- I suggest caution. I strongly suspect that this Mr "Godot" may be an imposter. We should question him closely to determine the truth. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 11:54, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
You wait. Usually, you'll find a Rhinosourus comes before you've finished your waiting. But that's another story all together.--WaitingforGodot 12:54, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
- You can't: no-one has ever met him. ContribsTalk 12:05, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
Liquid threats is awful and I won't use it
Could I please get demoted? –Inquisitor Sasha 18:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you! –Inquisitor Sasha 19:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Important work with a deadline||1||15:17, 11 October 2011|
|Cir pt. 2||0||01:33, 10 October 2011|
|Quick question for you...||16||00:51, 10 October 2011|
|Making light of thingies.||10||08:40, 9 October 2011|
|from the block log since that isnt very useful||1||14:52, 7 October 2011|
|Fundamentalism||19||17:47, 3 October 2011|
|portals||4||22:11, 1 October 2011|
|Political neuroscience||10||20:57, 28 September 2011|
|IQ tests||31||23:25, 27 September 2011|
|Absinthe||40||09:50, 27 September 2011|
|2000||7||02:07, 26 September 2011|
|Transgender vs transgendered||23||23:39, 25 September 2011|
|Categories||18||21:23, 25 September 2011|
|Page moving||1||17:20, 25 September 2011|
|Snail||0||16:10, 25 September 2011|
|CMI||4||01:41, 25 September 2011|
|Blocking/vandal bin||1||00:42, 23 September 2011|
|Languages||64||18:40, 22 September 2011|
|Colours||7||15:27, 22 September 2011|
|First Post||3||00:15, 22 September 2011|
Sorry, i was getting lost in the longer thread below. I hope I answered your questions.
For you : You say "the theory I heard was micro tears". Do you know that a search of pubmed and Science Citation will not give you one study on "micro tear penis". or "microtear penis". It's a guess, to try to give a "cause" why it *might* be possible.
But again, before I'm going to tell anyoen to cut parts of their child off, i want to know more than "it's a guess'. I want a study showing that a man having sex with his partner has more or less micro tears than a circumcised man. Those studies do not exist.
You do know "correlation does not = causation". Before I advocate any medical procedure at all, much less one that is surgical, i want more than a correlation. But you are willing to toss that out for these studies. But this is why I remain dubious. Give me more. Show me a cause, then fine we'll look at % effectiveness. But you can't say something is effective if you don't even have a cuase.
you also asked "when would i require someone do a medical procedure". I have to say, if it's disfiguring a child, i'm not sure I'd ever require it for PREVENTION. Yes, if it is curing something, you have gangreen or whatever, of course. but not for prevention. And doubly, tripply so when there are effective and well understood preventive measures that do not involve cutting a child.
(BTW, sorry if this is coming off as frustrated, but that's not your fault, fucking LQT deleted this post two times already and I'm rather peeved about that)
In some recent statements you've made, you've come off as empathetically against any parent that makes any sort of decision about their children's body and state thereof- tattoos, scarifiation, piercing, and especially circumcision. While I can somewhat understand the first few, I don't understand the last one. Because I don't know the exact thought process behind your rejection of it, I'd like to ask you what your opinion on the vaccination of children is. This may seem like a unrelated question, but it's really not. Both are essentiall making a medical decision for a child too young and uninformed to make it for themselves, and I see no reason how some self-professed "rationalists" can uphold one as one of the greatest scientific triumphs even and simoultaneously denigrate the other as a human rights abuse.
I mean, considering the evidence, it seems as if you've essentially decided that, no matter who puts out what evidence, whether it be the CDC, the WHO, the Lancet, or any of the numerous medical orgaizatons stating that it can reduce the transmissions of HIV and UTI's, they're wrong and you're right because you've already formed your opinion. And not only are they mistaken, the scientists conducting the studies are either cooking the results to appease, or are straight-up in the pocket of mysteriously well-funded religous groups- which, if you'll pause for a second, is the exact same argument anti-vaccers make, but with "Big Pharma" instead of "Big Circ".
So how is a parent making the rational decision to (safely, in most cases!) prevent or decrease the risk of urinary tract infections, HIV, and some STD's, guilty of "child abuse"? It seems like you've skipped right over the science and gone straight for the "NO SCIENCE TOUCHING MY KIDS BODIES!!111!" levels that anti-vaxxers often reach and justifying it with moral/ethical arguments that are often paralell if not identical?
I guess what I'm trying to say, is where do you draw the line between "For the good of public health" and "My right to privacy trumps the medical well-being of others around me"? It just dosen't seem like you're basing your position off of facts.
