IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence chat & forums.

Posted In Forum:

Home

MyForums

Show ALL Forums

Author

Thread: IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 107 (view)

IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence Posted: 10/6/2008 2:42:25 PM
You're free to continue to bash this test, other guy. In fact, you are fully welcome to ignore all your critics as well. I'd just appreciate it if you didn't feel a compelling need to convert others to your point of view. Within the context of cognitive psychology, intelligence has a specific meaning that is different from what lay people use. Within the context of cognitive psychology, intelligence is defined as what is measured by an IQ test. It doesn't mean any more, it doesn't mean any less. You are welcome to debate the merits of jargon all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that when people refer to IQ tests they are talking about something different than what you mean when you say intelligence. And by all means, if you feel as though there is a better measure of how well people score on IQ tests than their score on an IQ test, feel free to revolutionize the scientific community. As far as the assertions of cheating and the test "measuring proficiency," it is clear you have not had the benefit of taking an IQ test yourself. IQ tests are specifically designed in such a way that it isn't possible to cheat on them. When taking the digit span portion of the test, for example, you are sitting in a chair with a doctor looking at you. You are then given a set of strings of numbers to remember and repeat with various transformations. You are completely allowed to use mnemonic devices, use your fingers as a memory aid, or anything else you can come up with. It's testing your working memory, it's not exactly something you can cheat on. Similarly, the section of the test for the symbol search is where you basically play connect the dots, except they don't make a picture. If you can come up with a way to cheat on that, be my guest. Further, as far as scoring is concerned, the most common test, the WAIS, does not print out scores that exceed a certain predefined constant. If your score would've landed at a higher level, it prints out "above 140" or "above 160" or whatever the maximum the test can accurately measure. Once that threshold is crossed, there are other tests that can be used to measure intelligence, but after the next "level" of testing, there just isn't a way to quantify it. You simply get to join the ranks of one of the less than 100 prodigious savants that exist and get to basically do whatever you want with your life, unbeholden to the world like us mere mortals. IQ tests aren't a measure of who tests well and who doesn't. They are methods developed for the purpose of determining certain brain functions. That's why the score you would receive at age 12 is the same as the one you would receive at age 80. Any drift between these scores (without significant trauma) stems from testing error and test designers admit that. They are constantly refining the IQ tests that are administered so that they are better able to measure what they attempt to measure. However, I would venture a guess that they are already very good at what they claim to do. As a demonstration of this point, the correlation between "job success" (an I/O psych term that means you are able to do a job you are hired to do) and IQ is roughly .40, regardless of the job. That number does fluctuate based on specifics of the job, however in testing done from soldiers to professional, athletes, to politicians and to factory workers, the correlation is still higher than any other single factor. What that means is that roughly 40% of "job success" can be attributable to something that is measured by an IQ test. So whatever criticisms you have of the test, it doesn't change the fact that it works.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 103 (view)

IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence Posted: 10/4/2008 2:25:33 AM
In psychology g is the abstract concept that represents all cognitive ability. It came up when Spearman first noticed that grades in unrelated courses were correlated. He proposed that there is something more than just skill in a particular subject that contributes to performance in that subject. So g was defined to be everything except skill in a subject that accounted for what you know about it. As far as what Bill said, you're right, he was just stressing what we learned in class that day. It boils down to scoring well on an IQ test means you are intelligent. A person with high intelligence is defined to be someone who will score highly on an IQ test. He was telling us that g is a very useful tool in job analysis, since it is a good predictor for nearly every job. He stressed though that intelligence isn't the most important part of g and in many cases isn't giving you the part of it you want. However, IQ tests are significantly less expensive for a company to administer than any other measure of g. So in many situations just testing IQ is sufficient because it is a good enough measure of g that it should correlate to the portion of g that you want to measure for a specific job. The correlation/causation point that he brought up was mostly to stress that having a high IQ is positively correlated with some things and negatively correlated with others. However, things like word exposure at a young age, family wealth, higher grades at school, etc all have positive correlations with IQ. That doesn't mean the high IQ caused any of them, or that any of them caused the high IQ.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 100 (view)

IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence Posted: 10/1/2008 1:30:09 PM
I asked my Psych prof, Bill Dragon if you want to look him up, today what he thought of IQ tests. He said that he dislikes the way most people think it refers to g (which came up in class today). He said that IQ tests measure exactly what IQ tests are designed to measure, namely IQ. He said that in the psychological community, that intelligence is actually defined, in a very literal way, in terms of IQ. To put it bluntly: how intelligent someone is refers specifically to how well they can do on an IQ test. Using it for any other purpose raises questions of how generalizable an IQ test is. He said that while that doesn't mean IQ tests tell you nothing, it does mean that you need to be careful about correlation and causation and how far you go when generalizing. Trying to use IQ to predict math test scores, for example, is probably not a bad idea. Using it to predict job prefeormance is not as good of an idea. He did also want to stress the point that IQ tests are only one tool of many. Several analogies later, he came to his point that IQ is only part of g. It is dangerous to assume its all of g, but it is fool hardy to think it isn't part of it either.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 97 (view)

Between Genius and Insanity Posted: 9/24/2008 6:40:11 PM
You know, on MENSA's home site they do mention that they have members in all walks of life and at all wage levels. They even make a point of mentioning that they have members in factory work and members who are homeless. So you actually have a pretty good point, cerebral

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 27 (view)

Will Fanny Mae (FNM) & Freddy Mac (FRE) stock go to zero in Price? Posted: 9/24/2008 11:08:17 AM
Adam Smith, John Nash, Thomas Jefferson, and Karl Marx. That's whose laughing right now.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 92 (view)

Between Genius and Insanity Posted: 9/23/2008 5:10:50 PM
168? Maybe on the Cattell test. Real men take the WAIS-III. Besides, it's not like someone who qualifies for Epimetheus would waste their time with the idiots at places like Mensa... You know, the fact that I find that insult to be moderately humorous might be why I have so much trouble connecting with others... Seriously though, I am personally of the belief that it's only possible to go so far from society before breaking a little bit. If a NASCAR driver were to be forced to drive to a 9 to 5 after retirement, I'd imagine he'd have trouble fitting in. Likewise, if a brilliant painter somehow developed an allergy to all paints but watercolors, I'd imagine he'd probably snap a little too. The point is that if you're too far from normal, but are somehow forced to act normal you don't always adjust well. I'd venture that the reasoning is because it is difficult to pretend to be something your not. The difference between a genius and a former all-star athlete (for example) is that the all-star only is so far from normal at the company softball game. The genius is very seldom in a position where he isn't thinking. Beyond that, positive social status is given to athletes. High Intelligence is actually considered a negative trait by many people (based on implicit association tests). All that being said, there might be more to it than that. I know that a number of geniuses from the past that suffered from insianity (and had the option to be medicated) either declined to do so or delayed doing so. Many mental illnesses come in the form of overstimulating the brain, so the medicine decreases that stimulation. If you're able to handle a higher level of stimulation, you probably have a higher IQ. However, being able to handle thinking 3 thoughts at once doesn't mean that you can handle an invisible monkey stealing your dishwasher.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 89 (view)

IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence Posted: 9/23/2008 12:59:08 AM
And I'll stop believing in Auto Mechanics. I'll think freely about what makes my cars run because mechanics have a narrow minded view about it. Auto mechanics isn't a science and anyone who believes it's more than basic functioning is clearly an idiot. Seriously though. The problem with your claim is that you are taking their jargon out of context. They don't claim that IQ tests represent the colloquial use of the word Intelligence. In fact, any psychologist will tell you point blank that IQ has nothing to do with the broader notions of intelligence. IQ is a garbage term for the colloquial term for intelligence in the sense that someone's temperature is a garbage measurement for overall health. Well, yeah, it's not designed to measure that. It's designed to measure overall health, it doesn't check if you're missing a leg, it doesn't account for psychological conditions, and it won't react to a plethora of conditions. Simply put: you can't use a test to measure something it doesn't measure, then complain when it does a bad job measuring it. On a side note, I agree with you about the troll. Reversing letter order is the first cypher that over 90% of people come up with. You don't show you're ahead of the curve by being part of an overwhelming majority...

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 86 (view)

IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence Posted: 9/21/2008 9:10:08 PM
Your statement would be true if just anyone could administer a valid IQ test. However, there is training required before you adminsiter the test. The "acting dumb" routine might be a wonderful facade to put up in public, but if its a good enough facade to the point where it seeps down to the point of affecting your grip strength, then you are a far better actor than psychology can model. That being said, there are many tests that are in fact skewed in the way you describe. And if IQ tests were administered broadly to high school students, I'd imagine it would have an impact like you describe. However, IQ test aren't that common and the number of students who can fake being "dumb" convincingly enough to fool a doctor specializing in that, is fairly small. In regards to your final point about people who don't care about them taking them, I'm dubious of the veracity of that statement. IQ tests aren't exactly cheaply administered and generally are done as a result of a doctor saying you need one. I mean, if you walked into a hospital and said you wanted an MRI of your leg then dropped a pile of money on the table, they probably would ask why you want one done. It's true that at the end of the day, you probably can get a test, but unless you convince a doctor it is neccesary, you have to fork over at least a hundred dollars and a couple hours of your life. That seems like alot of effort, just so you can brag about getting a low score. Taking a free test online similar to an IQ test could give you a ballpark and you can always just lie about it too... Oh, before I forget. I actually thought that some of the questions on the WAIS-III I took were basically just trivia questions. I asked the doctor what the point of them was since what I learned doesn't really indicate how effectively I recall information. She told me that the specific questions she asked are actually essentially irrelevant. The point was to ask me to recall facts that I had a certain exposure to. The question "Who wrote Henry the VIII" for example, is an answer I probably heard a number of times back in middle and high school, but only in a limited context and not since. The question about "Who wrote the story of Faust" is something that I (presumably) had only a passing exposure to (perhaps only hearing the answer once or twice) and was likely never asked to recall that information before. She could have just as easily asked a question along the lines of "which thundercat had yellow hair" since I didn't watch the show much and it hasn't come up in much conversation. However, the question about Faust was chosen because I was supposed to have heard it at least once or twice in high school. It's true that not all schools are equal, however it would be impossible to ask you to name a topic you only heard once or twice and never answered a question about. So, they have to use a guess about what most people are exposed to.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 15 (view)

Occam's razor is sometimes false. Posted: 9/21/2008 11:02:12 AM
if you want to try and apply the razor on that base of a level, the simplest explanation is simply that his noodly appendage wills it so. That explains everything that ever happens. Why does stuff fall when you drop it? An invisible noodle is pushing it down. Why are some people taller than others? Invisible noodles stretched him out when he was asleep. Simply put, whenever you have an omnipotent being existing in a universe, the simplest solution will always be that the omnipotent being did it. Sure, any other explanation could explain it, but if a being is all powerful it will require a proportional effort of zero to do it. Therefore, he just does everything.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 87 (view)

Between Genius and Insanity Posted: 9/21/2008 12:01:10 AM
you're right, I misspoke when I said perfectly. He couldn't create a perfect system, however I'm sure that he could create one that's alot better than the one we have now. I'm not entirely sure what he'd have to do, but you'd have to give him ultimate power to do so. Including the ability to change human nature, at which case it becomes a moot point. However, it does mean that there is a huge gap in what he can do theoretically to save the world and what he can do in reality. I know, for myself anyway, the idea that if I could just get enough people to listen to me I could rewrite a bold new world order and make the world a better place for everyone. Then I remember every dictator and villain from cartoons had the same idea at some point. But this isn't about a correlation between evil and genius... I also agree with what you're saying about Bill Gates knowing whether his breakfast will kill someone. I'd be willing to wager the amount of energy in his breakfast is probably less than the TV uses, but details are irrelevant. My point wasn't to say all the ways bill gates is killing people (by not saving them). I mean, that would make every american some sort of genocidal monster. However, my point was that it is both easier for him to make the connection and that he's better able to understand the magnitude of the problem. And you actually probably have a point with the different brain structure thing. To be honest I don't know too much about neuropsych or biopsych. However, I do know that which mental illnesses manifest and their presentation is affected by how intelligent someone is. For example, in order to be schizophrenic you actually need to have a decent IQ score. It's a very brain intensive process to develop and constantly track multiple different personas and their adgendas (I am referring to people with the type of schizophrenia that has consistent people they keep seeing). However, someone with a lower IQ is more likely to have mental illness manifest in the form of a generalized paranoia. Although, specific paranoias are more common in the more intelligent. I remember reading somewhere that there is a mental disorder that actually can't affect people with an IQ under about 130, so it has a really small pool of potential targets. But I can't for the life of me remember any more about it. Well, I remember it was rare even in the near geniuses and geniuses. On the opposite end of the spectrum (way opposite) household animals can sometimes develop certain conditions (depression for example) but they appear to be unable to develop other conditions. Then again, that might just be a language barrier issue because I swear my cat either has DID or sees little green men...

