Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 Author Thread: morals vs
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 86 (view)
morals vs
Posted: 10/18/2014 8:32:14 PM

For me, it would depend on the issue. How important is it?

I've come to believe most of the things I argued about in my life didn't matter.

I'm at a point now of just wanting to get past a problem rather than win an argument.

As I said though, it depends on how important the issue is to the safety of our relationship.

A good, rational answer, probably reflected in some other previous posts too (I just clicked to the last page).

Important things are important, things like ego not so much.
"Yeah I won that argument", when you're alone at night isn't the greatest consolation in the world. Whilst sticking with someone who demands you burn your own moral bridges isn't any better.

Being yourself can sometimes be the worst thing you can do if you don't know how to self govern. Other times it can be the most necessary element in an individual's survival instinct for keeping it together in a society of human communities you want to remain well adjusted and approachable within.

So it depends on the issue. How important is it? etc.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 85 (view)
The Downside of Being Attracted to Younger Men
Posted: 10/18/2014 8:24:37 PM
I'll wear a schoolboy outfit if you let me play with your boobs?
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 20 (view)
How do you know when it's over?
Posted: 10/18/2014 8:20:39 PM
^^ too general. That happens when you just cut someone off in traffic.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 18 (view)
How do you know when it's over?
Posted: 10/18/2014 8:01:07 PM
How do you know when it's over?

There's a gang of bikers waiting for you when you get home.

He left flowers at your door with venomous snakes in them.

She re-registered her phone number as a pay-per-minute service call and put you on hold.

He replaced the engine in your car while you were sleeping with a turtle.

Federal police raid your house on a terrorist suspect warrant from an anonymous tip.

Several vagrants have erected tents in your front yard due to a posted sign that reads "free accommodation to the unemployed".

Someone broke into your house and tie dyed all your business suits.

You get three weeks of text messages from random people asking if you'll really give anyone a headjob.

You begin receiving replies from prison inmates to letters you've never sent.

Sometime during breakup sex she gave you a sedative and you wake up in a third world, highly conservative country with a punitive legal system, a dead busboy and bag of drugs in your room, and knocking at the door.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 21 (view)
Should I go to the party that his ex will be there too?
Posted: 10/10/2014 6:38:15 PM
FYI imho your hubby's sister considers your marriage rushed and wants to turn up the heat, probably prefers his ex as a better wifey material for him, and is trying to smoke you out of the kitchen. But invulnerability is always the best defence. Sounds like yours was a whirlwind romance followed by a sudden marriage in the total space of time you can probably count in weeks. It's reasonable his family might be concerned but it's untouchable if you're rock solid together and that's what this is about. So be rock solid together. An ex is no challenge. Be nice. It'll scare the pants off him if you actually get along well and he'll be the one keeping you two apart.

It's the sister it sounds like you might want to avoid getting too chummy with. I'm guessing things you say to her will come back completely out of context through him. Watch that.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 20 (view)
Should I go to the party that his ex will be there too?
Posted: 10/10/2014 6:31:45 PM
Why not just put on your best lingerie, a sexy dress, wrap your husband around your little finger and say bring it on biatch! And enjoy the party. Just don't be catty or the chivalry in hubby has to back her instead of you.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 33 (view)
Why the hell do I never get any replies to my POF messages?
Posted: 10/10/2014 6:24:28 PM
As for why aren't you getting any replies, I had a look at my sister's account inbox. Unfortunately (sic) for her she's a bit of a hottie even if I do say so as a brother, got no problem saying so, and believe me, I kid you not, in three days flat her inbox was well beyond the amount of messages any person could possibly read let alone reply to. I'm talking dozens within hours, every few hours, and they just build up, and keep building up. She tried clicking on the ones that superficially stood out at least but even that was beyond her in short order and she gave up and quit the site. Just too swamped with scores of desperate men all wanting to date hotties, it's like walking into a room and being pack-tackled by a football team.

So that'd be why feller. Ask around the women, they'll tell you.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 32 (view)
Why the hell do I never get any replies to my POF messages?
Posted: 10/10/2014 6:16:51 PM

Join the Military. Buff up. Get Tough. Get Paid. Travel the world and boink exotic babes.

Problem solved.

That's actually the smart play, about making lemonaide from lemons. Don't whine about the world from a hole in the ground, argue with it from a position of strength ;)

You're shooting yourself in the foot if you delude a bunch of blame for your loneliness and then the one that came to fix it all for you gets chased away by the fictional baggage you've adopted in the meantime.
A lot of adulthood is about patience in the face of adversity. Truth be told, everyone gets their highs and lows and character is what you do about the lows.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 28 (view)
Religion into the bliss of insanity
Posted: 10/10/2014 8:22:48 AM
Here's an example of political relevence to this kind of logic test wrt Australian interests.

Our parliament has been on the anti-terrorist legislative kick lately. But if we allow this hypothesis of terrorist activity within Australia to be a falsifiable hypothesis, and consider the inverse, that there is no terrorist conspiracy to unveil and prosecute in Australia: nothing changes. No evidence suggests otherwise, nothing in either direction. There are no terrorist attacks in Australia, has never been. Nobody is swerving to avoid IED's on the way to work, there are no military bases being car-bombed. Nothing. The assertion fails the logic test of falsifiable hypotheses...and we're allowing reduced freedoms (dramatically) upon its basis? Yeah something's wrong with this picture.

Police, want to reduce speed zones again...and again, and again. Speed is a contributing factor in road fatalities. But if we look at observation in nature we'll find in smash repairs industry many clients are repeat clients. Many of the same drivers have repeated collisions under a variety of conditions. The disparity is enough at onset to assert the hypothesis of speed in relation to road toll is conditionally falsifiable. We maybe don't want police in a position of absolutist legislative authority.

You see how this logic test is important, and works? Little things become big things if you don't think right on the little things, like the way you word something when it becomes policy. Religion versus atheism could be seen as a microcosm of this mechanic, it could very well be a case of meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 27 (view)
Religion into the bliss of insanity
Posted: 10/10/2014 8:05:09 AM
Just to be clear, the current standard of scientific method is thus:

You must begin with a falsifiable hypothesis.
You must show testable results of reproducible experimentation, and/or observation in nature, subject to peer review.

So if someone says there is a god and you say there is not a god, you both failed the very first rule of scientific method.
If someone says I believe in god and you say there is no god, you are the only one who failed the first rule.
You see how this works? It's a logic test. It doesn't actually matter which one fails the test, it's about identifying idiots so you can keep them out of legislative bodies, or put them in one if you want that kind of world.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 26 (view)
Religion into the bliss of insanity
Posted: 10/10/2014 7:58:24 AM
My agnosticism is wholly due to a strict self discipline to adhere literally to the scientific method, under which is categorically stated all hypotheses are falsifiable, ergo any absolute statement lacking absolute evidence and carefully worded to represent only the evidence itself, without conclusion is strictly unscientific and fails the simple logic test.

Any supernatural assertion, no matter how infantile or ridiculous cannot be tested by very definition. It is I whom are the bigger man to say, of course it's possible under the given condition. A space dragon could fart universes if it has the special powers of not being constrained by any physically observed constraints in observation of nature. How realistic you think it is just doesn't come into it, they worded it right, and a no is arrogance and ego, not very scientific.

The very premise of divinity is supernatural in nature. So any answer other than being absolutely possible (under the elicited condition), is personal and unscientific.

Now get over yourselves on that point, then start telling religious people about how morally wrong they are in other ways. Because you're hardly a shining role model if you can't even manage that. Put simply: people who think wrong can't tell others they think wrong.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 22 (view)
Recently turned 30, are women ageist?
Posted: 10/10/2014 7:33:13 AM
All proxies to a lack of social success are self fulfilling prophecies.

