h a l f b a k e r yExperiencing technical difficulties since 1999
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
There is a movement in England to urinate in showers. [link] We believe it doesn't go far enough and have developed a kind of giant urinary tract.
Not only should there be buttons and signs reading "I urinated in your shower" or "I urinated in your garden", but have you shown the local constable how
you urinate in the park?
This makes my eyes water
http://www.bbc.com/...nd-norfolk-29552557
Yuri Gagarin urinated on a truck before he went into space. [4and20, Oct 10 2014]
Such a waste, sending it down the drain! In some poor countries, urophagists are starving! Or something...
Urophagist_20Bar
[Grogster, Oct 11 2014]
UK Water Consumption
http://www.theguard.../aug/20/water.food1
Guardian article (from 2008) on UK's water supply. The main point is that washing, drinking & flushing accounts for a miniscule proportion of our consumption. You need to look elsewhere to make significant savings. [DrBob, Oct 12 2014]
Civilization doing a u-turn as Max suggested?
https://www.youtube...watch?v=icmRCixQrx8
[doctorremulac3, Oct 12 2014]
(?) Part two of that video link
https://www.youtube...watch?v=U8rhIZJAdd0
I know I've posted this before, but it's timely. [doctorremulac3, Oct 12 2014]
Maimonides (Helenistic) Laws of Hygiene, Chapter 4 Law 2
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/1204.htm
One shall not keep his perforations waiting. If one needs them, he must stand and use them immediately [pashute, Oct 12 2014]
What would we do without the UN
https://www.youtube...F3uO5_EJs&t=1h6m44s
Lupo in accordance with the ancient Helenistic higiene rule [pashute, Oct 12 2014]
1908 IQ question
http://en.wikipedia...om_1911_journal.png
Which of each two is prettiest? [4and20, Oct 13 2014]
http://www.counterp...scipline-in-the-uk/
[rcarty, Oct 20 2014]
[link]
|
| |
Urinating in the sink would save twice as much water. |
|
| |
But it IS a good idea! Bun for the original idea of saving
water. People take so much for granted and there is nothing
dirty or wrong with urinating in the shower as it gets washed
away to the same place. |
|
| |
Think how much water we'd save if we didn't urinate at all... |
|
| |
(re: link) I don't know, taking a shower every time
you have to pee seems like a big waste of water. |
|
| |
But seriously, saving 1 flush a day by peeing in the
shower? How about if we save water by pissing on
the shoes of
social engineering types who want to tell us how to
piss, eat, fuck, drive, speak and think? |
|
| |
Christ, a brother can't even take a whizz anymore
without the PC police sticking their nose up your ass. |
|
| |
I'm all for a campaign to pee in the showers of the
people behind the idea in the link. Bun for the social
commentary btw. [+] |
|
| |
People already pee in the shower. |
|
| |
This is just like the scuba diving joke. There are two kinds of divers - those that pee in their wet suits, and those that lie about it. |
|
| |
I'd go on to say that there are another two types of
people: those who pee in the shower and keep it to
themselves and those who brag about it like they're
some kind of hero. |
|
| |
Well, with all the hero worship these days, it only seems appropriate. |
|
| |
Why anyone would want to pee on their mushrooms is beyond me, but I suppose the shower would be the best place for it. |
|
| |
It could genuinely save water in a tower block or student halls of residence, where the outflow from one shower is routed to the sprinkler of the one on the floor beneath. |
|
| |
But I would suggest most people who switch to pissing in the shower will elongate their gushing nozzle
time, I mean they spend longer in the shower, because if you are really having a serious pee then you can't concentrate on anything else can you? So they are using a lot more water than they otherwise would, and [Dr]s jest may well turn out to be true. |
|
| |
And another thing, serious water-savers don't shower. Don't shower, don't flush. Sorted. |
|
| |
the Romans used to use Pee to wash clothes maybe we
should go back to that. |
|
| |
Also if social engineers want this to go over they need
to create a Urination Super Hero that people can look to as
a example. |
|
| |
//But I would suggest most people who switch to
pissing in the shower will elongate their gushing
nozzle
time,// |
|
| |
Which gushing nozzle are you speaking of? But
seriously ladies and germs, I smell science and logic
here.