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 57 (view)

Collapse of credit markets Posted: 9/20/2008 6:54:10 PM
Actually the real problem here is that democracy is fundamentally flawed. The idea that people should be left to their own devices to make decisions is just a really bad idea. Think about it, something like half of all americans can't locate afghanistan on a map. If they can't even find the country, how can they be expected to understand all the complex geopolitical issues involved in the region and make an informed policy decision? Simply put, they can't. The result is, we have two groups of people spoon feeding them overly-simplified insanely-skewed explanations that appeal to baser human tendencies (compassion, greed, and fear of different things are all popular choices). So we have a government that is making decisions based on what a group of self-interested people can convince people is the "right" decision even though they don't know anything about it. As Plato said, rule by the rabble. However, democracy (well actually the republic we live in, calling it a democracy is cold war propaganda) is not the concept that just ended in the US. Capitalism is what just fell apart. It didn't completely fall apart. On the flip side of the coin, China isn't completely communist either. In the past week, the US government just took over 70% of the mortgages in the US. In terms of raw dollar amounts of acquisition, the government took more private property into government control than Hugo Chavez did. Does anyone think that Chavez is a capitalist? To make things simpler (and put my spin on them), there are two things required for it to be capitalist. First is that private citizens have to own most things, not the government. The second is that there has to be competition with a low enough barrier to entry and exit that markets will stabalize in a mutually benefitial way (pure supply and demand combined with laissez faire for most businesses). However, minimum wage laws stop that on one end and on the other companies are too big. So the collapse of capitalism in the US isn't exactly new, but we just lost the other major prerequisite.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 84 (view)

Between Genius and Insanity Posted: 9/20/2008 6:37:51 PM
I think that a big part of the problem with a genius becoming insane is that the more you understand how things should be, the more disgusted you get at how they are. For example, a genius economist could probably sit down and, if given complete control of the world economy, could create a new system that works perfectly. He could also probably come up with a handful of ways to help mend the current system. However, he can't implement the solutions. I'd imagine that the frustration at the disparity would be even greater for geniuses who put alot of effort into politics, law, or especially global problems. I remember reading somewhere (I think it was Wired) that an explanation to why Bill Gates cares so much about helping the world, even though he is generally speaking a heartless jerk, is because most people aren't geniuses. That doesn't mean most people aren't compassionate or anything like that, but it does mean that they have a harder time understanding the complex interactions going on that create the world problems or coming up with the difficult solutions necessary. More importantly, most people have a very poor concept of large numbers. When someone says "a hundred people" it is difficult to gauge how many people that is, in essence you are just saying "alot." However, a genius (especially if his forte is math like Gates' is) understands that when 100 people die every minute and he could spend $30 to stop 85 of those, he can actually understand what that means. So its not so much that Bill Gates is a better person, its just that every latte he has, he can directly translate into a child dying. I'm fairly certain understanding that is really really really hard to cope with. If knowing that the energy you spend watching an hour of TV is literally killing someone, I can see how you'd get pretty messed up. Another possible explanation is that social skills, like any other skill, can atrophy. If I'm able to solve a problem by doing a trivial (to me) amount of math instead of talking to someone else, why should I talk to someone else? After doing that for a while, you start to diverge more and more from how "normal" people solve problems which can lead to mocking. This in turn results in further isolation and, as social creatures, that will eventually drive you insane. One further possibility is that academic detatchment can make it very difficult to relate to other people. Sometimes optimal solutions wind up at odds with what "normal" people do because morals can interfere with intermediate steps. A genius might not necessarily agree that the optimal solution is moral, but they will likely understand the alternative's argument. And in society, understanding evil is enough to make you evil in some people's eyes.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 12 (view)

Messing around with gender roles Posted: 9/20/2008 6:06:21 PM
if you think that's all there is to gender roles...

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 84 (view)

IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence Posted: 9/20/2008 6:04:02 PM
the use of IQ scores alone to determine levels of mental retardation is actually falling on the way-side as more weight is being put on ability to function, but I've actually seen a number of charts like that and in many school systems that are, umm, more resistant to change, they still use similar charts. However, an understanding of what the different levels of mental retardation show that our two statements actually are quite reconcilable. The different levels are based upon whether the person who has that level is capable of performing certain functions. When we measure the IQ of a young child or of an animal, we can't use conventional testing, but we still get the approximation of the scores based on different skills. Things like object permanence, manipulation of objects, etc.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 82 (view)

IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence Posted: 9/19/2008 11:50:52 PM
IQ is designed specifically to measure intelligence. Or, more accurately, the term "intelligence" as it is used by cognitive psychologists today is derived from what an IQ test measures. What you are referring to is more along the area of overall cognitive ability or a composite measure of each mental faculty or something. That isn't what intelligence means to cognitive psychologists. To use an analogy that is more common, if you were to ask any random person on the street what a flag is, he will probably say something about a symbol for whatever. The point is that he is describing the thing that waves out on those poles outside on a windy day. However, if you asked a computer programmer what a flag was, while he was debugging code, he would tell you that a flag is a notifier that a certain event has taken place. Yes, the programmer knows what the flag you are talking about is, but that's not what he's referring to when he is debugging code. In the same way, cognitive psychologists don't mean intelligence the way most people do when they are referring to an IQ test, instead they have a specialized meaning for the word. I'd also like to object to the categorization that high IQ means you understand concepts, but low IQ means you understand applications. A person with a higher IQ actually understands both better. It can be hard to tell because the difference between one person's IQ and the next is usually not big enough to have a large impact. Beyond that, we don't usually care what someone's IQ is. We care about how smart they are, which includes a number of other things. My point can be more easily demonstrated if we compare the lower end of the spectrum to the middle. If you have two people and ask them to do a simple addition problem which has a number to two decimal places, a person with a higher IQ is more likely than a person with Mental Retardation to do the problem quickly, understand the processes behind solving the problem, be able to make a new problem based on the example, and likely to find a real-world use for this type of problem. However, if one of the people you asked was a genius and one had an average IQ, then both of them would likely show similar results. The reason behind this is that it takes a certain IQ to be able to solve these types of problem, more doesn't really help. For example, understanding direct cause and effect only requires somewhere between an IQ of 20 and 30, the concept of a distinction between self and others requires closer to 50. The ability to come up with new abstract ideas based on symbolism or metaphor generally requires somewhere around 80. You won't see to much difference between someone with an IQ of 100 and someone with an IQ of 140 in how they explain that (after seeing a stove his hot) that touching the stove makes things hot.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 79 (view)

IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence Posted: 9/19/2008 2:50:56 PM
That's actually still a criticism of the currently used tests (SB5 and WAIS3). The tests assume that everyone learned a certain set of things when they were in school and that they are only testing recall of those things. In practice, many of the questions covered were skipped over completely in some schools (teach to the back of the herd) or weren't covered for cultural differences. For example, a French student won't neccesarily know about Shakespeare because Shakespeare isn't an English playwright. Even if they do, it is testing for a comparatively more obscure fact than they wanted to.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 73 (view)

Pornography and female homosexuality Posted: 9/19/2008 10:31:55 AM
I actually vaguely remember reading something on point regarding the prevalence of various fantasies. The number of males who wanted to have either an MFF or an FMF threesome was at something like 60% (who'd have imagined it was so low?). The rate of people who actually had them was somewhere on the order of 5%. Although in truth, my memory could be a tad hazy on the exact numbers. I knew there was a large disparity (somewhere along that order) and that more men had fantasized about it than not. However, I believe Dan Savage's joke about gay men having threesomes is about as common as straight men think about it might have some validity. My guess is that it has something to do with if you're sexually open about one thing, you are more likely to be sexually open about other things. All that being said, I think this question can be resolved by answering a single question: What does someone have to do in order to become a homosexual? Is having sex even once with a person of the same sex, sufficient? Do you have to regularly have sex with someone of the same sex? Do you have to want it or actively seek it out? Does it still count if you are doing it for reasons other than enjoyment? Is there a way to be "straight" again if you have ever been classified as "gay"? And all sorts of other questions along these lines can help answer it. But really it boils down to the definition of gay. And I'd also like to suggest that when considering the definition, think about whether you can just swap pronouns and make it a definition for straight, because you should be able to.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 76 (view)

IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence Posted: 9/18/2008 6:00:44 AM
So the Ellis Island testing developed by Goddard was based on a fork (in development terms). ________Simon-Binet_______________ ________///________\\\_______________ _______///__________\\\______________ Ellis Island_________Stanford-Binet _________________________\|\|\|________ _______________________WAIS_______ Thank you for the insight Eternelle, I wasn't aware of how the Ellis Island testing fit into the picture. I do know that the WAIS eventually spawned a couple other, less used IQ tests as well. The WISC test (kinda like WAIS for kids) and the WPPSI (kinda like the WAIS for really little kids) both were just modified off the WAIS. If I'm not mistaken the middle step between the Stanford-Binet and WAIS was a set of tests the US army used to determine if recruits were mentally fit for duty.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 74 (view)

IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence Posted: 9/17/2008 9:11:50 AM
She could also at least be kind enough to claim to be a member of a group that actually exists. I mean, the name is similar to what Psi Chi calls themselves, but isn't quite it. And in case anyone would like to know, I was citing what Weschler (the guy who made the WAIS test) and Binet (the guy who made the Stanford-Binet test) said. The explanation of how it is used was courtesy of the neurologist I went to see at PCI, Dr. Julie Shaw, ARPN. What she gave was a clarification of what the test administrator explained to me. And in response to the ad hominem attack, you clearly haven't done much research on me. If you look at my normal forum posts, I am vehmently opposed to the US government and paranoid about its influence and control. In fact, I recently attacked the US gov for its influence over the DSM-IV. If you want to make ad hominem attacks on me, that's fine. It doesn't add to your argument or make you look the better person, but at least attack one of my numerous flaws instead of trying to go after my strengths.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 68 (view)

IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence Posted: 9/15/2008 3:25:43 PM
I implore people to read what the WAIS-III test is before commenting on this thread. If not that, then I beg that they read up on the Stanford-Binet test. Those are the two most popular IQ tests used today. * They were not made for eugenics * They were not made to predict future achievement * They were not made to categorize people * They were not made to compare one person to another person * They measure intelligence the way psychologists define it, not the way it is used colloquially * They were initially made for determining which students needed additional help for purposes of special education * They are currently used to measure specific areas of intelligence relative to one another (things like processing speed vs. verbal comprehension) Nobody in the psychiatric or psychological communities believes that they can be used as some sort of overall measure of how smart someone is. The only people who assert IQ tests measure how smart someone is overall are critics of the test and snake-oil salesmen (in the form of self-help gurus).

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 18 (view)

How do you ask a friend for benefits? Posted: 9/14/2008 1:35:24 PM
To be honest, I have no freaking clue how what I described is different from a relationship. I'm not exactly an expert on the whole interpersonal interaction thing. I just figured that a friend with benefits would mean FWB = Friend.qualities + if(now=sometimes){Sex.getSome()}; In other words a FWB would be a friend you get to have sex with, sometimes. But this could quickly turn into a self-pity post if I continue, so feel free to message me if you want to talk more about it. I'm actually not opposed to casual sex. I haven't had it, but I figure sex is just another fun thing to do. That being said, I don't like to do any sort of thing with strangers, so I just figured the intersection of people I want to do things with and having sex would be friends with benefits. I wouldn't want to go to the movies with a stranger or play board games with a stranger, so why should sex be any different? That's where the FWB question stemmed from in my mind, but apparently that's not the case. Thank you all for the clarification.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 15 (view)

How do you ask a friend for benefits? Posted: 9/14/2008 8:51:42 AM
Apparently I was just confused about what friends with benefits were. Based on the answers I've seen here FWB seem to be intended one-night stands that were good enough to warrant a few more times and possibly some platonic relationship as well. I just assumed that it was a friendship that happened to also include sex. So what's it called when you want to be close friends with someone and "oh, by the way" have sex with them?