Honest question: is there any evidence that urinary tract infections, HIV, and some STDs are preventable by circumcision alone, as opposed to with proper hygiene (in the case of the first) and safe sexual practices (in the case of the second and third)? In other words if a dude keeps himself clean and practices safer sex, is he any more likely to get a UTI, HIV, or an STD if he's cut as opposed to uncut?
Well, except the for very small children in the first case, not really. There is definitely strong evidence that circumcision reduces those things, though.
But keep in mind, people often do stupid things, and also in many parts of the world people wouldn't have access to some of those things- so circumcision would still be the correct choice. Pretend it's your child: If it's likely that they will have do something stupid/have unprotected sex at some point in their life, is it better to have to say "Haha, you have HIV or an STD because you were stupid! You should have listened to meeee!" or "Good thing that you didn't get infected because I figured you would do something retarded like that and took precautions!" To go back to vaccines, I'm sure it's perfectly possible to avoid, say, whooping cough by wearing a surgical mask your entire life. Does this mean that we should have everyone wear masks all the time because we didn't want to get them vaccinated? Likewise, should we hope against hope that people everywhere will suddenly magically practice perfect hygiene and safe sex, or deal with things as they stand now?
I think you missed the part where the evidence for a medical benefit to circumcision wasn't massively compelling, or at least where you could say it was "significant" the effect didn't work out in a cost-benefit sense and you had to do some extreme data mining for it anyway.
When the scientfic and medial community looked at these "compelling" studies they found these things.
- the studies did not follow proper protocol. They were in fact "stopped" when "good results" came up.
- the studies massively misreported the actual benefit. They stated 40-60% likelyhood of not getting AIDS; Scientists and the medical community who are experts in statistics restated those numbers as a 2-5% improvement in prevention of aids.
- The study's numbers have never been duplicated.
- The studies do not apply to gay men, or men in the western world; just those is "Africa" which seems very very very odd. men are men-hiv is hiv. if it works in one country, it should work in another...
- When you "follow the money" you find the studies funded by people who were already advocating circumcision for *religious* reasons.
- no medical consensus has ever explained the mechanism for WHY circumcision could possibly help keep you from getting aids. there are some "theories' printed, but they simply aren't compelling scientifically.
As to your main point - all else being equal, let's say there really was a reason this might be medially advised. It's medically advidse to PREVENT something that can be prevented a different way. And it's not like vaccination, or giving your child a healthy diet. It cuts part of you off. I do not see where harming little boys to *maybe* protect them from something that actual EDUCATION and condoms WILL protect them from - is a valid reason.
I joked about the fact that cutting off a teen girl's tits will insure she never gets Cancer of the mammory glands - but that doesn't strick me as a compelling reason to do it.
Well, it would be a top notch cure for breast cancer. Though you can go one further and prevent all deaths from cancer by just killing people at birth.
Here's the thing. You're claiming that the "scientific and medical community" looked at those studies, they found them fatally flawed. If that's the case, why are all these scientific and medical organizations still advocating the practice? If the studies were fatally flawed ala Andrew Wakefield (since you claimed that they took money from religious groups with an agenda), then why haven't the scientists lost their medical licences, the studies been retracted, etc.? You're basically claiming that they are fatally flawed, positing a bunch of reasons why with no citations (and other anti-circ pages citing them don't count as citations. I want serious evidence from an unbiased, credible source showing why they are flawed), and then going off and making nonsensical analogies about cutting off breasts, which is just ridiculous- that is nothing like what I am proposing so please stop attacking strawmen.
As to "all else being equal", we'e not discussing all else being equal. We're discussing whether or not it's acceptable to use this as a way to slow the spread of a disease that is causing millions of deaths a year because evidence shows that it would help. I don't think many people would prefer to have a foreskin and also have HIV as opposed to having neither. Sure, condoms and education help better, but that is an approach that has been tried for years, and it certainly doesn't seem to be dropping transmission rates to US levels. The point is, while education may well be a "better" solution, it's also a long-term solution- and people are dying now. There's no reason why we shouldn't do everything in our power to stop deaths just because you feel a bit squeamish about it.
There is no strong evidence circumcision helps ANY of this. Circumcision removes natural skin, exposes your penile head to dryness that it isn't supposed to feel.
If the "it helps with hygiene" crowd were right, then boys in europe would get more HIV, more UTI, and more std's than boys in the US. This simply is not the case. there are no more cases of STDs or UTIs in france than here, or germany than texas. And AIDS was not more prevelent in Europe than here, in the gay or straight community.
the ONLY place that has ever "proven" that circumcision was effective was AFrica. And since a human man is the same here or there, it tells me the studies are not that good.
By the way, if you *really* think it's a good idea, then do it at 16 or 18, before the kid has started having sex, but is old enough to be asked, "do you want your boy parts cut?" I'm sure they will find the studies as compelling, and the health bennies as important as you suggest they are.
