That was a good thread. I might check that out if it's still around. I can't remember exactly what I said, but my opinion hasn't changed. Women are abused because of sociocultural influences and the various other objective and subjective influences on a person's thought processes. Perhaps my English wasn't very clear at the time. I have more occupational knowledge concerning the topic now. I think my points were misinterpreted to imply that criminals should not be held accountable and that contradicts social prejudice. It elicits a response par with that of blaming the abusee. This is where that term Cognitive Dissonance becomes relative.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
i know you mean no harm. i dont either. i just bristled when you belittled formal education. there's an old adage: "those who can, do. those who cant, teach." formal education is what produces most of our doers and we need those people. there is nothing laughable or arbitrary about someone with a phd. they earned that degree and have the skills to back it up. you have a different set of knowledge and skills and that's ok. it's only when you seem to be trying to imply that higher education is pointless and your knowledge is superior that i take umbrage.
i also think you and angelica should get married you guys are a match made in heaven.
Hey man, formal education is great stuff. I'm the first to admit that if you can stick with it, it's probably superior. I'll concede my knowledge any day to someone that holds a degree, assuming they hold the right degree. I did ask questions earlier of the achieved about devolution and the ID theory. It seemed to me that only allowing for degenerative mutations would mean devolution, but I wanted confirmation. I personally wouldn't respect a biologist's opinion on astrophysics the same way. I would question that opinion a lot more. What I've noticed throughout the scientific community is that there are disagreements. It seems to be the basis of science. Within each discipline there are various trains of thoughts, many conflicting with each other. In Dev. Psych. there are three differing opinions on the innate abilities of infants, all conflicting with each other, although most professionals in the field have oriented to one theory. Anyway, I just can't do formal education, I couldn't even complete highschool. My problem is that it's far too boring. I was diagnosed with ADD and a near photographic memory, apparently that has something to do with it. I can remember things and learn things, but I can't stick with them, I have to mix up my studies. Immediately after I"m done this book I'm going to be reading about something different. I've been watching lectures on different fields while I'm reading this to keep mixing it up. It's about the only way I can learn. Formal education doesn't provide that.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Let me break down my intentions. Since they are on trial, this will count as my testimony. Since we already have a lawyer on prosecution, is there anyone willing to defend me and do we have a judge? If not, I will defend myself.
. . .
I don't mean harm or bad intent, peace.
I find all of that quite admirable. And I really am on you side, as much as it may seem that I'm not. I just find your approach to this discussion a little bit annoying, which is why I keep jumping on you. Explaining scientific ideas to the layman is best done using layman's terms, not by trying to sound impressive by using technical language and obscure examples.
And, as someone mentioned earlier, the advantage of a formal education is having the guidance of others to correct you when your understanding of a topic starts to stray off in the wrong direction. I'm not trying to take any intellectual high ground just because I have a formal education. Facts are facts, no matter where you got them from. I was only cranky with you because your presentation and comprehension of the facts seemed a little peculiar.
Angelica - Looking at a concept from a different perspective to the widely accepted one doesn't always provide an alternate truth. Sometimes it is possible to just be wrong.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
Angelica - Looking at a concept from a different perspective to the widely accepted one doesn't always provide an alternate truth. Sometimes it is possible to just be wrong.
I fully accept wrongness....when it's proven.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I find all of that quite admirable. And I really am on you side, as much as it may seem that I'm not. I just find your approach to this discussion a little bit annoying, which is why I keep jumping on you. Explaining scientific ideas to the layman is best done using layman's terms, not by trying to sound impressive by using technical language and obscure examples.
And, as someone mentioned earlier, the advantage of a formal education is having the guidance of others to correct you when your understanding of a topic starts to stray off in the wrong direction. I'm not trying to take any intellectual high ground just because I have a formal education. Facts are facts, no matter where you got them from. I was only cranky with you because your presentation and comprehension of the facts seemed a little peculiar.
That's interesting, I would offer you my analysis of that, but I don't think you would respect it.
Did you know that Nikola Tesla was a very admirable physicist, but when he started to theorize about harnessing electricity from the earth and wireless projecting it, they called him a nut? The scientific community exiled him. He then went on to discover A/C current, Radio and how to harness electricity from the earth and wirelessly project it! He's known for many other things too.
In that case, the scientific community tried to adjust Tesla's thinking, but his thinking didn't need adjusting.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
well its hard to accept because in the case of the bat it is a degenerative change that has actually become an advantage in its environment. true evolution requires that new information is written in the genetic code.
This is exactly the argument that the IDers use. They claim that most of the commonly cited examples of evolutionary change are actually examples of loss of information, not constructive gain of new information. It looks like they kind of have a point, until you start looking at other examples. I think that the ones that are easiest to appreciate are the ones involving small incremental changes. Its hard to envisage how a fish could develop all the characteristics of an amphibian, but its much easier to think about (for example) how a system that once used just a single blood clotting factor could evolve into a system like ours that requires mutiple factors. The effect of the change is small, but the point is that the current system contains more components, and therefore more information, than the old system. Does that make sense?
a classic example that commonly is used is that of the woodpecker. the whole system would need to be operating otherwise the early woodpeckers would have died out. there is no use banging your head against a tree if your skull and brain hasen't evolved protective measures. that is my understanding anyway and it seems like a good arguement. if you want to try to correct my thinking be my guest.
That sounds like a lousy example to me. I can't claim to be an expert on woodpeckers, but I can easily imagine how the ability to drill into a tree the way they do would evolve. If the woodpecker's ancestors were tree-dwelling birds that fed on insects that lived beneath the bark, it would be advantageous for them to have a sharp beak that allowed them to pry the insects out. As the generations went by and the majority of the population had sharp beaks and were dependant on their ability to pry insects from the bark, it would become advantageous to have, say, stronger neck muscles to allow the beak to penetrate further. This could lead to a state where it was advantageous to have a more robust skull to support those stronger neck muscles. . . . .etc etc.
