Well you have to admit, it provides one Hell of an incentive to educate the populace, whereas at present the US government seems to have an interest in keeping people ignorant. If these people have power, it's going to be the first time in a while that people are going to have to really make their cases to the people and that should be a good thing. Let's not panic just yet. This is one candidate. If they find someone and they get elected, this could be a really good thing.
Surely it's not possible to be an atheist fanatic (unless you believe that atheism is a religion).
On the contrary, I have met an atheist who, if not fanatical, was certainly very strident on the subject. More out of irritation at his arrogance than disagreement with his position, I decided to start taking apart his arguments. This was pretty easy to do and the sequence went more or less as follows:
"So how did the Universe begin then?"
"It was the Big Bang! Everything was really compressed and then it exploded."
"So what made it explode?"
"Well, ah, it was just too compressed - like really compressed"
"So if it takes so much force to pull it together in the first place, how did that happen?"
"Well that's what scientists tell us."
"And you have faith in the scientists?"
"Yes, wait no! Not faith!"
Now yes, of course someone else can give better answers to these (I can myself), and the obvious answer to the last point is that "scientists" (I hate the way people talk as if scientists are some separate species of humanity) have been able to produce technological wonders that I have witnessed which means I can put some reliance on their statements even if I don't understand the reasoning. But that was not the point in this case, the point was that I had someone stridently belittling others for their faith when that someone wasn't personally able to support their own beliefs with more than faith themselves.
A fanatical agnostic? Now that would be something unusual. But in some places, and particularly the USA it seems, atheism is a political position and yes, you do seem to get fanatical ones.
Things become easier to learn when you have more context. If I tell someone about a chemical reaction, they may struggle to remember or understand it. If they are a chemist or have at least a grounding in the subject, they'll be able to slot the knowledge in with associated information and thus understand it and recall it more easily. An "intelligent" person has a wider array of contexts or the ability to quickly find an appropriate context. I am fairly intelligent, but I still don't recall who scored what goal in what match the way some people do. These people absorb such information because they have context as much as for any other reason.
Reminds me of the sketch on Bremner, Bird and Fortune (British satirical show) where the Defence Minister was being interviewed.
Interviewer: How did you know that Saddam had these weapons?
Minister: Well, ah... receipts, mostly.
Yes indeed. The UK sold both chemical weapons and obvious CWpn precursors to Iraq.
But before that's used as support for Iraq having WMD (as the USA and UK of course both do), experts agreed that such weapons were volatile and would long since have expired at the time of the invasion of Iraq by the US led coalition in March 2003. Had concern about WMD been the real motivation, then Hans Blix of the UN would have been allowed to finish his inspection. The Iraqis were co-operating after all. However, this couldn't be allowed as he would have returned a verdict of "no WMD" and the US and UK's pitiful excuse would have exploded completely.
The question of why the US has the right to possess the world's largest arsenal yet tell other people they must remain unarmed, is a separate issue, of course. But as there were no WMD (stupid term), it doesn't arise except as a means of highlighting hypocracy.
search information like that is a very bad idea, even if you are only a nerd you will be screened as terrorist in US goverment databases, and probably end in gitmo.
I don't accept government censorship. If this country (I am in the UK) is to be democratic, then the people of the country must be able to make their own judgements on what is said, not trust the government shown to have lied in these areas before to tell you what is said and what it means whilst hiding the source from you.
I personally would like to see some of these videos and in particular the Q&A session that the Al-Quaeda leader held. But not speaking Arabic, I probably wouldn't be able to find a copy I understand, even if I knew where to start looking for this material. If the propaganda is that impossible to stop, anyone know where I can find it? It's always interesting to understand where people are coming from.
We need to, once and for all, lay to rest the notion that education prevents tyranny. Hitler didn't rise in a society of illiterate serfs. Germany had an excellent education system. I don't know of anyone that rose in the Nazi party that was uneducated or stupid. On the contrary, they were brilliant people.