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 53 (view)

How many guys will wait until marriage for sex? Posted: 9/14/2008 8:48:10 AM
Thank you Jesus camp logic? Going out of your way to stop something from naturally happening is making it a bigger deal than just letting it happen. Yes, dedicating your life to seeking out sex is making a big deal out of it, but if you are just accepting of it and let it happen when it happens, then it really isn't a big deal. Also, I'm pretty sure that most people who get married think they are only going to be married once. Or at the very least, I don't think they go into marriage with a plan of getting divorced and remarried a few years later. I know that I want to be married to one person someday, but I'm not going to either deny part of my nature nor will I just settle so I can get laid. That being said, psychology tells us that sexual compatibility is very important in the long term success of a relationship. Just hoping that sexual compatibility will turn out right or trying to force it to work isn't exactly the foundation of a good relationship. So yeah, I'd rather give my virginity to someone other than my wife instead of finding out when I do give it to her that we aren't meant for each other.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 8 (view)

How do you ask a friend for benefits? Posted: 9/13/2008 8:00:19 PM
Ah, well I suppose that lack of drunken hookups is the source of my problem in a sorta twisted way. I'm actually looking primarily for a relationship. However my mother (of all people) suggested that maybe I just need to get out there and hook up randomly at a bar. After the shock wore off enough for me to respond, I basically said that I am too shy for that. That if anything I'd want it to be a friend since, ostensibly anyway, I am able to trust a friend and am more comfortable around them. Which is why I figured I'd ask for advice on FWBs. From what you guys seem to be saying is that FWB trends from hookup to FWB not friend to FWB. Darn...

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 31 (view)

CNBC basically just said we are all F**KED. Posted: 9/13/2008 7:34:18 PM
Honestly, the big problem is that the US gov isn't really focusing on what the government is supposed to do. The government is supposed to do for the people what they can't do for themselves. However, the problem is that the government does some things that the people can do on their own and doesn't do some things that people can't do on their own. One of the major things we can't do, as people, on our own is secure mortgages to stimulate home ownership. Simply put, they require so much money to operate that there is too great a barrier to entry to allow capitalism to work there. Beyond that, the US does another thing that isn't the job of a government. A government is supposed to protect it's populous. Effectiveness of preemptive war aside, it's not economically feasible. Preemptive war against every country that might attack us costs more than cleaning up after an attack and only retaliating. The same is actually also true for terrorism response and natural disasters. This is the opposite of how some things work (like medicine) so it's confusing to many people and preventative measures and preemptive war are amazing sources of government pork, but it doesn't actually work well. On a note that I don't want to say out loud, lest someone else think it's a good idea, but the US protects far more than its citizens. Ostensibly, we are protecting the whole world from acts of terrorism. Therefore, the US is spending money to help people other than the US. However, they do not pay the US back for "protecting the world from terrorism." So we are providing a service and not expecting compensation. Any idiot can tell you that if you own a pizzeria and give people pizza without expecting money in return, you will run out of money. Unfortunately, the US government hasn't figured that out yet. So the logical solution is either stop throwing so much money into other countries or start taxing the citizens of other countries for the services we provide. On an unrelated note, the reason that the government is bailing out the big companies instead of people is because the US doesn't have the resources available to actually fix the problem. The reason that Fannie and Freddie are having problems all relates back to the mortgage crisis where the banks basically gave more money to people than they gave back. The difference in the two values is why these banks are failing. They gave away money but didn't get it back. The US gov can't afford to give that difference to every single person who can't keep up their housing payments. So, they are hoping that they can give the banks enough money to allow the banks to invest and hopefully recoup as much as they can (because larger chunks of money can her higher percentage returns). So to sum up everything: the government isn't doing its job, it's doing other peoples jobs, and that when you make enough trades where you get less than you give you run out of money. Also, I think we should just sell off the entirety of the military to raise money.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 46 (view)

Question for anyone presently practicing celibacy... Posted: 9/13/2008 6:35:03 PM
I personally don't understand any form of abstinence. The whole idea behind abstaining from something is that denial somehow leads to purity. The concept behind it is that if you don't have the distraction of X then you will be able to reach a state of enlightenment. It's as though we only have so much capacity for understanding and we are using up X percent of it by drinking, having sex, eating meat, etc. So, if we give up one of those things from that list, then we get more to save for enlightenment. Personally, I believe that enlightenment doesn't come from absence of all distractions but understanding of all things. Based on that, denial doesn't make too much sense to me.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 13 (view)

A twist on Zenos infinity paradox Posted: 9/13/2008 6:24:12 PM
Scorpio is completely right. Zeno was able to create his many different paradoxes (I prefer Hermes and a turtle in a race) because mathematicians didn't have a way of modeling infinite summations. It took until Newton first explained lmits to have a way of demonstrating that there is an answer. Interestingly enough though, ancient Egypt actually sorta understood the concept, but didn't know it. The ancient Egyptians did have a system of representing mathematics with hieroglyphs. The relevant idea is that for representing fractions, they knew that they only needed to use a symbol that basically meant "+half of the previous value." They knew that by using halves, they could divide and represent any value they needed to without having to worry about accidentally going to far. However, they did realize it was inconvenient as hell to put the infinite number of symbols to represent 1/3 and 2/3, so they had shortcuts for those specific values. So Zeno probably could've asked any Egyptian scribe who was familiar with mathematics (because there were oh so many of them...) and they would've been able to tell you that you could add "and a half" forever and never be the next value.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 4 (view)

How do you ask a friend for benefits? Posted: 9/13/2008 5:19:25 PM
I agree completely that it isn't worth it to lose a friend over. Then I guess the logical follow up question is how do you meet someone for the purpose of being a FWB or what distinction do you make early on so it goes that way?

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 70 (view)

Why does a guy view your profile more then one, but no mail from them? Posted: 9/13/2008 5:16:25 PM
Shyness and forgetfulness are my two big reasons. However j0e is right about the picture thing. When bored (and not on the forums) I click across any pictures I think are new along the row of people within 50 miles of me who last logged on, who haven't received a new email, or some other wacky criteria that only gives me a picture and sometimes the helpful words "Online Now." I don't really pay attention when I do that so sometimes I click people that just didn't make much of an impression before. But if you change the image up there, I don't stand a chance of identifying you again. I'm looking for a specific image to tell if I've seen the profile or not, I'm not parsing it into brown hair, blue eyes, yada yada, yada. So you can just tweak color settings, stretch, or crop an image differently to mess with me. Although sometimes it is just me lacking the courage to message and hoping this time things will change (or that she'll send a preemptive WTF?)