Due to diversity alone there is no such thing as a recipe of social success or social failure. There is only wax and wane. The most politically incorrect ape has more available acquaintences on any given day than the most perfect alpha pretty boy, all the guidelines to social success are a sales pitch about selling you something else.

Just do what you do as you do it. Some days you're all alone, never be lonely. Others you're swamped with comaraderie but might find it irritating. Socialisation is the greatest gift we have, it happens all by itself, no matter what you do, and all your concerns and disconcertination are exactly 100% self delusion. But don't even worry so much about that, economic systems are structured on the latent tendency to self delude, otherwise we'd never have put clothes on and built cities.
It's all theatre, don't take it so seriously. It happens by itself and when it doesn't, you're just arrogant thinking that's anything but perfectly normal and perfectly common.
You're not a god basically, no there is no hand waving to command the humans to dance, dance like puppets. Your life is the same as everybody else's.

You don't need to do anything for social success, including being sexually accosted by underwear models, other than just remain healthy and well adjusted in every other area of your life. Have the time a degree of social success goes unnoticed by the very person experiencing it simply because they're all stuffed up inside their own heads and can't see the forest for the trees. Got loneliness? Do more as an altruist to salve your boredom because that's boredom.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 26 (view)
Should I do what my mum did so my dates like me for my personality??
Posted: 10/10/2014 7:10:12 AM
Hi Polly. Sounds like your only fundamental lacking is a simple little rule you learn as you get older about self confidence.
1. you always have your own opinion, even if you don't quite know what it is yet.
2. if you are unsure or undecided about some suggestion or decision: the answer is no.

Unsure is a no. The only time you give a yes is when it's a definite yes. That's actually the difference between yes and no.
People think no is the definite answer, which is ignorance. It's easy to make someone pick a yes if they're not sure and think no should be definite. No isn't definite, yes is definite.

You're welcome.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 17 (view)
Thanks for reading - not sure what path to take :(
Posted: 10/4/2014 5:29:07 PM
Sounds like a perfectly normal 20-something youthood, discovering yourself and who you like, these things take time.

Follow your heart but just try to really listen to it. The only great mistakes are the ones we regret, the only things we truly regret is not doing what we wanted to do.

Try this mental exercise: picture no matter what you did, it worked out terrible. Whichever one you chose, they both left you. So now, which would you rather spend those last doomed moments with. That's the path of least regret.
Then what you do is be hopeful it doesn't work out bad. But what you really wanted, was always what you really wanted. The trick is just uncovering it from all the other stuff that gets piled onto young peoples' lives.

It's when you're middle aged and really know yourself you can decide big things off the top of your head. Everyone stuffed it up all the time when young. So just pick the best loser to be a true winner, assume everything is a loser. It's the falsehood that something is a winner that leads people astray.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 32 (view)
POF Guy of My Dreams - Has a Horrible Dog
Posted: 10/4/2014 5:14:32 PM
A human being is far more an apex predator than a dog. Dogs might want to test this or be anxious and frustrated in the face of this, but instinctively they know it as long as you do. They only become a real problem when they're about your weight or close to and have emotional problems, which unfortunately means the threat level is high enough to demand a readiness to immediately respond lethally, sad but true, getting maimed by some dog isn't a worthy ambition for a human. 90% of dogs however, even relatively vicious ones can be readily cowed with little more than physical determination and emotional commitment, and they only need this show of force once or twice to get the idea.

ie. treat a snappy or persistant dog like a naughty child, escalate force until it backs down, rinse and repeat and dog is trained, at least in regards to hanging around you. Now you can give it treats.

The owner has obviously never set appropriate boundaries and the dog is confused. If you do intent sticking around, put its head straight on how it's going to be from now on. With finality. Owner doesn't like it, he can tell you to go. Then you're not walking away from a relationship because of a dog, you're walking away because the other person was an idiot.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 31 (view)
Psychotic or Logical
Posted: 4/12/2013 4:31:59 PM

Pathology is the study of disease, whereby a patient condition is distressing to the patient (from pathos meaning suffering).

Concise definition of psychopathy, coined in the mid-19th century is disease of the mind.
As a medical diagnoses the assertion was that a treatable biological or genetic condition was directly resulting aberrant behaviour, the corroberative assertion that descriptors include the patient's lack of an innate facility for empathy and other "normal social behaviour" but this was never a definition of psychopathy as tickle_me_pank posted in his ignorant tirade competing with my earlier clarification of terms, it was just a presumption so used by psychotherapists like Freud as a descriptor or "symptom".

Concise definition of sociopathy is social illness, of which antisocial personality disorder is a condition. It is the assertion that pathological criminal or violent behaviour is wilfully endeavoured by the patient usings means of creative self justification, primarily by blaming his victims for his behaviour towards them.

As I mentioned earlier, in medical science sociopathy has largely replaced psychopathy as the behavioural condition behind criminal insanity. However in criminal psychology things are still a little more old school.
In either case much in terms of physical evidence relating to behavioural and psychological conditions are a chicken and egg argument. Changes in brain activity maybe due to the behavioural condition, or may have caused the condition, however current neurological research shows that brain activity is amorphous and adaptive so it is most likely that when a person exercises antisocial behaviour for an extended period, their brain activity changes to suit, not the other way around. Thus sociopathy is more likely than psychopathy for the same conditions.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 8 (view)
downgrading to lower education or profession on profile
Posted: 4/12/2013 2:54:58 AM
Well everything changes depending where you stand doesn't it?

You might be surprised to discover many "self made people" with higher education and professional, high income earning employment were facilitated by socio-economic background, despite claims of "doing it on my own" it's just not the same thing as being born under an overpass to primary authorities/caregivers that have the IQ of autistic children and the demeanour of silverback gorillas to impress their world views on kids now is it? So no it doesn't come down to how bright that kid is.

And then there is one plain disparity in an industrialist democracy clearly shown flagrantly in commercial media/marketing whereby it is far more uncommon for men to have the present choice of sexualisation opportunities as enhanced tool usage or construction to achieve personal goals. Being flirty at work is far more likely to get you up on charges than it is to put your boss in a good mood everytime you walk into the room. Acting stupid just inspires people to call you an ***hole, not take care of whatever you don't want to do for you.

Then you have competitive social cultural memes in americanised communities whereby confidence is more highly valued than perceived vulnerability, self image more highly valued than interdependence, pandering more highly valued than cooperative responsibility.

So in some cases what you wind up with is "educated, professional women" which think they're intimidating. People don't walk away from intimidating, all the badboy and trashy girl relationships in the universe should tell you that. They walk away from people they think are ***holes, but can't be bothered rowing in a barbed wire canoe to explain how and why said person is an ***hole.

If you're successful, the most important character trait you can have is humility, not arrogance. And that doesn't mean giving to amnesty international, it means how you treat the guy in the corner store, in fact how you think of him which although you can't see it, determines how he feels treated.

When someone walks away from you don't think "I'm intimidating" try "wonder if I seemed offensive to them?" Like when you hear hooves, don't think zebras, think horsies.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 61 (view)
Bipolar: Detectable During Dating?
Posted: 4/11/2013 2:28:00 AM
By definition a psychological condition is a pathological variation from normal (subjective) behaviour, and therein lay the rub. The life of clinicians is particularly difficult with behavioural disorders, the primary determining factor as listed among internationally recognised swiss conventions of mental competency of a physical nature is patient distress.
Let me say that again, the primary determining factor of a psychiatric condition, psychological or behavioural disorder is patient distress. It is prelimenary to all other qualifiers of any kind, it is the difference between eccentric and pathological.

