No we have not! Wholly crap please read your own material before you try and correct me. The speciation that they are claiming is not speciation. Read how they defined speciation in the link. They define speciation as being identical to microevolution. Read their materials for what they claim to be a species evolving, and you will see it is also not a species evolving. It is a very minor adaptation, as with the bird beak I mentioned above.
It's really astounding how people believe everything they are told. Be a cynic! Doubt every claim there is until you read and comprehend what they claim! Being a cynic is being a scientist!
Consider their first example.
Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
This is exactly what happens in microevolution or hybridization, and we often see this with recessive genes. The primrose was slightly different, as was every other example on that page which claims that it's a species evolution. A primrose becoming a primrose is not a species evolution. The actual testing for a new species would require DNA, not chromosome ordering/detection. Testing for DNA was not available in 1905.
Many degrees, at least in the US, are no longer to benefit the students or society. The primary function of many degrees has become making a few people a whole lot of money, and those people are not the students.
College is better than K-12 mind you, but not much better. Dig into all of the various rackets involved in the systems. University of California has tons of administrative positions that pay extremely well, many of which have redundant job descriptions. A journalist did an article about a year ago in the SF area, and could not find out what most of these 200K/yr positions actually did. Book deals go to select peoples companies, not to what's best for students or for education. Granted, writing a text book is not easy. Not allowing e-books and making kids pay 200 bucks a book is simply asinine. College sports is another racket. Students may get free tuition for being an athlete but the University makes millions in Televised game deals, and receives free marketing to book.
I don't want to discount education mind you. I have read or studied something almost every day since I left college and think a well rounded education is essential. I don't have a PHD or even a Masters. Sometimes I consider going back and getting further degrees. Then I look at the costs and say "maybe after my kid gets done with College".
It is an illusion that all these other countries are "different" than the US. Citizens of the UK, Germany, France, etc.. have all found out that the US is spying on them, with full cooperation of their own agencies and corporations. What is changed and what is different after that revelation? Nothing!
They are still doing the same things, even if Merkel said "please stop spying on 'me'".
People want to believe that things are the same today in politics as they were 40 years ago, they are not. They want to believe that their Government controls their own country, but that is no longer the truth. Sure, the local governments control some things, but the economies are all from the central banks. The same owners of the central bank in the US own the banks in the Western world.
The US is playing fall guy for the surveillance, sure. But the rest of the West benefits from the surveillance as much as the US. It's control, and they want more of it.
People were warning us about this New World Order thing back in the 50s and 60s. The media quickly labelled them "crazy conspiracy theorists" and people fell for the ruse. People today still don't want to believe it. They claim that these are 'political mistakes' or that they do it for the money. Mistakes? With hundreds of people analyzing the situation, none of them are below average IQ, and every decision they happen to make is a mistake? To believe that, is a mistake.
The point is that there are two types of evolution. We have verified that something can change within itself. Birds get slightly different beaks, bacteria and viruses become resistant to anti bacterial/viral treatments, etc... Dogs can be mated with other dogs to create new species of dogs. Nobody I consider rational questions this type of evolution which is termed "microevolution".
The other type of evolution is where a species mutates to become a new species. We speculate that it happens based on what we can prove with evolution at a much smaller scale. The proof that it happens simply does not exist. There is one claim that I found where a bird was said to have evolved into a new species of bird. The bird was identical to the control bird except for the beak. DNA length was the same, appearance and size was within range for the control bird, so it was a huge leap to claim that it was "a new species" and quite frankly disingenuous. This is what is termed "Macroevolution".
As mentioned, I don't find it rational to discount what is being termed "Macroevolution". At the same time, it is something that is not proven. It seems to be a very reasonable assumption based on what we can prove.
The fact that it is not proven leads to people claiming evolution of species can't happen on one end of the scale, and on the other end of the scale we have people claiming incorrectly that species level evolution is proven. Neither person is doing any real service to the science.
You missed where I showed that there are two types of leaders. We do currently see more sociopaths and psychopaths than otherwise, but that does not indicate that others don't exist. Just we have become very ignorant and gullible as a society.
I did read, but you have a logic problem. He diagnosed himself based on two sets false criteria, both the brain scan and genetics. If the person was truly psychopathic they would have never diagnosed themselves as such, among other things.
Claiming that the physical characteristics of how the brain operates/is operating indicates 100% of a persons mental capacity and disorders is simply wrong and not based on scientific evidence. People have lost portions of their brains and have been capable of things that the section of missing brain was though to be solely responsible for.
