Slashdot Mirror

Well, ostensibly our sense of beauty is tied to having exceedingly average proportions across the population (based on research from plastic surgeons who have to do extensive reconstructive surgery and can't simply just make people look like what they looked like before).

And since most of the human population diverged from the birthplace of civilization between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, and Greece is somewhat nearby, they'd probably do a lot better by that metric.

But thanks to interracial breeding recently enabled by the jet age, the human race is sort of reuniting millenia of divergent evolution to specific climates, and converging again on what people from the seat of humanity would look like.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200512/mixed-race-pretty-face

So the mixed-race melting-pot American might do OK faced-off with a near-the-birthplace-of-humanity Grecian.

Maybe it also explains why middle eastern chicks are so hot they have to throw a burka on them? j/k

Anybody that doesn't find it offensive displays a revealing lack of empathy

There's a huge difference between being offended and throwing someone in jail because it offended you.

Anybody that doesn't find it offensive displays a revealing lack of empathy

The first amusing stop is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_plethysmograph

Which leads to item #21 in the Bibliography: http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf

And a better (but less amusing) summary is here: "The researchers reported that 24% of the non-homophobic men showed some degree of tumescence in response to the male homosexual video, compared to 54% of the subjects who scored high on the homophobia scale. In addition, 66% of the non-homophobic group showed no significant increases in tumescence after this video, but only 20% of the homophobic men failed to display any arousal. Additionally, when the participants rated their degree of sexual arousal later, the homophobic men significantly underestimated their degree of arousal by the male homosexual video." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_homosexuality )

I believe there was a more recent study which confirmed these findings, however, I am mostly finding references to the 1996 study now.

I see you've made a little mistake. You might also want to learn about the word "misnomer." Good luck!

See this video with an attempted ranking.

About its purpose in Judaism, here's what Maimonides wrote:

"[W]ith regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. [...] How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? [...] The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. [...] The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: "It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him." In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision."

The words of Kellogg, the man behind much of its popularization in the US:

"A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anæsthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment... In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement."

Where's the punishment?

Many people, including myself, feel it is a punishment (or at least harm). Not to mention the lack of choice. I regret that it was done to me. Also the study being cited is garbage.

Actually, from the study itself, there doesn't seem to be much of a benefit at all! All of them are negligible and can be gained in other ways (protection, hygiene, etc). Yet we remove someone's choice because of small benefits.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/circumcision-ethics-and-economics http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds etc.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/circumcision-ethics-and-economics http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds etc.

Three studies in Africa several years ago that claimed that circumcision prevented AIDS and that circumcision was as effective as a 60% effective vaccine (Auvert 2005, 2006). These studies had many flaws, including that they were stopped before all the results came in.

See http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds

Three studies in Africa several years ago that claimed that circumcision prevented AIDS and that circumcision was as effective as a 60% effective vaccine (Auvert 2005, 2006). These studies had many flaws, including that they were stopped before all the results came in. There have also been several studies that show that circumcision does not prevent HIV (Connolly 2008). There are many issues at play in the spread of STDs which make it very hard to generalize results from one population to another.

In Africa, where the recent studies have been done, most HIV transmission is through male-female sex, but in the USA, it is mainly transmitted through blood exposure (like needle sharing) and male-male sex. Male circumcision does not protect women from acquiring HIV, nor does it protect men who have sex with men (Wawer 2009, Jameson 2009).

What's worse, because of the publicity surrounding the African studies, men in Africa are now starting to believe that if they are circumcised, they do not need to wear condoms, which will increase the spread of HIV (Westercamp 2010). Even in the study with the most favorable effects of circumcision, the protective effect was only 60% - men would still have to wear condoms to protect themselves and their partners from HIV.

In the USA, during the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s and 90s, about 85% of adult men were circumcised (much higher rates of circumcision than in Africa), and yet HIV still spread.

It is important to understand, too, that the men in the African studies were adults and they volunteered for circumcision. Babies undergoing circumcision were not given the choice to decide for themselves.

Source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds

See also: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/myths-about-circumcision-you-likely-believe http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/circumcision-social-sexual-psychological-realities http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/the-ethics-and-economics-circumcision http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/what-is-the-greatest-danger-uncircumcised-boy http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/why-continue-harm-boys-ignorance-male-anatomy

Three studies in Africa several years ago that claimed that circumcision prevented AIDS and that circumcision was as effective as a 60% effective vaccine (Auvert 2005, 2006). These studies had many flaws, including that they were stopped before all the results came in. There have also been several studies that show that circumcision does not prevent HIV (Connolly 2008). There are many issues at play in the spread of STDs which make it very hard to generalize results from one population to another.

In Africa, where the recent studies have been done, most HIV transmission is through male-female sex, but in the USA, it is mainly transmitted through blood exposure (like needle sharing) and male-male sex. Male circumcision does not protect women from acquiring HIV, nor does it protect men who have sex with men (Wawer 2009, Jameson 2009).

What's worse, because of the publicity surrounding the African studies, men in Africa are now starting to believe that if they are circumcised, they do not need to wear condoms, which will increase the spread of HIV (Westercamp 2010). Even in the study with the most favorable effects of circumcision, the protective effect was only 60% - men would still have to wear condoms to protect themselves and their partners from HIV.

In the USA, during the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s and 90s, about 85% of adult men were circumcised (much higher rates of circumcision than in Africa), and yet HIV still spread.

It is important to understand, too, that the men in the African studies were adults and they volunteered for circumcision. Babies undergoing circumcision were not given the choice to decide for themselves.