Here is where mundane sociology and clinical psychology clash head to head. On the one hand why would one assume a variation of normal behaviour would be normally encountered, it's a logical fallacy. On the other hand neuroses is a valid condition whereby you don't have a condition but act like you do. How's that for a logical fallacy. And ultimately the wont, desire, belief or need to have a condition is the primary qualifier that one exists in strictest medical terms. Biochemistry and brain function are wholly subjective and a chicken and egg argument in neuroscience.

It is logically sound to assert that any regional culture which attains a common pro rata behavioural variation redefines normalcy in medical terms.

If so many americans have ADHD and bipolar disorder, they are no longer disorders but cultural memes.
So maybe weening out people which are prone to psychological conditions is as easy as determining how easily they are led by the nose with popular media as opposed to being intellectually competent.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 6 (view)
Psychotic or Logical
Posted: 4/10/2013 3:09:08 PM
I don't know if you're a psychopath, but you certainly show all the symptoms of a person who is used to solving problems in a sterile environment based solely on numbers and binary logic.

Well actually first of all the clinical world is firmly in two camps regarding "psychopathy", an inherited or physiologically aberrant behavioural disposition. Many have replaced the term with the more contemporary one "sociopathy", which is the disassociation of behavioural responsibility to that of the victim. In terms of associated behavioural instances (eg. eating babies) the terms are interchangeable and depend entirely on which camp the clinician or criminal psychologist personally leans towards.

ie. it is no longer presumed the stereotypical serial killer grew up with an innate desire to torture animals for example, but that as a violent criminal he pathologically holds his victims responsible for his desire to cause them harm.

And as it turns out it is much easier to understand a sociopathic rationale than it is to comprehend the very concept of the psychopathic one, which of itself infers the latter is an old world fiction (with its roots in the days of psychiatry when lobotomies were lawfully practised medical treatment).

As to the question/exercise it is a thoroughly subjective social sciences tool with no relevance to clinical neuroscience and very arguable value of any kind. In the hopeless either/or argument both answers are objectively amoral and both are subjectively moral, but there is no immoral response and no objectively moral response from the limited choices given.

The protagonist is not directly responsible for the impending accident nor any possible result, but they are directly responsible for deaths only if they elect to intervene, however this responsibility results in a lesser collatoral than inaction.
Since either choice is inherently amoral, if viewed as a train driver company policy and lawful action are an employment duty under the condition, which is to cause the least amount of collatoral from the bad choices.
When viewed as a passenger or a bystander however, the lawful action is to act lawfully, ie. it is illegal to commit murder even if you personally believe it will result in a lesser harm than failing to commit murder.

So the two scenarios are different. One is a train driver amorally performing his lawful duties to cause less collatoral with few choices. The second is a bystander amorally performing his citizenship responsibilities of remaining lawful rather than personally deciding when it is okay to be a violent criminal.

Thus the logical fallacy of psychopathy as a clinical diagnosis is shown: the goalposts are set by regional legal culture and not by physical medical evidence even where some neurological condition maybe observed in violent criminals (a chicken and egg argument that doesn't support genetic predisposition).
No "psychopathy gene" has ever been identified, the assertion is unfounded but sociopathy is clearly understood rationale.

And in either scenario if you just do what is lawfully required, you do not qualify as a sociopath by definition.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 33 (view)
Posted: 4/8/2013 11:41:41 PM
*mental note: stop messaging women that you want to sniff their hair*
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 61 (view)
Bacon Hater! Worst/funniest date evah!
Posted: 4/8/2013 11:29:04 PM
OP, how did you miss all the regular sane guys in the world who'd be moved and appreciative of just some time with a lady and her kind smile and perhaps innocuous touch, in order to go on a date with an obnoxious arsehole? Do you find it difficult to identify one from the other at a glance? Pretty much anyone could give some pointers...

So I don't get it. That's clearly what you wanted if you sought and found it when there is so much else available all the time anywhere.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 139 (view)
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/6/2013 10:32:58 PM

Concerning matter (as opposed to but not excluding energy), everything is made of the different elements. The different kinds of atoms. An element is according to what atom it is. An atom is made of subatomic particles. Protons, neutrons, and electrons. They are defined by different configurations of these subatomic particles. These particles are in turn made of quarks. It's a proton, neutron, or electron depending on the configuration of quarks. All the different elements/atoms, except one kind, were/are manufactured within stars. That one element is, was, hydrogen. The first stars were nothing but. And at that time there were no other elements, until stars began making them through nuclear fusion. I think that the best way to think about this is that hydrogen is just the default configuration that subatomic particles come together as, before and without anything affecting things otherwise. But so, what might be beyond this, beyond quarks, and "where" might it all "come from"?

Just a minor correction I'd make here, more of a clarification really not in any way contradicting the general points.
When using this particular context (cosmological modelling) it's best not to think of subatomic particles as particles or even refer to them as such. Best referred to in this context specifically, as wavefunctions or wave-particle duality for prosperity sake. They act like a wave and function like a particle, in reality they don't really exist as classical-but-very-small-objects themselves as the pre-QM models supposed, the disparity between quantum and macroscopic scales in theoretical physics is bound in this essence.
They are for all intents and purposes, infitesimal properties without substance but nevertheless may define substance by imposition of mass and the various quantized fields (EM, strong force, weak force).

If you have a bunch of nothing and you could impose an infitesimal variation of this nothing, by definition some kind of charge or quark, property values and not particle descriptions, just a variation of uniformity (brownian motion), then by definition you have the composition of "subatomic particles" or quantized wavefunctions, which themselves are just measurements within a field, given of course there is something to measure in the field, like some mass-energy (the very progenator of spacetime itself).

Might it be that when and where conditions are right in a given region of space, when it's more truly a vacuum, so lacking of any matter or any kind of energy, forces, or energy transduction of any kind, that matter is allowed to 'fizzle' into existence?

Essentially this is what happens if you take Expansion Hypothesis, the Current Model of cosmology (ie. "Big Bang theory"), all the way to a creation story instead of just a cosmological modelling, what you wind up with is what you've arrived at here, referred to as the Black Hole Universe model.
It's reverse engineered by heading the other way to arrive at the beginning. If you follow the math and let the universe die a "heat death" in entropy as an infinite, open, curved spacetime then eventually you have total nothing...except there's a logical fallacy with this.

Because there was something before heat death there remains the potential for something in the intrinsic state of whatever is left of the universe following heat death, it's just the laws of thermodynamics since the universe represents the absolute (open) system of work regarding energy so cannot lose or gain any energy in total, and the very term "universe" means everything, not talking M-branes or other dimensions or anything like this, just plain old classical GR and one universe.

What this translates to in theoretical physics is the virtual particle field, meaning a field which has absolutely nothing but the latent potential for something, or the assertion that virtual particles and antiparticle pairings constantly pop into existence as a default state of the universe and annihilate each other instantly. Just a QM way of saying "nothing, but something is not prohibited by absolutist nothing as some kind of restriction." Even as nothing it is still a field because it once had something, and those somethings are latent in the field, like I said simple thermodynamics.

Okay well here's the thing. If this is true and according to current modelling it must be...but is an unfalsifiable hypothesis so is not dealt with and remains within the realm of philosophy and banter, anyways if this is true then Brownian motion must apply. Brownian motion is an observed phenomenon whereby any uniform field necessarily experiences extreme variation, which at first glance appears to challenge the third law of thermodynamics but in fact adheres to the second law because of the virtual particle field or "information potential" inherently contained in a universe which once at any time contained anything ever in the past. That is not strictly speaking an objective thermodynamic equilibrium, so the second law still applies. Brownian motion does apply.
Thing about Brownian motion is any extreme variation in a field of virtual particles is by definition a particle and antiparticle mismatch, one is created with higher value than the other, spontaneous something from nothing because the information potential is still there. Or, because once was, always must be when talking everything everywhere (1st law thermodynamics).