Socrates vs. Aristotle is I believe a good example to use to explain the dilemma. Both were "Philosophical" leaders not Government leaders but I believe they show the concern very well.
Socrates was empathetic and would die for the group benefit, in fact he did just that. Aristotle believed that he was better than anyone else in society and was entitled to keeping humans as slaves because of him being 'better'.
We can use this example with other political leaders to show that not all leaders are self centered and looking for their own benefit at the expense of the group. George Washington for example did not want to be the President, but served anyway. I'll give you that he is a rarity, but that extreme exists at least as often as the opposite extreme. Most politicians sit in the middle somewhere, and we don't talk very much about them.
The bigger problem in my opinion is the author starts with the false premise that psychopathic behavior is determined by genetics. While genetics could (and most likely does) play a factor, it's not the major factor or only factor involved. The false premise should be obvious because the person performing the experiments was not a displaying characteristics of being a psychopath.
This study is not unique in using this false premise. In the last few years several 'studies' with this same false premise have made headlines. I won't backtrack on those articles except to mention them as "using genetics to determine if you are depressed", "using genetics to determine if a person is a psychopath or sociopath", and "using genetics to determine if you will be a criminal in the future".
As you wisely state, being a psychopath is not a binary thing. We all have tendencies toward at least some of the generalizations used to describe a psychopath. The same could be said for a diagnosis of a sociopath. The article does not address the main factors in what actually creates a psychopath or sociopath. Such as living in an abusive environment, education, lack of discipline for wrong doing, etc... All of those factors are sociological, not genetic.
In your example of leadership, I don't believe it's fair to characterize their traits as psychopathic. Psychopathic would be more self interested than the welfare of a group, so a leader being truly psychopathic would be contrary to many leaders. We see leadership in two forms, those that are concerned for themselves (many US politicians today, Aristotle) and those that are concerned for the majority more than themselves (Washington, Jefferson, Socrates).
When it comes to many of these alleged genetic studies, I have become very cynical. There seems to be a lot of biased studies trying to place all of the blame on genetics and ignore every other factor involved in creating mental disorders. Whether it is to remove blame for actions or possibly (and more frighteningly) eugenics purposes makes no difference. Either way, the studies seemingly are trying to set a labeling standard.
I accept the apology, and thank you for the offer. I am actually not really defending the post, as much as I was arguing that the post is not hostile anonymous coward claimed after they rated the post.
Another couple quick points. If the person had followed your suggestion of "I used to play MMO's, but" The actual content of the post "go read a book" would not change. A person offended by such a simple suggestion would still be offended. It would probably extend the perceived hostility because the person claiming "I used to play" appears to make them an elitist.
Take offense when offensive words are used, there are plenty of those to go around. Spending 5 paragraphs defending hostility regarding two 3 word sentences, and a 5 word sentence is a waste of effort.
This is true from English classes, but you could also use Symbolic Logic to show I am correct. "Read a book" lacks any ability to be offensive. "Read an *exclamation* book" has the potential to be offensive. "Meet your neighbors" lacks the ability to be offensive. "Meet your *exclamation* neighbors has the potential to be offensive.
All 3 of those statements given were absolutely neutral. The only way a person could be offended is to insert words that do not exist. If the person had given more information, it would be fair to assume that other words were implied. It's impossible given the 11 words used to make such an assumption.
I think we have all seen the posts like I mentioned, where someone name calls or makes an offensive post in addition to claiming MMOs are bad. This post was not such a post.
Perhaps you are (or they are) conditioned to react as being offended by every post regarding MMO that contains certain key words? I am not conditioned the same way, and if you are conditioned then the offense is not due to words but the conditioning.
The first post in question simply states "Read a book. Go out with some friends. Meet your neighbours." If you some how believe that there is an implied claim of someone being an idiot for playing a MMO, you are inventing words that do not exist. I have seen comments in the past that claimed people are X for playing MMOs, but this person stated no such X (X = anti-social, geek, needs to get laid, etc...).
If you invent words that don't exist, there is a severe problem with reading and comprehension.
If someone tells you that you are wrong, that is not hostility. That is someone pointing out that you are wrong. Was I perhaps blunt in doing so? Sure, but I'm not going to coddle people that invent statements, ignore facts, and attack people based on faulty logic. I have patience for children, not people old enough to post on a forum.