One more set of facts. There's sorta a "natural study group" if you will, about circumcision and AIDS or HIV.
The US v. Europe. When I googled, I found that .3% of adult males in the US have HIV/AIDS. In France, it's .4% of adult males. In Germany .1 %, in Spain .4 %, etc. (http://www.avert.org/hiv-aids-europe.htm). In the US, well over 50% of all men are circumcised. In Europe, It's less than 10% of the men. Yet the numbers of AIDS/HIV cases are pretty consistent.
That's not science. It's just sorta looking at the numbers. Again, if there really were such significant differences, given the cultural issues for the last 50 years in Europe vs. US, you'd think someone would say "oh my god, americans aren't getting UTIs".
"Circumcision removes natural skin, exposes your [glans] to dryness it isn't supposed to feel" Yes, that's the point. The explanation that I've seen is that the foreskin is susceptible to micro-tears during intercourse that create pathways for the virus. The glans is much less susceptible to these, so there aren't easy pathways for the virus to exploit. Boom, there's your "mechanism".
Keep in mind re hygiene, you're looking at national statistics, NOT a scientific study. There so many variables that aren't being controlled for that it's pretty much irrelevant. Off the top of my head, Europe has evil "socialized" medicine, which means that all socioeconomic classes get access to affordable care, so you'd expect to see lower incidence rates of STD's and UTI's than in the US, where lower classes often might not have access to good healthcare, so they would be more susceptible regardless of circumcision status, which would massively skew the data. You're absolutely right, "looking at the numbers" is not science, and it's stupid to brng up correlations or anecdotes and think that they are viable evidence to scientific studies.
"the ONLY place that has ever "proven" that circumcision was effective was AFrica" Well no shit, we're discussing this relative to Africa. People aren't dying of AIDS by the millions in the US. It's a serious problem there. It's a minor one here.
"By the way, if you *really* think it's a good idea, then do it at 16 or 18, before the kid has started having sex," Then why not wait until 16 or 18 to vaccinate them? After all, I'm sure they'd appreciate they input before looking at the evidence! We wouldn't want to unduly force people to have medical procedures as a kid, even though we do it for vaccinations and appendicitis and deformities, no, never!
BTW, you still haven't answered my original question of "where do you draw the line between "For the good of public health" and "My right to privacy trumps the medical well-being of others around me"?". Please do so, my intention in my thread was for you to answer that, not randomly spew claims on the subject.
And of course you can compare countries. If a medical procedure is effective, it's effective. Biology does not take into account, coustoms.
And again, harming the human body is NEVER an acceptable answer when you have other EVEN MORE EFFECTIVE answers.
Of course, you want to know why the "mirco tear" theory was proposed? Cause rapists who have partners that are not aroused, have to rub harder. So, are we saying that africa has a higher rape problem? of course we are. But circumcision is not the answer for that, either.
castration might be, but that's the feminist in me talking.
RE: PZ Myers link that was dropped on Bob's talk page.
I didn't want to bring this up on that page, as it would be slightly beside the point. It's good stuff from PZ, balanced and sane as always (well, maybe not always) and it's Science. But the conclusion:
“”...I consider it a prime example of selfish privilege to invade discussions of female genital mutilation, which does cause serious sexual and medical problems, with demands that we pay more attention to the lesser concerns of males getting lightly scarred penises.
Okay, so I quote mined off the "in the context of the thread" bit, and perhaps the context of the thread really does justify this position... BUT, isn't this really what activists do all the damn time? Particularly feminists but many in general. Take rape. Isn't getting drunk and sleeping with a friend in a way that you regret and might not have wanted at the time but caved in because you didn't have the confidence to refuse a significantly lesser concern than knife-point gang rape? And indeed, the whole "elevatorgate" where Richard Dawkins brought up the plight of women in highly repressive cultures to highlight that Rebecca Watson elevator encounter was a significantly less concern. But an activist would go mental if we treated these incidents differently - indeed, Watson did and keeps banging on about "privilege" as a result (for that matter, what is this "privilege" they keep talking about? Everyone who ever disagrees with an activist has it, but what is it?). So why the double standard where some things are passed off as a significantly lesser concern while other things aren't?
I'm actually 100% with you. Like i said on the salon thread - i **used to be** this exact kind of feminist. HOW DARE YOU TALK ABOUT YOUR BOY PARTS!!!! THIS IS SERIOUS STUFF!!!. Then I met a woman who had been scared, met guys from Indonesia who had been - sorry to say, "mutilated" cause they were circumcised "in the field" "at eight", as is tradition there. One is not better or worse than the other. Both can bring death, both can be "fine and safe with no lasting problems". To me, it's a child abuse issue, period. I am actually sickened at the UN for ADVISING that we circumcise boy cause it **might** improve their ability to defend against aids. If someone said "cutting off your tits at 13 will INSURE you don't get breast cancer" who would say "ok" to that. (and i won't even go into the poor quality of the studies done by and for the UN, yes "lancet" published them, but lancet also published the now world-famous "study" about vaccination causing autism. Just cause a study proves a CORROLATIOn, does not mean it's something that should be put into practice.