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 42 (view)

How many guys will wait until marriage for sex? Posted: 9/13/2008 5:09:09 PM
From a raw statistics perspective, the average age of first intercourse is around 17 with a standard deviation of roughly 2.7 (if memory serves). That means that 50% of people have sex by 17, 85% have it before 20, and 98% have it before 22 and a half. So sure, you might find someone who is willing to wait to get married for sex. Probability dictates that if that's what you want, you better get married young.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 13 (view)

Common professions on here... Posted: 9/13/2008 4:32:13 PM
There's also that less than half of all people actually complete a 4 year degree. Logically that would mean that more than half of people would have jobs that either require vocational training or just a highschool diploma. So it could just be reflective of the job market. An alternative is that all the people who went on to complete college (that wind up making an extra 20k to 40k per year) think that this whole "free dating site" is a bunch of hooey and go onto match or e-harmony. Also, from the standpoint of social exchange theory, they are strictly "better" mates because they are able to offer more in the form of higher wage earning power. That means that more individuals would be "better off" if they were in a relationship with the person. That creates more competition and thus leaves them with less reason to need to seek out a relationship, because they are the ones with more power (thus control). To put it in simple terms, if Brad Pit was single, he wouldn't have to go on a dating site because lots of women want to date him. If a one legged serial killer with no education wanted to date someone, he'd have to work harder because not too many people want to date him.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 1 (view)

How do you ask a friend for benefits? Posted: 9/13/2008 4:07:30 PM
There's actually a long (comical/disturbing) story behind this question, but the end result was winding up with the question: Who/How/When do you ask a friend to be a FWB without destroying the friendship? From what I've heard, a friends with benefits relationship can end horribly, ruining a friendship, can end with a real relationship, or can end in some sort of apocolyptic rain of fire and brimstone (you will be missed, Sam). But I'm curious about how to get to that step first. It's not something I've asked before or been looking for for very long, so I'm just curious because I don't want to screw up.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 64 (view)

IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence Posted: 9/11/2008 8:52:50 PM
Oh, I picked up most of this information either in my cognitive psychology class, the pamphlets MENSA sends out, and when the team of doctors I'm working with for a neurological condition talked to me about it they went over the ins and outs of what exactly it meant. They stressed it wasn't some overall measure of how smart I am because my LISW (therapist) knew I'd get a big ego about it. Yes, I did pull some information from wiki as well, but it's not like I'm particularly new to the subject. And as far as IQ being used by the experts to measure overall "smarts." The wikipedia article has a great quote from Binet (from the Stanford-Binet test). If you rummage around there is probably also a quote by Weschler to the same effect. It isn't the psych community, even the pop psych community, that is professing IQ as intelligence or trying to train you to improve your IQ. It's self-help gurus, motivational speakers, and other hucksters. IQ tests aren't supposed to be like the SATs. They are supposed to measure how good you are at certain types of mental activity compared to other types of mental activity. In fact, MENSA using it to compare person to person at those specific areas is contrary to the original test. So claiming that a test, designed to do something else, is a garbage tool at yet another thing, is rather silly.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 59 (view)

IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence Posted: 9/11/2008 11:07:04 AM
and the assembly line preceded mass marketed televison, and gave rise to them. That doesn't mean I'd trust an assembly line worker to repair my TV. Logical flaw aside, it actually isn't possible to "blow the roof off" an IQ test. Standard IQ tests don't accurately model anyone who has an IQ above 140 on the standard scale (except Cattell, the scale from that IQ test is mesed up). To score "high" on the test you need to be 2 standard devs above normal which is roughly 24-28 points higher than the norm of 100. So if 124 is when high starts, 136 is when Genius starts, and 140 is the max, how exactly can you be amazing on it? And maybe the poster is intelligent, but he is lacking in understanding of what intelligence is and what IQ tests measure.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 56 (view)

IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence Posted: 9/10/2008 10:03:38 AM
I get it now, you're just a troll. My bad, I thought I was talking to someone who was just misinformed, not someone who denies facts so he can attack dissenters. And define high, if you would. For it to be meaningful you need to give which test was administered, the verbal and spatial scores, as well as overall. Missing any one of those pieces makes it pretty meaningless.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 20 (view)

Will Fanny Mae (FNM) & Freddy Mac (FRE) stock go to zero in Price? Posted: 9/9/2008 3:01:05 PM
Look, I know it's fun to rag on the big whig execs, but it isn't their fault (not on a fundamental level anyway). Everyone is bashing them for taking on loans they knew wouldn't be repaid. Well, that wasn't their choice. The federal government created Fannie and Freddie. On top of that, the government ordered them to take over the loans of other banks that couldn't handle it on their own. All this was done so that people making less than 60k or 80k per year could own a house. Somewhere along the line we decided that was the American dream and we should all get a house. In truth, most people just can't afford houses. We didn't want to deal with it, now we have a melt down. There is another basic flaw with putting all the blame on them. Capitalism is designed in a way that they were guaranteed to fail in the long run. As in, there was no possible way for them to work in the long run even if they did everything perfectly. If you actually read what Smith wrote, the reason he said that monopolies destroy capitalism wasn't just because they have no competition. Them having no competition happens as a result of the underlying problem. The actual problem with a monopoly starts when it is impossible for people to freely enter and exit the market. Only in a system where competitors can freely join or leave a market does supply and demand actually work. So, as soon as Fannie or Freddie get so big that you and five of your friends can't pool a year or two's savings and start a new investment bank (or a rich executive from another industry can't just use a month's profit to do the same thing) capitalism falls apart. Fannie and Freddie have no meaningful competition, they can't because it is utterly impossible because they have more money than some states do. I'd be willing to wager that the county I live in could sell every inch of land, every stalk of corn, every house, every dog, and everything else and still not have enough money to start up an investment bank. On the flip side, Freddie can't say "this isn't profitable for me, I'm gonna leave the sector now and go drill for oil, that's profitable today." So in truth, capitalism doesn't have any effect at all on any company worth more than 100 million or so. Once they reach a worth of 10 billion, they reach the point where they are on an even negotiating field with political states. You might ask then "who is supposed to do the things that can't be done without a company that big." Well, last I heard it was the government's job to do for the people that which they cannot do for themselves. Well, since the people can't form an investment bank for themselves... The problem with that of course is that would lead to socialism for all large businesses...