Source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds

See also: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/myths-about-circumcision-you-likely-believe http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/circumcision-social-sexual-psychological-realities http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/the-ethics-and-economics-circumcision http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/what-is-the-greatest-danger-uncircumcised-boy http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/why-continue-harm-boys-ignorance-male-anatomy

Three studies in Africa several years ago that claimed that circumcision prevented AIDS and that circumcision was as effective as a 60% effective vaccine (Auvert 2005, 2006). These studies had many flaws, including that they were stopped before all the results came in. There have also been several studies that show that circumcision does not prevent HIV (Connolly 2008). There are many issues at play in the spread of STDs which make it very hard to generalize results from one population to another.

In Africa, where the recent studies have been done, most HIV transmission is through male-female sex, but in the USA, it is mainly transmitted through blood exposure (like needle sharing) and male-male sex. Male circumcision does not protect women from acquiring HIV, nor does it protect men who have sex with men (Wawer 2009, Jameson 2009).

What's worse, because of the publicity surrounding the African studies, men in Africa are now starting to believe that if they are circumcised, they do not need to wear condoms, which will increase the spread of HIV (Westercamp 2010). Even in the study with the most favorable effects of circumcision, the protective effect was only 60% - men would still have to wear condoms to protect themselves and their partners from HIV.

In the USA, during the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s and 90s, about 85% of adult men were circumcised (much higher rates of circumcision than in Africa), and yet HIV still spread.

It is important to understand, too, that the men in the African studies were adults and they volunteered for circumcision. Babies undergoing circumcision were not given the choice to decide for themselves.

Source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds

See also: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/myths-about-circumcision-you-likely-believe http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/circumcision-social-sexual-psychological-realities http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/the-ethics-and-economics-circumcision http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/what-is-the-greatest-danger-uncircumcised-boy http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/why-continue-harm-boys-ignorance-male-anatomy

Three studies in Africa several years ago that claimed that circumcision prevented AIDS and that circumcision was as effective as a 60% effective vaccine (Auvert 2005, 2006). These studies had many flaws, including that they were stopped before all the results came in. There have also been several studies that show that circumcision does not prevent HIV (Connolly 2008). There are many issues at play in the spread of STDs which make it very hard to generalize results from one population to another.

In Africa, where the recent studies have been done, most HIV transmission is through male-female sex, but in the USA, it is mainly transmitted through blood exposure (like needle sharing) and male-male sex. Male circumcision does not protect women from acquiring HIV, nor does it protect men who have sex with men (Wawer 2009, Jameson 2009).

What's worse, because of the publicity surrounding the African studies, men in Africa are now starting to believe that if they are circumcised, they do not need to wear condoms, which will increase the spread of HIV (Westercamp 2010). Even in the study with the most favorable effects of circumcision, the protective effect was only 60% - men would still have to wear condoms to protect themselves and their partners from HIV.

In the USA, during the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s and 90s, about 85% of adult men were circumcised (much higher rates of circumcision than in Africa), and yet HIV still spread.

It is important to understand, too, that the men in the African studies were adults and they volunteered for circumcision. Babies undergoing circumcision were not given the choice to decide for themselves.

Source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds

See also: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/myths-about-circumcision-you-likely-believe http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/circumcision-social-sexual-psychological-realities http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/the-ethics-and-economics-circumcision http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/what-is-the-greatest-danger-uncircumcised-boy http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/why-continue-harm-boys-ignorance-male-anatomy

Three studies in Africa several years ago that claimed that circumcision prevented AIDS and that circumcision was as effective as a 60% effective vaccine (Auvert 2005, 2006). These studies had many flaws, including that they were stopped before all the results came in. There have also been several studies that show that circumcision does not prevent HIV (Connolly 2008). There are many issues at play in the spread of STDs which make it very hard to generalize results from one population to another.

In Africa, where the recent studies have been done, most HIV transmission is through male-female sex, but in the USA, it is mainly transmitted through blood exposure (like needle sharing) and male-male sex. Male circumcision does not protect women from acquiring HIV, nor does it protect men who have sex with men (Wawer 2009, Jameson 2009).

What's worse, because of the publicity surrounding the African studies, men in Africa are now starting to believe that if they are circumcised, they do not need to wear condoms, which will increase the spread of HIV (Westercamp 2010). Even in the study with the most favorable effects of circumcision, the protective effect was only 60% - men would still have to wear condoms to protect themselves and their partners from HIV.

In the USA, during the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s and 90s, about 85% of adult men were circumcised (much higher rates of circumcision than in Africa), and yet HIV still spread.

It is important to understand, too, that the men in the African studies were adults and they volunteered for circumcision. Babies undergoing circumcision were not given the choice to decide for themselves.

Source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds

See also: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/myths-about-circumcision-you-likely-believe http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/circumcision-social-sexual-psychological-realities http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/the-ethics-and-economics-circumcision http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/what-is-the-greatest-danger-uncircumcised-boy http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/why-continue-harm-boys-ignorance-male-anatomy

Three studies in Africa several years ago that claimed that circumcision prevented AIDS and that circumcision was as effective as a 60% effective vaccine (Auvert 2005, 2006). These studies had many flaws, including that they were stopped before all the results came in. There have also been several studies that show that circumcision does not prevent HIV (Connolly 2008). There are many issues at play in the spread of STDs which make it very hard to generalize results from one population to another.

In Africa, where the recent studies have been done, most HIV transmission is through male-female sex, but in the USA, it is mainly transmitted through blood exposure (like needle sharing) and male-male sex. Male circumcision does not protect women from acquiring HIV, nor does it protect men who have sex with men (Wawer 2009, Jameson 2009).

What's worse, because of the publicity surrounding the African studies, men in Africa are now starting to believe that if they are circumcised, they do not need to wear condoms, which will increase the spread of HIV (Westercamp 2010). Even in the study with the most favorable effects of circumcision, the protective effect was only 60% - men would still have to wear condoms to protect themselves and their partners from HIV.