So you have every right jump into the conversations about whatever, I think. As long as you are using comprable settings. I'd not compare what is done to AMERICAN boys with what is done in Africa to african girls. but i would compare what is done to indonesian boys, aboriginal boys, etc. it's all about context.
Want some gory gory gory descriptions of what is done to little Aboriginal boys? It makes what's done to african girls look like a summer day at the races.
Indeed, that's why I think PZ is probably right about the "context" thing. If the discussion is about girls in Africa suffering severe mutilation, you're being a dick by bringing up your own problem if it's minor compared to that. But that's really just a more reasonable application of the attitude that dismisses it outright. The fact is, there's this prevailing line of thought that says they're both different and cannot be brought together, ever. Oh, there'll be a paragraph 18 tacked-on statement about how it's all wrong and they're against it, but that doesn't say much. We belittle other peoples plights all the time with our First World Problems, yet this is the only issue where that sort of thing is emphatically not allowed.
1: I think part of the reason for this is its use as a means to derail FGM discussions and whine about the feminazis.
2: The studies aren't necessarily flawed -- just the JAQing off that tends to surround them.
3: "If someone said "cutting off your tits at 13 will INSURE you don't get breast cancer" who would say "ok" to that." I lol'd. "Yes, the world is quite different now. There are no more elephants. There is also no more unethical treatment of elephants."
1. Indeed, that's the context is important. But I think it's a more general observation. PZ blasting someone for being a dick is one thing, someone going out and actively defending their position that male circumcision Isn't A Big Deal So Get The Fuck Over It is something else.
2. Studies are studies. Assessing them is the hard part.
3. Actually, there's a serious point, related to no.2, in there about weighing up the pros and cons of a medical treatment. Lobbing bits off you to help prevent illness is a balancing act between how well it prevents that illness, and how big the bit is.
On that #2 point, the WHO studies are flawed, mostly, because all peer-review attempts to replicate their results have proven inconclusive. Even the WHO admit that their data only showed a minor impact. As WfG mentioned somewhere earlier, condoms are extremely effective AIDS prevention, so why isn't the WHO going head-over-heels in promoting condoms instead? Especially because of all the religious nonsense that surrounds condom use, you'd think they'd rather be tackling the issue with a public information about condoms preventing AIDS campaign.
I would almost say that it's because of the religious nonsense. God (or at least His agents on Earth) are okay with one, not the other. What option will people have an automated respect for? The UN and WHO are massive organisations ran by people, they're not a skeptical organisation that would specifically want to work against religious rulings on prophylactics.
"even the WHO admit their data shows minor impact" (i keep seeing 'who' and think 'whoville'.) And yet they publish that they are certain it can have a 50-60% impact (their words).
I just come back to the fact that circumcision woo is really just that, woo. there **might** be something there, but the there is not "that there".
(Should I feel ashamed or neutral that I only found out what your user is from/is via tvtropes article on "Secondary Character Title"?)
LOL. Guess it depends on what your relationship with French literature written by english dudes is.
I rather like Waiting for Godot, cause it was one of the first French plays i *reread* as an adult, when i could appreciate the deliciousness of Absurdest literature, and delight in his french -- which is surprisingly good for an English fart.
Yeah, we need christian ones, not just generic ones. Or the category becomes unweildy. (i can't figure out how to spell that, damn it). It will be a subset of both fundamentalism and Christianity. We can do a lot of clean up, in categories we are familiar with -- cause right now, everything is everywhere.
Christian Fundamentalism, Fundamentalist Christians, Islamic Fundamentalism, etc. ?
Judean People's Front, People's Front of Judea...
At least Christain, the others will probably be in a general field. be right back.
Here is an example of a classic portal with regular updates and such. Notice how multiple sections are transcluded and updated regularly.
Yeah, that's way too much work. My vision (at least for the issues I care about, like religion and abortion) is just a "hey, looky here, we have great articles".
I looks funky, but we probably need something simpler. I've added a project page to the forum just to keep this sort of thing in the same place if you want to bring it up there.
I was going to - but i didn't know how you wanted discussions lead. on the talk page or under the "topic" line.
