barn

If this is how you 'roll'... p.s. (false modesty, didn't buy it here... neither... )

No worries. I see where you were coming from. It seems to me it's more like Caucasoid too. I'm looking forward to the discovery of the 'Faustian' gene sequence. Not that it changes the power of arguments but perhaps it will add to the better understanding of the... Nice one!

173. Junip - Far Away 174. Hint - Re:Percussions

My reply gave a high five to your out coming response and cosily took its place there for the time being...

That's intense. Feelings as such don't tend to have overly positive effects on one's life, on the long run. Frank Herbert. Yes, read it a couple of times. Makes me sad it wasn't made into a proper movie in the end. (or at least that's what my imagination dictates after seeing the documentary - Jodorowsky) Humans live best when each has a place to stand, when each knows where he belongs in the scheme of things and what he may achieve. Destroy the place and you destroy the person. – Frank Herbert, Dune-

I ask you to be patient with my writing style (you being a writer n' all...) Oh, I'm not worried about yet another oligarchy slicing out/taking over a large enough piece of information dissemination instrument. Having said that, I'm veeery vigilant that it keeps getting freer and the trend continues. My concern is from my own observations. It's regarding the newest generations' weak critical thinking, favouring the impulsive -attributes, the 'gap' that's been skipped over not having been in the stage of self-examination, reflection on opposing ideas enough. "not having been" = have been robbed Well, yes. Sounds reasonable and if there wasn't the age old sets of questions of: Who should be entrusted with... How would you pick those... What would be in it for those/us... I can't help but easily and consistently revert to the view, that: Power corrupts, therefore one good measure is to decentralise the heck out of everything. (currently, until there's sufficient affinity to using the critical point of view, at large.) (imho) and Humanity, seemingly expanded in a few direction way faster than to have been able to keep itself in balance for the absorbing of more than the fraction of the lessons it has seen. Too much, too fast. No way back, no throttling. A challenge. I can see, how my questions were poorly worded, hopefully this might make it better. You'll let me know. I think, the vast majority of the community here would agree that an argument's truth value strictly observed on it's content does not alter even if 'She, who's name shall not be spoken' delivered it, in a natural to her fashion. That's philosophy, rigor, clarity for you. 'Seeing through blocks of concrete with bare eyes.' On the other hand, the world isn't at all what you would classify 'not irrational'. Sure, domino effect. Sure, Pareto principle... the flock will follow, once the critical mass is formed. And that's all very well. I just question a lot, if this is something that's as transmissible as a knowledge, as let's say new shiny gadgets, fashion, consumerism at large. Mainly, because all that is mostly required as of now for the 'turning of the tide' in most people's mind(how I see it, could be completely wrong), is hard work and dedication they have never experienced. I had created this thread for the same question btb... Neuw..., to the 'meat' of the matter. Thank you for your sincerity and straightforward approach. It's only fair if I share my ideas on it too. No. There shouldn't be more than 'lunch-money' amount of cash in being a commenter on a philosophy platform. Sorry, lunch money is too much... not even that. 'Brownie points'?! Maybe. Quicker moderation privileges? Eh, probably. The thinking behind it, is that: a. the truth should be enough of an incentive to be involved, granted the fruits of labour could be appreciated by those who deemed it valuable SEPARATELY FROM THE PLATFORM. b. the more walk the walk and less talk the walk, is, imho preferable... monetizing would be an incentive for the later. Not good. c. People who have nothing to loose talk more honestly. Hope, this time I could flesh it out better. p.s. (do tell)

H.A.W. / 14. Dirtyphonics - Walk In The Fire

Hi @Chauncey Tinker I was wondering, would be curious to know your take on it. Say commenting was enabling some people to make an extra buck... a. How would it influence/What could it add to the arguments' truth value? b. What could it take away from them? Barnsley

(1)Hahaha, no shortage of imagination on both sides. "(2)But if you decide to cross the barrier, make sure you tie a rope around your waist so someone on the other side can pull you back." (2)Is that the abyss? The one that stares into you while you try to see its depth simultaneously?