Now toss in GR. If you have a big nothing and you create anything in it, any kind of significant variation whatsoever you literally define mass-energy, no matter how infitesimal. The GR result, in the absence of any other mass-energy to hold up any shape of spacetime, is a singularity of spacetime folding around the sudden mass-energy...

Big Bang.

Over and over, trillions of years between.
Because when you use the term universe as opposed to multiverse as your model, you're referring to everything everywhere, full stop. So classical mechanics apply. And they work. But again this is unfalsifiable due to the photon veil so it's all just philosophising.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 46 (view)
If you were the other woman - would you want to know?
Posted: 4/6/2013 1:57:56 PM
A lie of omission is one whereby you don't just speak freely or as your conscience dictates, thus you have something to hide.
So if somebody else and not you cheated, why would you have something to hide about it?

If you feel inspired to contact his poontang-on-the-side and inform her, go right ahead. The only adult response for him is to wear the responsibility of his actions and take it in stride. If he couldn't handle getting caught his life lesson is don't do it.
Any other response from him is infantile and can be treated like a child throwing a tantrum. If he gives you any grief make fun of him for being a baby.

But don't contact her with vehement emotion or in a vindictive manner to cause trouble. It should be matter-of-factly purely to inform and then go your separate ways again, otherwise what you're really doing is attacking her, not shining a light on him and she will respond as such.

Of course sometimes the "other woman" is as big an infant as the kid in the cookie jar so it could just add to an annoying experience either way. But hey the trick is just be you in your life and do things as you would do them, then even if it works out bad at least you were being yourself so have no regrets.
It's acting angrier or in some way other than you are as a person normally that leads to regrets, not things working out bad or good but how you handled yourself when you look back.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 18 (view)
Still nervous by the time you have the 3rd date??????
Posted: 4/6/2013 1:32:46 PM
I had a gf who was a conversational dependent and found it exhaustive and unrewarding. I found it was actually significant of her overall development in terms of assertive objectivity as opposed to whimsical subjectivity in world view, and problem solving techniques.

What's more the very same things which attracted her were also the things she despised when her mood is different. How do I make the video work when we're all lovey becomes stop telling me what to do when she's angry. It takes the kind of person who thinks that's how normal relationships should function to consider this a healthy one but I prefer peers to dependents.

What she needs is someone to be codependent with. Complementing each other doesn't mean you make up for her failings, that's one sided. It means her strengths are different but comparable to her spouse's. This isn't a complementary type of relationship for you, it's one where you carry the other person and eventually are the bad guy because you're responsible for all the ups and downs and will be held singly responsible for the downs.

We all need someone no more developed than ourselves, for conscience sake. Yet also as developed as ourselves, for humanity sake.
You're not entitled to relationships, they're not a currency you earn, being alone is actually your default state and anything more is a blessing to be appreciated, but must be honest.

So my contention is that you should ask yourself, in all honesty do you get the distinct impression as you're getting to know this woman that your role in a relationship with her will be carrying her through the relationship? Because those are the ones that typically involve losing your house and the kids later down the track, and thinking you really should've seen this coming from day one.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 11 (view)
Pagan should be a religious choice! =)
Posted: 4/4/2013 1:11:54 AM
The issue at least in Commonwealth nations regarding formally recognised religions is a legislative one. Formal religions qualify for legislative exemptions regarding taxation and community organisation welfare and support groups, so state/regional parliaments are loathe to provide an open welcome mat for anyone who decides their little group of alien conspiracy theorists should qualify for significant tax exemptions and other legislative concessions designed for community welfare organisations, when they're just wackadoos dancing around shrubberies and talking with imaginary dragons on new moons.

Parliament will therefore convene and rule that community sectarian or cultlike organisation like the "church" of scientology or "children of god" are to be regarded as cults and sects so they cannot claim religious exemptions regarding the legislative rules they have to follow. If they operate as a business they must pay taxes as a business. If they function as a community organisation they must obey the same rules a scouting group or other organisation has to observe without claiming religious freedom to say, marry 12 year olds or engage in polygamy.

The US may have similar reasoning. By recognising a loose grouping as a formal religious organisation it maybe subject to certain lawful exemptions to the legislation regular community groups or private functionaries must on the basis of religious freedoms and liberties.

Becaues the rules are different in law, other formal organisations are compelled to call a spade a spade where religious claims are concerned, and an individual making religious claims is just a person saying some stuff, just because they say it is religious doesn't mean it is in a concise and legislatively defined manner. Could just mean you're mentally disturbed, or have an agenda.

And something like "pagan" as a religion is such a loose grouping dungeons and dragons gamers and pedophile rings could very well claim adherence in the argumentation of their personal reasoning. Australian parliaments did recently recognise Wicca as a formal religion, because it is a specific grouping with a coherent belief system which is common to all claimants. But the generalized term "pagan" can mean just about anything anyone says it does, which you kind of recognized in your definition of it in the opening post.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 2 (view)
One more thing
Posted: 4/2/2013 10:02:12 PM
The pages are sorted by most recent log in so you only need to view the first few pages, after that they may not even come to the site anymore but are just old accounts.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 5 (view)
Well here I am
Posted: 4/2/2013 9:50:46 PM
Come to australia and I'll hang out with you dating as a friend, maybe hold hands because you're pretty and seem nice and I think I like you, I don't think you're anal at all but rather a lady, marriage is moving a bit quickly I think, don't you? And sex is really the last thing on my mind but that's because I'm really just picturing things like pulling out a chair for you at a nice place or kissing your hand and things like that.

But one word of advice, don't seek to disassociate sexuality on the side of genuinely interested parties as an undesirable trait because you'll be shooting fish in a barrel. If a guy likes you that won't be far from the surface, if he's a sleaze and it's his only purpose it'll be foremost on his mind, but either way it'll be there so it's a mistake to focus on that as a disqualifier/inverse-qualifier, what you want to do is focus on how interested he is in spending platonic and personality time with you as well as possibly contribute to a little charm between you.

You'd be surprised how many women have stopped messaging with me simply because the conversation got interesting instead of flirty. But I like to think it weeded out the transients.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 13 (view)
Female I met up with had a breakdown
Posted: 4/2/2013 9:32:05 PM
A nervous breakdown is essentially where information is passed in a confused manner through neurological structures due to stress, it's a perfectly healthy response in the same way sinuses protect the brain from damage by shutting it down when there's too much bloodflow. Under extreme stress biochemistry can similarly cause brain damage and so chemical information might be spread across a wider variety of neurological structures so that all sorts of perceptual responses to mundane stimuli are experienced. It sometimes resembles a psychosis in symptoms but is a perfectly healthy response under extreme stress to prevent physical damage. It is nevertheless very distressing to experience, not the least because you might think you've gone insane, where you're really quite healthy and simply under or have been in extreme stress.

The main thing the patient requires is reliable, consistent acceptance to give her time to relax on a subconscious level without feeling as though the experience has ruined her life or burned her bridges. We're not machines and as biological organisms we react to things whether we like it or not. It's just a passing thing and not in any way significant of a genetic aberrance or tendency to psychosis, any person given the right conditions will hallucinate and experience psychotic symptoms purely due to extreme stress. Anyone at all, and it is because they are healthy not because they are unhealthy.

Let her know she can say anything about it and it won't phase you or cause you to judge her. Let her know you empathize and sympathize and at worst her experience is an interesting conversation topic between you rather than an influence upon the way you perceive her as a personality and conscious mind.

