him in jail for this. Find something that is unquestionable.
Re:Tough one (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Tough one (Score:4, Interesting)
*scratches head* This is the same "Miley Cyrus" who has had camwhore-like (provocative, not nude) self-photos of herself spread over the internet, right? This is also the same "MIley Cyrus" who had pictures that she ended up feeling "embarrassed" about (similar to the previous - suggestive in some ways, but not nude) published in Vanity Fair? ...Completely avoiding the legal question here, is this really a sane response when there's already been so much sexually suggestive material of her available - stuff that isn't a (presumably bad) Photoshop job?
Re:This just in: (Score:1, Interesting)
Get away from my girl! I saw her first, and she's my sister!
Re:This just in: (Score:1, Interesting)
That was a really eloquently written comment and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. I'm a philosophy major at the moment and have put quite a bit of time into formal logic over the past couple of years. In high school I was good at mathematics but I just didn't have any real passion for it. Now that I've been exposed to some higher level mathematics at university, with formal logic as a foundation, I find that it has really sparked my interest. Ideas like group theory, set theory, and category theory are really amazing in their expressive ability. I see such incredible beauty in mathematics, as only now is it presenting to me a world of clear ideas that I can conceive of distinctly in the mind. The relationships described, the forms of proofs all make sense finally. I look at mathematical proofs as sequence of tautological truths that appeal to the intuition, in the Kantian conception of intuition (that is, its ability to make judgements about ideas truth of ideas which are immediately perceived). Only then can you appreciate the creative aspect of mathematical proofs, as the act of forming a proof requires you to bring together truths that are compatible with one another...It's analogous to telling a story about the transformation of subjects.
Re:you lost me at hello (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you consider the phrase "patently offensive" to be well defined?
The problem with laws is that they have to deal with concepts that are often fuzzy at best, completely undefinable at worst and almost always irritatingly vague. This is why judges have jobs, because they are where the laws meet reality. Unfortunately judges are also humans subject to their own biases and preconceptions and so we often get objectionable outcomes.
Is this guy guilty of bad taste? Definitely.
Is it kiddie porn? No, and shame on the D.A. for trying this.
Drama feels gooooood - (Ethos, Pathos, Logos) (Score:2, Interesting)
When I was in college, a lady from the Wall Street Journal came to my statistics class telling us that the average Per Capita Income of subscribers was $200,000 annually. This is not a cause -> effect relationship. Chances are better than a) some of the richest people in the world read this paper and b) the upper middle class are dragging down the average cuz they want to be rich also. It does not however imply that one would be richer for buying WJS.
I am surprised that nobody has given mention to Aristotle's Rhetoric where it is described in great detail the invaluable skill of utilizing the feelings (ethos / ethics) of the words that surround raw logic (logos / logic) and collectively provide a persuasive argument (pathos / pathology). It is our human nature that gives us greatness for being able to decorate words into so much more than they are, with simple things like CAPITALization, overly obfuscated alliterated onomatopoeia of oration, and rhymes so nice they splice the skies of sun and set.
It seems easy to see that people far more easily acquiesce to the involvement of their emotions than to their hair splitting logic. How else would myspace and facebook make so much money? Drama feels gooooood!
Re:Tough one (Score:1, Interesting)
Don't forget that 16 is legal age of consent in many states and in some it's legal age for marriage (which would tend to include sex) without parental consent.
Which makes you wonder what the legislators were thinking when they passed those laws... Those dirty old bastages
Re:you lost me at hello (Score:3, Interesting)
And therein lies the problem. People get away with sick, disgusting, and probably immoral and/or unethical things everyday, simply because they aren't against the law.
Probably because not everything that's "sick, disgusting, and probably immoral and/or unethical" is something that should be illegal. Eating roaches is disgusting, adultery is immoral, lying is unethical, yet all these things are legal and rightfully so.
The purpose of law is to protect people from one another, not to make people moral. If something someone does cannot be shown to conclusively cause harm to the life, liberty of pursuit of happiness of someone else, then it is not something the law should be concerned with.
Re:zero tolerance on possession of plutonium? (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, how I wish I had my mod points today.
Dude, you're exactly epitomizing the sort of knee-jerk, irrational argument that just about everyone else here has been talking about. That this little masterpiece of yours is a follow-up to a response to your initial diatribe against "them highfalutin' smarty-pants jerkwads" (my take on your rant about how social IQ is somehow superior to more traditional measures of human intellect) shows that you want to glorify irrationality and perpetuate a social order that suppresses intellectualism and, apparently, encourages mob rule.
Ridiculous half-assed attempt at a straw-man argument. What if you have permission from the relevant authorities to possess a pound of plutonium? What if you are building a nuclear reactor? What if you are working in the field of nuclear medicine? By itself, saying you have a pound of anything doesn't really mean anything, and you're relying on a "big scary" like nuclear material to try and get automatic buy-in to your fallacious straw-man argument.
Considering how many times the phrase "godly reason" showed up in your prose, it's pretty clear where your bias comes from. Why don't you just give up any pretense of trying to argue rationally and just admit that you have a religious bias? Then your lack of actual rational argument and, apparently, critical thinking skills won't be seen as quite so much of a detriment.
Re:Tough one (Score:2, Interesting)
There will come a day when computers can render people in an ultra photo-realistic sexual manner. Will these computer generated images be deemed "illegal" and "immoral"? QUICK, they are such a threat to society! Men act out their fantasies and we can't have that! Let's ignore why they want to do that in the first place -- and tempt them with the real thing since the virtual thing is "illegal."
Indeed - and they're already calling for that. The UK already passed a law on "realistic" fictional child porn (1994), and now even unrealistic images such as those in Second Life is being cited for a ban on all sorts of unrealistic images, whether it's people using an avatar that looks "childlike" (despite being played by an adult), or even adults doing cyber-S&M.