Don't get too excited over said claptrap. In my not-so-humble opinion, these kinds of studies aren't worth a whole lot at the moment. Brain scans really just create an additional layer of complication -- political orientation -> brain structure -> emotion/personality trait abstraction. The second point is the weak link in the chain because these studies tend to rely on very simplistic interpretations of the roles of brain structures (and their press releases even more so). Not so great when you're already trying to connect two rather fuzzily defined things, and political orientation is often reported in a binary "left/right" fashion. It's far better to have a solid and consistent psychological model lacking a neural component than a crap one that incorporates a neural component. The research on the five factor model/OCEAN and political orientation seems fairly robust (but still a bit of a rough sketch). But the MRI studies I see little use in -- don't get me wrong, it's nice to have the data and it will probably be useful in the future, I just don't think we can say it really means anything right now. Admittedly, the intellectual masturbation over this stuff is largely coming from the media, but sometimes I get the feeling that some of the researchers putting this stuff out know it will be trumpeted by pundits and are hoping to get some hype. The new phrenology indeed.
I think the MRI stuff does get overused in psychology. It's use is in showing where biological activity is happening, not as some magic mind-reading device. It's there to see what bits of the brain do what and when, and maybe give us clues to its structure but how far that says what you think or why is debatable. It has its place, but you're pretty right on the money saying robust models without neurological data are better than half-baked ones with it.
Fair enough. I'm new at neurostudies, and virtually everything i know comes from neurolinguistics. Where thought processes and communication processes are being created; what parts of the brain are lighting up when you tell a story, vs reason out a problem, vs., do math - all linguistic skills, but which are fundamentally different "thought" processes. Anything else I've read has generally, as you said, come from media type productions.
While we are on this topic, have either of you ever heard of any studies done about the so-called speech systems (in the brain) for deaf people? It seems that since any communication for a deaf person is necessarily visual it *might* light up other parts of teh brain when they are doing the same kinds of thought/speech proceses. but i've never seen any studies, and don't evne know where to look.
just curious while we are on it.
Media reporting on neuroscience is generally god-awful. Journalists can't be bothered to understand that many brain structures a, are often responsible for more than one thing, and b, may themselves have substructures to which specific functions are localized. Oh yeah, and all differences in scans are "hard-wired" (that phrase needs to be banned from the papers until journos can learn to use it correctly). Just as bad as "the x gene" in all the genetics articles. Also, two of my favorite MRI related studies:
Re: ASL, here's one.
That's exactly the kind of stuff I've been looking for. WE've known for "ever" that if you do not have access to a true language by 4ish, you'll likely be slightly to greatly disadvantaged as you try to fully attune to any language. It's one of the reasons in the deaf community that deaf kids of hearing parents are encouraged to join classes with other deaf kids and parents, or join a deaf church, or whatever, so they see adults using ASL properly, rather than their parents signing pidgen.
But seeing how those things actually affect the brain itself (assuming I can understand any of it...) Thanks.
Though the thing about the dead fish is that they did commit some deadly MRI sins there, namely they cranked the gain right up to make it noisy, played about with the threshold to make it look like the brain was actually doing something and didn't statistically reproduce the effect. It's an interesting illustration of why you need to do all the actual "science bits" to go with the results but it's not damming of MRI and neurology as some people make it out to be - indeed I'd say it's quite supporting of the technique because it shows how the statistical reproducibility ensures we are seeing real effects.
But MRI's can and do show us huge amounts about where in the brain things are happening, right? I mean, I'm seeing studies (again, media BBC esque) about things like Synesthesia which would seem to suggest that part of the issue is that the mental/cognative mapping for things like "smell" and "sight" lie close to each other and get mapped incorrectly. Or the MRI's of some stroke victims who wind up with various types of aphesia, which show areas of the brain that might well control aspects of language.
Do you think those are fully useful and valid uses of fMri, or are these also on the "use with caution" page?
First off - I don't know how to use a wiki properly, let alone your fancy talk page messaging system. Please excuse any errors. Secondly - I noticed you said you didn't buy into iq tests to determine intelligence potential on the High IQ society talk page. I was wondering what you meant by that; or is it just a 'fuck IQ tests' kind of statement?
Hi, you did just great.
IQ tests are remarkably unable to look at intelligence, cause we dont' really have any way to measure that. They look at your vocab - if you grew up on a home that is not English, or grew up deaf, or grew up speaking BEV, you will score lower on that section, no matter what your intelligence is. They rate how well you can solve "logic" problems, but the logic is a very western way of looking at logic problems. Native Americans as one very particular example, are known to score badly on that part, cause they don not learn the same methods of solving problems that western americans do.
IQ tests have no way at looking at how you put peices of the world together to come up with unique solutions; they have no way of examining how you use so called "common sense"; they have no real way of assessing your creativity - a vital part of intelligence; they have no way of compensating for bad/good test takers.
And again, the very premise they start with is a logical "fail". it's very unclear what they are defining as "intelligence", cause no one really knows what "intelligence" is.
