Generally, no. Objectivity is largely a function of temperament and deliberate effort rather than intelligence. Studies show
I don't know...sounds like these studies were poorly designed if that's what they really show. To be sure intelligent people can be bull headed, but less intelligent people can be bull headed AND incapable of being objective. I know people who are simply intellectually incapable of rational argument. Don't you? Lucky duck.
Uninformed voters are more easily swayed with information challenging their beliefs, but people who know and have strong opinions
I think you may be confusing being wishywashy with having objectivity. I know people who will hold the last opinion presented to them...right up until they are presented with another argument. Some of these people are incapable of evaluating, or forming rational argument. Many of them lack any problem solving skills. While I don't know their IQ, I suspect they are on the low side. Not scientific I know, but I wouldn't be surprised if a scientific study could be designed that would confirm that.
Objectivity takes training and deliberate practice.
I agree. I simply suggest that it also takes discipline, honesty and an IQ capable of evaluating rational argument. Put another way, the higher the IQ the easier it is to be objective. Not saying everyone takes advantage of their IQ in this regard.
Right, I understand your point. But it is my layman's understanding that, if the resolution of the metric is sufficiently fine, perhaps to several decimal points, there would be one, possibly two individuals at the average. The rest of us would fall to one side or the other. Perhaps IQ percentile would have been a better measurement in this case. I only meant to suggest that the more intelligent an individual is, the easier it is to be objective. In my experience, not everyone is capable of objectivity. IQ is but one variable as to why this is true.
Yes, I was not clear. My point is that generally it would seem that the higher the IQ, the more capable an individual is of being objective. but there are other factors to consider. Intelectual discipline, intelectual honesty, and to your point, ego, all come into it to some degree. As I said "it is complicated". I would not for a second suggest that 100 is the IQ cut off. Also I don't understand the term "statistical tautology" as I only speak Layman.
Also...It sometimes help to remember that half of us have below average intelligence. It follows then that some of us are incapable of objective reasoning. Many of us who are capable of rational thought are just plain intellectually lazy. And many of us who are intellectually challenged put a lot of effort into trying to figure things out. It is a complicated issue.
The attack on Pearl Harbor was not an invasion. Japan never planned on occupying the islands. Their main goal was to sink our carriers. In that they failed. Probably the main reason they lost the war. That and the whole A-bomb thing.
You may be forgetting that (we are told that) oil price is set in the global marketplace. "American" oil does not stay in America. This "fact" is always used to explain price increases. Increased "American" oil production will only effect oil prices in the context of global supply. "Drill baby Drill would have only marginal downward presure on prices. So it follows that "Hoard baby Hoard" would also have only marginal upward presure on oil prices. All this talk about increased American production being a boon to Americal consumers is mostly nonsense. Same applies to the argument that the Keystone pipeline would be a boon to consumers here in America. These are con jobs designed to make a very small handful of already very wealthty Americans even more wealthty. Most Americans will/would see very small price changes at the pump.
Another way to think about it is that ALL citizens should have a compelling interest in achieving justice. Our responsibility to our fellow citizens compells us to testify. If we conspire to hide the truth, we are being traitors to the ideal of Equal Justice Under the Law. None of us has the right to act as judge and jury by filtering what evidence will be examined during a trial.
As a crotchety old man I resent that! It is quite possible to be concerned about threats to the 4th admendment and still want kids to stay off of the lawn.
Well, as a Mechanical Engineer, who is not in the chip industry, I found the explanation of the process and challenges much more understandable in this article. Monday's post was a bit too much "surely everyone already understands the details" for me. My thanks to MojoKid for the clarification.
And couldn't we boycot, tax, or tarrif any imported goods that are not manufactured in a green way? But first we would need to get our own house in order I think. So that brings us to #4.
Yeah, my memory of Martial Law was from High School History/U.S. Gov. classes...I think the teacher discussed it in the context of Lincoln, during the Civil War. but High School was a very long time ago, and memory ain't what it used to be.....