It will subside and pass. She will be fine and no less for it, no different for it. Just something that happened once, like skinning a knee. It's really no big deal unless the listener is the one who can't handle it. Some people are paranoid about anything involving psychiatric health, and it's the main cause for stigma towards patients whom are in actual fact, no different than those whom are paranoid towards them.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 14 (view)
She is not satisfied with what I make. Should I continue this relationship?
Posted: 4/2/2013 8:53:36 PM
If I was you I'd rather hang around people with whom I tend to wonder how to come up with a funny remark, or fun venue to go or things to do, rather than someone who makes me wonder how I can be a bigger financial success or feel inadequate about my financial status. It's just depressing and eventually you just get sick of it, you're already unloading a bit here about her, eventually it'll turn into you actually arguing with her instead of complaining to the internet. Nobody likes to be around someone who makes them feel bad.

How you feel around a person is a thermometer of how compatable and appropriate you are together. Inadequacy and conceit doesn't seem real positive to me. The thoughts you've expressed about her on this subject seems to paint in bold strokes to me that she'll be on her way with the first wealthier guy who comes along and lays a sleazy line on her anyway.
She's just one of those people who're in love with money, which psychologically speaking means a narcissist using a proxy and disassociation. Such a person cannot love other people, they love money because they love power because they're possessed by an image in a pool of themselves.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 45 (view)
Religion and morality. Hardwired in the Brain ?
Posted: 4/1/2013 6:54:15 PM
Aries you made an utterly nonsensical post. Clarify if you have a point but it looks like you're just beating your chest saying nothing at all.

That aside, here is scientific method: you must start with a falsifiable hypothesis, show testable results of reproducible experimentation and observation in nature, subject to peer review.
If you would like to make a scientific assertion simply follow the method. Nothing to do with me.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 43 (view)
Religion and morality. Hardwired in the Brain ?
Posted: 4/1/2013 6:34:27 PM
Firstly there is no such thing as a discipline of science called neurotheology. There is an academic discipline called theology (palaeo/anthropology) and a hard science called neurology (medicine), plus a social science called neuroscience (psychology).

Secondly CNN and other tabloid newsmedia does not qualify as any kind of documentary reference, they're not even serious journalism but entirely commercial enterprise and political agenda, what you need is peer reviewed journals like those you find at the science daily site or similar. Someone CNN or any commercial media house calls an "expert" is what qualified academicans usually refer to as pseudoscientists, melodramatic reactionaries and extremists. They are selected to fit the objectives of business owners in the business of influencing the general public for political and personal reasons, like say increasing stocks value they've purchased with public opinion during senate commitees on domestic and international policies.

Thirdly speculation of brain structure as related to modern theological belief structures is immediately falsified by the fact Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis necessarily had a markedly different brain structure due to shape of the brain cavity and yet actively practised religion millennia before we did, including altar construction, shamanism, animism and burial ceremonies clearly displayed in the archaeological record. They didn't have much of a frontal lobe so religion clearly played no balancing role in terms of brain structure.

Fourthly the very premise of regional brain structure as related to modern theological belief is falsified by current medical research findings that regional brain mapping is an obsolete social science unsupported with medical evidence to the contrary, in which variations between patients of regional brain stucture implicitly denotes amorphous neurological functions which are only likely to become located within common areas between individuals but may freely be formed elsewhere for any reason, including brain injury or varied developmental background. Asserting particular brain regions as "the speech centre" or "the area controlling musical appreciation" has been distinctly falsified by physical records among neurosurgical patients, the results published at German and Scottish medical research centres.

What happened was psychiatrists in the late 19th century used vivisection to identify and locate specific brain regional functionality based upon an abstract hypothesis that these would be common between all people. They are not. Regional brain functionality mapping is an old world science that just doesn't hold true with modern neurosurgery results, patients with severe brain trauma (including one German teenager who was literally born with a brain hemisphere missing) have recovered complete and full brain regional functionality because it freely forms nuerological structures as needed, not by any DNA plan for mapping.

So if your brain needed balancing between differing regions, it would form neurological structures to do so during development which don't have to include any self imposed theological dogma.

And finally the classical and ancient period scribes whom wrote the religious scripture we now create fandom and dogma surrounding did not think of the concepts in the same way we do today. We are in fact far more superstitious and inept regarding religious scripture than any ancient practise, which was largely political movement in lieu of modern policing and governing technologies which did not exist then.
It is shown clearly by qualified linguistics study of archaeological scriptural reference that terms used described mundane events and assertions, using period nomenclature of parable and allegory due quite simply to limited written language forms. For example old hebrew is a non-constructive language with a small vocabulary and cannot be used to describe complex ideas without using simplistic references and parables. If you wanted to say, "the road is dangerous ahead" you would have to use a limited set of runic characters and hope the allegory gets the point across, ie. "big stag stomps the ground above much death and gnashing of teeth". Because there's no characters for "road" or "dangerous" or "ahead" existing in the entire language.
And that's how scripture winds up sounding like fairy tales, not because anyone ever until the modern age of incredible ignorance ever thought it was literal.

So how on earth an historically inaccurate appreciation of religious systems could've developed to balance an amorphous regional brain structure when the reference is of one thing but the data proposes another, and the premise is falsified to begin with, is beyond me.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 75 (view)
Consciousness: How will we define it?
Posted: 4/1/2013 2:50:16 AM
seems pretty straight forward. In etymology the term was coined in colloquial to mean "inner knowledge" in the 17th century. In the 18th century it became a word unto itself meaning "state of being aware".

Thus as a defined word it must mean "self awareness" which is to demonstrably say, you can answer questions creatively (without reference of any kind). In its most rudimentary form the lie of a child is a great descriptor of consciousness. It maybe nonsensical to lie about clearly having your hand in a cookie jar to an adult, but to a small child it is terribly intelligent and ought to work.

A poster above back in 2010 was being a little too metaphysical about black holes btw. They're just a math model for an exotic stellar condition, being a density such that strong force is broken and the Standard Model no longer applies, in the absence of applicable math then a singularity is formed but it is only a mathematical expression. If it were a physical postulate you have a serious problem in the Reisner-Nordstrom solution whereby a spinning black hole forms a static field. When this happens you would have a naked singularity which is no different to talking about dragons. It's not gonna happen. The Standard Model is incomplete, that's what the black hole models/solutions tells us, not a lot more.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 45 (view)
Chatting with a man that says he has been stalked a few times.
Posted: 4/1/2013 1:31:57 AM
How do I get a stalker? because my problem is kind of the opposite to making women go away.

and who in heck lets a homeless woman sleep in a blanket outside, at least give her a cup of soup for godsake, campfire toast some marshmallows with her, a little bit of kindness goes a long way

turning up uninvited, what he doesn't like surprises? Somebody's not getting a birthday present next year and he's already blacklisted from santa by the homeless chick.

and calling too much hey? The house could've been on fire, I think it's a bit condescending to disregard community awareness and social conscience like this.

All in all this bloke sounds like a poopoohead.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 39 (view)
Posted: 3/31/2013 4:07:28 PM
You failed to use primary source references. The old testament in particular is not an academic reference for its content, you need to use the torah and transliterate independently using qualified linguistics since many of its terms are taken from old hebrew and have a wide variety of meanings. They can be translated a wide variety of ways, the "LORD God" is a mistranslation of "yawheh elohim" which is a male aspect of the term "creation event" and doesn't denote any particular supernatural figure or character. "Angel of the LORD" is a mistranslation of "nphlm" which means "man of renown", etc.

