Paleo artists often "shrink wrap" fossilized animal depictions
The T-Rex, Utahraptor, Triceratops—popular depictions of each of these animals shows skin so close to bone that it might be unrealistic
So let's shrink-wrap existing animals🧵
Can you guess what this is?
Preemptive note: All of this artwork is from C.M. Koseman, whose book (which is way more extensive than this thread) and some other material is linked at the end of the thread.
The last animal was a rhinoceros—the thing with the cooling heat sail!
Any idea what this animal is?
That last one might seem to be a dog, but it's actually a horse.
It's not so clear what this graceful beast might be.
The last picture was of a cow.
What about this monster? Its jaws can crush a steel car.
That metal-breaker was a hippopotamus.
This pack-hunting animal has a killer stare and wields a set of five switchblade claws on its forefeet. What might it be?
That was the house cat.
This one's a bit more mysterious, and clearly adapted to be a stealthy predator, right?
If you guessed that was a spider monkey, kudos to you. Future paleontologists might consider it an arboreal variation on humans, its cursorial relatives.
What of this one? It's not clear to future paleontologists if it's quadrupedal or bipedal.
That's the toad, which paleontologists might consider to be a long-legged forest ambler.
Any idea what this one is? Without preserved feathers, guessing might be hard!
If you guessed "Vulture", you're correct. But you probably didn't guess that!
You almost certainly won't guess this one.
That was a species of casque-headed hornbill, and paleontologists might suspect they use the casque for mating rituals. But we don't even know what they do with them in many cases today!
How's about this twofer? Note predator and prey:
If you guessed the "Swan" and the "Tadpole" (mistakenly believed to be a form of fish), then you were right.
What about this cute little predator?
That was an iguana, and due to fur being found on other small vertebrates like rats, it's assumed to have fur too.
Who's this courser?
That was a rabbit, but we wouldn't know it because posture is poorly preserved in fossils!
Now this one is simultaneously reassuring and disheartening. What might it be?
That's a python, and it might be assumed to have feet to support its body, much like the lizards its skeleton resembles. After all, we only have fragmentary remains!
Who's this guy?
That's a manatee. Remember, habitats change. A sea creature might be found in what's now a forested mountain. We might also only have remains like skulls.
This guy has a balloon-like facial sac. What might he be?
That's a bull elephant, and because no other animals have long, muscular appendages, he ends up with a face sac instead of his well-known trunk.
Time to dive underwater.
This one might seem to be a dolphin, but think outside the box.
It's a sperm whale, incorrectly believed to be a hunter of large pray. You know, like sharks.
What's this kelp forest stalker?
Why that's a bowhead whale of course! And as we know from its skeleton's extensible jaws, it must prey on animals as large as itself!
Going back to the land, who are we looking at now?
Because of its complicated nasal sinuses, the baboon might be assumed to have had venom glands and to have been a coursing hunter!
These guys have curved foot claws, sometimes serrated bills, and wings shorter than their legs. They must be vampiric!
But that's not the case, it's just an odd animal. It's a hummingbird, the only animal in its strange niche, and thus a prime candidate for misinterpretation!
Finally, who the hell is this?
That might be the first example of shrink wrapping and distorting the fossil record: the animal proposed to be pre-flood man, or Homo diluvii by Johann Jakob Scheuchzer in 1726
But though he thought he had evidence for the flood, he was describing the fossil of a salamander!
How we think about ancient animals is probably distorted by a tendency to shrink wrap their depictions and a desire to find function in form.
But much of what we observe in animals today, we still can't explain. Skin also drags, and feathers and fur abound (but not universally).
If you want to see more on this subject, I recommend the whole book, which contains many more illustrations and details for all of them.
And if you're interested in speculation about possible futures, C.M. Koseman's All Tomorrows is spectacular. You can see it summarized on YouTube, here:
Koseman isn't the only person to have illustrated this issue either.
This opossum, for example, comes from the HowStuffWorks Tumblr:
There is an error in describing sperm whales in the thread:
The issue is more that they would probably be thought of as behaving like sharks in the far future, but they're actually pretty social and frequently team players.
It's well-known that a very small portion of the total criminal population is responsible for the overwhelming majority of all crime.
A new study shows that this is also true of prison misconduct:
Just 10% of prisoners are responsible for more than 70% of misconduct in prisons!
The above numbers were for males. Here are the numbers for female prisoners.
The numbers are eerily similar.
Misconduct overrepresentation holds adjusting for time served in prison, and being a high-misconduct prisoner is predicted by being younger, Black, having a more extensive criminal history, being a violent criminal, being in a state facility, using drugs, and mental disorders.
I used to like this chart, but now I think it's too misleading and we should leave it behind in 2024.
🧵
The key issue is how household size is adjusted for.
In the OP image, they divide by the square root of household size. This is problematic because it means Gen Z incomes are being inflated to the extent they live with their parents.
Generally, when I hear that the younger generations are more successful, what I think is that they're more successful in the stereotypical ways:
They've got relatively better jobs, relatively bigger homes, relatively faster cars and all that.
I was reminded of this yesterday when looking into national IQ estimates.
The "pseudo-analysis" style of critique is to just spit out tons of possible problems, to nitpick, and then to assume that means a whole enterprise is rotten without even checking if the critique holds.
The people who engage in this style of critique (example below) don't care for scientific reasoning about these topics.
They want purity by their arbitrary and inconsistent standards, not correctness, not a 'best effort' to get make progress on finding answers.
So they misrepresent what people do and say; they attack strawmen; they claim people are wrong based on reasons that don't affect actually make them wrong, but they never check; they fail to understand the basics of the things they're contesting, but they act confident; etc.
This post got 50,000 likes and it never even pointed out the actual issue with the calculations, it just took issue with framing and it expressed that Kareem is too inept to find sources.
But what's new?
Kareem debunking thread below
Kareem says this is a "textbook example of how to lie with statistics."
It really isn't, but let's see what he bases this on.
The first thing he says -- his "main criticism" -- is that the data isn't provided. But for Kareem, this is completely meaningless.
We know this is meaningless, because even when all the data is presented, Kareem still doesn't do anything with it, understand it, open it, manipulate it, or anything.
He says "where's the data?" and when he gets it, he just blocks you.
A major problem with the healthcare system is that patients lie to their doctor.
Most patients will even privately admit that they lied when they were informing their doctors about their issues. Their reasons for doing this often aren't very good:
Patients want to avoid getting lectured, they don't want their doctor to call them fat or tell them their snacking habits are unhealthy. They're afraid the doctor will judge them or think they're stupid or immoral, and they don't want the doctor to tell their family.
But because people want to preserve their privacy even in the private setting of a doctor's office, they end up making doctors' jobs harder.
They make it harder to diagnose conditions and to prescribe the right drugs.