The point is that nobody is claiming that organisms are suddenly born with a whole suite of traits like the woodpecker's sharp beak, robust skull, strong neck muscles and 'drilling' behaviour. These traits appear gradually, one at a time.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
my perception had nothing to do with his points and everything to do with his style of debate. degree or no degree, i am familiar with his tactics and they show knowledge and comperhension, but not adaptability. having a degree is irrelevant. but scuba pointed it out. he is given a question, and he is unable to answer the question. he instead provides an off point example lifted from a book he read that reinforces his original point but does not respond to the question or challenge with which he was presented. this is classic autistic behavior. staggering information retention and powers of apprehension, but limited ability to formulate it or interact with others about it. it was not intended to be an insult or a putdown. im truly impressed by how much knowledge he possesses. im just not entirely convinced he'd be able to apply it in terms of scientific discovery or progress.
go look up the old thread about abuse of women and you will see what i mean. you were not here for that. it was my first introduction to him. it displayed a total inability to empathize or understand any views but his own. if it happened to him, it was the normal. if anyone disagreed, they were abnormal. he seemed utterly unable to comprehend that his experience might have been atypical in any way or to comprehend any experience outside his own. and if you read that thread, i think even you would agree his experience and belief was anything but typical or rational.
When I first began talking with Ahnimus out here, I found him quite repelling. I don't think I had been as angered by anyone on this board as by him, since he was outrightly telling me I was delusional and needed to be checked for mental illness due to my points of view. And this happened over, and over and over. Other people got involved and defended me, because they felt it was needed.
However, I don't need to look up any past threads in order to know that prejudgment does not prove Ahnimus' points wrong. Proof does.
It's interesting that you say he shows no adaptability. The relationship between Ahnimus and I has changed from the days of my hostility, due pretty much entirely to his completely adapting in our discussions.
What you point to about Ahnimus sticking with his point, rather than respond to another person's questions.....you mention it is autistic behaviour. It's also behaviour of someone who defines their own agenda and stays on their task, rather than being taken off point by someone else's agenda. I use that tactic all the time, quite frankly. It is about defining yourself and your beliefs and while you take others into consideration, you do not allow them to define you.
Again, I commended him earlier in this thread because his point about chance was quite powerful considering the context it was used. It takes the ability to perceive and weave together varying schools of thought together to get that. Unfortunately, it seems others do not get that.
I personally think it's lowwwww blow to imply or state there is a literal disorder involved in one's thinking processes, as a way to make a point. If Ahnimus doesn't know all the answers about evolution, let's just string him up! He may play a part in the hostility towards him, and it may be emotionally justified. To be proven wrong, his points need to be proven wrong.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
That's interesting, I would offer you my analysis of that, but I don't think you would respect it.
Did you know that Nikola Tesla was a very admirable physicist, but when he started to theorize about harnessing electricity from the earth and wireless projecting it, they called him a nut? The scientific community exiled him. He then went on to discover A/C current, Radio and how to harness electricity from the earth and wirelessly project it! He's known for many other things too.
In that case, the scientific community tried to adjust Tesla's thinking, but his thinking didn't need adjusting.
Analyse away. Does it matter whether or not I respect it? I'm not inclined to get involved in this debate about the best system of education. I actually agree with Angelica about the dangers of dogmatic thinking, but there's a difference between having an unusual original idea and misinterpreting an established one.
Ok. . . .Pythagoras, Galileo and Copernicus all had the same problem. So did Darwin. But they were all scorned for their original ideas, not for the way in which they presented old ones.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
Back on the topic of evolution, the human genomics project reports that much of the "Junk" code contains evidence of evolution as well.
I think of something like the skull of an infant. It's actually seperated segments of bone and a gluey like substance in between. After birth the gluey part eventually hardens forming the complete skull. There are two seperate stages advantagious to the environment. I'm not sure if that's evidence of evolution, but it shows the complexity of life and it's ability to adapt to it's environment.
Some people have argued that Dev. Psych. is also evidence of evolution. The 1 - 4 month old's brain is very primitive, like a dumb animal, by 4 - 8 months it's more like a household pet and by 8 - 12 months it's becoming more like a human. Though, I think this is an over-simplification of Developmental Psychology.
Particular examples proving the process of constructive evolution qualitatively. Hmm, that's tough... The only real examples I know of involve human intervention like the Killer Bee (Africanized Bee), by breeding European bees and African bees, they produced a highly-productive killer bee. The bees produced by mating with American drones were more productive than any of their counter-parts. Perhaps that implies constructive genetics?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Analyse away. Does it matter whether or not I respect it? I'm not inclined to get involved in this debate about the best system of education. I actually agree with Angelica about the dangers of dogmatic thinking, but there's a difference between having an unusual original idea and misinterpreting an established one.
Ok. . . .Pythagoras, Galileo and Copernicus all had the same problem. So did Darwin. But they were all scorned for their original ideas, not for the way in which they presented old ones.
Fair enough. Just for my further understanding, what did I misrepresent?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I find all of that quite admirable. And I really am on you side, as much as it may seem that I'm not. I just find your approach to this discussion a little bit annoying, which is why I keep jumping on you. Explaining scientific ideas to the layman is best done using layman's terms, not by trying to sound impressive by using technical language and obscure examples.
And, as someone mentioned earlier, the advantage of a formal education is having the guidance of others to correct you when your understanding of a topic starts to stray off in the wrong direction. I'm not trying to take any intellectual high ground just because I have a formal education. Facts are facts, no matter where you got them from. I was only cranky with you because your presentation and comprehension of the facts seemed a little peculiar.
Angelica - Looking at a concept from a different perspective to the widely accepted one doesn't always provide an alternate truth. Sometimes it is possible to just be wrong.
Here goes...
Annoyance is an aspect of life that is subjective. Some people are annoyed by some things that others are not. The explanation behind this variance lies in psychology. A vast amount of experiential influence, environmental influence and peer influence combined with genetics, renders a persons thoughts, and in at least one theory their range-of-reaction.
Many of life's annoyances are a result of attribution errors. By attributing the cause to another person, rather than environmental factors or inanimate objects. However, this is subjective, actually being the cause elicits blame on environment or inanimate objects. That sounds confusing so I will use an example. A person stubs their toe and blames the table they stubbed it on "Fuck, table, oww! What the hell was that doing there?" they whitness someone else stub their toe "Haha, Didn't you notice that was there?". In this case the ultimate response is laughter, attributing the unfortunate event to the person involved and not the object, while in the other case, attribution is put on the object and the response is not laughter. Another example of this is being cut-off on the highway in a vehicle. An individual being cut-off will typically blame the other driver and often curse them. However, the person in the other vehicle may not even be aware of what they have done and begin cursing back. Both people are attributing the problem to the other person, when in reality it's a misunderstanding. Being the driver that cut-off the other person and realizing what I had done, I would feel shitty, but chances are I wouldn't have cut them off to begin with if I had known what I was doing.