171. Maurice Ravel - II Assez vif 172. Live - White, Discussion (yes, there's a band with+ a song name, as such)

Hahaha. Poor hound, has to look out for the pack-leader on top of rattling itself. Unless if it's a northern breed in which case it must be having a ball. Rope? Oh,... darn... almost forgot... have to run, I just realised that the jerks were meant to make me pull the adventurer back. I'm not an adventurer... I'm (or I was) the "pull me back immediately if you hear funny noises when the rope is being erratically jerked"-person.

Moderation. Don't worry about it much. Wait... L. Nimoy? uhhh... ok, that could be a problem. He was against free-will, saying that logic must be upheld no matter what, breaking his own logic... Just kidding, obviously. That has to be the best description I've ever seen on this forum, so far. Hahaha! Nice! I mean the visuals, very descriptive. I'll check it out, once it appears. p.s. (if you don't want to wait, you can in the future use the internal mail service to message members, non-public.)

True. Evidence that is 'to stay' even if in the moment it wouldn't be picked up immediately, eventually it'll be. Yep, totally makes sense.

Sounds like, when the cracks grow wider and the gate is breached... a far larger me-2 movement will sweep accross the West. Governments rapidly loosing support, public employee status won't be seeked as much. It can happen.

So no evidence(no quote you claim to exist) is your choice of 'rolling', sprinkled with soft insult. Lovely. I found your generalisations negating the existence of individuality and reducing people to averages. The average free-lunch doesn't exist. If I recall correctly, the base argument was that facial features can be used to predict personality traits. Beauty isn't subjective, I know that for sure. Ability, Opportunity, to go into higher education where there's somewhat survived the traces of merit based evaluation process, requires higher IQ, specific personality traits... Definitely. However you can't read how successful/intelligent/wealthy someone is from a photo because that would require biology to negate the effects of peaceful parenting, free-will, the ability to change your mind through well reasoned arguments, therapy for that matter too. You'd have to prove that the world is deterministic, first. If you had said that your idea was to improve predictive capabilities to a certain degree... I could concede to that. In this form, especially how you're avoiding to show evidence... (This isn't an argument) I'm not convinced you've considered the probability that not all your assumptions will hold up to basic scrutiny, then maybe you'll need to reconsider a few things. I'm not saying you should, I'm saying that I don't see much probability currently for it being an option... yet.

Sorry, I don't know how this is an answer to one of my question. Which question? I think it is your responsibility to support your anecdote with evidence, not mine trying to find something that might not exist. Naturally, you don't have to provide evidence if that's how you roll. Interesting. Education amounts to less than 10% regarding intelligence, did you know that? Education, years of it, is almost irrelevant regarding IQ. My jaw dropped. I think, I don't need to ask more.

Hi @Jonas Hedegaard On YouTube, you can use meanwhile this link to take you to the series. The link to the board is working fine for me (the video plays) and you'll find THE REFERENCES THERE TOO Can you provide the link that didn't work for you? Alternatively, here's the list of references taken from the board... References: http://www.acestudy.org/ http://www.cavalcadeproductions.com/ace-study.html http://www.neuropsychiatryreviews.com/07may/violence.html http://psychohistory.com/originsofwar/03_psychology_neurobiology.html http://www.motherinlawsunite.com/index.php?topic=46.0 http://www.adoptionarticlesdirectory.com/Article/Child-Abuse-and-Neglect--Effects-on-child-development--brain-development--and-interpersonal-relationships/42 http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/focus/earlybrain/earlybraina.cfm These images are from studies conducted by a team of researchers from the Child Trauma Academy (www.ChildTrauma.org) led by Bruce D. Perry, M.D., Ph.D. http://primal-page.com/childabu.htm http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=childhood-adverse-event-life-expectancy-abuse-mortality http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091006115140.htm http://freedomainradio.com/BOARD/forums/t/10392.aspx http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin4.htm#neg http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin29.htm http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin28.htm http://www.annafoundation.org/stwh.html http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1285720 http://www.shockmd.com/2009/05/13/neuroscience-of-exercise/ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060401104819.htm For Initial Treatment Of Moderate To Severe Major Depression, Cognitive Therapy And Medication May Be Equally Effective http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050420092142.htm http://www.cancerconsultants.com/17196/ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070102092229.htm obesity: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12119573 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17572308?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_SingleItemSupl.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed Alcohol: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16549308?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_SingleItemSupl.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11754674?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_SingleItemSupl.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed Leading causes of death: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9635069?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_SingleItemSupl.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=3&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed The impact of maternal childhood abuse on maternal and infant HPA axis function in the postpartum period. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19931984?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=18 drug abuse: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/111/3/564 stress: http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/56139/ http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Adverse+childhood+experiences+linked+to+health+risk+behaviors.-a0202360686 smoking/depression: http://xnet.kp.org/permanentejournal/winter02/goldtolead.html Was this(above) , what you were looking for? (If not, you could post the broken link under 'Technical Issues') Have a good one, Barnsley