Even after being shown that you are wrong, you continue to try and claim you are not wrong. To the point where you deny what is written in very clear terms in not one, but two, dictionaries.
Grats on being a delusional douche (I'll write my own ad hominem now).
I agree with that point absolutely. If you lack funding or are trying to save money, you get a months worth of entertainment for the cost of a movie. It's a hard deal to pass up. Playing D&D with a bunch of friends is just as inexpensive assuming someone already owns the guides, and cards, are pretty cheap too. I personally still prefer those two things to playing an MMO because I get to interact with people in a different way.
I never claimed that their post was not off topic, I claimed that it was not "hostile" and "useless". I do understand that reading comprehension can be difficult, but these are not large complex paragraphs to read and comprehend.
Read it again, because you obviously misread what it states. Then apologize for name calling _and_ speaking falsely.
You chose to ignore the whole "note at wrong" section which clearly states that it is informal to use "wrongly" when it means "incorrectly".
Instead of trying to defend your being incorrect, be an adult and _learn_ from your mistake (even if you don't care to admit your mistake).
*Insert ad hominem here* because now you deserve it.
Picking and choosing the wording you want and removing context from a definition is asinine. You may as well claim the word means "they" because that word is also used several in the definition.
Useless and hostile? Seems like very sound advice. Sporting events, concerts, comedy clubs, a neighborhood game of hearts or spades. Those things may not make a video game company lots of money but still entertainment that many can be involved in.
Last I checked, Slashdot was an American company supporting a majority of American users. Additionally, you were trying to make a correction to an American English post. I don't see people correcting Americans with Canadian English for that same reason.
Things work quite differently when a person is not attempting to correct someone.
I suggest you review either the Oxford American or Webster's American dictionary as opposed to a Wiki which may contain slang uses for a word in their definitions.
Websters:
: behavior that is not morally good or correct
: a harmful, unfair, or illegal act
The Oxford American dictionary does not have a definition of "wrongly". So you did in fact incorrectly use wrongly.
, though it is incredibly annoying when people spell them wrongly.
The word at the end of that statement should be "incorrectly". Wrongly means something completely different.
As to the verbal use of "then, than" and "two, too, and to" the latter set has no verbal difference so can only be determined by context. The former are very subtle differences and easily covered up by context, accents, expressions, etc..., if used incorrectly. Writing these words correctly is in my opinion is the critical point.
Another quick point. I spent over a month patrolling the then East German border with my platoon using nothing but a map and compass (North East of Hanover). In some of those forest areas, it's easier to get lost than in a city with strange street layout. We also patrolled several small towns there which, we had never seen before. Personal GPS didn't exist back then, and we did just fine. Perhaps some of my view is based on confidence that other people lack.
So if you were to look at a rural area you have never biked, you could not find main intersections on the map and remember them? If you are heading down alleys and get lost, back track to return to a familiar road? I get that GPS makes things very easy, but it also creates a dependency on the technology. Numerous studies have shown that the technology prevents your brain from working properly.
To really "get lost", I would need to have no idea which direction I was heading (North, East, etc..). If you have difficulty navigating basic directions, something else is wrong. Not every bike run is during cloudy days in big cities where there is no chance of seeing the sun and having an idea of which direction you are heading.
You are right, I don't bike a thousand miles a week. I work and have a house and kid to take care of, and lack the time to ride 60miles a day. That said, I don't take the same routes to work every day nor on weekends, because I bike to enjoy scenery and get exercise. As soon as I pay attention to a GPS, I don't pay attention to scenery (this one of many points found in the studies that show GPS inhibits learning).
You of course can do as you wish. If you don't care about the harm GPS does to learning and have more fun with the technology, you are at least trying to be healthy. That does not mean that I get it.
What you said! If you are bicycling and need turn by turn GPS to help you, you are doing it wrong.
I really don't get people today feeling like they can't move without having a GPS mapping system showing them their route and telling them where to turn and when. Look at a map ahead of the ride, plan the route, and ride. Like you said, bring a map if it's a new route and stop and look if you need to.
And yes, I ride. I'm only doing about 60-100 miles a week. No map, no GPS. I ride every day to and from work, and I don't carry anything but work gear. Road runs on weekends, I carry water, a bit of food stuffs, cell phone for emergencies, repair kit, and small first aide kit. If I get lost, I backtrack the way I came if all else fails.