Well, we do know what "intelligence" is, just that there's multiple definitions for it and ways of measuring it, and no one method that's actually reliable and capable of giving us this one reproducible answer. Your actual mind, the thing that displays intelligence (as an absolute, not as some higher end of the scale), has many different attributes all with different strengths. When these attributes are skewed or exaggerated in one direction or another we interpret it as something like mental illness (Aspergers, for example). It's not unlike building the stats of an RPG character - you only have a certain amount of EXP to spend and you can't max out everything.
The main problem with IQ tests is that, despite what people think, practicising does improve your score. Whereas if you wanted an actual objective test you'd want to get as consistent a score as possible regardless of how many times someone took that test or ones similar to it. There are only so many different types of problems you can give people before the recognise all the methods needed to successfully complete an IQ test and score highly - this is your spatial awareness one, this is the one where you convert dots and shapes to numbers, this is how you look for the "primer" to break a code, and so on. Its the same reason I can do those logic grids you get in Puzzler really quickly; I've done 3 or 4 by thinking, now I can regognise the procedure required, I haven't necessarily become more logical, though.
Certainly, I don't think you can simply do a test and prove that you're clever. That has to come from long-term interactions with others (should you actually care about what others think) who can assess you in multiple situations instinctively and spot what you're good at. As Stephen Hawking said; people who brag about their IQs are losers.
See, I could be wrong, but i've never seen a definition of intelligence that wasn't "beauty esque, I know it when i see it". I often ask of people - you know a good salesman is clearly intelligent, cause they can size you up, then figure out what motivates you and sell directly to that motivation. That's not some easy thing. But you're never going to see anything like that on a test - cause how would you test for it. One of the most intelligent men I know of, would fail any IQ test, cause he left school at 16 (typical "mom died" or "dad was drunk" or whatever makes you be 'the man of the house') and took a job as a janitor for the school. It's a state job, so he kept it, and still has it at 50 or so. He doesn't read well, and has had very little "world experience", doen't know about Iraq or how far the sun is. But when you present a problem to him, you see his mind at work. When you do show him something (the one I did was how far the sun is from the Earth. and in a way that shocked me, he took that info and started talking about just how hot the sun must have to be, and then how do we survive that much intensity... from his own thinking, not with math or science, just thought), he can instantly use it in his world. This guy would not do well on any "IQ" test we've yet to devise.
Deaf people are another measure. Because of the nature of the language they use, English or any written language can be a serious puzzle for them. Their own vocab in sign are 1000-5000 words, cause signed languages aren't really built on new signs, but on how you use existing sings to fill new concepts. How are they going to rate well on a test.
Puzzle solving, another marker for intelligence, is a measure of how you take your existing knowledge gained by experience or "books/being told", and manipulate them to make novel experiences. But to do this, you have to have a set of world experiences that actually relate to what you are solving. in a very very very stereotypical example, a black kid who is asked "how can you survive and not jump a gang", who comes up with 100 workable ideas to do that is no less intelligent than the guy who can stack up to blocks and tie a string across them to make a sled - they just have different experiences. and right now, IQ tests don't test the black kid's (again, stereotypical of me just to overstate a point) prior knowledge, but they do test the privileged kid's.
And i'd not thought about practice, but you are right. You see the types of problems and get shown the answer once, you can use that to figure out others.
I'll have to bookmark that tidbit on sign language. I'm currently sketching out my little NaNoWriMo adventure and I'm sure language and thought are going to take up the best part of a chapter. In fact, with a new Stephen Fry documentary on language, a few wikipedia articles on colour perception lingering in the background and a few other things it might even take up a massive wad of the 50k words. :S
NaNoWriMo? Yeah, i started the Fry last night. I'm an addict to anything with language. then you add fry? and i'm all over that shit! but i fell asleep, so we'll see.
True signed languages (as opposed to signed english, or signed french) are amazing. You map your language differently. I get it intellectually, but i can't really accomplish it to save my life. :-)
- reduplication - If you sign something, like "to learn", one time, it means one thing, and two times means something more. In learn, once means "I learned something", and two or repeting means "i am in the process of learning this". I teach sometimes, vs., I'm always teaching.
- arching - there is a concept of arching that if i make one action / word in one place, it means a specific thing, event, time, etc. So pointing once, means "he", but if i arch, it means "many, always, all of them", so pointing to my right, then drawing across more to my right means "they". Signing night at my wrist means "tonite" or "night" in general. Signing it at my elbow and moving downword means "every night" or "at night the sun sets", kind of "always". (arching is cool, I've read 2 studies on it, but they were at the time, beyond my understanding of asl).
- direction "verbs". So most (?) any (?) verb can be signed with direction in mind. If I sign the word "meet" and draw my finger from you to me, when making the sing, it means "you meet me". But if i sign the same sign starting from me to you, it means "I meet you". almost any verb that would take an indirect object (ask to, walk to, give to) you can drop the subject and indirect object by the direction you make the sign.