Our innate inclinations is to social status. It serves us to attribute the cause elsewhere, onto another individual. In this particular case, I think you attributed the cause of our misunderstanding to me. It's possible that you misinterpreted what I was saying, but I won't attribute the cause to you. I will simply recognize that a misunderstanding occurred and with your help work to reach an understanding. This is not always true, and you could easily find examples where I have made attribution errors. Nobody is perfect.
That's my analysis, by respecting, I meant, you probably wouldn't care to hear it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Fair enough. Just for my further understanding, what did I misrepresent?
Ok, only because you asked. I don't want to argue about any of this any further. I'd much rather be friends.
I don't want to bang on about this ad naseum, but your probability argument didn't make any sense at all. After you qualified a few things I understood what you meant, but the presentation of the concept of probability was still wrong.
Probability is a term used to describe the likelyhood of a particular outcome of a future event. You can't calculate the probability of an event that has already happened as 100% just because it happened. It may have happened, but that doesn't mean that the probability of it happening before it happened was 100%. For the same reason, you can't argue that just because humans exist we are evidence of our own evolution. Anyway, we've been through all this already, so there's no need to do it again.
A trinucleotide repeat region is simply a section of DNA that has the same three letters repeated over and over. It can be significant because many enzymes, including those involved in gene regulation and DNA replication recognise regions like this. From the brief little nugget that threw in I'm really not sure how much you understand about molecular biology, but the fact that you would try to use it as evidence of evolutionary theory making a contribution to medicine, wiithout making any effort to explain what you are talking about makes me suspect that you did just for shock value, to impress us all with your knowledge, rather than to make a point. It also irritated me that you threw that in out of context because nobody is going to understand what you're on about, which means that you're not making a constructive contribution to the discussion.
Ok, no more. I'm really sorry I upset you. Lets just stick to the subject.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
Ok, only because you asked. I don't want to argue about any of this any further. I'd much rather be friends.
I don't want to bang on about this ad naseum, but your probability argument didn't make any sense at all. After you qualified a few things I understood what you meant, but the presentation of the concept of probability was still wrong.
Probability is a term used to describe the likelyhood of a particular outcome of a future event. You can't calculate the probability of an event that has already happened as 100% just because it happened. It may have happened, but that doesn't mean that the probability of it happening before it happened was 100%. For the same reason, you can't argue that just because humans exist we are evidence of our own evolution. Anyway, we've been through all this already, so there's no need to do it again.
A trinucleotide repeat region is simply a section of DNA that has the same three letters repeated over and over. It can be significant because many enzymes, including those involved in gene regulation and DNA replication recognise regions like this. From the brief little nugget that threw in I'm really not sure how much you understand about molecular biology, but the fact that you would try to use it as evidence of evolutionary theory making a contribution to medicine, wiithout making any effort to explain what you are talking about makes me suspect that you did just for shock value, to impress us all with your knowledge, rather than to make a point. It also irritated me that you threw that in out of context because nobody is going to understand what you're on about, which means that you're not making a constructive contribution to the discussion.
Ok, no more. I'm really sorry I upset you. Lets just stick to the subject.
lol, I'm not upset.
That's interesting, I didn't realize that trinucleotide implied 3 letters of DNA, or I suppose what would be considered a nucleotide. My knowledge of that particular mechanism is very limited. I understood the concept of extension and how that affects the degenerative outcome of Rett's, assuming of course that trinucleotide repeat occurs within the individual and not during conception. The basis of the disease is that slippage occurs during the repeat cycle resulting in an extension, that extension becomes exponentially greater over successive repeat cycles resulting in degeneration of the nervous system. All that caused by some mixed up letters in the DNA or what I assume is "Genetic mutation" and that was the basis for throwing it out there. It seems like you understood it, so I guess the explanation wasn't for not, but I see why you think that I was trying to display my colored feathers like a peacock.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
That was a good thread. I might check that out if it's still around. I can't remember exactly what I said, but my opinion hasn't changed. Women are abused because of sociocultural influences and the various other objective and subjective influences on a person's thought processes. Perhaps my English wasn't very clear at the time. I have more occupational knowledge concerning the topic now. I think my points were misinterpreted to imply that criminals should not be held accountable and that contradicts social prejudice. It elicits a response par with that of blaming the abusee. This is where that term Cognitive Dissonance becomes relative.
as i recall, you said something more along the lines of women being horrible and abusive and conspiring to hold you down. your only evidence was an ex-gf who sicked a bunch of gang-bangers on you and your mother forcing you into therapy.
Hey man, formal education is great stuff. I'm the first to admit that if you can stick with it, it's probably superior. I'll concede my knowledge any day to someone that holds a degree, assuming they hold the right degree. I did ask questions earlier of the achieved about devolution and the ID theory. It seemed to me that only allowing for degenerative mutations would mean devolution, but I wanted confirmation. I personally wouldn't respect a biologist's opinion on astrophysics the same way. I would question that opinion a lot more. What I've noticed throughout the scientific community is that there are disagreements. It seems to be the basis of science. Within each discipline there are various trains of thoughts, many conflicting with each other. In Dev. Psych. there are three differing opinions on the innate abilities of infants, all conflicting with each other, although most professionals in the field have oriented to one theory. Anyway, I just can't do formal education, I couldn't even complete highschool. My problem is that it's far too boring. I was diagnosed with ADD and a near photographic memory, apparently that has something to do with it. I can remember things and learn things, but I can't stick with them, I have to mix up my studies. Immediately after I"m done this book I'm going to be reading about something different. I've been watching lectures on different fields while I'm reading this to keep mixing it up. It's about the only way I can learn. Formal education doesn't provide that.
that sounds about right. ill be waiting for my apology from angelica, as i wasnt all that far off in guessing that you had some interestingly contradictory traits. i also agree with you. all i was trying to say was that i didnt think your studies gave you a better grasp of evolution than a biologist cos it seemed like that's what you were claiming. if it wasnt, it was simple miscommunication. but like you point out, phd studies give you extensive but limited knowledge. a phd in biology doesn't give you any added weight when talking physics. you're probably more well rounded than the average phd. i just thought you were denying the expertise a phd acquires in their field. guess i was wrong. no harm done.
as i recall, you said something more along the lines of women being horrible and abusive and conspiring to hold you down. your only evidence was an ex-gf who sicked a bunch of gang-bangers on you and your mother forcing you into therapy.