Slashdot Mirror
No we have not! Wholly crap please read your own material before you try and correct me. The speciation that they are claiming is not speciation. Read how they defined speciation in the link. They define speciation as being identical to microevolution. Read their materials for what they claim to be a species evolving, and you will see it is also not a species evolving. It is a very minor adaptation, as with the bird beak I mentioned above.
It's really astounding how people believe everything they are told. Be a cynic! Doubt every claim there is until you read and comprehend what they claim! Being a cynic is being a scientist!
Consider their first example.
Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
This is exactly what happens in microevolution or hybridization, and we often see this with recessive genes. The primrose was slightly different, as was every other example on that page which claims that it's a species evolution. A primrose becoming a primrose is not a species evolution. The actual testing for a new species would require DNA, not chromosome ordering/detection. Testing for DNA was not available in 1905.
Many degrees, at least in the US, are no longer to benefit the students or society. The primary function of many degrees has become making a few people a whole lot of money, and those people are not the students.
College is better than K-12 mind you, but not much better. Dig into all of the various rackets involved in the systems. University of California has tons of administrative positions that pay extremely well, many of which have redundant job descriptions. A journalist did an article about a year ago in the SF area, and could not find out what most of these 200K/yr positions actually did. Book deals go to select peoples companies, not to what's best for students or for education. Granted, writing a text book is not easy. Not allowing e-books and making kids pay 200 bucks a book is simply asinine. College sports is another racket. Students may get free tuition for being an athlete but the University makes millions in Televised game deals, and receives free marketing to book.
I don't want to discount education mind you. I have read or studied something almost every day since I left college and think a well rounded education is essential. I don't have a PHD or even a Masters. Sometimes I consider going back and getting further degrees. Then I look at the costs and say "maybe after my kid gets done with College".
It is an illusion that all these other countries are "different" than the US. Citizens of the UK, Germany, France, etc.. have all found out that the US is spying on them, with full cooperation of their own agencies and corporations. What is changed and what is different after that revelation? Nothing!
They are still doing the same things, even if Merkel said "please stop spying on 'me'".
People want to believe that things are the same today in politics as they were 40 years ago, they are not. They want to believe that their Government controls their own country, but that is no longer the truth. Sure, the local governments control some things, but the economies are all from the central banks. The same owners of the central bank in the US own the banks in the Western world.
The US is playing fall guy for the surveillance, sure. But the rest of the West benefits from the surveillance as much as the US. It's control, and they want more of it.
People were warning us about this New World Order thing back in the 50s and 60s. The media quickly labelled them "crazy conspiracy theorists" and people fell for the ruse. People today still don't want to believe it. They claim that these are 'political mistakes' or that they do it for the money. Mistakes? With hundreds of people analyzing the situation, none of them are below average IQ, and every decision they happen to make is a mistake? To believe that, is a mistake.
The point is that there are two types of evolution. We have verified that something can change within itself. Birds get slightly different beaks, bacteria and viruses become resistant to anti bacterial/viral treatments, etc... Dogs can be mated with other dogs to create new species of dogs. Nobody I consider rational questions this type of evolution which is termed "microevolution".
The other type of evolution is where a species mutates to become a new species. We speculate that it happens based on what we can prove with evolution at a much smaller scale. The proof that it happens simply does not exist. There is one claim that I found where a bird was said to have evolved into a new species of bird. The bird was identical to the control bird except for the beak. DNA length was the same, appearance and size was within range for the control bird, so it was a huge leap to claim that it was "a new species" and quite frankly disingenuous. This is what is termed "Macroevolution".
As mentioned, I don't find it rational to discount what is being termed "Macroevolution". At the same time, it is something that is not proven. It seems to be a very reasonable assumption based on what we can prove.
The fact that it is not proven leads to people claiming evolution of species can't happen on one end of the scale, and on the other end of the scale we have people claiming incorrectly that species level evolution is proven. Neither person is doing any real service to the science.
You missed where I showed that there are two types of leaders. We do currently see more sociopaths and psychopaths than otherwise, but that does not indicate that others don't exist. Just we have become very ignorant and gullible as a society.
I did read, but you have a logic problem. He diagnosed himself based on two sets false criteria, both the brain scan and genetics. If the person was truly psychopathic they would have never diagnosed themselves as such, among other things.
Claiming that the physical characteristics of how the brain operates/is operating indicates 100% of a persons mental capacity and disorders is simply wrong and not based on scientific evidence. People have lost portions of their brains and have been capable of things that the section of missing brain was though to be solely responsible for.