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 13 (view)

Will Fanny Mae (FNM) & Freddy Mac (FRE) stock go to zero in Price? Posted: 9/9/2008 9:02:16 AM
As much as I am not thrilled with the idea of the government now controlling 80% of all mortgages in the US, I'd be far less thrilled with nobody owning them. If we just let Fannie and Freddie go belly up and declare bankruptcy that means that partial ownership of the vast majority of homes in the US would be up for sale. Nobody has enough money to cover that value so the value of all homes would plummet as mortgages would wind up selling for pennies on the $1000. Since the biggest investment most people own is their house, that pretty much destroies the entire US. Also, all the mortgages that nobody purchases wind up in a special category of the bank owns your house, but has to sell it to pay off debt. So they give it to the government (which would somehow have to compensate you for the part you've paid off) then they take your house. I happen to dislike the idea of thousands of empty homes and all their former inhabitants being homeless. I also dislike there not being a US economy. The problem is that Fanny and Freddie weren't completely private. Yes, they had private ownership, but they were set up by congressional charter. The government tells them what to do from time to time. In order to protect home ownership in the US, Fanny and Freddie had to do terrible business decisions sometimes. The result was home ownership for millions of Americans that honestly shouldn't have been able to afford houses. Now it's coming back to bite us in the ass.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 11 (view)

Will Fanny Mae (FNM) & Freddy Mac (FRE) stock go to zero in Price? Posted: 9/8/2008 8:59:53 PM
You guys are missing that the government just took them over. It is entirely possible that within 5 years they will just declare emminent domain and remove them from existence. They aren't sources of potential wealth, they are a place to put your money briefly so the US gov will give you a pittance later.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 50 (view)

IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence Posted: 9/8/2008 8:57:26 PM
For starters, you're wrong about the slot machines. Most people when they first hear that a variable intermittent reward system is optimal for habit forming, they are surprised. However, it's knowing that variable intermittent rewards are better than any other reward system at habit forming that enables gambling to work. If it were "obvious" that variable intermittent rewards were the best reinforcer, we would use it outside of Vegas (in schools for example). However, we don't. We don't because if you were going to tell parents that you will randomly determine whether to give their children a reward when they complete an assignment, that what they get will change (bonus points, sticker, cupcake, $20), and that different kids will receive different rewards, they would go nuts. However, psychology has repeatedly demonstrated that it is true. Also I don't think a single person who works on the IQ test or uses it professionally has claimed in the last 20 years that it is a measure of overall intelligence. Simply put: that isn't what it does. MENSA uses IQ tests in conjunction with other factors. They always have. In fact, you actually don't even have to submit an IQ test today to qualify (they accept the GMAT for example). The original person who made the WAIS test never claimed it measure overall intellectual aptitude or anything like that. He designed it to measure cognitive deficiencies and areas of relative strength so coping mechanisms could be more effectively developed. The only people who claim IQ tests are used to measure overall intellectual ability (or worse yet, achievement) are people who are condemning it or people who merely wish to brag but don't know what it actually is (or at least are betting that you don't know what it actually is). Just because someone has a high IQ doesn't mean that they aren't arrogant. Beyond that, there is a problem with it not being called a test of intelligence. You are using a colloquial definition of intelligence. In this case, intelligence is actually part of the psychological community's jargon. In cognitive psychology, intelligence specifically refers to reasoning skills, problem solving, abstract thinking, comprehension, ability to collect and assimilate new information, planning, and mastery of language . That is exactly what the IQ test measures. Calling it a cognitive test would be far less useful for the experts who use it because cognition is a very broad term for cognitive psychologists (it kinda refers to absolutely everything they do, by definition). Measures of creativity (if you could somehow do them objectively) don't belong in an IQ test anymore than algebra belongs on a french test. Overall mental ability only includes intelligence as a small portion. Mental ability includes other things like the ability to discern colors, to recall information, to know what information there is to recall, to regulate bodily functions, etc. And anyone who claims that they are smart just because they have a high IQ is being an arrogant ass. It doesn't mean they aren't a genius (genius is defined to be top 2% of IQ scores); but it might mean they aren't what we would call a genius in layman's terms.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 44 (view)

IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence Posted: 9/8/2008 9:25:27 AM
Umm, AS is actually defined to be a type of Autism Spectrum Disorder. As in, it isn't AS if it doesn't fit in the Autism Spectrum. There's no real debate on this topic, and I'm not entirely sure why you believe there is. More importantly, both are diagnosed by a multidisciplinary team with a focus on interpersonal behavior. And citing conflict in the writing of the DSM-IV as conflict in the community at large is not exactly being open. I'd accept debate in writing the ICD-9, because that isn't as highly politicized and requires a large amount of research to be present before reclassification is considered. The DSM-IV allows for far more fringe theories to be allowed for consideration (and then they are thrown out after a committee chuckles a little). For example, every DSM revision since 3 has had people fighting to add transgender, homosexual, addictions to everything from gambling to sports, serial monogamy, and many other topics as disorders. In fact, the DSM-V is currently considering obesity as a psychological disorder (albeit with a different meaning than the colloquial one). The problem is that the DSM-IV is viewed as more than just a reference for classification, but is used to determine legal and social factors as well, as a result it's far more political. All that being said, it's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 40 (view)

IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence Posted: 9/7/2008 4:56:44 PM
Lots of people like ragging on psychologists and psychiatrists calling them "soft sciences" just because it doesn't involve test tubes and beakers. There are lots of people who cannot wrap their heads around the idea that it's still science even if it can't be done in a lab. On top of that, if you can use science to explain how people think and act, that means we aren't different or special.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 8 (view)

Drawing energy from cities like earth, water, or fire? Posted: 9/7/2008 4:37:21 PM
Interesting perspectives you guys, thanks. Regarding the people saying that all the power you need is within yourself, I see where you are coming from. Frequently all you need is within you. However sometimes I find myself trying to accomplish tasks that are a bit "above my pay grade." Besides, I believe that energy should be shared. Sometimes it's borrowing, other times its giving back. It helps deepen the connection to share energy.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 1 (view)

Drawing energy from cities like earth, water, or fire? Posted: 9/7/2008 11:33:29 AM
I know that in many of the classical forms of spiritualism people draw energy from the classic elements. Which elements in particular vary, but they are generally very closely connected to nature and the natural as opposed to things molded by the hands of man. But I'm wondering why there is such opposition? I've always had an easier time channeling energy while out in nature away from distractions. The moon is my mentor and trees are my friends, but I do feel the energy in cities as well. I don't think it's just the energy of the people, animals, and plants in the area, but I could be mistaken. I was wondering if anyone else had any thoughts on why people don't draw energy from the city.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 10 (view)