In the USA, during the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s and 90s, about 85% of adult men were circumcised (much higher rates of circumcision than in Africa), and yet HIV still spread.

It is important to understand, too, that the men in the African studies were adults and they volunteered for circumcision. Babies undergoing circumcision were not given the choice to decide for themselves.

Source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds

See also: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/myths-about-circumcision-you-likely-believe http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/circumcision-social-sexual-psychological-realities http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/the-ethics-and-economics-circumcision http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/what-is-the-greatest-danger-uncircumcised-boy http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/why-continue-harm-boys-ignorance-male-anatomy

Three studies in Africa several years ago that claimed that circumcision prevented AIDS and that circumcision was as effective as a 60% effective vaccine (Auvert 2005, 2006). These studies had many flaws, including that they were stopped before all the results came in. There have also been several studies that show that circumcision does not prevent HIV (Connolly 2008). There are many issues at play in the spread of STDs which make it very hard to generalize results from one population to another.

In Africa, where the recent studies have been done, most HIV transmission is through male-female sex, but in the USA, it is mainly transmitted through blood exposure (like needle sharing) and male-male sex. Male circumcision does not protect women from acquiring HIV, nor does it protect men who have sex with men (Wawer 2009, Jameson 2009).

What's worse, because of the publicity surrounding the African studies, men in Africa are now starting to believe that if they are circumcised, they do not need to wear condoms, which will increase the spread of HIV (Westercamp 2010). Even in the study with the most favorable effects of circumcision, the protective effect was only 60% - men would still have to wear condoms to protect themselves and their partners from HIV.

In the USA, during the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s and 90s, about 85% of adult men were circumcised (much higher rates of circumcision than in Africa), and yet HIV still spread.

It is important to understand, too, that the men in the African studies were adults and they volunteered for circumcision. Babies undergoing circumcision were not given the choice to decide for themselves.

Source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds

See also: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/myths-about-circumcision-you-likely-believe http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/circumcision-social-sexual-psychological-realities http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/the-ethics-and-economics-circumcision http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/what-is-the-greatest-danger-uncircumcised-boy http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/why-continue-harm-boys-ignorance-male-anatomy

Google results like this one?
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-teenage-mind/201102/does-marijuana-cause-cancer

or this?
http://lungcancer.about.com/od/causesoflungcance1/f/marijuana.htm

At best, you can say that there are no definitive studies linking the two, but it appears that most combustibles emit carcinogens when burned.

I'm not saying that's a reason to ban marijuana, but, like with tobacco, users should really make informed choices.

I have seen this coming for a while.

So has everyone else, for quite some time actually.

Implantable computers, now with internal power supply, Google glasses, thought recognition.

Very useful for people with disabilities, don't you think?

The Star trek vision of the Borg, though crude and ugly, may have not been far off the mark.

And then you just had to climb aboard the crazy conspiracy wagon. Why would cybernetic implants require that everyone become a member of a hive mind? Why would we want that? What would it give us?

The reality is probably going to be something more like Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

Smart phones may already be making us dumber.

Makes people lazy, definitely. Brain function does atrophy from lack of use but what's the point of tech that doesn't make things easier or new things possible?

It is scary to think where this will lead.

Yes, the future is a strange and scary place. Better just stay in the present, cancel all R&D and make do with what we have until the planet becomes uninhabitable from pollution or the sun expands and burns it to a crisp.

I have seen this coming for a while. Implantable computers, now with internal power supply, Google glasses, thought recognition. The Star trek vision of the Borg, though crude and ugly, may have not been far off the mark. Smart phones may already be making us dumber. It is scary to think where this will lead.

Jon Stewart is the ONLY person will enough clout and guts to do this--just look at how he took down Jim Cramer a few years ago. He's ignored by most of those whose BS he calls out, and does it in a highly satirical comedic way, but that's why he's the most trusted man in America (in 2009 at least). Agreed, it would be so much more reassuring if people in the media were actually held accountable for their bullshit and agenda-pushing.

Narcissism, is now being seen as a developmental issue resulting from a birth defect. That defect being a lack of an autonomic empathic response. The various conditions from that defect take years to form and vary substantively based upon the social environment in which that person is reared. As a genetic trait, narcissists being raised by narcissists, will obviously grossly exacerbate the condition and produce worst possible outcomes.

Treatment prospects are pretty much nil and those associated with them through family relations just end up having to develop coping traits to minimise harm http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/emotional-freedom/201008/how-deal-narcissist, those not related a simply advised to avoid them and the hassles they generate.

It would seem the management recognised the personality trait and took the sound position of avoiding future relationships.

Don't forget that car accidents increased post-9/11 due to less people flying and more people on the road. Overall, even more people supposedly died from that than from 9/11 itself.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200712/10-ways-we-get-the-odds-wrong

After 9/11, 1.4 million people changed their holiday travel plans to avoid flying. The vast majority chose to drive instead. But driving is far more dangerous than flying, and the decision to switch caused roughly 1,000 additional auto fatalities [...]

You raise, a good point. The evidence suggests that to some extent criminals lack of education is caused by other variables that lead to both to criminality and make completing school more difficult. In particular, criminals have on average lower intelligence, http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201006/why-criminals-are-less-intelligent-non-criminals poor impulse control,http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleID=101809 and extremely high self-esteem ,http://www.emotionalcompetency.com/papers/baumeistersmartboden1996%5B1%5D.pdf, all of which are associated with doing poorly in school.

However, there's also evidence that some amount of criminal behavior is due to lower education reducing work opportunities. The most successful programs at reducing recidivism are those which educate the convicts. https://www.stcloudstate.edu/continuingstudies/distance/documents/CollegeEducationandRecidivismEducatingCriminalsisMeritorious1997.pdf although the exact causes of this are unclear http://www.bop.gov/news/research_projects/published_reports/recidivism/orepredprg.pdf. So, while there is a correlation v. causation issue, it does look like education genuinely helps.