Never use the old testament as a reference of any christian dogma without primary research and qualified linguistics. Secondly new testament references should be similarly researched academically, using qualified references and primary source material wherever possible as again you will find tremendous disparity between fundamentalist and pentacostal dogma with what was actually intended to be conveyed by the original authors.
Biblical script was originally intended far more as political manifesto than science and reference material.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 37 (view)
Posted: 3/31/2013 3:58:26 PM
Why don't we prose a very simplistic and extreme question for illustrative purposes.

In your own words, why is murder immoral?

My answer is that there has to be a rational explanation for it to be immoral, that the contemporary substitute for the word immoral is irrational. So why is murder irrational is what answers the question. And if you can't come up with a rational explanation, then you don't know why. No reference that does not explain why is adequate since the very term moral elicits a point or a reason in and of itself.
So an answer is not "because it's just wrong" or "because it's illegal" (although that is one rationale but lacks a corroberative reference on its own so is amoral for reasoning).
An answer would be along the lines of being social animals dependent upon cooperative efforts to safety and gainful experience of life. People killing each other elicits threat and danger to each other wherever it can be subjectively justified. Hence not only is murder irrational unless you plan on being the only human alive on a desert island, but it also elicits the conclusion that humans killing humans in general for any reason, lawfully or otherwise is ultimately irrational. I call that the moral to this story.

So what's your answer?
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 266 (view)
Mensa? anyone?
Posted: 3/31/2013 3:30:02 PM
Mensa uses its own IQ testing to determine membership, there is no guarantee it is any of the standardized tests and of them, which one or what control body is used for the mean average to measure variation.
The church of scientology has its own IQ test too.

I've met two Mensa members. One on a date whom I found to be far more intellectually competitive than possessed of any advanced analytical skills. She was well read, but I didn't find her particularly bright, and spent half the conversation correcting her blanket assertions. I imagined her parenting skills would run along the lines of old school rote and lash, rather than explanation and references. When she predictably said there was no spark between us I was actually relieved. I didn't really like the way she treated staff or patrons at the cafe anyway, from what I could tell she'd be an exhaustive person to be around very much, someone you'd be apolegizing for and correcting constantly.

The other Mensa member was a forum troll who published blogs all over one of the date site forums about his racial theories, basically a eugenicist with no idea that assertion was soundly falsified by the fifties by anthropologists and biologists and then again in the 90s with the advent of modern genetic sciences. It's only really redneck survivialist nut conspiracy theorists who still hold to such old world views as racial intelligence.

Despite being purely anecdotal reference, in a word the two I've met were childish and here's the thing, IQ testing is not about intellectual potential which is actually identical between healthy brains. IQ testing began as a psychiatric/anthropological concern regarding "mental age" as influenced by regional education curriculums. Its purpose was to develop adaptive regional curriculums so that students from rural schools with different home activities/chores environments than students from suburban or city schools could go to the same central universities at the same education levels with the same standards of academic education. Because what was noticed, in France during the mid-19th century for example was that differing home environments influenced the kind of academic curriculums which resulted in the same education standards, when using the same type of curriculum between suburban and rural schools, education standards varied at the same level. Kids growing up milking cows instead of playing with building blocks respond to different ways of teaching mathematics, so to speak.
That's what IQ testing was about. Not about saying one person is genetically superior to another in the realm of academia.

So it's most accurately expressed as a measure of "mental age" not "intelligence". That alone can tell you if a high score on one particular method of testing is worth the paper it's written on. Do they act like a petulant child?

And based on those two anecdotal references I think the Mensa testing method is in need of review and references.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 47 (view)
How does one influence LUCK??
Posted: 3/31/2013 2:04:14 PM
Actually the philosophical point of view, discussed often during say a course in philosophy, is that life is ruled by luck and coincidence, neither good nor bad and neither can be influenced (was a poet and didn't know it).

The scientific point of view, discussed often during say, a course in biological or astronomical (hard) sciences, is that life on a personal level is governed by complex evolutionary diversity (chaos theory) and random chance. One is too complex for prediction (but can be reverse engineered reliably for recording), the other is well, random (like socioeconomic status at birth or even genetic disposition for any given sample selected by apple bobbing).

Luck is a valid concept yet is also a meaningless one.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 6 (view)
Posted: 3/30/2013 10:15:53 AM
Felinity either you believe men are like all humans, so like women have diverse personalities and individuality, or you believe men are another species which uses a collective intelligence.

If men are diverse and individual then follow the logic: a wide breadth of variation is present in any social grouping. If you are encountering repeated behaviour among those you've been in relationships with the only logical conclusion is that you have been most attracted to and selective towards the variation which happens to fall into the behaviour you described.

I for one, know that I don't problem solve that way. I'm a rational thinker not an emotional reactionary and what you described is emotionally reactive behaviour, people who react to their emotions without distancing themselves for objective problem solving in personal issues. Clearly for some reason you are selecting men with this personality type to date.

It maybe a jagged little pill to swallow, but it seems you like the simple type, the reactionary. A lot of people do, it's the big fish in a small pond argument, dating someone who makes you feel intelligent when you're really fairly average in the IQ department might make you feel smarter, but dating idiots has its pitfalls, clearly.

Still, personal lives are freely subjective, so we act to suit ourselves sometimes without thinking very far ahead. You're just getting this same behaviour back in return. Date smarter guys who don't respond to everything in the universe based solely on how it makes them feel. Of course you might become a smaller fish in a big pond that way, but an old world moral is that humility walks in hand with maturity.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 6 (view)
Posted: 3/30/2013 9:50:07 AM
I think it is too easy to blur the line between the popularist meaning of "morality" and narcissism.

Generally I find that old world terms (which most fundamentalist religious terms fall into the category of) are best defined strictly within their etymology and original use. Words like "evil" meaning literally "unlife" in old english, its modern equivalent is closest to the word "ill" or "unwell" and nothing to do with supernatural malevolent forces except to say that somewhere between the 8th century and modern medicine (largely a product of the late 19th century) it was popular to start thinking of illnesses (eg. plague) as sent by malevolent supernatural forces. Even in classical thinking (pre-mediaeval era) being beset by illness or personal issues was as medical as supernatural and purely homeopathic medicine was practised alongside and separately to magic for healing, as shown by medical artefacts such as the Nippur tablets (ca.5000BCE). In old hebrew the role of words translated to "evil" was always intended as more medical, sociological and psychological than supernatural, the very place of Sheol (mistranslated as being Hell) actually describes a personal state of impoverishment, vagrancy and desperation, it is entirely an earthly state and makes no reference to any supernatural or otherworldly existence.

Yet among this primary source research I find a more accurate use of the word "evil" when making a reference. It describes nothing supernatural and should be used simply as the word "live" spelled backwards, as it was originally intended. Or in other words, simply replace with the modern equivalent of "unwell behaviour" describes its original use accurately, in a modern context. It draws a line in the sand for fundies who toss the term "evil" around when declaring enemies, like Westboro protesting abortion clinics I would refer to as unwell behaviour. People attending abortion clinics I would not describe as unwell behaviour. Ergo clearly the protestors are the "evil" in that scenario since they cause real world hurt which is unwell justified by abstract hurt which is not unwell but just imagined.

Similarly the term "moral" in etymology just means a point to a story, a lesson. Its modern definition of a code of behaviour or descript of character are popularist definitions which evolved outside the scope of original use later, like the term "evil" to become an entirely different meaning and losing all original reference to become a colloquial abstract.

In strictest definition practising a literal mimicry of biblical passage, eg. don't eat meat on fridays but you don't know why other than being a dogmatic rule, then you are not being moral at all, it is in fact amoral because you have lost the point to this practise. The intention is to remind one of the referenced parable in which this practise occurs, which is the moral of the story and if you're just going through the motions you hardly learned anything from it, so it is amoral.