These things sorta blow me away as english speaker and linguist, cause it makes signing a far more dynamic language than English.
I'm really loving the works on Linguistics of Sign and how it helps us understand language at its core.
Course- all that said, when I sign it's like "Me umm ummm ummm WANT umm ummm ummm GO umm umm umm Store", which is about as grammatical in ASL as it sounds in english. ;-)
That is the classic objection to IQ testing, but it is widely acknowledged now. It's getting a bit old, but I think the APA's response to Herrnstein and Murray's neo-eugenicist drivel is still a good starting point. I like to think of IQ like BMI -- it has its place but is easily and often abused.
I think as long as you know what you are looking for, and what you are testing for, you're right it can "have it's place"
no, i take that back. Seriously, if a test is flawed, then what good is it. and if it is not flawed, what is the point of saying "you are better at doing this one specific kind of test than someone else". Does it really mean you are more intelligent, and if so, what does that even mean in the real world? Will someone who is intelligent be of more value than someone who is not?
I took IQ tests when i was in primary school, and was way way over the top (obscenely, which is emotionally why I initially distrusted them cause i'm simply not that smart). Yet i could not spell or do math. And when i took them at 16, i was on the lower end. (cause again, i can't spell, do math, or intuit grammar). So what did it gain me, one way or the other? What did that test gain for the school? Did they put me in the right classes? Was I smarter when i was 5, then when i was 16?
I mean, what are they for? Other than giving you bragging rights over someone "dumb", or give a school the right to put some kid in a lower class or some kid in a higher class (which is just bad bad bad form), what do they serve?
Other than "how fun, i got all those questions right".
Sod the heart. I want to know what it's doing to my brain and liver.
Nasty? oh god no. It's slightly sweet and so smooth, a touch of something out of place, like a mint - though not.
I got the drunkest i've been on real french Absenthe, just cause i kept drinking it.
I accidentally set myself on fire with absinthe once, then the barman came over and sprayed me down with a fire extinguisher. I don't remember what happened after that but I wound up several 100 kilometers from home.
Ace dear - when the room stops spinning, and starts into a spanish tango - it's time to stop for the night. :-)
I'm not sure what is up with teh stuff the US sells under the name Absinthe, but it sure don't taste like the stuff i had in france.
The room has just started spinning. How long does it usually take to stop? I only ask because I think I might need a piss quite soon.
It was rather interesting to open the curtain after a heavy night on the absinthe and discover, instead of tall buildings and people, farmland. What made it even weirder was that I was covered in red hair dye and had to try hitch hiking home. Pretty hard getting a lift when you are staggering down a two lane black top appearing as if you have recently slaughtered something or someone.
Absinthe is fairly tasty, but really the main reason people drink it is to be "edgy" (about as edgy as Hot Topic paraphernalia).
You're over 2000 this month. You've beaten Blue's record, about 200 to my record, and ~500 to human's record. Have fun!
a *lot* of it was just changing cats to make the organized. Though I did write and expand several articles. :-)
I'm not sure how many i did in the last 5 days, but prior to that it was all "real" edits.
Well, i'd rather make actual additative textual edits, but this i can do while sitting here watching tv with the husband unit. -- that, and it's bugging me. :-)
OK. I see trans people calling themselves transgendered all the time. But I have no beef, I guess.
Trans people can call each other whatever they want, as far as I'm concerned. It's cis people who need to be careful.
Why would cisgender have a different issue. A term is a term. Society defines terms, generally following the pattern of those who self-identify.
despite huffinton's post, "of color" was a term launched by those who were "of color", not the dominate pink society. "native americans" is a term rejected by american indians, cause that's not how they see themselves, historically or currently.
(I never have figured out what terms are correct for hispanic americans, Latinos...but that's a different story).
For the same reason slurs are reclaimed. A straight person can't call a gay person a fag, but it's more acceptable within the gay community. Same for other slurs like "tranny." The ultimate goal is for these terms to be reappropriated for society at large, like what has mostly happened with "queer," but that takes aeons.
You're right about "colored people" and "Native American." The better point in that piece was that "transgendered" isn't supposed to be used by journalists, which we are after a fashion.
I'm not sure I accept the trans-cis binary as valid. Some degree of gender dysphoria is not uncommon. Only when it reaches a certain degree does it result in one doing or saying anything which would lead one to be labelled as trans. Just because people don't in any outwardly obvious way identify as trans, doesn't mean they are completely cis either. I think we need three categories: (1) those with a high degree of discomfort with their birth gender (classic trans), (2) those with some degree of discomfort, but not (or at least not presently) sufficiently strong to result in a classic trans identity or behaviour, (3) those with little or no gender discomfort, i.e. classic cis. Maybe we should add another category for those who really don't care what gender they are - to me, there is a distinction between actively cis (I really like being my current gender, and certainly would not want to be any other) vs passively cis (my gender is whatever my gender happens to be, but I really couldn't care what it is). I think people in category (2) find the whole trans/cis distinction confusing, since neither really fits them, although outwardly most people will see them as cis (except maybe for those few in whom they've confided their confusions...)