The reason it's on by default is that the ads are specially screened for their acceptability

Blatantly FALSE. This is the list: https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.txt
Anything matching these simple filters is displayed. (I had to insert a couple of spaces on the last line to get the comment through the spam filter.)

[Adblock Plus 2.0]
! Checksum: apz2+jXNPQ5CLFYHWghn6A
! Expires: 10 days
! Text-based search ads on suche.netzwelt.de
@@||google.com/uds/*$script,subdocument,document,domain=suche.netzwelt.de
@@||suche.netzwelt.de^$elemhide
@@||google.com/aclk^$domain=suche.netzwelt.de,subdocument
@@||googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk^$domain=suche.netzwelt.de,subdocument
||images.netzwelt.de/partner/*
! Static image ads on t3n.de
@@||guruads.de/api/view/*$script,domain=t3n.de
@@||guruads.de/u/b/*$image,domain=t3n.de
! Text ads on Sedo parking domains
@@$sitekey=MFwwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADS wAwSAJBANnylWw2vLY4hUn9w06zQKbhKBfvjFU CsdFlb6TdQhxb9RXWXuI4t31c+o8fYOv/s8q1LGPga3DE1L/tHU4LENMCAwEAAQ,image,~image

Here's how Eric Bishop (the guy behind Trueblock Plus) responds:

Q: It's possible to turn the ads off in AdBlock plus, isn't that good enough?

A: No, it's not. Defaults are very powerful things, most people never touch them. People react very differently depending whether a choice is presented as “opt-in” vs “opt-out.” The creator of Adblock Plus knows this, saying that enabling ads by default is “the only way to reach the goals.”

Q: Adblock Plus claims their “goal” is to prevent the loss of advertising revenue to meaningful and important sites that rely on it for survival. Isn't that a good thing?

A: Maybe, but that explanation neatly side-steps the real problem. The problem is that I want to be able to decide for myself which sites are meaningful and important. When Adblock’s “acceptable” ads are enabled, the user is not the one deciding which sites get a pass and which do not, the owners of Adblock Plus are. That is a huge problem. The person that controls this “acceptable” list can sell a spot on the list to the highest bidder, making a profit by violating your trust. While impossible to prove, it seems likely the real motivation behind this feature is greed and has nothing whatsoever to do with any sort of altruistic desire to preserve websites that depend on advertising revenue.

This is the list of current “acceptable” ads, as defined by Adblock Plus. This list includes text advertisements on Sedo parking domains, a giant company that sells domain names, and publishes advertisements on unused domains. This is hardly a poor little website where meaningful content is in danger of disappearing because no one will view their advertisements.

The Establishment also likes their child porn.

in fact, that same magazine also suggested that child porn be legalized so the real pervs can get their fix and stay in the shadows without victimizing real children ( couldn't find the article, but I did find this one which acknowledges that the "think of the children mentality is way out of hand ).

Psychology Today is very mainstream, like the CNN of psychology literature, and even they are not afraid to address those controversial things like rape fantasies and the fact that the "think of the children" appeal to emotion is stale bullshit and way misused. You who are foaming at the mouth at RMS's porn statements are probably fantasizing about your daughters right now - Your selective anger at RMS' statements says more about you than it does him.

The Establishment also likes their child porn.

in fact, that same magazine also suggested that child porn be legalized so the real pervs can get their fix and stay in the shadows without victimizing real children ( couldn't find the article, but I did find this one which acknowledges that the "think of the children mentality is way out of hand ).

Psychology Today is very mainstream, like the CNN of psychology literature, and even they are not afraid to address those controversial things like rape fantasies and the fact that the "think of the children" appeal to emotion is stale bullshit and way misused. You who are foaming at the mouth at RMS's porn statements are probably fantasizing about your daughters right now - Your selective anger at RMS' statements says more about you than it does him.

It isn't what you know, it's what you know that isn't so, that will bite you in the rump :-)

They see in black and white, as is widely known;

Please don't continue to spread misinformation about dogs "only seeing black and white".

Dogs are dichromatic, not monochromatic. They see color - just not the same as we do.

Spectrum of what dogs actually see

Your misunderstanding is the same as people who think that someone who is red-green colorblind can't tell the difference, which is false.

Second, dogs flicker rate is well below my plasma TV's 600hz ..., and far below the refresh rate on LCD backlights. They will not see any flicker whatsoever, and neither will you, no matter how much you try.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201001/womens-rape-fantasies-how-common-what-do-they-mean

From 1973 through 2008, nine surveys of women's rape fantasies have been published. They show that about four in 10 women admit having them (31 to 57 percent) with a median frequency of about once a month. Actual prevalence of rape fantasies is probably higher because women may not feel comfortable admitting them.

For the latest report (Bivona, J. and J. Critelli. "The Nature of Women's Rape Fantasies: An Analysis of Prevalence, Frequency, and Contents," Journal of Sex Research (2009) 46:33), psychologists at North Texas University asked 355 college women: How often have you fantasized being overpowered/forced/raped by a man/woman to have oral/vaginal/anal sex against your will?

Sixty-two percent said they'd had at least one such fantasy. But responses varied depending on the terminology used. When asked about being "overpowered by a man," 52 percent said they'd had that fantasy, the situation most typically depicted in women's romance fiction. But when the term was "rape," only 32 percent said they'd had the fantasy. These findings are in the same ballpark as previous reports.

Frequency of rape fantasies varied substantially. Thirty-eight percent of respondents never had them. Of those who did, 25 percent reported such fantasies less than once a year. Thirteen percent had them a few times a year, 11 percent once a month, 8 percent once a week, and 5 percent several times a week. (Twenty-one percent of the respondents said they'd been sexually assaulted in real life.