I find most people use the popularist modern evolution of the term "moral" and forgot that you have to be able to explain why you act in a certain way rationally in order for it to be accurately described as moral. They just go through the motions and seem to have no idea by doing so they are in strictest definition, ruled by amorality.

Reason is key to being moral. If a teacher cannot explain why a student should do a thing, then that student is not being moral by following instruction, nor is the teacher by claiming it. Both are just being apes ordering and following each other for reasons of animist dominance, not very civilised. In order to be moral you must be able to explain why, rationally. That is what the term originally means in etymology.

What it most definitely does not mean is doing what someone tells you is right just because they told you.
In this context you could say most young people tend to be amoral or immoral, most older people should have learned to become moral. This is merely a reflection of accumulated experience and personal confidence, it actually has not the slightest thing to do with benevolence. It has much more to do with simple ignorance.

Immoral (irrational) or amoral (rationale without corroberative reference) doesn't mean evil (unwell). It just means uneducated or anti-intelligentsia.

As for me, I tend to do everything with demonstrable reason, I tend to corroberate all rationale. When I argue with an employer or friend they have learned to listen whether or not they agree or acquiesce, because there is always a clear reason and point of view they themselves will appreciate. This method of negotiating problem solving governs my life.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 21 (view)
Should I keep pursuing this, or is she just not interested?
Posted: 3/26/2013 9:12:21 PM
chloraform, handcuffs and a plastic lined trunk and you're in bud. Meet in public to put her at ease and then just ask her to guide you reverse parking and get out to check her judgement, wham bang and in the trunk she goes and you're done.

Or you could just move on.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 14 (view)
What do you think?
Posted: 3/26/2013 9:06:42 PM
I take it as nothing is a given until a meet and greet and one can only speak for themselves. It is said even what you know of your best friends is a combination of what you choose to believe and what they choose to show you.

I use a number of descriptors such as how they respond to a wide variety of random consciousness I'm prone to, I'll go from Lorentz transformations to a dog licking his nuts within a sentence so keeping up is really a matter of dropping all salesmanship and speaking truly or you just look like a falsehood as a person. But even so I take nothing for granted, and am competent at getting myself out of trouble so can freely get myself into it as I feel like it.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 8 (view)
That annoying question but I want to know
Posted: 3/26/2013 3:27:10 AM
rohypnol, handcuffs, hammer, ask him. It is inferred what would happen if he lied.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 11 (view)
Is Geekism / Nerdism Evolutionary Undesirable?
Posted: 3/25/2013 1:46:23 AM
I don't disagree with your point Luthion, mine which isn't a counterpoint is that when it comes to the hard physical task accomplishment generally those with more comparative time spent developing those skills will do better than someone who spent the same time developing other skills, and much less time on those ones. That's simple math.
Secondly that "James Bond" was never grunt, he was always "Sheldon Coopers" in reality, their complex combat training is for improvisation, not superiority.
You are taught in Intelligence community training, in National Security forces training, and in Military Special Forces training, not to fight regular grunts in fair fights: you'll lose. A CIA operative, an NSA agent, a Green Beret infiltrator, these are not Ludlum characters capable of flattening the enemy left and right, they're computer geeks with some improv skills and sharp wits. That's the reality of it. And they're ugly and geeky and thoroughly unremarkable, they're selected for qualities like being totally forgettable, for not standing out in a crowd.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 9 (view)
Is Geekism / Nerdism Evolutionary Undesirable?
Posted: 3/23/2013 8:12:54 PM
That's true in a genetic sense Luthion, but not in a practical one due to simple time. I gave a military example in my previous post because military organisation is simple, direct and thoroughly pragmatic, if something isn't true it doesn't survive contact with the enemy. When a military theory is tried and tested, it means it worked in practise under varied conditions and in high stress environments, and any alternative didn't.

Time is the factor which governs trained response. Educated skills task accomplishment is a trained response, doesn't matter how intellectual you are, if you've never opened a book or talked to another person about electronics you cannot function as an electronics engineer, you can only lie about it.
If you've never eaten right and done the physical activities to form a powerful physique, and spent years upon years of testing the mechanics of motion in various athletic/combat scenarios, you cannot function as a high value warrior/soldier, you can only lie about it.
People can lie really well sometimes, to themselves or others.

But it's a time issue. From minimum adequate physical development of 15-22yrs of age to a viable operational capability at 28-45yrs of age, means that on average only some ten years is available for dedicated training and experience in selected fields.

So by and large, grab a 30yr old grunt from the infantry corps and he'll be pretty tough in any combat scenario. Grab a 30yr old mathematician from a university and don't go spending your wages backing him in a boxing match with the grunt.
That's why they have separate officer training and infantry training, time. You have only a lifetime to set up usable skills.

The SuperMan hypothesis, that the Modern Man can be The EveryMan is Nietzschean philosophy, from a man who died in a mental hospital. It is a deluded fiction. The simple basics do apply.
But the point is you can swing a physical contest outside the realm of physical prowess, this is not intellectual, it is merely planning and influencing conditions. That can bring back balance.

Old school kobudo styles work on this basis. You don't fight a samurai in a contest of skill and strength, you do it using superior mechanics and combat conditions. Same for fighter pilots, you don't break off with an enemy aircraft and engage a wild dogfight in a contest of skill and aircraft performance, you attack out of the sun and shoot down stragglers that are damaged, lost or have engine trouble, killing off the weaklings and diminishing the overall enemy force in the long term. Combat is predatorial, not philosophical and dedicated grunts work better than wonderfully rounded beings. It's a fact.
It is the same theory practised by militaries throughout the ages and is even written out in length in modern NATO military handbooks.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 5 (view)
Times are a changing.
Posted: 3/23/2013 5:31:01 PM
Considering each neuron is a databus and each neurological structure a multi-layered networked processor, and there's billions upon billions of them in one brain, if you networked every computer and supercomputer on the planet you still would be eons away from getting anywhere near the data handling or processing capacity of a teenage kid looking at girls on a beach. There's so much data handling and information processing in that one simple millisecond act that Freud could write an entire tome on it and it would lock up every supercomputer on the planet, even if you networked them.
We're millennia away from matching the capability of a biological brain with technology, if it is even ever possible.

AI engineering has a handful of leading researchers that, with the best theory and equipment available one day hope to create a large, complex, expensive machine that would function at best like an autistic child. They won't be replacing humans anytime soon except in highly conditional roles, like the F-22 FCS/Management AI assist...and experienced combat pilots like those of the IAF complain because of less pilot role in preventing critical malfunction meaning when the system itself malfunctions the pilot is a passenger and cannot prevent a crash. That's the best we can do with our technology and it's not nearly good enough.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 5 (view)
Is Geekism / Nerdism Evolutionary Undesirable?
Posted: 3/22/2013 6:04:35 PM
Well it seems there's a can of worms on the topics of popularisms and genetic traits on the boards but I'll avoid those entirely and just cut to the simple OP postulate/prose, who wins in the evolutionary stakes, Sheldon Cooper or James Bond?

I'll completely disregard genetic traits as irrelevant chicken and egg argumentation on human behaviour and related social status.
But popularism is a factor here, an historical misconception is involved. I'll use an illustrative real world reference to back the following abstraction:

James Bond was never James Bond, not in real life. Sheldon Cooper was James Bond and we prefer as consumers to see a contemporary male model playing the role in a visual depiction, because we like to identify with protagonists and like to see ourselves as obviously sexually potent.

Military special forces as we know them widely today in our Anglo-US cultures: the military "commando" (SAS, Green-berets, etc.) was created during WW2 in Britain under the Special Operations Executive at the height of Nazi European occupation, licensed by Churchill and effectively fathered aforementioned modern special forces as a military unit.

