Skip to content
February 22, 2016 / JayMan

Enter Little Miss JayLady

Little Miss Jay1 Little Miss Jay3 Little Miss Jay4 Little Miss Jay7 Little Miss Jay 8

All photos by me. Joy to the world my friends!

Advertisements

14 Comments

Leave a Comment
  1. Shooter / Feb 23 2016 1:03 AM

    She’s gorgeous. Congratulations, Jayman!

  2. EvolutionistX / Feb 23 2016 2:43 AM

    She’s perfect. Congratulations to you both. Now get some rest!

  3. M. M. / Feb 23 2016 6:23 AM

    Congratulations!

  4. Prince Harry / Feb 23 2016 7:50 AM

    The picture with the bow on her head just killed me! I am now typing from beyond the grave. Congratulations!

  5. G Hamilton / Feb 23 2016 8:52 AM

    Congratulations to you and Mrs. JayMan. Beautiful.

  6. panjoomby / Feb 23 2016 1:41 PM

    congratulations! she is a delightful rarity: an actual cute baby! she & big brother will have fun – & in about 20 years you & the Mrs. will have your energy return:) till then, enjoy, even when you’re sleepy:)

  7. Malcolm Kirkpatrick / Feb 23 2016 8:57 PM

    Congratulations.
    Now, about that crazy “parents contribute nothing but genes” idea: …
    Marvin Minsky
    Interview
    Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery (1994-July)
    (Minsky: ” … the evidence is that many of our foremost achievers developed under conditions that are not much like those of present-day mass education. Robert Lawler just showed me a paper by Harold Macurdy on the child pattern of genius. Macurdy reviews the early education of many eminent people from the last couple of centuries and concludes (1) that most of them had an enormous amount of attention paid to them by one or both parents and (2) that generally they were relatively isolated from other children. This is very different from what most people today consider an ideal school. It seems to me that much of what we call education is really socialization. Consider what we do to our kids. Is it really a good idea to send your 6-year-old into a room full of 6-year-olds, and then, the next year, to put your 7-year-old in with 7-year-olds, and so on? A simple recursive argument suggests this exposes them to a real danger of all growing up with the minds of 6-year-olds. And, so far as I can see, that’s exactly what happens.
    Our present culture may be largely shaped by this strange idea of isolating children’s thought from adult thought. Perhaps the way our culture educates its children better explains why most of us come out as dumb as they do, than it explains how some of us come out as smart as they do.”
    Homeschool.

    • JayMan / Feb 23 2016 9:44 PM

      Congratulations.

      Thank you!

      Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery (1994-July)
      (Minsky: ” … the evidence is that many of our foremost achievers developed under conditions that are not much like those of present-day mass education. Robert Lawler just showed me a paper by Harold Macurdy on the child pattern of genius. Macurdy reviews the early education of many eminent people from the last couple of centuries and concludes (1) that most of them had an enormous amount of attention paid to them by one or both parents and (2) that generally they were relatively isolated from other children.

      Two words: genetic confounding.

    • Malcolm Kirkpatrick / Feb 24 2016 3:30 PM

      (Jayman): ” …genetic confounding.”
      Of course. How can one possibly eliminate this in any conceivable experiment in a free society?
      The “no significant non-genetic parental contribution” argument is the upside-down, photo-negative mirror image of the creationist argument that differential reproduction (natural selection) can create small differences (local varieties) but not new species or genera. Every devout materialist has heard this one. To which I reply that this is like accepting that erosion can create gullies but not canyons. All you need is time.
      You accept that artistic parents could foreclose the possibility of a career as a painter by putting their child’s eyes out. Musical parents could render their children deaf. So extreme “family” environmental influences could have large effects. Why suppose that small influences cannot have small (but additive) effects?
      I suspect that the studies which find no statistically significant non-genetic parental contribution to career success achieve this result by “controlling for” (i.e., holding constant) factors which responsible parents will vary. For example, there is a clear and strong (for a social science) negative correlation between US school district size and State-level NAEP 4th and 8th grade Reading and Math scores. The ” “no significant non-genetic parental contribution” crowd accept peer influence and school influence. Parents can influence peer effects and school effects by their choice of residence.

    • JayMan / Feb 24 2016 3:33 PM

      I suggest you read my post All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable. Pay close attention to the section on how they measure the “shared environment”.

    • Malcolm Kirkpatrick / Mar 1 2016 2:49 PM

      (Jayman): “I suggest you read my post All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable.”
      Done. I saw little to dispute except for the conclusion that the non-genetic parent contribution to career success is insignificant. How this conclusion follows from the cited research is unclear.

      (Jayman): “Pay close attention to the section on how they measure the “shared environment”.
      Not fully elaborated. I expect I would have to go to the original research to make an informed case for my side of this argument. The discussion of weirdos supports my side, seems to me.

    • JayMan / Mar 1 2016 4:40 PM

      Done. I saw little to dispute except for the conclusion that the non-genetic parent contribution to career success is insignificant.

      This post is all about that point:

      The Son Becomes The Father

  8. panjoomby / Feb 28 2016 2:48 PM

    congratulations continued – i wonder if there is a positive correlation between cuteness at 3 days old & cuteness at 30 years old 🙂

  9. Hallie Scott Kline / Mar 6 2016 4:00 PM

    Your daughter is adorable! 😍 Congratulations, Jayman!

Comments are welcome and encouraged. Comments DO NOT require name or email. Your very first comment must be approved by me. Be civil and respectful. NO personal attacks against myself or another commenter. Also, NO sock puppetry. If you assert a claim, please be prepared to support it with evidence upon request. Thank you!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: