Do you think IQ is a good way to determine how equal people are?
"Overall, as I have said, none of us are 'equal' beyond species, and there is no proof that anyone is equal. The belief that everyone is equal is confuted by IQ, EQ, SQ, LE, BMI, RT, PFT, GPA, SAT, CAT, MRI, and NW.
Nevertheless, I still believe that we each deserve fair treatment, and even chances."
There are various significant factors; IQ is merely one of these.
Due to its subject matter, it is disproportionately concentrated on by some kinds.
Have you seen this study on Marijuana? https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/study-claims-marijuana-tied-3-135700155.html What are your thoughts on it?
It doesn't conclude what some outlets contend that it does.
It made observations about the samples for the particular study. They didn't conclude that smoking weed one time makes one three times more likely to die from high blood pressure; that is ludicrous, and can be disproven by simply measuring someone's blood pressure after they smoke a joint (or an alike medium).
I think the fact that the study did not imply that there was causation, but merely correlation, is enough of a red flag, alone. Though, the study itself is not, by and large, the issue. The way that certain news sites interpret research is the problem.
Numerous reporting outlets endeavor to make this or other such research sound more important than it is, or as though it is some groundbreaking discovery.
For these reasons, I typically stick to sites that are focused exclusively on science for reviews of studies (such as Science Daily, as one popular example).
Also, cannabis is a vasodilator, generally, which is why it is employed to treat glaucoma. Which means, if anything, it would usually lower an individual's blood pressure, not increase it.
If one’s blood pressure shoots up by a noticeable degree from smoking weed, it is probably because she or he has anxiety or some other such issue. It likewise bothers me, overall, that news sites continue reporting this study—which has not yet been peer-reviewed or even repeated—as if it is fact.
As with nearly any statistical study, the sample can easily be lopsided, and there is little way to know for sure, initially, if this is so. The best manner by which to draw a fair sample is to take samples over and over, replicating the study each time and collating the data. That would be the next series of steps, here.
I thought you might be interested in this since you've refuted some flat earther arguments on twitter before: www.denverpost.com/2017/07/07/colorado-earth-flat-gravity-hoax/ Absurd as it is of course, I was just curious what your thoughts on it are, if you have any that you'd care to share.
"Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa, scientists find" Thoughts on this article? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/europe-birthplace-mankind-not-africa-scientists-find/
The title there is more absolutist than on more science-oriented sites.
Regardless, as with most research, I would wait until the study is thoroughly peer-reviewed well-prior to assuming that it blows out or overturns conventional science. Some similar, independent findings would, of course, be helpful.
What are your thoughts on paternal surrender?
I've stated this previously, more than once.
Why do you think people hide love but express hatred so openly?
Have you ever seen this Milo Yiannopolous article mocking anti-circumcision activists and hailing circumcision? http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/05/28/no-one-wants-to-live-in-a-world-of-uncircumcised-penises/ What do you think of it?
Given you have posted many articles for years on male victims of DV, have you experienced that a lot of people in university care about male victims of domestic violence? Thank you for your great work by the way. You've encouraged me to be more proactive on issues like abuse and suicide. Much love.
Some individuals are highly dismissive of self-report surveys, particularly (or exclusively) where male victims of abuse are concerned, contending that they ignore, exclude, or do not wholly encapsulate the context of the reported situations.
I would hope to bring a more nuanced view to such an issue; so, I might say that, if we are talking about the social and psychological context surrounding single-event abuse and long-term abuse, it largely depends on what study we are looking at (as a rule of thumb, one ought to never simply refer to one study, but the entire body of studies surrounding an issue).
There have been some studies that merely use auto dialing to randomly call up people, and then someone asks them questions about whether they have recently been victims of IPV. Verily, these provide almost no context.
Conversely, studies such as the Dunedin Study are cohort studies that have tracked the sample from birth. So, they provide significant and viable context. In other words, it truly depends on the study.
Overall, one will find few scholars arguing that IPV is not sexed (at least, in sociology and criminology). Unfortunately, this has little to do with observations; no matter how good the study is, they will poke holes in it. In my (usually critical) view, the social sciences are occasionally blinded by their liberalism.
Unfortunately, I think that any bias leads to the disenfranchisement of some. In this case, men have been nearly entirely ignored, regardless of how many male victims there are or have been.