Dangerous concepts
in these times. |
|
| |
Ok, typical shower 2.1 gallons per minute, mandated
maximum toilet flush volume in the U.S. post early
1990s: 1.6 gallons. (much much less for a urinal) |
|
| |
So the only way this works is if you a) turn the water
off b) do something else while peeing or c) time
yourself. |
|
| |
But as with most pc concepts, it's the thought that
counts. |
|
| |
//Also if social engineers want this to go over
they need to create a Urination Super Hero that
people can look to as a example.// |
|
| |
I suggest Pman. He's got a big stopwatch on his chest
and he pees sitting down because peeing standing up
is sexist and not progressive. He also walks on all
fours like his animal brothers because walking upright
is arrogant and speciesist. And please don't call him
""he". Pman doesn't subscribe to your outdated labels. |
|
| |
Don't blow a gasket doc. I think most people can manage to wash their hair or do some other kind of multitasking while pissing, even without that much training. |
|
| |
Don't blow a gasket Ray, but only the lowliest of
fucktards needs somebody to tell
them how to
pee. |
|
| |
You could crap in the shower too: save even more. |
|
| |
And, on a slightly related note, [19thly], if you're hovering around, did you ever do something with the old ceramic throne in the garden ? |
|
| |
//You could crap in the shower too: save even
more.// |
|
| |
...which is funny, until you think about it and realize
how many people would actually take this seriously if
you guilt tripped them enough. Saves toilet paper,
therefore trees. Just stomp it down the drain and
brag about how "green" you are. |
|
| |
Ew, that's a gross post even for me. My apologies. |
|
| |
Dorms have urinals, which use much less water than a shower. |
|
| |
Some people are getting unnecessarily pissed off about this idea. If an idea like this bothers you that much urine trouble. |
|
| |
Nobody's telling anybody how to do anything. It's a
student-led idea, that's all. It's like recycling at
home. No p.c. involved. If you don't want to do it,
don't. But don't get all bent out of shape about it.
The reason I' ve been riding your ass is because
this place used to be a lot more pleasant and civil.
Some of the best and brightest longtime former
members got rather sick of the new belligerence
and left. |
|
| |
//Dorms have urinals, which use much less water
than a shower.// |
|
| |
I wouldn't think you'd get quite as clean though. |
|
| |
Sounds like Internet Powers to me. I wrote an idea called bee-hive - you-re - in-ism which was ultimately actually a pee pee joke about how a concept of anti-social is constructed and how a person uses multiple subjectivities to self-regulate. Even [rayfo] makes an attempt at this rationalization in his last anno. So the bee-hive- urine ism is reflected in [4and20]'s idea about how a campaign can make public urinations legitimate when the rationalization (a real word) corresponds to envronmentalist objectivity, rather than legal or health objectivity. Of course public urination is often forbidden by by-laws in public and private institutions, communities and organizations. Then of course there is public opinion. Overall, beehive-urine-ism, or public urination campaign will ultimately appeal to the new rationalization that finds public justification for such individual behavior in an environmental cause. Perfect. However the poster's reaction to the idea is somewhat tepid as a urine stream, and it is not an original idea, but making a preexisting idea more viral, which I'm not against even in a critical form such as this, so no m-f-d. And I make the young norfolks in the link honorary bee-hive-urine-ists. |
|
| |
1) The BBC loves a sly joke. |
|
| |
2) England still seems to micro-manage people's lives to some extent. |
|
| |
3) There is an almost Germanic appeal to efficiency over taste. |
|
| |
4) The article states that "internet research" told the students that it's hygenic. As with the idea of drinking recycled sewer water, I'd like to know how thoroughly the known microbes have been catalogued. To take an obvious example, Ebola is said to result from bodily fluids, but no one is quite certain how the Spanish nurse was infected. Similarly, there is a world of gut flora, viruses, etc. which is little known and less understood. Not that the BBC would be privy to all the science, but what, no caveats to the Wally and Ermine golden shower show? |
|
| |
Right, you're hitting on some rationalization with the efficiency point. Although I don't think there is anything necessarily innate about efficiency to Germans, although Nietzsche as an irrationalist might argue that, it has more to do with removing agency in the sense that irrationalists refer, and replacing it with calculated actions that exist within a legal context that criminalizes, an education context that evaluates intelligence, a health context that determines functionality and fitness etc. As Germans from Westphalia to East Anglia have long had such institutions we can sloppily conclude that the stereotypical German efficiency comes from a rationalism, rather than an innateness, as positivism would suggest. In fact it has more to the with the rationalization referred to by Weber in the first sociological reference to 'iron cage'. In fact I would examine environmentalism using Weber given my own inability to think my own thoughts. However, I find environmentalism to be ambivalent, if something not someone can be, about modernity, but it certainly does constrain human behavior in the maintenance of modernity. However, I like the public urination campaign because it transcends the individual regulation of behavior by rational others, and justifies a certain freedom of action by saving water, but at the same time I'll use as much damn water as I feel, will, and desire. This is in contrast to a society where water use is actually limited by scarcity, which is not a rational constraint, but could imply some. As for the health aspects, in the same strand of thought, health rationalists are the worst of all (those who try to take away your agency through appeal to health), so I'd rather stand in a little urine than have them tell me I cant. |
|
| |
Paragraph breaks are also being conserved. |
|
| |
Sometimes I wonder if humanity, having travelled
along the road to civilisation for two or three
thousand years, has suddenly decided to go back
because it forgot something. |
|
| |
//hygenic// I read where urine is clean, bacteriologically. |
|
| |
//Sometimes I wonder if humanity, having travelled
along the road to civilisation for two or three
thousand years, has suddenly decided to go back
because it forgot something.// |
|
| |
Are you referring to un-dis-non-environmental anti-
pro-uni-conservational civilization or pro-un-uni-
environmental dis-anti-non-conservational
civilization? |
|
| |
If I may flatulently point out, the difference between
the two is sublimely subliminal, a sort of sophist
sublimation
of subluxation if you will. |
|
| |
Urophagists the world over are crying their eyes out. <link> |
|
| |
Not even Google Translate understands what [rcarty] says. |
|
| |
//civilisation for two or three thousand years, has suddenly decided to go back// |
|
| |
That's a fairly simplified view of history. Even looking at Africa, and the Ebola crisis, if the people were not so resistant to the Imperialist the disease would be more easily controlled. But the resistance takes the form of suspicion, and superstition etc. The people are not inferiors they just haven't adopted modern ways of being, which largely accounts for an evident discrepancy between races. Even many southern US blacks in the former land of cotton deny legal objective rationality, creating an ongoing what some consider a dialectical conflict. Of course, society doesn't have to be mediated in such a way, but of course it has pragmatic truth-power. It becomes evident that most global conflict actually is about the spreading of civilization, and the 'irrationalist' drive for a kind of liberty. However, accusation against the imperialist are not always valid because they come from another imperialist, usually connected to another expansionist religion. So the world is a mess. Although the combination of disease and modern civilization can be just as bad as those that resist, because disease is transmitted via airplane, motor vehicle, modern love, blood transfusion, urban density etc. |
|
| |
Wee on the garden if you have one or or put the wee in a bottle and drop it on your favorite plants if not. It adds nitrogen, phosphates and a little je ne sais quoi withthe end effect of beautifying the environment. It also helps to reduce global warming since by increasing biomass it locks down and temporarily sequesters carbon dioxide. This helps to address rcarty's concerns. |
|
| |
//Think how much water we'd save if we didn't urinate at all...//
//the only way this works is if you a) turn the water off b) do something else while peeing or c) time yourself.//
...or d) do all your weekly urinating at one time. Colostomy bags for all! |
|
| |
//Sometimes I wonder if humanity, having travelled
along the road to civilisation for two or three
thousand years, has suddenly decided to go back
because it forgot something.// |
|
| |
I know you're being a little tongue-in-cheek, but we
already know evolution isn't a one way path
biologically, why not socially? Whales have vestigial
feet from when they said "Screw this walking stuff,
we're going back into the water." So in a
technologically advanced, automated world made
increasingly safe for everybody, no matter how smart
or dumb they are, there's not as much of
a need to be smart to survive any more. Stupidity