Oh right. Is that how you interpreted it?
Actually, I provided statistical evidence that 18% of lesbian couples report domestic violence. Women are more aggressive than men in 11 categories. That was the basis for my argument that men are not more aggressive than women. Men are the victims of abuse equally as much as woman, but only 1/3 or 1/5 (I can't remember) of men actually report DV to the authorities.
As I recall, I provided a lot more evidence than personal experience. Just to clarify what my experience was, it wasn't my ex-gf it was a girl that I turned down.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
When I first began talking with Ahnimus out here, I found him quite repelling. I don't think I had been as angered by anyone on this board as by him, since he was outrightly telling me I was delusional and needed to be checked for mental illness due to my points of view. And this happened over, and over and over. Other people got involved and defended me, because they felt it was needed.
However, I don't need to look up any past threads in order to know that prejudgment does not prove Ahnimus' points wrong. Proof does.
It's interesting that you say he shows no adaptability. The relationship between Ahnimus and I has changed from the days of my hostility, due pretty much entirely to his completely adapting in our discussions.
What you point to about Ahnimus sticking with his point, rather than respond to another person's questions.....you mention it is autistic behaviour. It's also behaviour of someone who defines their own agenda and stays on their task, rather than being taken off point by someone else's agenda. I use that tactic all the time, quite frankly. It is about defining yourself and your beliefs and while you take others into consideration, you do not allow them to define you.
Again, I commended him earlier in this thread because his point about chance was quite powerful considering the context it was used. It takes the ability to perceive and weave together varying schools of thought together to get that. Unfortunately, it seems others do not get that.
I personally think it's lowwwww blow to imply or state there is a literal disorder involved in one's thinking processes, as a way to make a point. If Ahnimus doesn't know all the answers about evolution, let's just string him up! He may play a part in the hostility towards him, and it may be emotionally justified. To be proven wrong, his points need to be proven wrong.
sticking with your point does not mean you're right nor is it always some altruistic "i know myself" stance. in the context of sharing of knowledge, you have to respond to potential holes in your theories. ignoring them does not make them go away. what you see as "defining the agenda" i see as simply dodging the question... the implication being they have no answer to it and would rather ignore inconsistencies than address them. that is what science is. you make your claims and then you have to defend them from questioning to show that they are valid. if you cannot do it satisfactorily, your point is proven wrong.
i happen to believe his points were right. i never claimed otherwise. the only claim i ever made here was that it is ridiculous to say that in 2 weeks he knew more about evolutionary biology than a phd who spent 10 years studying it. even he has conceded that. it was the only thing i ever took issue with here. i have stated from the beginning that his statements on evolution were accurate to the best of my knowledge (when i understood them... im only an english major after all).
you were the one scolding me about judgment calls earlier. why is autism a low blow? i never intended it as an insult, you are the one who seems to think it is something shameful or dismissive. it's simply another thought process. i never attempted to "string him up" or belittle his intelligence based on those comments. he just has an idiosyncratic style that seems to have a lot in common with the characteristic of autistic thought patterns. he himself admitted to ADD and near photographic memory, so i was not all that far off. for the normally level-headed tone you espouse on here, i must say im almost flattered to have gotten you wound up enough to throw out something so emotional and subjective and insulting as suggesting that i would advocate "stringing up" someone for being autistic.
that sounds about right. ill be waiting for my apology from angelica, as i wasnt all that far off in guessing that you had some interestingly contradictory traits. i also agree with you. all i was trying to say was that i didnt think your studies gave you a better grasp of evolution than a biologist cos it seemed like that's what you were claiming. if it wasnt, it was simple miscommunication. but like you point out, phd studies give you extensive but limited knowledge. a phd in biology doesn't give you any added weight when talking physics. you're probably more well rounded than the average phd. i just thought you were denying the expertise a phd acquires in their field. guess i was wrong. no harm done.
Well, to be honest, I question how much of my boredom stems from actual ADD. The diagnoses was based on observation, but they later determined that I have superior intellect. It's unclear to me how much is genius and how much is ADD. According to pretty much everyone else, not qualified to make the judgment, I'm not a genius. Regarding the intelligence quiz, I found that the score was determined based solely on knowledge and problem-solving skills. That, to me, doesn't say anything about IQ. I suppose that's why IQ isn't widely recognized and has mostly fallen out of use.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Actually, I provided statistical evidence that 18% of lesbian couples report domestic violence. Women are more aggressive than men in 11 categories. That was the basis for my argument that men are not more aggressive than women. Men are the victims of abuse equally as much as woman, but only 1/3 or 1/5 (I can't remember) of men actually report DV to the authorities.
As I recall, I provided a lot more evidence than personal experience. Just to clarify what my experience was, it wasn't my ex-gf it was a girl that I turned down.
fair enough. i just remember you saying some off the wall things in that one and you seemed pretty emotional and wound up when recounting it. it seemed to color your argument to a large extent.
fair enough. i just remember you saying some off the wall things in that one and you seemed pretty emotional and wound up when recounting it. it seemed to color your argument to a large extent.
That's true. That is one of the topics that gets me wound up. Mainly because my theories are off the wall to the general population. I encounter a lot of hostility when attributing the cause of abuse to cultural influence and not to gender. The same happens when I discuss criminology, my view is that criminals are regular people having irregular experiences. That shifts the blame from the individual onto society and that's not widely accepted.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Well, to be honest, I question how much of my boredom stems from actual ADD. The diagnoses was based on observation, but they later determined that I have superior intellect. It's unclear to me how much is genius and how much is ADD. According to pretty much everyone else, not qualified to make the judgment, I'm not a genius. Regarding the intelligence quiz, I found that the score was determined based solely on knowledge and problem-solving skills. That, to me, doesn't say anything about IQ. I suppose that's why IQ isn't widely recognized and has mostly fallen out of use.
i dont think it's possible to quantify intelligence based on a test. if so, id be a genius too. ive always aced tests like that. i certainly dont think im a genius though.
on a more lighthearted tone, another part of autism is it usually entails a certain unfamiliarity with social norms... like humility. dontcha know that it's considered poor form to basically claim outright that you have a genius superior intellect?
of course, if you truly are autistic, you wont understand that that's a joke if you're not, have a laugh and let's put this to rest so i can go to bed. i didnt read a lick of criminal law tonight! ive got an interesting analogy on that that might illustrate what ive been kicking around here all night. perhaps ill put it up tomorrow.