Another interesting point, I have wondered what would happen if one measured the balance of power/control in a relationship; the common psychological model of abuse hinges on power and control in a relationship.
Looking at American culture presently, it would be arduous for me to hypothesize that the majority of men have most of the power in a relationship; women are (at least, as I observe, seemingly) increasingly becoming in charge of household finances and family decision-making.
Professors that I confer with have stated that gang members they have interviewed always claim that they are terrified of their mothers and grandmothers, and in relationships, they admit to having little to do with large decisions, such as how to spend money, et cetera. I find this interesting.
Anyway, these subjects are always fascinating, if sad, and exceedingly more complex than many or some people give them credit for. I hope that one day we shall each approach such topics with broader views of one another and the world.
Your Ask feed is amazing. Is there anything you don't know?
I have approximate knowledge of many things, not absolute knowledge of all things.
was there ever a time when u got challenged by a new argument or point of view that u had to step back cuz it would change ur personal ideals?
Now, as many know today, I am against infant and involuntary child circumcision of all kinds, and have espoused that perspective as one of my chief interests.
That is essentially the only area wherein my genuine beliefs have changed entirely. The rest of my views have remained fundamentally the same for as long as I can recall, and I have continued to build upon and refine them as I grow and learn.
Thoughts on #ShakespeareInTheTrump?
Theater is meant to be entertaining, contentious, or both and more.
Some folk have adopted the notion (typically when their "side" is slighted) that art should not be controversial or offend them, personally, but this is far from the truth.
I see others saying that they condemn it morally but think that the play should not be censored, but I don't even condemn it, morally.
Certainly, I am against assassinating any president, or nearly anyone, but theater is not reality, and the two ought not be conflated or confused.
It is not inherently immoral to enjoy offensive or contentious art, and I would not blame a play if Trump were attacked, just as I would not have blamed any play or art where Obama had been harmed had he been hurt in reality, afterward.
(I haven't seen the entire play, so I don't know if I'd enjoy it, but that is irrelevant.)
As with all outrage du jour, it'll pass and be forgotten in a few days, so it doesn't particularly matter what I think. The next controversy will manifest, shortly.
As an aside, Shakespeare was a lunatic.
Why is it, when I start drinking a lot of water, my mouth always feels dry. My mouth never feels dry when I drink a lot of soda even though it’s less hydrating.
Human skin moisturizes itself inherently via water-soluble compounds such as hyaluronic acid. These compounds absorb and hold moisture (meaning that they are hygroscopic; as in, able to draw and absorb external moisture). Lipids on the surface of the skin, which are natural oils, lock in this moisture; however, when these lipids are in contact with water at length, the moisture leaks out, producing dryness.
This applies essentially the same to mucous membranes, too. Human mucous membranes have a layer of mucous and oil on top of them that keeps them moist, and when you drink a great deal of water, or keep water in your mouth for a while, these come off, which leaves the surface feeling dry until more is secreted.
(In case you are unaware, as I reckon many are, the tissues of the mouth consist of mucous membranes; or, what are otherwise referred to as a sort of epithelium.)
The reason that soda does not dry your mouth so is likely because there’s a lot of sugar in it, and sugar dissolves into sticky goop when mixed with saliva, which coats the inside of your mouth in a fashion akin to a layer of mucous.
Soft drinks do contain water, but you are, obviously, better-hydrated when drinking plain or pure water than soda, even if it doesn’t always feel as though you are.
You do a good job of consistently posting information clearly. I think the world would be better if more people were like you. So I'm not really sure I know how to phrase what I'm asking...but I guess if you could say one thing to people to try to make them think differently, what'd it be?
I'll simply write what I feel and think at this moment:
One cannot assert that, after one person or a group of people in the past has established itself into a common culture, where its ideas are arduous to separate due to convention or laziness, one is warranted in retaining perspectives and practices which conflict with or defy reality.
I wonder about the immense amount of nonsense out there and how there are no laws against it or against such detrimental lying. There are none to protect the average observer or member of a society against the obnoxious dregs, naïve teenagers, or senile schizophrenics that are pleased—though, such an apperception is nearly worthless to or on them—to share the same space as we.
Much of the nonsense and confusion out there can elsewise be replaced with a given truth which is so impeccable that it cannot be wilfully assailed, even by those who were paying attention and able to think without continually relying on false preconceptions, which have been reinforced only by like company.