flourishes for the first time in history. Maybe even
more than intelligence. |
|
| |
Not a new theory by any means, and one that's been
refuted by some, but de-evolution is certainly one
possible path for humanity. (See link for the pro-
"we're getting dumber" argument.) |
|
| |
//not as much of a need to be smart to survive any more. Stupidity
flourishes for the first time in history.// |
|
| |
I disagree. Despite some evidence to the contrary, I firmly believe
that humans are smarter now than they ever have been. |
|
| |
Ignore, if you like, the "Flynn effect" (the rapid increase in measured
IQ since the 1800s, in most developed nations). Insofar as it means
anything (and I think it does), it probably reflects better health and
nutrition and more mental stimulation in early childhood. |
|
| |
Just look at the "geniuses" of a few centuries ago - anyone from Galen
to Plutarch. Their pearls of wisdom were, when not actually wrong,
statements of the bleeding obvious. These guys were (and I mean no
disrespect here) bloody idiots. |
|
| |
I personally don't know, I've read about the Flynn
effect which supposedly shows I.Q.s going up but
there's research showing the opposite as well. |
|
| |
If I were to guess, I'd say a split is coming. Some will
go one way, some will go the other. Nature
usually hedges its bets that way. |
|
| |
The pro smart argument is that you have to be smart
to get off the cradle planet of Earth and expand life
to the stars, but nature could make the argument
that stupid people aren't in danger of starting a
nuclear war or creating a life destroying self
replicating nanobots so why not play it safe like
nature does and branch in both directions? |
|
| |
It does kind of make sense. |
|
| |
//there's research showing the opposite as well// |
|
| |
Not much. It's generally agreed that measured IQ has
risen swiftly, smoothly and continuously in developed
countries, though it may now be levelling off. The
arguments are largely over the mechanism, and what
IQ tests actually measure. |
|
| |
//nature could make the argument that...// Nature
doesn't make arguments. If it keeps you alive long
enough to screw someone today, that's good enough. |
|
| |
Nature doesn't make arguments, it just renders the
final decision, but it does seem to be doing
something right. Yesterday's mud is today's astronaut
walking on the Moon. |
|
| |
I'm anthropomorphizing nature to make it more
palatable for the sake of discussion. Putting a little
ring of flowers on the head of a humanoid mother
nature wearing a hippy dress and sandals and asking
her to
explain here actions. |
|
| |
//The arguments are largely over the mechanism,
and what IQ tests actually measure.// |
|
| |
Yea, that should probably be established first. If I
walk onto the field with a football and you walk on
with a baseball and glove, the referees might have a
hard time scoring the game. In other words the rules
should be clear before the study will be worth
anything. |
|
| |
IQ measures the object of intelligence which underlies communications and basically the way the world, meaning social word, is ordered. So I'd assume even the comprehension of communication would have a functional reproduction effect. Of course the being to which we refer also exists in personal experience and may in fact reject the kind of intelligent thinking over another possible self. Who knows, maybe even a person devaluated in a systematic way may legitimately resist highly commodified ways of thinking. Other elements of rationalization are oriented towards regulation of family such as child abuse, nutrition, and not just bureaucracies, but those that act in a rationalizing way. |
|
| |
//So I'd assume even the comprehension of
communication would have a functional reproduction
effect.// |
|
| |
You mean chicks dig guys who say things like
"functional reproduction effect"? Yea, sounds
plausible, although I seem to hear women raving
about George Clooney more than... who's a famous
smart person? Hmm. Can somebody finish my post for
me? I've got a lot of stuff to do today and I'm sitting
on my butt here. |
|
| |
// In other words the rules should be clear before the
study will be worth anything.// |
|
| |
Smarter people than I (perhaps even than you) know
that, and have spent a lot of time agonising over it.
Qualitatively (as in - types of questions), IQ tests
were standardized quite early on. However, the
difficulty of the questions (and the scoring
thresholds) have had to be raised regularly to keep
the average score at 100. |
|
| |
To put it another way, if you administer an IQ test
from 1914 to today's population (matched for age,
educational level, whatever), the average score is
very significantly greater than it was in 1914. |
|
| |
So, if nothing else, we can say that people today
score higher on the same test than they did in 1914.