I think there is a mechanism to allow Government to do this. Doesn't Martial Law need to be declared or something? Constitutional rights can be ignored in the case of National Emergency but Obama, or maybe it's the Congress, has to authorise it in that context...I think... Any constitutional scholars out there who can confirm this?
dictate that your light should not stray from your property. Why do people assume that they can do this kind of thing in the first place? Does it not cross their mind that not everyone will appreciated the night lit up like day? There are ways to switch the light off when you are no longer in the yard. Either a manual switch, or motion detectors adjusted to human size objects in closely defined areas. There are ways to design the lighting so that it does not spread past your property line. In any case, if none of these solutions are workable, live in darkness. There is no excuse that justifies this kind of imposition on the neighbors. None, not your fear of the dark, not a medical condition, not your personal preference. None.
If there wasn't, perhaps, a large percentage of/. members who have Ass Burgers, or are just shy of being somwhere on the autism spectrum, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Socially challenged people just don't (can't) understand that anti-social behaviour is counter-productive.
"it's all just political showmanship."
There is not much else a President of a Republican Democracy can do. It's called leadership. Granted,back room arm twisting is also part of it, but only a dictator could unilaterally order environmental compliance. Suggesting that it's a global problem, and so will be difficult to solve, should not be an excuse to do nothing, to say nothing. A speech may influence domestic and international public opinion.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Don't we need to repeal or amend the Bill of Rights before we can even pretend that this is not a crime?
So I guess in Texas you can't access cell phone location info with out a warrant...unless the phone belongs to a woman.. cause Texans are jealous of their freedoms...except if they are women?
.... During this exercise you're allowed to ignore the impact this would have when that land is no longer available for current purposes.
Until there are major advances in where this stuff can be grown, to get the energy produced per acre much higher than it actually is, and prevent "simple" natural disasters from ruining entire crops for the season, this stuff is never going to take off no matter the hype.
Consider also that no-till farming requires that the non-crop part of the plant be left behind the haversting machine to form a layer of mulch on the field. This mat helps retain moisture, fertilizer, and herbicides. No-till also saves fuel by eliminating the need to "break" the soil (it also greatly reduces topsoil loss due to run-off). Are we to return to the bad old days of wasteful sod-busting in order to harvestt 100% of the biomas for fuel production?
Slashdot Mirror
Generally, no. Objectivity is largely a function of temperament and deliberate effort rather than intelligence. Studies show
I don't know...sounds like these studies were poorly designed if that's what they really show. To be sure intelligent people can be bull headed, but less intelligent people can be bull headed AND incapable of being objective. I know people who are simply intellectually incapable of rational argument. Don't you? Lucky duck.
Uninformed voters are more easily swayed with information challenging their beliefs, but people who know and have strong opinions
I think you may be confusing being wishywashy with having objectivity. I know people who will hold the last opinion presented to them...right up until they are presented with another argument. Some of these people are incapable of evaluating, or forming rational argument. Many of them lack any problem solving skills. While I don't know their IQ, I suspect they are on the low side. Not scientific I know, but I wouldn't be surprised if a scientific study could be designed that would confirm that.
Objectivity takes training and deliberate practice.
I agree. I simply suggest that it also takes discipline, honesty and an IQ capable of evaluating rational argument. Put another way, the higher the IQ the easier it is to be objective. Not saying everyone takes advantage of their IQ in this regard.
Right, I understand your point. But it is my layman's understanding that, if the resolution of the metric is sufficiently fine, perhaps to several decimal points, there would be one, possibly two individuals at the average. The rest of us would fall to one side or the other. Perhaps IQ percentile would have been a better measurement in this case. I only meant to suggest that the more intelligent an individual is, the easier it is to be objective. In my experience, not everyone is capable of objectivity. IQ is but one variable as to why this is true.
Yes, I was not clear. My point is that generally it would seem that the higher the IQ, the more capable an individual is of being objective. but there are other factors to consider. Intelectual discipline, intelectual honesty, and to your point, ego, all come into it to some degree. As I said "it is complicated". I would not for a second suggest that 100 is the IQ cut off. Also I don't understand the term "statistical tautology" as I only speak Layman.
Also...It sometimes help to remember that half of us have below average intelligence. It follows then that some of us are incapable of objective reasoning. Many of us who are capable of rational thought are just plain intellectually lazy. And many of us who are intellectually challenged put a lot of effort into trying to figure things out. It is a complicated issue.
The attack on Pearl Harbor was not an invasion. Japan never planned on occupying the islands. Their main goal was to sink our carriers. In that they failed. Probably the main reason they lost the war. That and the whole A-bomb thing.