Actually, now that I think about it, vestigal traits are evidence of constructive evolution.
Why do humans have no use for the pancreas? Because we constructively evolved in some other way. Our olfactory senses have degenerated because of our constructive brain evolution.
The Manatee doesn't need the hip or legs anymore because it constructively evolved into a sea creature.
I routinely read large portions of threads I participate in. I noticed this statement that I made and noticed an error. This was in response to a fact about modern need for an appendix and in my response I used pancreas. The pancreas is responsible for providing insulin and we do need it for our metabolic functions. I apologize for the error.
I think maybe this thread could use an appendix.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
i dont think it's possible to quantify intelligence based on a test. if so, id be a genius too. ive always aced tests like that. i certainly dont think im a genius though.
on a more lighthearted tone, another part of autism is it usually entails a certain unfamiliarity with social norms... like humility. dontcha know that it's considered poor form to basically claim outright that you have a genius superior intellect?
of course, if you truly are autistic, you wont understand that that's a joke if you're not, have a laugh and let's put this to rest so i can go to bed. i didnt read a lick of criminal law tonight! ive got an interesting analogy on that that might illustrate what ive been kicking around here all night. perhaps ill put it up tomorrow.
Oh, I fully understand the concept of social norms and I find that amusing. It was in that context that I inappropriately used the statement of my IQ. It appeared that inappropriate social behavior had run rampant, as is typical of internet dialog. As I recall I was being dissected for not achieving academic goals and therefor my knowledge was void. My response was to represent equality in another manner. It wasn't exactly in terms of superiority as much as in terms of equality. Though I admit, it was a poor response, having suppressed emotional response, I may have found alternative resolutions. But emotional response is good for saving time and some what innate. Anyway you can be certain that with my "theory of everything" that no one is ever to blame. Radical Behaviorism, perhaps, Chaos Theory. My theory is basically Chaos theory, from the very basis of particle physics to evolution to flipping a coin to social interaction. But with social interaction we have an influence, even if that influence is based on other chaotic mechanisms. Even if we are based on chaotic mechanism. It simply means that it's predetermined. You could think this theory would lead to a creator, but I don't see the correlation. That is still only subjective evidence of a creator, even if chaos theory is true.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
sticking with your point does not mean you're right nor is it always some altruistic "i know myself" stance. in the context of sharing of knowledge, you have to respond to potential holes in your theories. ignoring them does not make them go away. what you see as "defining the agenda" i see as simply dodging the question... the implication being they have no answer to it and would rather ignore inconsistencies than address them. that is what science is. you make your claims and then you have to defend them from questioning to show that they are valid. if you cannot do it satisfactorily, your point is proven wrong.
I agree exactly with what Ahnimus said earlier: people have "attribution problems". This is a base psychological issue. People see an error and assume it's the other guy's fault. They don't realize it might be their own error of perception. I saw exactly what Ahnimus was doing--people were calling out his poor information, and he was answering back that he felt his point was misunderstood, etc. If one misunderstands the context of those points, and assumes the other person to be wrong erroneously, the first person is not responsible. I noticed this might have happened in this thread. Because a few people are against Ahnimus' style does not make him inaccurate. It does not mean he is necessarily accurate--again discernment of the points discern accuracy. Until one has an argument that PROVES Ahnimus is incorrect, it's just two people disagreeing to me. I respect education, and yet it does not give one a free ride--educated people are also expected to back up their points.
i happen to believe his points were right. i never claimed otherwise. the only claim i ever made here was that it is ridiculous to say that in 2 weeks he knew more about evolutionary biology than a phd who spent 10 years studying it. even he has conceded that. it was the only thing i ever took issue with here. i have stated from the beginning that his statements on evolution were accurate to the best of my knowledge (when i understood them... im only an english major after all).
I did not think he said he knows more about evolutionary biology than a "phd who spent 10 years studying it". I thought he was backing up what he did know. And defending learning on one's own.
you were the one scolding me about judgment calls earlier. why is autism a low blow? i never intended it as an insult, you are the one who seems to think it is something shameful or dismissive. it's simply another thought process. i never attempted to "string him up" or belittle his intelligence based on those comments. he just has an idiosyncratic style that seems to have a lot in common with the characteristic of autistic thought patterns. he himself admitted to ADD and near photographic memory, so i was not all that far off. for the normally level-headed tone you espouse on here, i must say im almost flattered to have gotten you wound up enough to throw out something so emotional and subjective and insulting as suggesting that i would advocate "stringing up" someone for being autistic.
If you don't understand how saying someone seems to have a neurodevelopmental disorder is a low blow, I'm not sure I can help, here. Transactional analysis, the form of psychology that covers human interactions is clear that if we using devices wherein we treat the other as though they are "not okay" then we are operating in an imbalanced sense. We can couch it in logic and reason, but it's still operating from the premise that you are saying there is something wrong with Ahnimus in order to make your point. Contrarily, the average person without a lowered agenda, were they to run across someone they thought had a disorder, they would display sensitivity towards it, not insensitivity. For example, when talking with one who is autistic I doubt it's the norm to point out to them that there is something wrong with them in order to get one's point across.
The "string him up comment" is based on the fact that over and over in this thread, people have taken jabs at Ahnimus the person, rather than his arguments. When I see a person who is lacking in awareness on a subject, I don't disparage and depreciate them. I attempt to clarify for them. When someone is going after someone for a lack of knowledge, there is something personal at play--not something reasonable. When a few people do it in one thread--again, over a PERCEIVED, possible lack of knowledge, it looks like a mob mentality to me. Or a witch hunt.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
well its hard to accept because in the case of the bat it is a degenerative change that has actually become an advantage in its environment.
This is interesting to me because I'm fascinated by bats, so I hope one of the scientists lurking about will know the answer.
Do we know it was a degenerative change? Is there any evidence that bats were once able to see well? I've always assumed (yeah, I know, that's usually a mistake) that they simply never evolved the type of eysight that we have because it wasn't necessary for a nocturnal creature that had evolved a sophisticated echolocation system.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Well, yeah, it would make perfect sense for me to hook up with someone younger than my own child.
edit: :sarcasm:
Yea, that's unfortunate, she won't hook me up with her daughter either :(
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
This is interesting to me because I'm fascinated by bats, so I hope one of the scientists lurking about will know the answer.