Socrates vs. Aristotle is I believe a good example to use to explain the dilemma. Both were "Philosophical" leaders not Government leaders but I believe they show the concern very well.
Socrates was empathetic and would die for the group benefit, in fact he did just that. Aristotle believed that he was better than anyone else in society and was entitled to keeping humans as slaves because of him being 'better'.
We can use this example with other political leaders to show that not all leaders are self centered and looking for their own benefit at the expense of the group. George Washington for example did not want to be the President, but served anyway. I'll give you that he is a rarity, but that extreme exists at least as often as the opposite extreme. Most politicians sit in the middle somewhere, and we don't talk very much about them.
The bigger problem in my opinion is the author starts with the false premise that psychopathic behavior is determined by genetics. While genetics could (and most likely does) play a factor, it's not the major factor or only factor involved. The false premise should be obvious because the person performing the experiments was not a displaying characteristics of being a psychopath.
This study is not unique in using this false premise. In the last few years several 'studies' with this same false premise have made headlines. I won't backtrack on those articles except to mention them as "using genetics to determine if you are depressed", "using genetics to determine if a person is a psychopath or sociopath", and "using genetics to determine if you will be a criminal in the future".
As you wisely state, being a psychopath is not a binary thing. We all have tendencies toward at least some of the generalizations used to describe a psychopath. The same could be said for a diagnosis of a sociopath. The article does not address the main factors in what actually creates a psychopath or sociopath. Such as living in an abusive environment, education, lack of discipline for wrong doing, etc... All of those factors are sociological, not genetic.
In your example of leadership, I don't believe it's fair to characterize their traits as psychopathic. Psychopathic would be more self interested than the welfare of a group, so a leader being truly psychopathic would be contrary to many leaders. We see leadership in two forms, those that are concerned for themselves (many US politicians today, Aristotle) and those that are concerned for the majority more than themselves (Washington, Jefferson, Socrates).
When it comes to many of these alleged genetic studies, I have become very cynical. There seems to be a lot of biased studies trying to place all of the blame on genetics and ignore every other factor involved in creating mental disorders. Whether it is to remove blame for actions or possibly (and more frighteningly) eugenics purposes makes no difference. Either way, the studies seemingly are trying to set a labeling standard.
I accept the apology, and thank you for the offer. I am actually not really defending the post, as much as I was arguing that the post is not hostile anonymous coward claimed after they rated the post.
Another couple quick points. If the person had followed your suggestion of "I used to play MMO's, but" The actual content of the post "go read a book" would not change. A person offended by such a simple suggestion would still be offended. It would probably extend the perceived hostility because the person claiming "I used to play" appears to make them an elitist.
Take offense when offensive words are used, there are plenty of those to go around. Spending 5 paragraphs defending hostility regarding two 3 word sentences, and a 5 word sentence is a waste of effort.
This is true from English classes, but you could also use Symbolic Logic to show I am correct. "Read a book" lacks any ability to be offensive. "Read an *exclamation* book" has the potential to be offensive. "Meet your neighbors" lacks the ability to be offensive. "Meet your *exclamation* neighbors has the potential to be offensive.
All 3 of those statements given were absolutely neutral. The only way a person could be offended is to insert words that do not exist. If the person had given more information, it would be fair to assume that other words were implied. It's impossible given the 11 words used to make such an assumption.
I think we have all seen the posts like I mentioned, where someone name calls or makes an offensive post in addition to claiming MMOs are bad. This post was not such a post.
Perhaps you are (or they are) conditioned to react as being offended by every post regarding MMO that contains certain key words? I am not conditioned the same way, and if you are conditioned then the offense is not due to words but the conditioning.
I wouldn't worry about it. s.petry's subsequent post was offensive and unconstructive, so you didn't miss by much. :)
I'm just as offended by people imagining what other people claim, then insulting anyone that does not agree with their imagination. We are even.
The first post in question simply states "Read a book. Go out with some friends. Meet your neighbours." If you some how believe that there is an implied claim of someone being an idiot for playing a MMO, you are inventing words that do not exist. I have seen comments in the past that claimed people are X for playing MMOs, but this person stated no such X (X = anti-social, geek, needs to get laid, etc...).
If you invent words that don't exist, there is a severe problem with reading and comprehension.
If someone tells you that you are wrong, that is not hostility. That is someone pointing out that you are wrong. Was I perhaps blunt in doing so? Sure, but I'm not going to coddle people that invent statements, ignore facts, and attack people based on faulty logic. I have patience for children, not people old enough to post on a forum.