Occam's razor is sometimes false. Posted: 9/7/2008 11:09:42 AM
The principle also only states that it is generally correct, not that it is always correct. Because it is generally correct, it is the one that you should guess is correct, all else being equal, but you are by no means certain that it is.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 36 (view)

IQ is a garbage tool for determining intelligence Posted: 9/7/2008 11:05:52 AM
It's always popular to bash IQ tests, but they do have some very important uses. I just recently had a neurologist administer the WAIS-III for me. We used it alongside other testing to discover that I have a relative weakness in some areas which is indicative of a progressive condition. I'm going in for further testing as a direct result of the WAIS and it could wind up meaning the difference between getting the preventative care I need now and having to live in a home unable to take care of myself at 35. That being said, IQ tests aren't really designed to measure how "smart" someone is. It would be impossible to construct a test that accurately determines the relative intelligence in all areas. For example, how could you know if I knew alot about metallurgy without asking me questions about metallurgy? You couldn't, so there'd have to be a metallurgy section of the test. Then you'd have to give me an ancient greek philosophy section and so on. Once you have a rating of how good I am at every single field known to man (after 3 straight years of test taking), you'd have to somehow compare which were more relevant and give a weighted average of all scores. However, nobody can meaningfully compare which should have more weight in a measure of overall "smarts" between metallurgy and ancient Greek philosophy. As a result, IQ tests measure something different. IQ tests measure different dimensions of cognition. They measure how well the brain can store, recall, and transform information. Asking you the question about Madagascar isn't actually there to test your knowledge of geography. It's there to test how well you can recall information that you haven't used recently (the location of Madagascar) and your ability to synthesis information (comparing the location of Madagascar to the continents). The end result of the testing is that it gives you scores that indicate how far from the average person you are at various different types of thinking. If you define intelligence as skill at thinking, then it actually does measure intelligence. However if you define intelligence as how much someone knows it's likely correlated, but not necessarily. If you wanted to predict success though, you'd actually get a better result by getting a rating of attractiveness from 1 to 10, measuring height, WHR, timber and pitch of your voice, and a few other factors. All of those are far better predictors of success than anything as irrelevant as knowledge or intelligence.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 31 (view)

Do you have a best girl friend? Would you give her up for your girlfriend? Posted: 9/7/2008 10:42:38 AM
I've made this mistake before. Once directly and twice indirectly. It's a terrible choice. Putting that one "perfect" ex on a pedestal is a dangerous thing. You wind up idealizing them and even if it turns out they are that great, you will just end up hating yourself in the long run because you'll realize that you abandoned someone who really did love and care about you, all because you were hung up on the past. I know that, in my case at least, the realization that I don't want to be with her again but instead that I want to go back and have never left her changed alot for me. Once you realize that the "perfect" ex is from your past and that your current person is from your present, it makes alot more sense. And until they perfect time travel so that we actually could go back and be with the perfect person back when they were our perfect person, you should stay with the one who loves you now. Hopefully, they'll be the one that loves you in the future too.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 27 (view)

Do men really like bitchy or demanding or challenging women? Posted: 9/7/2008 10:36:48 AM
I agree completely with h0ld. I am the first to admit I am not the greatest guy sometimes and things will slip my mind. I want a woman who will tell me "Stop whining about your D&D game" or "Put down the box of twinkies" or "Take me out on a date." Because I fall into a rut of just assuming they know I care about them and figure it's juts spending time together that mattes. More importantly though, I am tired of dating puppies. If I wanted blind subservience from something that would never question me, accept all I say as perfect, and quietly keep contempt on the inside, I'd get a puppy, start a cult, or adopt/indoctrinate a child. That's not the kind of woman I want to date. I want to date an equal, and if the woman is going to be quiet and reserved while I'm not, that is unequal.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 102 (view)

Polygamy Posted: 9/5/2008 3:39:44 PM
Who brought up polygyny? I thought we were just talking about polygamy... Also, to be completely fair, it isn't an unfounded idea that males roam while women are faithful. There is some evolutionary advantage to it. And actually the study of intimate relationships shows us that even though people wind up dating others who are around the same attractiveness on a scale of one to ten, the most successful have the woman in the relationship something like .6 to .8 higher than the man. It's attributed to the woman valuing stability more and the man valuing attractiveness more. I do happen to agree with you that open relationships should have gender fairness as a corner stone of them. But claiming that bigotry is the only reason that there is inequality is being somewhat closed minded. That being said, I think it should be up to the individuals involved. If they want a 3 person triad with a man and two women, that's cool for them. If they want a man and woman primary relationship with a third that joins sexually sometimes, that's cool for them too. If they want to have 5 men, 2 women, and a robot, I'm ok with that as well (although worried about the robot's ability to consent). I'm even ok with the one man-one woman thing. But the point is that not everyone feels the same way that everyone else does. What you might see as unequal mysoginistic garbage, might be her ideal relationship.

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 33 (view)

If everything when to crap Posted: 9/4/2008 5:02:16 PM
I have a very marketable skill in the post-civilization world. I show all the classic signs and demonstrate the ability to lead a religious cult. All I have to do is convince people I knew the end was coming before they did, that my god(s) better protected me than them, and that bad things will happen unless my god(s) are happy. Besides, if I can't come up with a rational way to get people to congregate so I can look for people with actually useful skills, I might as well make up a scam. If nothing else, the people who join late but aren't enthusiastic or the people who end up not joining at all show some promise for helping me start a new world order (once they're in on it of course).

o76923

Joined: 11/3/2007

Msg: 297 (view)

Hmm... global warming by co2? Posted: 9/4/2008 4:55:06 PM
It's ludicrous to use absolute zero to measure temperature for these purposes. For starters, the point isn't to measure at what point something catastrophic will happen to the earth, it's to measure at what point people won't be able to live the same way on earth. Now, we can all agree that a 100 degree change in temperature will make the planet uninhabitable for people. On the scale of 0 kelvin to the hottest temperature man has been able to create (2 billion Kelvin-ish), 100 degrees is utterly meaningless. Beyond that, we generally use mercury to measure temperature on earth (or at least used to). Mercury measurements can be infinitely accurate if we had a large enough thermometer and an accurate enough measuring device. That being said, we seldom need more than three decimal places. To put it in simple terms: just because we know a light year can be used to measure distance, doesn't mean that we should ignore all yard sticks and rulers because they are nothing compared to a light year.

Show ALL Forums