Dr And Mrs Vandertramp Paper

What are you talking about just the way ... and how much

Over and over again forces itself on one of the impression of many things and people is just too much reported, discussed and speculated . Just think of the case Kachelmann A rape charge against a weather presenter -... one would think that's enough for just a short message under "Miscellaneous" And yet this issue in the media seems almost omnipresent And a while ago it was Sarrazin, his theses, either stupid or repetitive, far too much, were much too often discussed as if the objective seemed to deserve. Now, however, such estimates, about which too much is said and reported, unfortunately, a very subjective issue, and some will probably come to a different personal view. How nice would it be if they had a factual, objective and clearly quantified measure of whether a subject or a person gets too much public attention or not! And such an unerring measure we want to build us now.

All you have to do is, for example, the frequency of use of a term to apply to its importance. Then we could examine the context in which the normal Tag typically move Sun And find you could fall out what terms, or because, in terms of their importance too much or talk too much about them.

How to obtain the frequency of occurrence of a term is still quite clear. You could count, for example, how many times the corresponding term in newspapers. This is somewhat cumbersome. So let's do it here just once and take just the number of hits in a Google search as a measure of the frequency of use. To avoid confusion, we are looking here only on the German side and put the keyword in quotation marks.

But objectively the importance of a term Measured? Let us also quick. Let's say that a concept (or the object for which the term is) Wikipedia article has all the more languages, the bigger its importance for humanity. So we can reduce the number of languages in which there are Wikipedia article for a term to be determined measure of the importance of the concept as an easy take.

now one or the other certainly want to argue that these two really very rough and primitive criteria for the use frequency and meaning of a word his. And that may be, but we see about that, whether these criteria are not doing it already! If they are good size, then one should expect a correlation between them. Because the more important a concept, the more you should be talking about him, too, the larger should therefore be a frequency of use. Let us therefore once a set of randomly selected words from everyday language, frequently used words such as "house" or "love", to more often used as "gherkins" or "knuckle". For all these words, we determine the frequency of occurrence and importance. If we then apply two numbers for each word against each other, one should not expect a random distribution, but a relationship between two variables. And as for some strange reason, things like word frequencies etc. gladly obey power laws, we take the values in a double-logarithmic diagram, where should we expect a straight line. And indeed,

The values for the individual words line up roughly on a straight line. The scattering may indeed be quite large, but you can clearly see in what area of the Frequency-Importance chart you can expect typical terms. Let us call this area the sake of simplicity once the "main sequence". Our primitive criteria seem to be working so well. Before we can compare but now, where are the annoying terms like "tile man" or "Sarrazin" to refer to this diagram, we must dwell a little and look at the structure in the chart more closely.

It's Never Off course, that all terms in the same "main sequence" are. Take, for example, once terms from the scientific-technical field. Such terms may sometimes have a very great importance, although they are still rarely used. The words "Lithium" and "molybdenum" as used is determined not significantly more often than the word "gherkin" even though the former in their economic and technological importance of the gherkins considerably exceed. So let's, a number of terms in the fields of physics, chemistry, astronomy and geology and take to see where these words are in the chart. If we add this in red, it looks like this:

These terms are in fact on a separate line and with the same meaning of the term at a lower frequency of use. Let us call this area a short time the "scientific branch". In a further thorough investigation should find even more determined structures. Consider, for example, look at the terms related to sexuality and eroticism. Certainly should be used much more frequently than their objective meaning can justify, and therefore grouped in the chart above. But we can chart the ever divided into two areas: What is even more striking that the main sequence and the branch of science with great meanings in the shaded area, seem to run together. Here it comes to a kind of "saturation": The words of the highest importance only to come to the hundred languages in Wikipedia. Although it claims to exist in about 260 languages, but we find no words with entries in more than one hundred languages. So here ends our scale of importance, and all curves must come together here. In the shaded area saturation, so we can make any reliable statements about the importance of terms.
Thus we come together prepared for the following Overview Diagram: terms that are in this view above the limit of the main series are overrated in the sense that more is said about them and spoken, than their actual importance would justify. For terms below the main sequence is the opposite.

Now we have to ensure that the typical celebrity to a fall occur not particularly present, with the main sequence together, and not a separate region populate the chart. So let's take a number of German celebrities with different degrees of awareness and (not to offend anyone personally want to) different meanings. Let's take Benedict XVI, the doctors, Rammstein, Herbert Grönemeyer, Stefan Raab, Herbert Feuerstein, Marie Gruber and Sebastian Koch, and we carry them in blue one in the overview diagram: investigated over the whole range of meanings of words all fall squarely within the boundaries of the main sequence.

Now finally we can some times feels like plagues of public life hernehmen and will add it to the chart! So let's take time Kachelmann, Sarrazin and Franz Josef Wagner, and who we do in red: And so we have it actually and finally officially and irrevocably! Franz Josef Wagner is slightly above the main sequence and is so just now to present in public discussions. Tile man and Sarrazin, however are well above the main sequence. Their names will be used several times more frequently than it would justify their meanings!
So what can we say more? I should perhaps, the entire list subsequent filing with words that I used for the determination of the main sequence and of the discipline. And sometimes silent otherwise rather ...