All things that are and do have answers, but not everyone cares to, or can, find them.
One of my lifelong aspirations is to collide each cult with every other so that all members can destroy themselves to leave those who are not part of any cult—i.e., folk who are no longer a participant in the nescient self-trapping and intermeddling of humankind—to inherit anything that they wish.
Politics is perverse, farcical, corrupt, and I shudder at some others who want to dissolve themselves in that insane, endless noise.
I long to build the world and life upon facts, to force oneself to never err, and to reap insights and knowledge perpetually and persistently, no matter how, for better or worse, any discovery impacts oneself or anyone else.
Biology feeds into chemistry feeds into physics feeds into mathematics feeds into logic feeds into wisdom, each one being able to suspend and reform the prior.
Understanding this, perhaps one will comprehend that, or when, one is often wrong because of personal and usually-oblivious incompetence. I’d will that others cease or shut up. There is no paradox or contradiction with the established facts; it is just that one doesn’t even know how one [exists]. The rest of the answers to life, the universe, and everything may be better left to be written at length, elsewhere.
I’ll get around to them, or not.
I can hardly say that much is worth doing, anymore.
But, each of these, above, could be something to consider, or not.
I only endeavor as best I can to act (do, say, think, interact, react) as I might that others would, but it’s of little use when others wilfully, obstinately wouldn’t.
I know you don't like to talk about gaming, but how would you rank Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft as far as gaming is concerned?
Nintendo > Sony and Microsoft (console).
PC > Each.
How does Benzethonium Chloride work to kill bacteria? And why is the % in hand soap like 0.10%?
In bacteria, this means that it is detrimental to cell processes such as solute uptake or ATP synthesis. That is to say, the hydrophilic cationic region of the BAC molecule disrupts a pathogen’s exterior via creating electrostatic interactions with negatively-charged facets of the targeted molecule. These interactions outperform the bacteria’s divalent cations, which generally stabilize its surface by connecting contiguous negatively-charged elements.
Subsequent to close interaction or contact being achieved by the hydrophilic region, the hydrophobic region of the BAC pierces the hydrophobic bilayer, producing lysis and cell leakage.
There are a slew of antiseptics which function in that fashion, called quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs), which is what benzethonium chloride is. In a low percentage, such as in hand soaps, it does not have the effects that I described, because it is too diluted. If it were in higher amounts, it’d be useful.
As in, the amount in hand soap isn’t really enough to kill bacteria, overall. We use QACs in non-alcoholic hand sanitizers, et cetera, and that is where it’s beneficial.
If I recall rightly, the FDA banned somewhere around 20 antiseptics in hand soaps because it was demonstrated that lengthy exposure to antibacterial ingredients could result in some type of bacterial resistance or hormonal effects, and such exposure shows, or showed, little proof that the ingredients are, or were, exceedingly more effective than regular soap and water.
As an aside, I think that alcohol-based is superior because the ethanol dries off one’s skin swiftly. Others, of course, may disagree with me on this.
How likely are stitches to leave a scar?
It's more likely than a wound that doesn't require stitching, I can tell you that much. However, there are many different kinds of stitches, sutures, and wound closure devices currently; disintegrating sutures, items which use nothing but adhesive to hold a wound shut, and more. In addition, it depends on the shape of the wound cavity. A more jagged shape is more likely to leave a scar when it heals.
Not to mention, there are varying types of stitches based on strength and thickness, the strongest of which are used for holding shut wounds in areas of the body that pull apart with normal motion. The thickness of the flesh where any stitches reside is another factor. Thinner flesh is far less likely to scar, overall.
If you are dealing with a skilled surgeon for a cosmetic procedure, they will understand that no one wants a lot of scaring and do what they can to minimize it. They would also probably tell you if the scarring will be too severe.
For some other type of wound, the surgeon, I am certain, will or would do their best to provide you with a healing process that'll produce the least terrible scarring, but there are no guarantees, as everyone heals differently. An abdominal incision, for instance, would nearly always leave some measure of surgical scars.
Are you a fan of crossbows or do you consider them to be a disadvantage because of the time they take to load in battle??