See for yourself
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201103/criminals-look-different-noncriminals

I can't find the article right now, but there is some science out there that suggests women *do* pick the man, and men can ensure close to a 100% successful approach rate if they can pay attention.

Here's an article which touches on that:
Why Don't Women Ask Men Out On First Dates

Another idea that I found helpful when I was internet dating is this: try to figure out the kind of person you want to date, and then try to understand what that kind of person would want in a significant other. Then tailor your profile with things about you that match what your dream date is looking for. It is not necessarily reflexive.

Other ways to deal with bullies:
    http://www.bullies2buddies.com/How-to-Stop-Being-Teased-and-Bullied-Without-Really-Trying

Here is why the current approach pushed in schools just makes more:
    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psychological-solution-bullying/201011/rational-alternative-the-national-school-anti-bullying-p

Maybe what made the USA strong decades ago was a progressive tax rate that went past 90%? :-)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax
    http://www.capitalismhitsthefan.com/

The "back to sleep" campaign for infants aims to prevent a terrible tragedy of two in a thousand infants dying suddenly in their sleep for reasons as not yet full understood (and this practice supposedly cuts that rate of sudden infant death syndrome - SIDS -- in about half).
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/sids/

Basically, the entire process involves making infants uncomfortable -- put them on their backs instead of their stomachs, don't cover them, keep the room cold, don't co-sleep with them, and other things. But it is accepted that this distorts the backs of children's heads to be flatter, and also delays crawling development by a month or two in many children. If this was side-effects from a drug prescribed, we might question it more.

To be clear, I think it is worth to think about preventing SIDS, but one needs to ask about the costs in flattened heads and delayed developmental milestones to the other 998 out of 1000 babies. As someone else told us, the road to genius starts on the belly. We followed this back to sleep advice for our child and I regret it, especially as our child had trouble sleeping a lot in the first place, and following this well-meant advice probably just made that all worse.

Other bad advice from the medical establishment has been to avoid the sun, which has led to widespread vitamin D deficiency probably leading to increased autism rates and other health issues.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-psychiatry/201104/autism-and-vitamin-d/

Again, we made the mistake of following well-meant advice by medical practicioners to avoid the sun and had serious health consequences from that.

Ironically, the lack of sunlight seems also to have increased melanoma rates, since vitamin D helps in the immune system destroying cancer. Ways to avoid that:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml

The four food groups was another scam that has lead to a lot of bad health. Better advice:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx
http://www.seriouseats.com/2007/11/the-subsidized-food-pyramid.html
http://drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx

But these sorts of bad advice by the medical establishment have been great boons to mattress manufactures, the processed foods and animal products industries, and the medical industry.

Iodine may be another similar issue:
http://www.lmreview.com/articles/view/iodine-the-next-vitamin-d-part-I/

Remember, doctors used to recommend smoking and push infant formula, too. Example:
http://www.old-time.com/commercials/1940's/More%20Doctors%20Smoke%20Camels.html

And they helped cretae institutions that persecuted those who suggested otherwise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexner_Report
http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/shelton.bio.bidwell.htm

Vaccinations are another problematical area where it is not always clear the risk is worth the rewards for specific vaccines, or that with all the conflicts of interest involved one can know who to really believe on all that. The story on the influenza vaccine's value keeps changing, for example. As I quote here:

"I just read the articles in this series, and I have to say most of it truely is terrible advice. It takes the mindset of blaming the victim. It puts the onus on the victim to resolve the issue, when time after time, we see that the victim has less control over the situation than any outsider that chooses to get involved. And then it gives the classic advice (paraphrasing) "stop getting upset and you'll stop being teased/bullied."'

You are just presenting the conventional wisdom on this. Izzy Kalman at Bullies to Buddies says the conventional wisdom is wrong about this (except in very rare cases where the bully is emotionally unstable or has a history of violence). He has many testimonials by school staff who say his approach is the only thing that really worked and a strategy based on the conventional wisdom just makes things worse. Where is your evidence that what you say will work well and not make the problem worse, both socially, and for the individual who may never be able to grow past seeing themselves as a needy victim?

I do think his approach has its limits by ignoring things like the connection between junk food and bad behavior, or the problem of compulsory schooling as bullying by the state, like I commented on here:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psychological-solution-bullying/201011/rational-alternative-the-national-school-anti-bullying-p/comments#comment-134733

Of course, just because they have running water and phones doesn't make it "okay" for this division to exist. In the long run, this inequality breeds crime and corruption, makes innovative businesses and ideas less likely, and is overall bad for the economy.

In other words, wealth inequality with or without context is a fine measure of the quality of a civilization.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201102/how-economic-inequality-is-damaging-our-social-structure

Income Inequality: Too Big to Ignore: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/business/17view.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1287314086-lFlE4a4AP+wkJ4dprPfTaw I keep saying it. The far right is working hard to make life miserable for their own grandchildren. There are only so many chairs at the big table and your name isn't on one of them.

"The way to end a fight is to hit the other guy back until he stops wanting to be hit; level of force and end goal (knock-out, kill) depends on the attack you're receiving and its severity (idiot bar fight, person trying to kill you ... are they strong or weak?"

Thanks for the reply on this link and the additional insights to Go (which I have only played a few times). I had a boss/coworker at IBM Research who was a Go player, and told me a lot about it (including the chess/go distinction in outlook), but he would not teach me to play it as he said it might destroy my productivity by taking up all my time (as he said it had to someone else he had taught it to). :-) But, it intrigued me enough to get a set and play a little with my wife and to read more about it. So, I really appreciate all the first hand info.