On average, very much higher. |
|
| |
That's only part of what that meant, it means it reproduces 'the logic' of construction in the deconstruction of meaning of the sighs, words, not subtle correction on barely incorrect spellings. Sort of how 'evolution' is a sort of protestantism when really the underlying logic of adaptation and fitness and reproduction or death corresponds to classical economics. Reproduction needn't objectify any external variables providing an epic narrative but an incidentalism deriving from a chaos, that competition exists in, but is destroyed by randomness of other variables. Antitrust lawsuits demonstrate that the theory does not correspond universally, suggesting limited application. |
|
| |
Perhaps over the years, the 1914 tests have degraded a bit, so the hard questions have decayed to easy questions? You should check for enpty spaces where the easy questions have degraded into blank lines. |
|
| |
I can't put forth a decided view on this since I haven't
seen
the tests or the data and I have to take into
consideration one of my favorite scientist's
observations once I do so. Ernst Mach pointed out
that the point of observation has to be taken into
consideration when you evaluate data. In other
words, who did this IQ study? Do they have an agenda
one way or another? How do I know that? Does that
mean their data is wrong? No, just that I need to see
the whole picture before I can even render an
opinion. I just heard that identical tests were given
to groups many decades apart. Who was the old
group? Who was the new group? Were farmers from a
hundred years ago asked math questions that they
may have never been taught about? Were the two
groups from similar socioeconomic groups? |
|
| |
I don't know if we're getting smarter or stupider yet,
all I know is that it's an interesting thing to look at. |
|
| |
Somewhere (archive.org?) I saw an admissions test to Harvard from the 19th century, before IQ tests I think. It was mildly frightening, because it was a test of real knowledge in mathematics, languages, etc. |
|
| |
By the time I started school, it seems as if IQ was tested every year. That's a lot of practice, for tests which typically required the most or least obvious answer to questions designed to have no practicability. Time was the key factor, although any answers were multiple choice anyway, unlike the Harvard test. |
|
| |
Studies show that telling teachers that certain students are superior, at random, induces those results in those students. Teaching to the test did give me confidence, in spades. |
|
| |
Still, I'd be wary of taking a new IQ test cold, after all these years, although it's probably people my age creating the tests. |
|
| |
I know one scary thing about tests, and I'm sure I'm
not the only one who noticed this. Many times you
can figure out
the right answer to a question on a subject you know
nothing about by using a little detective work and
noticing a pattern in the test writer's style. |
|
| |
I'll give a silly and useless example before I drop off: |
|
| |
An object weighing 15 newtons is lifted from the
ground to a height of 0.22 meter. The increase in the
object’s gravitational potential energy is
approximately |
|
| |
By the way I guessed 3 and got it right so I cut and
pasted the whole thing and added 4. Ok, horrible
example but you test takers out there know what I'm
talking about. To some extent, with very little
knowledge about a subject you can bullshit your
way through a test and pass. My experience was
accidentally talking the SAT two years before I was
old enough to do so and getting, I was told, in the
98th percentile before they realized I was just 16. I
just plowed through it, guessing much of the time.
I'm sure I'm not the only
one who's figured this out. |
|
| |
//who did this IQ study? Do they have an agenda one
way or another? How do I know that? Does that mean
their data is wrong? No, just that I need to see the
whole picture before I can even render an opinion. I
just heard that identical tests were given to groups
many decades apart. Who was the old group? Who
was the new group? Were farmers from a hundred
years ago asked math questions that they may have
never been taught about? Were the two groups from
similar socioeconomic groups?// |
|
| |
The IQ tests weren't administered as part of some
great scheme. IQ tests are administered in many
contexts, on many different groups. The difficulty of
the questions, and the scoring metric, has to be
upped every few years to maintain the population
average at 100. |
|
| |
But regardless of possible differences in application
or subject groups, the fact remains that people today
score (on average) well, well, well over 100 on the IQ
tests of 100 years ago, which the people of that time
scored (by definition) an average of 100 on. |
|
| |
Very few people doubt the Flynn effect - the
argument is over what it means. The most common
belief is that better nutrition and freedom from most
childhood diseases allows (on average) better brain
development. In the same way, average lifespan and
average height have increased in developed countries
over the last 100 years - no great mystery. |
|
| |
How many years did kids go to school 100 years ago?