Do we know it was a degenerative change? Is there any evidence that bats were once able to see well? I've always assumed (yeah, I know, that's usually a mistake) that they simply never evolved the type of eysight that we have because it wasn't necessary for a nocturnal creature that had evolved a sophisticated echolocation system.
Here is what I found out:
Little is known about the evolution of bats, since their small, delicate skeletons do not fossilize well. However a late Cretaceous tooth from South America resembles that of an early Microchiropteran bat. The oldest known definite bat fossils, such as Icaronycteris, Archaeonycteris, Palaeochiropteryx and Hassianycteris, are from the early Eocene (about 50 million years ago), but they were already very similar to modern microbats. Archaeopteropus, formerly classified as the earliest known megachiropteran, is now classified as a microchiropteran. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat
However, more recent DNA studies have linked many microbats to megabats, I didn't know this but megabats don't use echolocation. So that implies a constructive evolutionary change to me. I could be wrong.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
My daughter can't stomach guys who are Collective Soul fans.
Are you serious?
Well she doesn't have to digest me
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
That was a good thread. I might check that out if it's still around. I can't remember exactly what I said, but my opinion hasn't changed. Women are abused because of sociocultural influences and the various other objective and subjective influences on a person's thought processes. Perhaps my English wasn't very clear at the time. I have more occupational knowledge concerning the topic now. I think my points were misinterpreted to imply that criminals should not be held accountable and that contradicts social prejudice. It elicits a response par with that of blaming the abusee. This is where that term Cognitive Dissonance becomes relative.
Hey man, formal education is great stuff. I'm the first to admit that if you can stick with it, it's probably superior. I'll concede my knowledge any day to someone that holds a degree, assuming they hold the right degree. I did ask questions earlier of the achieved about devolution and the ID theory. It seemed to me that only allowing for degenerative mutations would mean devolution, but I wanted confirmation. I personally wouldn't respect a biologist's opinion on astrophysics the same way. I would question that opinion a lot more. What I've noticed throughout the scientific community is that there are disagreements. It seems to be the basis of science. Within each discipline there are various trains of thoughts, many conflicting with each other. In Dev. Psych. there are three differing opinions on the innate abilities of infants, all conflicting with each other, although most professionals in the field have oriented to one theory. Anyway, I just can't do formal education, I couldn't even complete highschool. My problem is that it's far too boring. I was diagnosed with ADD and a near photographic memory, apparently that has something to do with it. I can remember things and learn things, but I can't stick with them, I have to mix up my studies. Immediately after I"m done this book I'm going to be reading about something different. I've been watching lectures on different fields while I'm reading this to keep mixing it up. It's about the only way I can learn. Formal education doesn't provide that.
I find all of that quite admirable. And I really am on you side, as much as it may seem that I'm not. I just find your approach to this discussion a little bit annoying, which is why I keep jumping on you. Explaining scientific ideas to the layman is best done using layman's terms, not by trying to sound impressive by using technical language and obscure examples.
And, as someone mentioned earlier, the advantage of a formal education is having the guidance of others to correct you when your understanding of a topic starts to stray off in the wrong direction. I'm not trying to take any intellectual high ground just because I have a formal education. Facts are facts, no matter where you got them from. I was only cranky with you because your presentation and comprehension of the facts seemed a little peculiar.
Angelica - Looking at a concept from a different perspective to the widely accepted one doesn't always provide an alternate truth. Sometimes it is possible to just be wrong.
-C Addison
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
That's interesting, I would offer you my analysis of that, but I don't think you would respect it.
Did you know that Nikola Tesla was a very admirable physicist, but when he started to theorize about harnessing electricity from the earth and wireless projecting it, they called him a nut? The scientific community exiled him. He then went on to discover A/C current, Radio and how to harness electricity from the earth and wirelessly project it! He's known for many other things too.
In that case, the scientific community tried to adjust Tesla's thinking, but his thinking didn't need adjusting.
This is exactly the argument that the IDers use. They claim that most of the commonly cited examples of evolutionary change are actually examples of loss of information, not constructive gain of new information. It looks like they kind of have a point, until you start looking at other examples. I think that the ones that are easiest to appreciate are the ones involving small incremental changes. Its hard to envisage how a fish could develop all the characteristics of an amphibian, but its much easier to think about (for example) how a system that once used just a single blood clotting factor could evolve into a system like ours that requires mutiple factors. The effect of the change is small, but the point is that the current system contains more components, and therefore more information, than the old system. Does that make sense?
That sounds like a lousy example to me. I can't claim to be an expert on woodpeckers, but I can easily imagine how the ability to drill into a tree the way they do would evolve. If the woodpecker's ancestors were tree-dwelling birds that fed on insects that lived beneath the bark, it would be advantageous for them to have a sharp beak that allowed them to pry the insects out. As the generations went by and the majority of the population had sharp beaks and were dependant on their ability to pry insects from the bark, it would become advantageous to have, say, stronger neck muscles to allow the beak to penetrate further. This could lead to a state where it was advantageous to have a more robust skull to support those stronger neck muscles. . . . .etc etc.
The point is that nobody is claiming that organisms are suddenly born with a whole suite of traits like the woodpecker's sharp beak, robust skull, strong neck muscles and 'drilling' behaviour. These traits appear gradually, one at a time.
-C Addison
When I first began talking with Ahnimus out here, I found him quite repelling. I don't think I had been as angered by anyone on this board as by him, since he was outrightly telling me I was delusional and needed to be checked for mental illness due to my points of view. And this happened over, and over and over. Other people got involved and defended me, because they felt it was needed.
However, I don't need to look up any past threads in order to know that prejudgment does not prove Ahnimus' points wrong. Proof does.
It's interesting that you say he shows no adaptability. The relationship between Ahnimus and I has changed from the days of my hostility, due pretty much entirely to his completely adapting in our discussions.
What you point to about Ahnimus sticking with his point, rather than respond to another person's questions.....you mention it is autistic behaviour. It's also behaviour of someone who defines their own agenda and stays on their task, rather than being taken off point by someone else's agenda. I use that tactic all the time, quite frankly. It is about defining yourself and your beliefs and while you take others into consideration, you do not allow them to define you.
Again, I commended him earlier in this thread because his point about chance was quite powerful considering the context it was used. It takes the ability to perceive and weave together varying schools of thought together to get that. Unfortunately, it seems others do not get that.