Rose in the party? Yes. Probably mostly pretty smart and / or educated. But there had to be a party for them to rise in and all those brownshirts came from somewhere. My own experience with groups like the BNP (British Nationalist Party) and some of the nationalist groups in Eastern Europe has consistently shown me that communities of people with little education are the first resource and breeding ground for fascism or fundamentalism
The OP questioned why he should care whether other people were educated or not. People who are educated in Biology are instantly provided with an alternative to creationism. People who are educated in History are more able to spot the manipulations of government because they have prior examples. Education is not a guarantee against extremism, but every person more educated is a decreased chance it will take hold. Unless you think a nation full of people familiar with the details evolutionary theory are as likely to believe someone telling them that God created the world four-thousand years ago with everything in its current form, as a nation with none of that education would be. The former nation is far more likely to foster extremists that others will use to their own ends. Education helps people to think for themselves and thinking for yourself makes you less easy to herd around or whip up into a frenzy of patriotism or xenophobia.There are very good reasons why the OP should care about the rest of his country being better educated.
It's been a while since I read 1984, but I remembered "double think" as being the holding of two contradictory ideas / beliefs because it was politically convenient to do so. People want to hold a set of beliefs in one area (Creationism), but ignore those ideas and work from a contradictory set of beliefs in another (Technology). Hence "double think." It's been a while though, so I'm open to corrections.
I understand why you feel the way you do, but I disagree. The Us vs. Them is not Europeans vs. US citizens, it is both sets of citizens against both sets of authorities. Two natural allies (the citizens of both countries) selling each other out to their respective governments is a sad thing. Best thing to do is keep the US as the extremist in as many areas such as this as possible. Don't give them the benefit of justifying it further.
All I'm saying is, if Louisiana wants to screw itself, let them. What difference does it make to a dirt farmer if he's decended from monkeys?
Uneducated people are weapons for dictators and extremists. The best defence we have against the rise of Hitlers, the British National Party, and all the others, is a well-educated population that can think for itself. Mass ignorance opens a population up to easy manipulation and there always seems to be someone ready to make use of them for personal gain. Believe me, you don't want scientific, historical and political ignorance in the US to become any more widespread than it actually is.
The thing is there's a powerful elite in the US that doesn't consider the rest of the country to be much more than a resource to utilise. For that, they want a population that is obedient and not too educated. They want it both ways and try to foster uncritical thinking in one area and scientific aptitude in another. Double-think, essentially. You are right that it doesn't work.
I agree with you, but would offer a complementary interpretation. An individual can be a monster to some people they don't consider part of their group and fiercely loyal and self-sacrificing to, for example, their families. I think the article refers to people who have this self-interest as part of their basic make-up, whilst many other people aren't always like that but have a cut-off point once some boundary is reached be that a race, a social class, a gang or whatever. I think what we're seeing in large parts of the USA is not a change in people's basic natures, but a great increase in alienation and lack of community. Perhaps it's two ways of looking at the same thing, but it seems to me that its the lack of interaction and community between people that fosters this selfishness. That and the visible self-interest of powerful leaders who appear to get away with things. Punish the leaders for wrong-doing and it sets a powerful example throughout society.
You had it right the first time. Bad boys don't make good husbands, they make good one night stands though, and thats what happens most of the time.
I don't agree that there's any necessary difference in quality here. Self-interested people (which is what the article boils down to) may make more convenient one-night stands sometimes, due to the way they are more likely to be single or willing to cheat on a partner (this is the implication of the study), but that doesn't necessarily equate to a "good" one night stand, merely what is available. Of course it can work both ways in that a girl may feel more able to discard someone like that. But you're reading something into the study that isn't there.
Besides, if it were your daughter would you let her marry a bad boy?
All I can really do is bring her up to be as able to look after herself as possible and to be there to step in if there's any untoward pressure from a partner toward her. At any rate, the conclusion of the article is that these primarily self-interested people simply have shorter-term relationships, which doesn't spell marriage to me. For all I know, my daughters will grow up to be the "bad" ones. If they take after me...:-/
This is just more of the same old Slashdot pseudo-science that is posted as a real story.
You got that right. And your entire post is interesting when compared to the actual article which I don't think many people have read (surprise, surprise). The study concluded that people with certain negative traits had more partners in a given time. Conclusion: They can't or wont keep a relationship going. We can presume that people without these traits are more capable or simply happier being with one person. All your suggestions are about how to find such a person. The "bad boys" in this study are seemingly after casual sex.
The headline is a little less inflammatory when you translate it as "self-centred people are more likely to bounce from partner to partner than to have one particular partner."