You may be forgetting that (we are told that) oil price is set in the global marketplace. "American" oil does not stay in America. This "fact" is always used to explain price increases. Increased "American" oil production will only effect oil prices in the context of global supply. "Drill baby Drill would have only marginal downward presure on prices. So it follows that "Hoard baby Hoard" would also have only marginal upward presure on oil prices. All this talk about increased American production being a boon to Americal consumers is mostly nonsense. Same applies to the argument that the Keystone pipeline would be a boon to consumers here in America. These are con jobs designed to make a very small handful of already very wealthty Americans even more wealthty. Most Americans will/would see very small price changes at the pump.
Yes! Texters at red lights are all too often self-centered, inconsiderate pukes. Keep up the good work officer!
Another way to think about it is that ALL citizens should have a compelling interest in achieving justice. Our responsibility to our fellow citizens compells us to testify. If we conspire to hide the truth, we are being traitors to the ideal of Equal Justice Under the Law. None of us has the right to act as judge and jury by filtering what evidence will be examined during a trial.
I thought the phrase was "for all intents and purposes" but I guess purposes can be intensive too.
As a crotchety old man I resent that! It is quite possible to be concerned about threats to the 4th admendment and still want kids to stay off of the lawn.
Well, as a Mechanical Engineer, who is not in the chip industry, I found the explanation of the process and challenges much more understandable in this article. Monday's post was a bit too much "surely everyone already understands the details" for me. My thanks to MojoKid for the clarification.
And couldn't we boycot, tax, or tarrif any imported goods that are not manufactured in a green way? But first we would need to get our own house in order I think. So that brings us to #4.
Yeah, my memory of Martial Law was from High School History/U.S. Gov. classes...I think the teacher discussed it in the context of Lincoln, during the Civil War. but High School was a very long time ago, and memory ain't what it used to be.....
I think there is a mechanism to allow Government to do this. Doesn't Martial Law need to be declared or something? Constitutional rights can be ignored in the case of National Emergency but Obama, or maybe it's the Congress, has to authorise it in that context...I think... Any constitutional scholars out there who can confirm this?
dictate that your light should not stray from your property. Why do people assume that they can do this kind of thing in the first place? Does it not cross their mind that not everyone will appreciated the night lit up like day? There are ways to switch the light off when you are no longer in the yard. Either a manual switch, or motion detectors adjusted to human size objects in closely defined areas. There are ways to design the lighting so that it does not spread past your property line. In any case, if none of these solutions are workable, live in darkness. There is no excuse that justifies this kind of imposition on the neighbors. None, not your fear of the dark, not a medical condition, not your personal preference. None.
If there wasn't, perhaps, a large percentage of /. members who have Ass Burgers, or are just shy of being somwhere on the autism spectrum, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Socially challenged people just don't (can't) understand that anti-social behaviour is counter-productive.
It's a bottom line kindof thing...you wouldn't understand.
"it's all just political showmanship." There is not much else a President of a Republican Democracy can do. It's called leadership. Granted,back room arm twisting is also part of it, but only a dictator could unilaterally order environmental compliance. Suggesting that it's a global problem, and so will be difficult to solve, should not be an excuse to do nothing, to say nothing. A speech may influence domestic and international public opinion.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Don't we need to repeal or amend the Bill of Rights before we can even pretend that this is not a crime?
So I guess in Texas you can't access cell phone location info with out a warrant...unless the phone belongs to a woman.. cause Texans are jealous of their freedoms...except if they are women?
.... During this exercise you're allowed to ignore the impact this would have when that land is no longer available for current purposes.
Until there are major advances in where this stuff can be grown, to get the energy produced per acre much higher than it actually is, and prevent "simple" natural disasters from ruining entire crops for the season, this stuff is never going to take off no matter the hype.
Consider also that no-till farming requires that the non-crop part of the plant be left behind the haversting machine to form a layer of mulch on the field. This mat helps retain moisture, fertilizer, and herbicides. No-till also saves fuel by eliminating the need to "break" the soil (it also greatly reduces topsoil loss due to run-off). Are we to return to the bad old days of wasteful sod-busting in order to harvestt 100% of the biomas for fuel production?