I personally think it's lowwwww blow to imply or state there is a literal disorder involved in one's thinking processes, as a way to make a point. If Ahnimus doesn't know all the answers about evolution, let's just string him up! He may play a part in the hostility towards him, and it may be emotionally justified. To be proven wrong, his points need to be proven wrong.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Analyse away. Does it matter whether or not I respect it? I'm not inclined to get involved in this debate about the best system of education. I actually agree with Angelica about the dangers of dogmatic thinking, but there's a difference between having an unusual original idea and misinterpreting an established one.
Ok. . . .Pythagoras, Galileo and Copernicus all had the same problem. So did Darwin. But they were all scorned for their original ideas, not for the way in which they presented old ones.
-C Addison
I think of something like the skull of an infant. It's actually seperated segments of bone and a gluey like substance in between. After birth the gluey part eventually hardens forming the complete skull. There are two seperate stages advantagious to the environment. I'm not sure if that's evidence of evolution, but it shows the complexity of life and it's ability to adapt to it's environment.
Some people have argued that Dev. Psych. is also evidence of evolution. The 1 - 4 month old's brain is very primitive, like a dumb animal, by 4 - 8 months it's more like a household pet and by 8 - 12 months it's becoming more like a human. Though, I think this is an over-simplification of Developmental Psychology.
Particular examples proving the process of constructive evolution qualitatively. Hmm, that's tough... The only real examples I know of involve human intervention like the Killer Bee (Africanized Bee), by breeding European bees and African bees, they produced a highly-productive killer bee. The bees produced by mating with American drones were more productive than any of their counter-parts. Perhaps that implies constructive genetics?
Fair enough. Just for my further understanding, what did I misrepresent?
Here goes...
Annoyance is an aspect of life that is subjective. Some people are annoyed by some things that others are not. The explanation behind this variance lies in psychology. A vast amount of experiential influence, environmental influence and peer influence combined with genetics, renders a persons thoughts, and in at least one theory their range-of-reaction.
Many of life's annoyances are a result of attribution errors. By attributing the cause to another person, rather than environmental factors or inanimate objects. However, this is subjective, actually being the cause elicits blame on environment or inanimate objects. That sounds confusing so I will use an example. A person stubs their toe and blames the table they stubbed it on "Fuck, table, oww! What the hell was that doing there?" they whitness someone else stub their toe "Haha, Didn't you notice that was there?". In this case the ultimate response is laughter, attributing the unfortunate event to the person involved and not the object, while in the other case, attribution is put on the object and the response is not laughter. Another example of this is being cut-off on the highway in a vehicle. An individual being cut-off will typically blame the other driver and often curse them. However, the person in the other vehicle may not even be aware of what they have done and begin cursing back. Both people are attributing the problem to the other person, when in reality it's a misunderstanding. Being the driver that cut-off the other person and realizing what I had done, I would feel shitty, but chances are I wouldn't have cut them off to begin with if I had known what I was doing.
Our innate inclinations is to social status. It serves us to attribute the cause elsewhere, onto another individual. In this particular case, I think you attributed the cause of our misunderstanding to me. It's possible that you misinterpreted what I was saying, but I won't attribute the cause to you. I will simply recognize that a misunderstanding occurred and with your help work to reach an understanding. This is not always true, and you could easily find examples where I have made attribution errors. Nobody is perfect.
That's my analysis, by respecting, I meant, you probably wouldn't care to hear it.
Ok, only because you asked. I don't want to argue about any of this any further. I'd much rather be friends.
I don't want to bang on about this ad naseum, but your probability argument didn't make any sense at all. After you qualified a few things I understood what you meant, but the presentation of the concept of probability was still wrong.
Probability is a term used to describe the likelyhood of a particular outcome of a future event. You can't calculate the probability of an event that has already happened as 100% just because it happened. It may have happened, but that doesn't mean that the probability of it happening before it happened was 100%. For the same reason, you can't argue that just because humans exist we are evidence of our own evolution. Anyway, we've been through all this already, so there's no need to do it again.
A trinucleotide repeat region is simply a section of DNA that has the same three letters repeated over and over. It can be significant because many enzymes, including those involved in gene regulation and DNA replication recognise regions like this. From the brief little nugget that threw in I'm really not sure how much you understand about molecular biology, but the fact that you would try to use it as evidence of evolutionary theory making a contribution to medicine, wiithout making any effort to explain what you are talking about makes me suspect that you did just for shock value, to impress us all with your knowledge, rather than to make a point. It also irritated me that you threw that in out of context because nobody is going to understand what you're on about, which means that you're not making a constructive contribution to the discussion.
Ok, no more. I'm really sorry I upset you. Lets just stick to the subject.
-C Addison
lol, I'm not upset.
That's interesting, I didn't realize that trinucleotide implied 3 letters of DNA, or I suppose what would be considered a nucleotide. My knowledge of that particular mechanism is very limited. I understood the concept of extension and how that affects the degenerative outcome of Rett's, assuming of course that trinucleotide repeat occurs within the individual and not during conception. The basis of the disease is that slippage occurs during the repeat cycle resulting in an extension, that extension becomes exponentially greater over successive repeat cycles resulting in degeneration of the nervous system. All that caused by some mixed up letters in the DNA or what I assume is "Genetic mutation" and that was the basis for throwing it out there. It seems like you understood it, so I guess the explanation wasn't for not, but I see why you think that I was trying to display my colored feathers like a peacock.
as i recall, you said something more along the lines of women being horrible and abusive and conspiring to hold you down. your only evidence was an ex-gf who sicked a bunch of gang-bangers on you and your mother forcing you into therapy.
that sounds about right. ill be waiting for my apology from angelica, as i wasnt all that far off in guessing that you had some interestingly contradictory traits. i also agree with you. all i was trying to say was that i didnt think your studies gave you a better grasp of evolution than a biologist cos it seemed like that's what you were claiming. if it wasnt, it was simple miscommunication. but like you point out, phd studies give you extensive but limited knowledge. a phd in biology doesn't give you any added weight when talking physics. you're probably more well rounded than the average phd. i just thought you were denying the expertise a phd acquires in their field. guess i was wrong. no harm done.
Oh right. Is that how you interpreted it?
Actually, I provided statistical evidence that 18% of lesbian couples report domestic violence. Women are more aggressive than men in 11 categories. That was the basis for my argument that men are not more aggressive than women. Men are the victims of abuse equally as much as woman, but only 1/3 or 1/5 (I can't remember) of men actually report DV to the authorities.