Slashdot Mirror
Well you have to admit, it provides one Hell of an incentive to educate the populace, whereas at present the US government seems to have an interest in keeping people ignorant. If these people have power, it's going to be the first time in a while that people are going to have to really make their cases to the people and that should be a good thing. Let's not panic just yet. This is one candidate. If they find someone and they get elected, this could be a really good thing.
On the contrary, I have met an atheist who, if not fanatical, was certainly very strident on the subject. More out of irritation at his arrogance than disagreement with his position, I decided to start taking apart his arguments. This was pretty easy to do and the sequence went more or less as follows: "So how did the Universe begin then?"
"It was the Big Bang! Everything was really compressed and then it exploded."
"So what made it explode?"
"Well, ah, it was just too compressed - like really compressed"
"So if it takes so much force to pull it together in the first place, how did that happen?"
"Well that's what scientists tell us."
"And you have faith in the scientists?"
"Yes, wait no! Not faith!"
Now yes, of course someone else can give better answers to these (I can myself), and the obvious answer to the last point is that "scientists" (I hate the way people talk as if scientists are some separate species of humanity) have been able to produce technological wonders that I have witnessed which means I can put some reliance on their statements even if I don't understand the reasoning. But that was not the point in this case, the point was that I had someone stridently belittling others for their faith when that someone wasn't personally able to support their own beliefs with more than faith themselves.
A fanatical agnostic? Now that would be something unusual. But in some places, and particularly the USA it seems, atheism is a political position and yes, you do seem to get fanatical ones.
I am amazed that you missed out public transport. One day, the people of the USA are going to have to get used to sitting next to strangers again.
Perhaps Obama needed to prove some loyalties.
And a nice way of saying 'euphemism' ?
Yet your uid is only 667959! Man, that must make some people round here old!
Hey, only Intel provide you with a floating point that really floats - why you never know where it's going to end up! Now that's floating!:D
It does if you work it out on a Pentium I :D
This is just unbelievably good news. After all this time, I get to start telling Pentium jokes again! I never thought I would!
Things become easier to learn when you have more context. If I tell someone about a chemical reaction, they may struggle to remember or understand it. If they are a chemist or have at least a grounding in the subject, they'll be able to slot the knowledge in with associated information and thus understand it and recall it more easily. An "intelligent" person has a wider array of contexts or the ability to quickly find an appropriate context. I am fairly intelligent, but I still don't recall who scored what goal in what match the way some people do. These people absorb such information because they have context as much as for any other reason.
What about synonyms?
Reminds me of the sketch on Bremner, Bird and Fortune (British satirical show) where the Defence Minister was being interviewed.
Interviewer: How did you know that Saddam had these weapons? Minister: Well, ah... receipts, mostly.
Yes indeed. The UK sold both chemical weapons and obvious CWpn precursors to Iraq.
But before that's used as support for Iraq having WMD (as the USA and UK of course both do), experts agreed that such weapons were volatile and would long since have expired at the time of the invasion of Iraq by the US led coalition in March 2003. Had concern about WMD been the real motivation, then Hans Blix of the UN would have been allowed to finish his inspection. The Iraqis were co-operating after all. However, this couldn't be allowed as he would have returned a verdict of "no WMD" and the US and UK's pitiful excuse would have exploded completely.
The question of why the US has the right to possess the world's largest arsenal yet tell other people they must remain unarmed, is a separate issue, of course. But as there were no WMD (stupid term), it doesn't arise except as a means of highlighting hypocracy.
Yep. It enforces Create Commons licence on everything you write. They seem to think this is a good thing.
I'm partial to choice myself.
I don't accept government censorship. If this country (I am in the UK) is to be democratic, then the people of the country must be able to make their own judgements on what is said, not trust the government shown to have lied in these areas before to tell you what is said and what it means whilst hiding the source from you.
I personally would like to see some of these videos and in particular the Q&A session that the Al-Quaeda leader held. But not speaking Arabic, I probably wouldn't be able to find a copy I understand, even if I knew where to start looking for this material. If the propaganda is that impossible to stop, anyone know where I can find it? It's always interesting to understand where people are coming from.