If you look at modern bows compared to modern crossbows, modern crossbows hit the same weight at around less than a quarter of their draw. At full draw, they are immense. Historically, the larger crossbows, such as siege crossbows, were primarily used defensively, though. They were too sizable to lug around a battlefield, and required gigantic quarrels. So, they’d simply have archers sit atop the parapets, firing downward at an angle with their siege crossbows.
That’s chiefly how those massive ones were employed.
“Light” crossbows could even be used on horseback.
(However, not as effectively as a bow and arrow.)
Bows and arrows are powerful, as well, but there’s a significant difference in instant wound lethality between even the largest, strongest of bows and a crossbow, because, as I indicated, crossbows have such a high draw weight.
Moreover, in the past, they’d barb quarrels and arrows on the backside so pulling them out makes you bleed profusely. The substantial advantage of a bow in a battlefield isn’t necessarily that it kills the person you hit, but that it wounds them badly. (And, there’s the sheer numbers and suppressive fire.)
Either their comrades will have to stop fighting you to drag them away, or they’ll be incapacitated enough that you can finish them off fairly easily when you reach them. A bow isn’t going to kill you, really; that is, not unless you are struck by the edge of a broadhead and it nicks an artery or an arrow hits you directly in the brain. Otherwise, if you are shot with an arrow, it’ll take you a while to perish from it.
If you don’t pull it out, it’ll bleed slowly.
There were or have been cases of people surviving arrow wounds by leaving the arrows in for weeks, and the wounds would close around them, and they’d break it off and have a little bit of metal or stone embedded in them forever.
A crossbow, on the other hand, will kill you much more swiftly. A quarrel is strong enough to pierce armors that regular arrows can’t, and can penetrate bone at much longer range than even a compound bow.
As an aside, my best shot is with a crossbow, and it’s more fun for me to fire than a gun or bow. A crossbow is, likewise, the most enjoyable to use for hunting to me.
If you could come up with one radical solution for ending Mooslim t3rr0r1sm what would it be?
Actually, let me hastily devise a real modest proposal.
We open the borders all the way.
We pay for anyone who wants to come from the Middle East to come to America.
They can take a ticket to anywhere that they want.
If they do anything bad, we can arrest them under our own laws.
If they wish to set up a caliphate, we can use the military to suppress insurrection.
Naturally, if everywhere in the U.S., there are terrorist attacks from all these people, no one will disagree with a massive retaliation campaign; if there are no terrorist attacks and our openness leads to a golden age of kumbaya, that's still good.
We win, either way.
What is existence?
Everything is aught.
The universe is a dynamic image of the round instanton.
Randomness. Here, all things that are, are, and all things that do are somewhat random to each other where the best interest of everyone cannot be fulfilled.
I'm about to write my master's thesis in psychology. Do you have any advice?
Hardly anyone will care about your Master's thesis when you progress on, either to your career or to pursue a Ph.D. So, don't bother with striving to make it too complex or sensational. Just do something simple, but well, so that you may transition to your career or a doctoral program. That's where the true work begins.
This is the best advice that I can provide you.
How does one find happiness when someone else has done them wrong? For example, in a relationship that has ended or a dead friendship.
you were ahead of the curve on criticisms of thunderf00t and a bunch of others. now people i follow are criticizing him and the rest. do you ever feel a sense of smug satisfaction about being right on that kind of shit?
I discontinued my criticisms of many folk in the past and acknowledged their self-corrections once some improvement genuinely transpired. I find some positive evolution, where they are, in my view, becoming superior to what or how they were previously, far more satisfying than perpetually critiquing them.
When the tedium of dealing with and working on a lost cause sets in, I find fresh others who seem more worthwhile and promising.
So, he may be as he was, and if he is, I no longer care; it bores me.
What are your thoughts on monogamy and the role it plays in sexual dynamics between men and women?
As I have stated before, women simply have a massive advantage at or in sexual competition because we differ from men in reproductive fitness optima. Women are a limited resource, worthwhile for our reproductive capacities, and men are not, as their value exists more in labor.
Moreover, women, in general, tend to prefer to be pickier about our mates.
Artificial means of reproduction, such as synthetic sperm and wombs, ought to help remedy the biosocial imbalance between women and men, and that'll favor men.
Though I find it funny and am not saying you should quit, because in your case it's a unique quirk that's not like the normal 'grammar n*a*z*i' stuff, why do you constantly correct how people write?