While I can't disagree that the approach you outlined that I quote can sometimes work for a time, it can lead to future conflicts, either sneak attacks or arms races. Here is a different way to deal with day-to-day bullies (although Izzy Kalman admits it won't work well with someone who is emotionally unstable or has a history of violence):
http://www.bullies2buddies.com/How-to-Stop-Being-Teased-and-Bullied-Without-Really-Trying

Here Izzy Kalman explains why attempts to legislate and end to bullying instead of teaching kids to handle the problem in the way he outlines is counterproductive (I have a comment there, too):
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psychological-solution-bullying/201011/rational-alternative-the-national-school-anti-bullying-p

Still, Izzy Kalman's techniques assume the rule of law, but war, even with "laws of war", usually involves times when the rule of law is essentially suspended or being renegotiated.

Still, in general, all wars come to an end and a peace is negotiated, as people decide the cost of war exceeds the cost of the peace (or when everyone is dead). Again, I suggest that you still assume in what you learn from Go that the other player is not going to smash the board to the ground and you are not both going to be killed by robots in that case. Unfortunately, that crazy situation I suggest is more and more the norm as our technology continues to grow in capacity. That is why Albert Einstein said essentially that with the harnessing of the power of the atom, everything has changed but our way of thinking. Also, it is more in the news these days that then president George Bush was pushing with war with Iraq for personal reasons even before 9/11. So, even the "leader of the free world" can have emotional problems that lead to launching a war which potentially (thankfully not) could have been met with a plague in that case (the poor man's WMD) as Hussein realized he could not win and maybe decided to take everyone with him. GW decided to play with fire, it's a miracle the USA only got burned to the tune of a couple trillion dollars and not mass casualtes in the tens of millions (even though blowback from Iraq may well in the future still cause mass casualties in the USA as those in Iraq who have seen their families destroyed by US actions may decide in the future to follow a vindictive course with WMDs).And of course no doubt many people have died in the USA from the want of money to go into wellness or transporation safety and infrastructure and so on -- but a little old lady not getting good care in a nursing home starved for funds is not normally called a casualty of war, even if there may be a connection.

When, as in the original article, we talk about whether to invest in "defense" or invest in "science", we make a choice about how we want to shape the future. Personally, I am all for investing in "defense", but to me, "defense" means mutual

This is like questioning the fact that we have more than one set of automobile designs and assembly plants

On the contrary there is always need to question that fact.

Copyright, patents and trade secrets ensure that the best of breed solutions have as minimal an impact on the economy as possible. As a bonus they guarantee mediocre but different solutions are rewarded.

  We have these whole systems dedicated to ensuring that new automobiles and new plants have to be different. They are completely artificial systems to fight the natural behavior of world. Their operation is expensive and the side-effects are often wide-spread in the culture.

Oh, you thought the IP systems were designed to reward people for creativity? No, that's a funny idea but it sadly is at odds with what they actually do. The IP system of Industrialized nations rewards the status quo and sometimes enriches the already established, usually the middle-men and not the actual creators. And I use the term men loosely since most are now companies - fake people - who 'own' this stuff under the artificial monopolies created by all this paperwork. It does not matter that this is direct opposition to the justifications used to support creation of these systems in the first place.

Political parties are just a fine example of false dichotomies and oversimplifying the world. It's easier to demonize a group if you first label them. It's easier to make people stupid if you first make them into a group.

I will agree that people shouldn't complain about a dozen different editors, IM clients, music players when people don't blink at the latest FPS-on-some-custom-engine when it's just a slightly prettier clone of Doom with more guns and less blood.

Conservatives, scientifically, are more scared of loud noises and scary pictures, were described as being frightened and easily offended as three year olds, and have a larger 'fear' center and smaller 'anticipation and decision-making' center

This isn't spin, it's established science. So seeing fear, anti-government sentiment, and a parroting of the Glenn Beckesque rhetoric that's unfortunately a large part of the news here in the US right now doesn't surprise me one bit.

Conclusion: In the age of three years, we were all conservatives.
So where's the conservative campaign to allow three-year olds to vote? :-)

Conservatives, scientifically, are more scared of loud noises and scary pictures, were described as being frightened and easily offended as three year olds, and have a larger 'fear' center and smaller 'anticipation and decision-making' center

This isn't spin, it's established science. So seeing fear, anti-government sentiment, and a parroting of the Glenn Beckesque rhetoric that's unfortunately a large part of the news here in the US right now doesn't surprise me one bit.

As a male, I really like how the summary starts with "He or she has cheated". It doesn't paint infidelity as a typical male thing. I'm sick of the rosy picture in which this society paints our women. The most conservative statistics say that close to 50% of females admit to sexual infidelity. And yes, women are horny and have fun but not with their partner although in a different way from men, and yes, women frequently strike out at their partners, and not simply in self-defense; in 24% of violent American marriages, the woman is the only abuser. I vividly remember the Teen mom lashing out episode of the MTV show Teen Mom, where she throws a few jabs and a right hook in her boyfriend's face.

They're humans, just like men.

As a male, I really like how the summary starts with "He or she has cheated". It doesn't paint infidelity as a typical male thing. I'm sick of the rosy picture in which this society paints our women. The most conservative statistics say that close to 50% of females admit to sexual infidelity. And yes, women are horny and have fun but not with their partner although in a different way from men, and yes, women frequently strike out at their partners, and not simply in self-defense; in 24% of violent American marriages, the woman is the only abuser. I vividly remember the Teen mom lashing out episode of the MTV show Teen Mom, where she throws a few jabs and a right hook in her boyfriend's face.

They're humans, just like men.

As a male, I really like how the summary starts with "He or she has cheated". It doesn't paint infidelity as a typical male thing. I'm sick of the rosy picture in which this society paints our women. The most conservative statistics say that close to 50% of females admit to sexual infidelity. And yes, women are horny and have fun but not with their partner although in a different way from men, and yes, women frequently strike out at their partners, and not simply in self-defense; in 24% of violent American marriages, the woman is the only abuser. I vividly remember the Teen mom lashing out episode of the MTV show Teen Mom, where she throws a few jabs and a right hook in her boyfriend's face.