Have a look on 'newegg', the reviews are pretty useful too. Maybe you find a great deal on parts combo. If you're smart, you won't need to spend a fortune (relatively).

As you can see, I didn't ask who defined it. Really? Does that mean, that the 'paradox of choice' is false? (Barry Schwartz) I did, once or twice. In this example, sure. I can't pick the correct answer with a more than 1/4 chance, yes. This is false. If you don't know what each choice is, you can't discard "2 incorrect" ones... because how would you know? You need hindsight evaluation of the actions to verify correctness. Especially if you have no prior experience of a similar situation. You can predict and assess probabilities but the 'trial of the pudding is...'. So some people sign up to probably win, and as they get closer to achieving that they resign to prevent the probability of winning. Eh?! I didn't say we're 'doing random'. Please don't twist my words. Yes. Theories and ideas are just that, until verification/supporting evidence is made/found. I don't remember asking you about how to reduce information... no problem. I asked: "would questions be part of what can reduce certainty?" No, I don't think you can reduce information BY increasing uncertainty. OR that if you reduce uncertainty you increase information. i.e. You can't reduce the number of rice grains in a pile of ash by increasing the size of the pile/quantity of ash contained. You'd only make it appear less, similarly if you stood next to a basketball player and measured your height... the same. I'm glad, you're having fun. Sorry, don't know what you are getting at here. Someone hesitant to take a stance when giving me their opinion straight, doesn't make me any more certain about my final choice. Nor if they ask me a question instead. Furthermore, I'll be less inclined to continue the conversation if the tone is inappropriate but that ultimately hasn't taken away/added information value. Same uncertainty. However, if they provided evidence, proof... that'd reduce uncertainty. Information in itself does not help to evaluate better. It just means you have more to sift through to find your answer.

Sure, it could be. Dunno,.. don't like click-bait.

Well, I'm starting to get even more suspicious... You, not quoting what according to you Stefan Molyneux has said on twitter, does not help neither. Here are a few quotes from the article you linked, let me know how you see them. 1. (the subtitle, not even the article goes saying: ) "Intelligence is just as strongly correlated with beauty as with education. Posted Dec 12, 2010 2."If you want to estimate someone’s intelligence without giving them an IQ test, you would do just as well to base your estimate on their physical attractiveness as you would to base it on their years of education." 3. "Now, given that it was the children’s teacher who was asked to assess their physical attractiveness, there is a possibility of a halo effect, where teachers believe that better, more intelligent students are physically more attractive." 4." Where does the teachers' belief that more intelligent students are more attractive come from? The notion that more intelligent individuals are physically more attractive is a stereotype, and, just like all other stereotypes, it is empirically true, as both the American and British data show. Teachers (and everyone else in society) believe that more intelligent individuals are physically more attractive because they are." After reading the article, I found it to be partially true. Maybe that's just me.

169. Eddie Vedder - The Wolf 170. Narcotik - Blue

Thumbs up on your doing part... Good for you man!

Welcome! Big transformations, all the best! Barnsley