Even after being shown that you are wrong, you continue to try and claim you are not wrong. To the point where you deny what is written in very clear terms in not one, but two, dictionaries.
Grats on being a delusional douche (I'll write my own ad hominem now).
I agree with that point absolutely. If you lack funding or are trying to save money, you get a months worth of entertainment for the cost of a movie. It's a hard deal to pass up. Playing D&D with a bunch of friends is just as inexpensive assuming someone already owns the guides, and cards, are pretty cheap too. I personally still prefer those two things to playing an MMO because I get to interact with people in a different way.
I never claimed that their post was not off topic, I claimed that it was not "hostile" and "useless". I do understand that reading comprehension can be difficult, but these are not large complex paragraphs to read and comprehend.
Read it again, because you obviously misread what it states. Then apologize for name calling _and_ speaking falsely.
You chose to ignore the whole "note at wrong" section which clearly states that it is informal to use "wrongly" when it means "incorrectly".
Instead of trying to defend your being incorrect, be an adult and _learn_ from your mistake (even if you don't care to admit your mistake).
*Insert ad hominem here* because now you deserve it.
Picking and choosing the wording you want and removing context from a definition is asinine. You may as well claim the word means "they" because that word is also used several in the definition.
Useless and hostile? Seems like very sound advice. Sporting events, concerts, comedy clubs, a neighborhood game of hearts or spades. Those things may not make a video game company lots of money but still entertainment that many can be involved in.
Last I checked, Slashdot was an American company supporting a majority of American users. Additionally, you were trying to make a correction to an American English post. I don't see people correcting Americans with Canadian English for that same reason.
Things work quite differently when a person is not attempting to correct someone.
I suggest you review either the Oxford American or Webster's American dictionary as opposed to a Wiki which may contain slang uses for a word in their definitions.
Websters:
: behavior that is not morally good or correct
: a harmful, unfair, or illegal act
The Oxford American dictionary does not have a definition of "wrongly". So you did in fact incorrectly use wrongly.
, though it is incredibly annoying when people spell them wrongly.
The word at the end of that statement should be "incorrectly". Wrongly means something completely different.
As to the verbal use of "then, than" and "two, too, and to" the latter set has no verbal difference so can only be determined by context. The former are very subtle differences and easily covered up by context, accents, expressions, etc..., if used incorrectly. Writing these words correctly is in my opinion is the critical point.
Another quick point. I spent over a month patrolling the then East German border with my platoon using nothing but a map and compass (North East of Hanover). In some of those forest areas, it's easier to get lost than in a city with strange street layout. We also patrolled several small towns there which, we had never seen before. Personal GPS didn't exist back then, and we did just fine. Perhaps some of my view is based on confidence that other people lack.
So if you were to look at a rural area you have never biked, you could not find main intersections on the map and remember them? If you are heading down alleys and get lost, back track to return to a familiar road? I get that GPS makes things very easy, but it also creates a dependency on the technology. Numerous studies have shown that the technology prevents your brain from working properly.
To really "get lost", I would need to have no idea which direction I was heading (North, East, etc..). If you have difficulty navigating basic directions, something else is wrong. Not every bike run is during cloudy days in big cities where there is no chance of seeing the sun and having an idea of which direction you are heading.
You are right, I don't bike a thousand miles a week. I work and have a house and kid to take care of, and lack the time to ride 60miles a day. That said, I don't take the same routes to work every day nor on weekends, because I bike to enjoy scenery and get exercise. As soon as I pay attention to a GPS, I don't pay attention to scenery (this one of many points found in the studies that show GPS inhibits learning).
You of course can do as you wish. If you don't care about the harm GPS does to learning and have more fun with the technology, you are at least trying to be healthy. That does not mean that I get it.
Your epeen is way bigger than reality.
What you said! If you are bicycling and need turn by turn GPS to help you, you are doing it wrong.
I really don't get people today feeling like they can't move without having a GPS mapping system showing them their route and telling them where to turn and when. Look at a map ahead of the ride, plan the route, and ride. Like you said, bring a map if it's a new route and stop and look if you need to.
And yes, I ride. I'm only doing about 60-100 miles a week. No map, no GPS. I ride every day to and from work, and I don't carry anything but work gear. Road runs on weekends, I carry water, a bit of food stuffs, cell phone for emergencies, repair kit, and small first aide kit. If I get lost, I backtrack the way I came if all else fails.