They're humans, just like men.

And such relationships can work both ways.

You've made an excellent argument for learning from knowledgeable other people with hands on experience about some area of interest, but, sadly, such people can only rarely be found in conventional schools...
    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201003/when-less-is-more-the-case-teaching-less-math-in-schools
    http://www.ted.com/talks/gever_tulley_on_5_dangerous_things_for_kids.html

And you ignore the other baggage professional teachers come with:
    http://www.newciv.org/whole/schoolteacher.txt
    http://www.the-open-boat.com/Gatto.html
    http://disciplinedminds.tripod.com/

Why not just watch a video series instead, and ask questions online?
    http://www.learner.org/
    http://www.khanacademy.org/
    http://www.explorelearning.com/

Of find some other alternative arrangement, including knowledgeable mentors among family, friends, or in the community?
    http://www.educationrevolution.org/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling

Is that really going to be that much worse than trying to learn from most "teachers" (who if you've ever been aroudn teacher training programs, you would see generally know little about math, science, and technology), as well meaning as most of them may be? The first thing most schools do is destroy a child's natural ability to learn and natural creativity:
    http://www.amazon.com/Scientist-Crib-Early-Learning-Tells/dp/0688177883
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U&feature=related

Here is an alternative funding model for hiring private tutors or having neighborhoods again where people have time to share their knowledge freely, based on just giving public school funds directly to the parents:
    http://www.pdfernhout.net/towards-a-post-scarcity-new-york-state-of-mind.html
   

There is much evidence that contradicts such a belief.

If you actually care, you have more than the necessary resources to look it up yourself. Mine it is not to convince someone against their will that a cherished belief is wrong.

So which is it? Are you going to factually challenge someone's belief or backpedal from a badly played bluff because you simply don't have the cards?

I responded to you because I had just got done complaining about how much argument is taking place on this subject without a single mention of evidence. And then I happen upon you, who not only talks of evidence but suggests that there is an abundance of it, in favor of censorship — which is the windmill I happen to be tilting at today.

I mean I don't know anything about porn — I'd be lucky if I could perform a Google search on the topic without somehow lousing it up — but I strongly resist censorship. Especially when the folks doing the censoring cannot produce empirical data about what ill is being resolved by slicing up other people's access to empirical data and replacing it with falsehood.

I mean, no matter how many citations we might potentially find suggesting there is no causal link to harm, how can I find the studies you specifically claim to have that there is? Your claim is fantastic. On par with claiming to have proof of evidence of God. So imagine my disappointment when I learn you were just making it up as you went.

As to the Ad Hominem (please look that up too), If it's any help, I am sorry for suggesting you don't know the meaning of the word "poison". That was very passive-aggressive of me. I should have just flat out said it instead.

It's just that I have high expectations for people who spam promo codes, trying to make a buck convincing people that coconut oil can cure hypothyroidism. You've got to at least demonstrate knowledge of the basics, or you'll be taken about as seriously as Sarah Palin when somebody calls Bullshit on you.

How about homeschooling? That helps people escape the "two income trap".
    http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/11/two-income-trap
"Middle-class parents are stretched thin these days. Between health care costs, child care hassles, looking for a home in a good district, and paying for college, raising a child is becoming increasingly expensive. Little wonder, then, that married couples with children are more than twice as likely to file for bankruptcy as their childless counterparts, and 75 percent more likely to have their homes foreclosed. And the danger is growing worse by the year: In 2002 1.6 million people filed for bankruptcy, many of those middle-class parents. a record . As Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Tyagi note in their book, The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers & Fathers Are Going Broke, having a child is now "the single best predictor" of bankruptcy. "
    In the face of such hardships, many families have sent both parents into the workforce to try to make ends meet. After all, surely if both parents work full-time it shouldn't be hard to ensure financial security, right? Wrong, say authors Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Tyagi, in their book, The Two Income Trap. Two-income families are almost always worse off than their single-income counterparts were a generation ago, even though they pull in 75 percent more in income. The problem is that so many fixed costs are rising -- health care, child care, finding a good home -- that two-income families today actually have less discretionary money left over than those single-earner families did. As the authors write: "Our data show families in financial trouble are working hard, playing by the rules -- and the game is stacked against them.""

So, you can live somewhere cheap to live where you can work less and homeschool.
    http://www.newciv.org/whole/schoolteacher.txt
    http://www.the-open-boat.com/Gatto.html

We do that ourselves.

On math, see:
    "When Less is More: The Case for Teaching Less Math in Schools: In an experiment, children who were taught less learned more."
    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201003/when-less-is-more-the-case-teaching-less-math-in-schools
"The school that Kenschaft visited happened to be in a very poor district, with mostly African American kids, so at first she figured that the worst teachers must have been assigned to that school, and she theorized that this was why African Americans do even more poorly than white Americans on math tests. But then she went into some schools in wealthy districts, with mostly white kids, and found that the mathematics knowledge of teachers there was equally pathetic. She concluded that nobody could be learning much math in school and, "It appears that the higher scores of the affluent districts are not due to superior teaching but to the supplementary informal 'home schooling' of children."

You and hundreds of millions of others (plus me for a long time) have been scammed about schooling. :-)

But sure, a rural lifestyles has its pros and cons.

You're welcome.