Language and writing, each, are fundamental to human communication, and are likewise an art. Anything which erodes or degrades these is to society's detriment and wretched. Even something as simple as a midsentence mark is grammatical, rhetorical, expressive, literary, and historical.
Why should I not care about this?
I can't and mustn't let people be dumb and ignorant and wrong. I can't and mustn't let people do, say, and write however they want or like.
There are always more important rules than those a few people have thought or will think of in every case, and I must not encourage carelessness or indifference about how real some problems are.
I draw distinctions between true mistakes and temporary carelessness before critiquing others. I make a number of allowances for different expressive or rhetorical styles of writing, and so I do not criticize anyone for everything, or interjections in the proper places; however, I do not allow writing that is plainly wrong. No one can ever demonstrate that proofreading is pointless.
This is why I attempt to read the minds of authors and offer a suggested revision solely if it truly appeared to be a mistake which is typical of them, and not, say, a mistype which existed only in isolation or rarity.
Yet, I not only proofread, but proofwrite. A large number of Americans and some Britons certainly count as illiterates, particularly teenagers. Calling them as such is highly appropriate to limit their influence, and helps folk pay attention to and think about what they write.
I make appeals to etyma regularly, and will dispute improper professional or standard terms and diction. I largely endeavor to resolve non-literal abusive or contradictory expressions or claims in language, where meaning or sentence structure could be made greater, as I call it.
None can easily decipher the meanings of words when they become contradictory or absurd; most talkers have no clue about their word roots and abuses. Each word has one main meaning, not to bend, ever, unless the bend serves to improve the usage of the word in place of another.
In the majority of instances, such bends are not an improvement.
If one requires a meaning not well-described by another phrase, elsewise, they ought to invent a new term, not steal a word with its own, better meaning. I reject the illiterate, improper, irresponsible, malapropist, naïve, uncouth perverts who will derange the correct and incorrect on absurd, circular, contradictory, inconsistent, irrelevant, lack-witted, near-sighted, and personal reasons.
This society champions mediocrity, and I long to snuff it out.
Until then, nearly every statement made every day drives me mad.
It has to do with the nonsense many believe, how it clogs their minds, how they can't learn to un-learn it, and how they parrot the world rather than think for themselves. A “skeptic community” is an absurdity. A skeptic must be a freethinker by trade and individualistic and objective by necessity.
Yet, I frequently see the same groupthink bias, myopia, insularity, and chasing information to confirm feelings amongst “skeptics” as any other group. If these are not above the shortcomings which afflict people, generally, then the moniker is meaningless. I witness skeptics who, when someone tells them a wild story they favor, which agrees with other wild tales they favor, readily believe it and build a new story upon that.
I also see many skeptics who cluster together so that they may thrive; so that they may not see life otherwise, be free of scrutiny. Behavior of that kind tends to mean one is likely wrong and elsewise deranged, or uncomfortable regarding the validity of his or her beliefs. These are probably no better than the borderline personalities who would rant on the streets were it not for YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, or another popular medium. For serious concerns, one ought attempt to review his or her chief feedback; cover statistics, demonstrate it for others, and address any criticisms.
Numerous skeptics would rather ridicule than discuss, which is proof that they are wont to laze instead of learn, and complacent in their popularity or the popularity in their spaces of their beliefs.
Furthermore, too many skeptics I observe do not express that they know well how to tell between fantasy and reality, how to verify a belief, how to premise conditions for observations which should defy and support the belief, how to recognize observations that are irrelevant to the belief.
I think that some hate the scientific method as they champion it.
The skeptic community encourages the continuous propagation, confirmation, and reinforcement of their popular beliefs and biases rather than true debate.
What makes the modern skeptic movement, in part, a fraud, is that delusional disorder, folie à deux; collective hysteria is contingent on the population fraction who disagrees with a belief. Whether some belief is popular at any given time depends on the social climate; a populace which includes self-diagnosed conservatives, liberals, and cretins who are slow to learn scientific-based facts.
Each of these are included amongst skeptics, and a number are pseudoskeptics who could be trounced if one were to expose and destroy their specious lies, which they have no doubt learned under an emotional screen.
If their purpose in debate is to win some superficial victory rather than bring others closer to truth, whatever it may be, then they are a charlatan and a fiend.
NOTE: Not all.