What was the quality of the education? |
|
| |
Not arguing, just asking. I don't know. But if they
didn't go to school as long and the teachers
themselves didn't go to school as long, that might
have an outcome. |
|
| |
Do you have a link to the actual test Max? I'd be
curious to see what the questions were if you had one
available. |
|
| |
Education is certainly a factor - but the tests are
meant to test reasoning rather than learning.
However, education (and mental exercise in general)
probably has a significant role. |
|
| |
I couldn't find any links that give historical IQ tests,
which is surprising - I thought they'd be easier to
find. |
|
| |
Are you sure that's Helenistic something or other, and not a Two and a Half Men version of Falling Down? Of course its also a portrayal of the naif, but I don't subscribe to that definition, because it is not useful. Unless you want to say the first religion is like childhood. But I rather say the naif is the person who doesn't get the movie. Who doesn't get the burka magic trick, and does not disbelieve. Who doesn't get perhaps the utilitarian satire and becomes paranoid. The lattermost is fun, but it's better to just take the signifiers out and make a sociology, so then the utilitarians don't persecute you based on the logic that their system found 'one', a nonfascist. Ayn Rands satire is for the fundamentally irrational person as well, the schizophrenic, to become the ultimate revolutionary or persecuted person. She is not persecuting anyone, just as Orwell is not. Just as he is not inventing utilitarianism as an *original idea*. |
|
| |
Perhaps this Hellenistic Greek segue is useful in expounding my previous statements. There is this question of positivism that is found in the work of Comte which played a role in civilization building. Of course he founded sociology which comes from two Greek words, one we can discard and the other logia, the root of logician, or someone who reasons, as well as alogia, a schizophrenic. Of course positivism still characterizes sociology as a scientific study of social structures etc. However in contrast to the positivist nonhistoricism, an interpretive sociology that [pashute] has indicated he knows well about, has taken the fore and in the very recent manifestation of deconstruction. If we consider historical logia, that of Jesus' scriptures, and contemporary logia, of modernish society, we could speculate how logia has progressed that reasoning and the functions of the human brain has progressed with it. So while an increase in intelligence can be accounted for by material improvements such as nutrition and advanced helmets, advancements in logia, even beyond the christian apex 2000 or so years ago, continually challenges the human brain by advancing reasoning that is embedded in everyday communication. This corresponds to comtean positivism of his historical progression of logia from religion to positivism. Weber an antipositivist denies this progression and instead detect an immanence of religion within supposedly advanced logia. |
|
| |
That's one form of sociology that gets boring because it ultimately doesn't advocate or rather predict any kind of violent overthrow. A more Marxian analysis would say that intelligence is a form of capital, and IQ tests are the way of indexing the value of commodities, or the individual accumulation of useful capital (intelligence). So quite pleasantly, [maxbuchs] can look at his stock ticker readouts and rest comfortably knowing the investments of blood, toilets, sweat and tears, of empire, have largely paid off, despite some viral positivist memes that may have gotten out of control, somewhere along the line. However, since we are living in a mostly secular but ironically post-positivist world, I've lost my train of thought to alogia. |
|
| |
//IQ tests weren't administered as part of any great scheme// |
|
| |
Has your credit ever been pre-approved ? |
|
| |
Flynn wrote a book where he seems to have argued that it is not nutrition but greater abstract thinking which accounts for large increases in raw scores. In older IQ tests, Russian farmers always objected to logic questions which got the colour of the cows wrong. |
|
| |
I did have a question about how such large increases over the mean would be normalized, but haven't looked at the statistics. |
|
| |
Guessing and finding patterns in the test maker choices seems to be inbuilt into the scoring. Is it all one big abstract game? |
|
| |
I would agree with Doc, that, partly for reasons of scale, policy makers who act on abstract thinking and treat that process as ideal thinking, have made the world dumber. |
|
| |