Well, if you liked those, here are some other links accumulated from some years of homeschooling/unschooling... :-)

At a somewhat older age, this site on learning to read is interesting:
http://www.starfall.com/

We also like the original Electric Company with some episodes available on DVD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Electric_Company_(1971_TV_series)
And it looks like there is a new version but I don't know how good it is:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/28675624

But don't sweat "early reading". A kid is learning all the time. If they learn to read nature and computers and blocks and people and social situations and sand and water and pets and so on for seven to ten years (while listening to you read stories and other information aloud), they are learning in general a lot more than they would by trying to learn such things from books and other print media on the computer. If a kid wants to learn to read early (age two to four), fine. And of course, all kids should probably be exposed to reading material and the power of the written word (like adding things to shopping lists, or making signs). But if you go back two hundred years, learning to read at a later age was quite common, and kids catch up very fast. Don't let a stupid schooling lockstep age-focused paradigm harm your kid. Some kids also learn best to read by writing first (John Holt talks about this -- and how if you kid expresses an interest in writing, even just by scribbling stuff with no relation to regular letters, build on that). Note also that late reading in a homechooling/unschooling situation (where kids make their own choices) is different than late reading in a school-based print-based academic environment (where late reading is often a sign of some underlying health issue or just a broad, often justified, rejection of the authoritarian school paradigm, and problem piles upon problem if you can't read).

Contrast the probably true as far as it goes for compelled schooled children:
"Waiting Rarely Works: Late Bloomers Usually Just Wilt"
http://www.readingrockets.org/article/11360
"In the simplest terms, these studies ask: Do struggling readers catch up? The data from the studies are clear: Late bloomers are rare; skill deficits are almost always what prevent children from blooming as readers. This research may be counter-intuitive to elementary teachers who have seen late-bloomers in their own classes or heard about them from colleagues. But statistically speaking, such students are rare. (Actually, as we'll see, there is nearly a 90 percent chance that a poor reader in first grade will remain a poor reader.)"

with what happen when early reading is not emphasized because the environment is more flexible:
"Children Teach Themselves to Read"
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201002/children-teach-themselves-read
"In marked contrast to all this frenzy about teaching reading stands the view of people involved in the "unschooling" movement and the Sudbury "non-school" school movement, who claim that reading need not be taught at all! As long as kids grow up in a literate society, surrounded by people who read, they will learn to read. They may ask some questions along the way and get a few pointers from others who already know how to read, but they will take the initiative in all of this and orchestrate the entire process themselves. This is individualized learning, but it does not require brain imaging or cognitive scientists, and it requires little effort on the part of anyone other than the child who is l

ads don't make you buy stuff...your lack of self-control, willpower, and independent thought makes you buy stuff

It's not that simple. It has been scientifically proven that when seeing certain ads multiple times, even not consciously, can result in people having a positive opinion on a product. They forget the source of their opinion is actually an advertisement.

At first, I used ad blockers because of their distraction. Now, I use them mainly because I don't want marketeers pilfering in my mind.

Source: Hawks in sheep's clothing.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201003/when-less-is-more-the-case-teaching-less-math-in-schools
"When Less is More: The Case for Teaching Less Math in Schools by Peter Gray; In an experiment, children who were taught less learned more. ... The school that Kenschaft visited happened to be in a very poor district, with mostly African American kids, so at first she figured that the worst teachers must have been assigned to that school, and she theorized that this was why African Americans do even more poorly than white Americans on math tests. But then she went into some schools in wealthy districts, with mostly white kids, and found that the mathematics knowledge of teachers there was equally pathetic. She concluded that nobody could be learning much math in school and, "It appears that the higher scores of the affluent districts are not due to superior teaching but to the supplementary informal 'home schooling' of children.""

See also:
    http://www.newciv.org/whole/schoolteacher.txt
    http://www.holtgws.com/whatisunschoolin.html

And some posts I made to the p2presearch list concerning education (it would take years to read through all the embedded links on Gatto, Holt, Goodstein, Schmidt, Honigman, Lewellyn, etc.):
* [p2p-research] College Daze links (was Re: : FlossedBk, "Free/Libre and Open Source Solutions for Education")
  http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-October/005379.htm
* [p2p-research] The Higher Educational Bubble Continues to Grow
    http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-November/005584.html
* [p2p-research] Rebutting Communique from an Absent Future (was Re: Information on student protests)
    http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-November/006005.html

For the record, I've always loved math and think it can be a very fun and worthwhile profession or hobby. I love broccoli too, but forcefeeding endless amounts of it to people till bursting despite the tears and protests would be cruel and probably would result in them not eating broccoli when no one was looking. How do we get people to enjoy thinking well and eating healthy? Good question. But people do have answers, if you look.
    http://www.educationrevolution.org/

Although I appreciate your perspective, all of the things I listed are different kinds of intelligence. I should preface this by saying I am not a professional in the field. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, so you people with letters feel free to jump in.

I thought it was clear from the context that in regards to math I was talking about the ability to work with numbers, not memorize times tables (that's memorization and recall, of course).

Yes, music. Yes, humor. Yes emphatically empathy (this is a vital intelligence that is completely absent from public discourse), and yes, athleticism (AKA kinesthetic intelligence).

These are just links I grabbed randomly, but there is significant material that covers them as well. I'm not sure why you are so hostile towards rote memorization. I agree that it is over-emphasized in the current system, but it is an important kind of intelligence.

I don't have the energy to explain why understanding languages is another kind, but it's all out there. Verbal intelligence maybe.

I would never dispute that it is difficult to measure intelligence, I simply stated that there are parameters by which it can be measured - if imperfectly. It sounds as though you are working from the false premise that "Intelligence" is a single fact or feature, but modern science does not support that assessment. Each of these items are separate kinds of intelligences. They are interrelated in different ways, and influence each other, but they are distinct from each other as well.

Regards,

Stone

This is a well known psychological fact, sans the exact dollar value. In reality, the dollar amount correlates as a percentage greater than the dollar value an individual needs in order to cover basic living expenses. Not a link to the "exact" relation, but proof that this article in general is nothing new or profound. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-good-life/200806/money-and-happiness