The purpose of SOE/military commandos was to put Sheldon Cooper into combat, not James Bond. The problem you have with regular trained combat troops is they're tough as nails by focusing the bulk of their training on being tough as nails. It just doesn't leave a great deal of physical time to have trained as a genius physicist, mathematician, electrical or chemical engineer. In fact most people with those kind of qualifications came from money, private/exclusive schooling, hobbies in a shed and not a lot of winning football games and beating up the neighbourhood kids.

But they're real handy to have when you need to get into a fully armoured Nazi submarine pen with a 5 man team in occupied Europe. Problem of course comes with the fact they're no match even for a curious boyscout with a guard dog let alone a determined military guard on the lookout for the enemy. On the one hand you need an explosives engineer to hit the sub-pen in a way that even 2-ton bombs from Lancasters couldn't penetrate, to disable it and for that you really need an expert, on the other hand you need personnel who can get close enough to the target incognito to disable it using engineering skills and physics theorum, without being revealed as an enemy operative by the very first guard to ask them a question or patrol near their ingress point.

You need a mathematician, very qualified technician or an engineer to do the job. Yet you need someone who won't fold under pressure, panic and get everyone killed, or can actually hide in cover and take out an enemy guard quietly in close combat if the situation calls for it. You need Sheldon Cooper for the job, but you need him to act like James Bond on the job.

Now let's get rid of one misconception right here. A military commando is not trained to compete with an infantry soldier. You want tough, try your regular everyday infantry man, very hard to beat in a fight. It's what they do, professionally and single mindedly. SOE did not try to train engineers to fight a soldier in a fair fight, there's just no way. You can't teach a grunt to be a genius physicist unless he was one before he became a grunt. You can't teach your genius mathematician to become an ultimate warrior either, unless he was already one get the idea.

The purpose of SOE was to teach mathematicians and engineers to fight dirty, get out of trouble, use a wide variety of skills from subterfuge to camoflage, to use problem solving and to get the job done in a military environment that is, strictly speaking well out of their depth.

James Bond never existed, they don't exist. Sheldon Coopers taught to point behind an enemy guard, shout "Hey look over there!" and when he turns around stab him with a concealed knife, that's your real James Bond in the real world.

In terms of evolutionary superiority in a fair fight, yeah sure the grunt beats the mathematician 9 times out of 10, he just breaks the little nerd in half and terrorizes him whilst doing it.
But human beings control their environments to a far greater degree than any other species and we don't exactly have to follow all the normal rules of natural selection. We can build a hut and a fire to overcome climate. And likewise Sheldon Cooper can cheat and misdirect to kill a Rambo in an unfair fight.
And if evolutionary domination depended on having that submarine pen in operation, Sheldon Cooper is the person who won that round, all the grunts in the world running at it shooting rifles would never have scratched it.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 11 (view)
Not mentioning certain things in the profile, if it could confuse or intimidate a man?
Posted: 3/20/2013 10:56:40 PM
So basically you want to be more ambiguous so you can attract more people who are incompatable with who you really are as a person?

Lady, you can never change the number of people who don't like you no matter what you do or how you present yourself. You can only change which ones don't like you.
It's a compatability thing. The whole idea is to present yourself openly enough not to waste time on paid dates with people who would never work out with you anyway. It wastes both your time and annoys both of you. Just let the chips fall where they may and describe yourself as you are, to best attract those who are most compatable with you.

Don't try to be Ms Popularity, that's the hooker's game. Be you. People meant for you will recognise you that way.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 5 (view)
Pick on someone your own size turkey!
Posted: 3/20/2013 10:45:31 PM
Reminds me of that Monty Python radio sketch where the world's first genius sheep convinced all the other sheep to rise up against their cruel oppressive masters and throw themselves from a cliff in protest...

What did you have in mind, chooks shaking your hand with a big thankyou for the wonderful treatment on their way to the chopping block? And that's somehow not infinitely more twisted from a philosophical point of view?

Boycott meat, they only do it like this when they get paid. That's the joke. Putting rules on it raises overheads and guess what, the companies then import from places where the rules don't exist to cut costs and raise profits.
Only way to fight for poultry rights to quality of life are stop buying any you didn't farm and kill in the manner you prefer, ultimately. Dollars before politics, you know this.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 90 (view)
Traveling at light speed. Does time reall stop?
Posted: 3/20/2013 10:16:33 PM
Relativistic effect is calculated by part of the Lorentz transformations. The problem is the calculation used causes a mathematical singularity at c. (and negative values above c.). It's not the right math for the job but it's the only math we've got for it. Nobody knows what would actually happen if you accelerated an object so infinitely that it reached c. but the math suggests that this would never happen, you would always get one fraction closer to c. but never actually achieve c. because the singularity dictates infinite relativistic mass has to be accelerated, which would require infinite energy. But that's just what imperfect math says, singularities in any theoretical solution aren't a good thing, they mean the math is incomplete and there's something we don't know about it. This is reinforced by the negative values above c. which doesn't strictly mean you can't exceed speed of light, it means you get an error message on your calculator if you do and we're in unknown territory. Some theorists say these negative values mean you can't exceed c. whilst others say you can but enter a "subspace realm" where time travels backwards, others say other things. You could say anything, because it's a big error message in the math.

So long as you never postulate a scenario where you actually reach or exceed c. the math works just fine and shows accurate predictions in observation of fast moving objects, like muons in the upper atmosphere.

andyaa made a slight error on page 1

To the ground observer you would do 1 million miles at light speed in a little over 5 seconds.

To the person traveling at the speed of light he would do the 1 million miles in just over 5 seconds.

To the person traveling at the speed of light observing the ground observer, an infinite amount of time would have passed.

To observe the traveler, traveling at the speed of light, it would take an infinite time

To the person travelling at c. observing the ground observer, an infinite amount of time passes without change although at c. he travels an infinite distance instantaneously within the ship.
To the observer the traveller, travelling at the speed of light would travel an infinite distance taking an infinite amount of time.

andyaa forgot to factor in length contraction.

A better example is to use relativistic speeds, say a factor of 2. You go so close to the speed of light (0.87c.) on your journey that it takes enough fuel/energy to accelerate twice your rest mass to accelerate any further. Time is dilated by 1/2. You take a 1 light-year journey. At 0.87c that should take 1.13 years. A ground observer sees it take 1.13 years on their planet for you to get there. On board your ship lengths contract such that the faster you go the shorter the distance becomes, so that instead of a 1 light-year journey, when you get up to speed at 0.87c spacetime bends towards you and the distance is only half a light-year which takes you 0.56 years to travel at your speed, ship time.
If the ground observer could see inside your ship he would see that time is running twice as slow on board as it is on his planet, but that is not what the traveller experiences. Time runs normally for the traveller, but the distance between two points in space become much shorter, by curvature of spacetime.
But the energy requirements to achieve this velocity are as if the craft had twice as much mass to accelerate than it does.

Now here is the issue I was talking about. At c. these values are all infinite. But nobody really knows what that means.
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 18 (view)
The Emperor's New Clothes
Posted: 3/20/2013 9:36:20 PM
To add, if you're concerned about subcultural groups such as Westboro Baptists abusing lawful medical patients at abortion clinics or lawful attendees of entertainment venues such as gay festivals, then you need to lobby your local political representatives to ammend local laws to include harassment of lawful citizens for ideological reasons. Then you prosecute these extremists as mundane criminals for breaking harassment and abuse laws. What you don't do is start a personal war against everyone inspired by spiritualism, religion, philosophy and other perfectly lawful liberties.
Show ALL Forums