Rcarty's last comment reminds me of a discussion about schizophrenics and language. It's said there is a kind of poetry to schizophrenic speech. At the same time, one professor who's studied the question says that schizophrenic speech is in fact very concrete. Some scientists say that schizophrenics have trouble with metaphor. It would be interesting if schizophrenics are trying to warn us about abstract thinking, but don't know how to express it. |
|
| |
Well there's a few traits in particular that are important. Introversion, paranoia, solipsism, existential crisis, persecution complex, for depressives cynicism etc Some of these things that are rather hard to cultivate through philosophical discipline (askesis) come naturally to the schizophrenic. For example introversion is ideal for sociological observation. Paranoia and persecution complex relate to social and political regimes. Solipsism is common in god complexes and ego loss. As irrational, the schizophrenic is difficult to discipline and control using behaviorism or persuasion, or intersubjective normalization. So the schizophrenic, the paranoiac actually oppose certain social elements in a fundamental way,which sets them up for persecution or revolution. The issue is that the sociological elements cross over into a political domain, namely conflicts between libertarian patients and communitarian health rationalists; practical health doctrines with radical ideation; powerlessness vs lego-medico jurisdiction; neoliberalism vs persecution complex; god complex vs god worshipper; lack of desire vs desire; the tribal cultural adoption of schizophrenic practices (self mutilation, superstition) vs rationalization; suicide vs prolife; etc I can make a huge list, and I spare the halfbakery massive text columns. |
|
| |
Re: 4's post, "Which is prettier?", |
|
| |
Ok, now this is getting interesting. I have no idea what the
other questions on these tests are, but this particular one
looks like it was written for a very young child, 3 or 4 years
old. Now I know you can get information from that, if
somebody 100 years ago couldn't figure that out they're
probably pretty stupid. Still, makes me wonder about other
aspects of this test just because the question is so weird. |
|
| |
Here's my questions about the "us vs our stupid last century
predecessors" test. |
|
| |
Was the age group the same? |
|
| |
Were the years/hours of education the same? |
|
| |
What were the differences in the curriculum and method of
teaching between the groups? |
|
| |
Was the number of tests taken of any kind up to the time
of the IQ test the same? For instance did one group have
more experience in general with tests such as math,
English, logic, geometry etc? A great disparity in that alone
could really have an outcome on the score of one group vs
the other. If you've never taken a test and you're going
against somebody who's been taking tests since they were 3
years old you're at a big disadvantage. |
|
| |
Was the socioeconomic status the same for both groups? |
|
| |
Was the same group tested both times? That is, the same
country, city and area? If so, is the population in that area
doing the same thing or was it a situation like we have here
in Silicon Valley where it was peach farmers 100 years ago
and the Google, Apple, Yahoo, Ebay, NASA offices today? |
|
| |
I'm sure there are other questions that need to be
answered about this test before its validity can be
accepted. Again, I'm not saying it's wrong, but I can't say
one way or another until these details are addressed. In
other words, I've seen nothing qualifying the quality of this
test method other than "everybody agrees". Well, I've been
wildly un-impressed by that metric before. |
|
| |
And Rcarty, can I ask you a delicate question now that
4and20's breached the subject? I ask because I cap on your
posts and bust your balls because I've assumed you've just
got a quirky posting style that comes off a bit hoity-toity
and invites silly comments from the cheap seats, but if
you're on medication or dealing with some issue like 4and20
alluded to it would be cruel and wildly inappropriate for
me to be poking fun at you. If so let me know so I (and
everybody else) can temper the responses to your posts
accordingly. If you've just got a quirky style, that's great
and I apologize for asking. |
|
| |
[doc], your best option if you're interested is to
Google the Flynn Effect and take it from there. |
|
| |
As you know, I disguise my laziness with challenges so people will do the work for me. Unfortunately I think you've figured that out. |
|
| |
I'll look into it and see what I can find. |
|
| |
Any particular thing I said you want clarification on? |
|
| |
Mmm. No, that's ok my friend. Never mind. |
|
| |
// HB'ers are pretty cursed with a change vector mentality with no change actually required or indeed unpatented. // |
|
| |
May I ask what that means? There seem to be several interpretations. Is that intentional? |
|
| |
It sounds to e like it means that we like to whine a lot. |
|
| |