At least you know you're cisgender...maybe I need to consult my local queer theorist.
Would you like the ninja usergroup for when you do mass category binges? Lets you bot yourself.
I've seen others do that, but i don't know how to run bots. I'm very old school. (old dog, no new tricks and all that).
I'm a librarian wanna be. I like things in nice groups, good classification systems, so I can find them, compare them, and say "shit, we have two genesis, but no one knew it". :-)
Editing as a bot changes absolutely nothing except your edits don't show up in the default Recent Changes setting.
Ohhhh. editing AS a bot, not actually writing a bot.
sure, i'd love that. then i'd not clutter everyone's wall with minor changes.
They are the same organizational, by our records. I don't know anything about them. If they aren't the same, I won't put them in there. But I started a CMI category, till i found out they were one and the same. And we already had a solid AGI category.
i'll trust you if you don't think they should be combined. I really don't follow creationist site politics. ;-)
Ken Ham had some kind of falling out when he was still at CMI. I believe it was financial. He wet his pant's and left in a huff - forming AiG.
Just a heads up. I think blocks are for BONs only -- vandal bin users with usernames.
Or, you know, the biologically driven forms that are a strange happenstance from some other evo devo that we saddled ourselves with.
Since no one has to teach language, then it resides within. if you want it to be a soul, go for it. me? souls are messy creatures that like getting eaten for dinner, so I never invite them over myself.
All creatures have souls. If we are nothing more than biology, then how do we think?
No one knows yet, but thinking pre-exists formal language, for sure. Hellen Keller thought, but had no language. what she thought about, with no language, no one really knows, and she couldn't really explain.
We think because our brains picked up a side effect when they were trying to eat more, or maybe when we shifted to meat, or maybe when we stood up. it's all very very strange, as we don't have any brains to disect.
But why would a soul help us think. Animals think. They do not have souls? Or do they?
My cat eats souls. she's black. it's her job.
Animals and plants have souls. Your cat does not eat souls, nothing can harm a soul save suicide.
No- - she does. I've seen her eating my husband's soul right from his mouth.
And then she goes and pukes it up.
Vietnamese souls must not taste good.
I actually found Tolerance to Be a far more Amusing side entertainment.
Any program that has a colour picker can do it. In fact there might even be web applications that do it to make it easy but MS paint does it, I just happened to have PS open at the time to do some sketching. So then pick the colour from the image and check what value it is. More advanced programs like photoshop should give it to you in the correct hexidecimal code too (they're all designed to work with web authoring in mind, so will have "web safe" colour options available). But even if you do it with MS Paint it's a fairly trivial conversion process as the apparently random numbers and letters are just Red, Green and Blue values but in hex, so 00 to FF rather than 0 to 255. There are plenty of websites that will do that for you.
Ahh, cool. I want to learn to use even simple "advanced" programs, but the few times i've tried, the layers and the masks and whatever had me in over my head. I simply couldn't make it all play together. I need a "picture editing for dumbies" class to open up.
On account that GIMP is free, albeit frustrating to work with, I recommend DeviantART for tutorials. They're hit-and-miss as all tutorials are, but it's good to have one place you know where to look before starting on Google. If you try to order them by popularity and "all time", it should be easier to find the better ones. Even ones that don't show anything productive are useful just to get you familiar with what tools are where, how they work and what to do with them. If you come across anything over your head just ignore it and press on, it will all slot in place later.
I figured that, as with most things in life, the trick is learning the ideas, concepts and terms - and how to manipulate within that world, then you can more or less work in any program. but first you need to figure out layers and masking, regardless of the program.
I DL'ed (fully legally of course, mr. Watchman) a copy of photoshop in early 2000... and the help was massive even then. but maybe they are more user friendly now.
There's a trend to video tutorials now due to more impressive technology allowing it to work, but those fall into two categories. Ones that are completely pointless, with bad sound, low resolution images and people going "oh, I'll just click here and here and here and just watch this". This gets you nowhere, if you're not enthused or at least learning within 10-15 seconds of the video don't waste your time. Then you have the ones that actually work. Andrew Kramer's After Effects tutorials being the stand out best tutorials made for any program ever. If you can find the right thing for you, it's pretty much Instant Expert.
If you use Firefox, you will be going to love this add-on. It serves me well since Firefox 0.8.