As I recall, I provided a lot more evidence than personal experience. Just to clarify what my experience was, it wasn't my ex-gf it was a girl that I turned down.
sticking with your point does not mean you're right nor is it always some altruistic "i know myself" stance. in the context of sharing of knowledge, you have to respond to potential holes in your theories. ignoring them does not make them go away. what you see as "defining the agenda" i see as simply dodging the question... the implication being they have no answer to it and would rather ignore inconsistencies than address them. that is what science is. you make your claims and then you have to defend them from questioning to show that they are valid. if you cannot do it satisfactorily, your point is proven wrong.
i happen to believe his points were right. i never claimed otherwise. the only claim i ever made here was that it is ridiculous to say that in 2 weeks he knew more about evolutionary biology than a phd who spent 10 years studying it. even he has conceded that. it was the only thing i ever took issue with here. i have stated from the beginning that his statements on evolution were accurate to the best of my knowledge (when i understood them... im only an english major after all).
you were the one scolding me about judgment calls earlier. why is autism a low blow? i never intended it as an insult, you are the one who seems to think it is something shameful or dismissive. it's simply another thought process. i never attempted to "string him up" or belittle his intelligence based on those comments. he just has an idiosyncratic style that seems to have a lot in common with the characteristic of autistic thought patterns. he himself admitted to ADD and near photographic memory, so i was not all that far off. for the normally level-headed tone you espouse on here, i must say im almost flattered to have gotten you wound up enough to throw out something so emotional and subjective and insulting as suggesting that i would advocate "stringing up" someone for being autistic.
Well, to be honest, I question how much of my boredom stems from actual ADD. The diagnoses was based on observation, but they later determined that I have superior intellect. It's unclear to me how much is genius and how much is ADD. According to pretty much everyone else, not qualified to make the judgment, I'm not a genius. Regarding the intelligence quiz, I found that the score was determined based solely on knowledge and problem-solving skills. That, to me, doesn't say anything about IQ. I suppose that's why IQ isn't widely recognized and has mostly fallen out of use.
fair enough. i just remember you saying some off the wall things in that one and you seemed pretty emotional and wound up when recounting it. it seemed to color your argument to a large extent.
That's true. That is one of the topics that gets me wound up. Mainly because my theories are off the wall to the general population. I encounter a lot of hostility when attributing the cause of abuse to cultural influence and not to gender. The same happens when I discuss criminology, my view is that criminals are regular people having irregular experiences. That shifts the blame from the individual onto society and that's not widely accepted.
i dont think it's possible to quantify intelligence based on a test. if so, id be a genius too. ive always aced tests like that. i certainly dont think im a genius though.
on a more lighthearted tone, another part of autism is it usually entails a certain unfamiliarity with social norms... like humility. dontcha know that it's considered poor form to basically claim outright that you have a genius superior intellect?
of course, if you truly are autistic, you wont understand that that's a joke
I routinely read large portions of threads I participate in. I noticed this statement that I made and noticed an error. This was in response to a fact about modern need for an appendix and in my response I used pancreas. The pancreas is responsible for providing insulin and we do need it for our metabolic functions. I apologize for the error.
I think maybe this thread could use an appendix.
Oh, I fully understand the concept of social norms and I find that amusing. It was in that context that I inappropriately used the statement of my IQ. It appeared that inappropriate social behavior had run rampant, as is typical of internet dialog. As I recall I was being dissected for not achieving academic goals and therefor my knowledge was void. My response was to represent equality in another manner. It wasn't exactly in terms of superiority as much as in terms of equality. Though I admit, it was a poor response, having suppressed emotional response, I may have found alternative resolutions. But emotional response is good for saving time and some what innate. Anyway you can be certain that with my "theory of everything" that no one is ever to blame. Radical Behaviorism, perhaps, Chaos Theory. My theory is basically Chaos theory, from the very basis of particle physics to evolution to flipping a coin to social interaction. But with social interaction we have an influence, even if that influence is based on other chaotic mechanisms. Even if we are based on chaotic mechanism. It simply means that it's predetermined. You could think this theory would lead to a creator, but I don't see the correlation. That is still only subjective evidence of a creator, even if chaos theory is true.
Well, yeah, it would make perfect sense for me to hook up with someone younger than my own child.
edit: :sarcasm:
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I did not think he said he knows more about evolutionary biology than a "phd who spent 10 years studying it". I thought he was backing up what he did know. And defending learning on one's own.
If you don't understand how saying someone seems to have a neurodevelopmental disorder is a low blow, I'm not sure I can help, here. Transactional analysis, the form of psychology that covers human interactions is clear that if we using devices wherein we treat the other as though they are "not okay" then we are operating in an imbalanced sense. We can couch it in logic and reason, but it's still operating from the premise that you are saying there is something wrong with Ahnimus in order to make your point. Contrarily, the average person without a lowered agenda, were they to run across someone they thought had a disorder, they would display sensitivity towards it, not insensitivity. For example, when talking with one who is autistic I doubt it's the norm to point out to them that there is something wrong with them in order to get one's point across.
The "string him up comment" is based on the fact that over and over in this thread, people have taken jabs at Ahnimus the person, rather than his arguments. When I see a person who is lacking in awareness on a subject, I don't disparage and depreciate them. I attempt to clarify for them. When someone is going after someone for a lack of knowledge, there is something personal at play--not something reasonable. When a few people do it in one thread--again, over a PERCEIVED, possible lack of knowledge, it looks like a mob mentality to me. Or a witch hunt.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Do we know it was a degenerative change? Is there any evidence that bats were once able to see well? I've always assumed (yeah, I know, that's usually a mistake) that they simply never evolved the type of eysight that we have because it wasn't necessary for a nocturnal creature that had evolved a sophisticated echolocation system.
Yea, that's unfortunate, she won't hook me up with her daughter either :(
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Here is what I found out:
Little is known about the evolution of bats, since their small, delicate skeletons do not fossilize well. However a late Cretaceous tooth from South America resembles that of an early Microchiropteran bat. The oldest known definite bat fossils, such as Icaronycteris, Archaeonycteris, Palaeochiropteryx and Hassianycteris, are from the early Eocene (about 50 million years ago), but they were already very similar to modern microbats. Archaeopteropus, formerly classified as the earliest known megachiropteran, is now classified as a microchiropteran.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat
However, more recent DNA studies have linked many microbats to megabats, I didn't know this but megabats don't use echolocation. So that implies a constructive evolutionary change to me. I could be wrong.
Are you serious?
Well she doesn't have to digest me