Rose in the party? Yes. Probably mostly pretty smart and / or educated. But there had to be a party for them to rise in and all those brownshirts came from somewhere. My own experience with groups like the BNP (British Nationalist Party) and some of the nationalist groups in Eastern Europe has consistently shown me that communities of people with little education are the first resource and breeding ground for fascism or fundamentalism
The OP questioned why he should care whether other people were educated or not. People who are educated in Biology are instantly provided with an alternative to creationism. People who are educated in History are more able to spot the manipulations of government because they have prior examples. Education is not a guarantee against extremism, but every person more educated is a decreased chance it will take hold. Unless you think a nation full of people familiar with the details evolutionary theory are as likely to believe someone telling them that God created the world four-thousand years ago with everything in its current form, as a nation with none of that education would be. The former nation is far more likely to foster extremists that others will use to their own ends. Education helps people to think for themselves and thinking for yourself makes you less easy to herd around or whip up into a frenzy of patriotism or xenophobia.There are very good reasons why the OP should care about the rest of his country being better educated.
It's been a while since I read 1984, but I remembered "double think" as being the holding of two contradictory ideas / beliefs because it was politically convenient to do so. People want to hold a set of beliefs in one area (Creationism), but ignore those ideas and work from a contradictory set of beliefs in another (Technology). Hence "double think." It's been a while though, so I'm open to corrections.
I understand why you feel the way you do, but I disagree. The Us vs. Them is not Europeans vs. US citizens, it is both sets of citizens against both sets of authorities. Two natural allies (the citizens of both countries) selling each other out to their respective governments is a sad thing. Best thing to do is keep the US as the extremist in as many areas such as this as possible. Don't give them the benefit of justifying it further.
Uneducated people are weapons for dictators and extremists. The best defence we have against the rise of Hitlers, the British National Party, and all the others, is a well-educated population that can think for itself. Mass ignorance opens a population up to easy manipulation and there always seems to be someone ready to make use of them for personal gain. Believe me, you don't want scientific, historical and political ignorance in the US to become any more widespread than it actually is.
The thing is there's a powerful elite in the US that doesn't consider the rest of the country to be much more than a resource to utilise. For that, they want a population that is obedient and not too educated. They want it both ways and try to foster uncritical thinking in one area and scientific aptitude in another. Double-think, essentially. You are right that it doesn't work.
I agree with you, but would offer a complementary interpretation. An individual can be a monster to some people they don't consider part of their group and fiercely loyal and self-sacrificing to, for example, their families. I think the article refers to people who have this self-interest as part of their basic make-up, whilst many other people aren't always like that but have a cut-off point once some boundary is reached be that a race, a social class, a gang or whatever. I think what we're seeing in large parts of the USA is not a change in people's basic natures, but a great increase in alienation and lack of community. Perhaps it's two ways of looking at the same thing, but it seems to me that its the lack of interaction and community between people that fosters this selfishness. That and the visible self-interest of powerful leaders who appear to get away with things. Punish the leaders for wrong-doing and it sets a powerful example throughout society.
MOD PARENT: +1 Inspired.
I don't agree that there's any necessary difference in quality here. Self-interested people (which is what the article boils down to) may make more convenient one-night stands sometimes, due to the way they are more likely to be single or willing to cheat on a partner (this is the implication of the study), but that doesn't necessarily equate to a "good" one night stand, merely what is available. Of course it can work both ways in that a girl may feel more able to discard someone like that. But you're reading something into the study that isn't there.
All I can really do is bring her up to be as able to look after herself as possible and to be there to step in if there's any untoward pressure from a partner toward her. At any rate, the conclusion of the article is that these primarily self-interested people simply have shorter-term relationships, which doesn't spell marriage to me. For all I know, my daughters will grow up to be the "bad" ones. If they take after me...
Looks outside window at UK society. I don't see why you think jewish people should be any more immune than the rest of us...
You got that right. And your entire post is interesting when compared to the actual article which I don't think many people have read (surprise, surprise). The study concluded that people with certain negative traits had more partners in a given time. Conclusion: They can't or wont keep a relationship going. We can presume that people without these traits are more capable or simply happier being with one person. All your suggestions are about how to find such a person. The "bad boys" in this study are seemingly after casual sex.
The headline is a little less inflammatory when you translate it as "self-centred people are more likely to bounce from partner to partner than to have one particular partner."