aswokei

I see it as a test of how flexible of a thinker you are. Flexible thinking is a valuable asset to have in today's world so it would seem that it would be a legitimate component of intelligence. Flexible thinking can be construed as creativity, which many psychologists considered an important part of intelligence.

When people normally speak about personality ("Oh, he has such a wonderful personality!") this is exactly what is meant. ("He has such wonderful traits and character"). It is not peculiar by any stretch of the imagination. Nope. No way. What do we mean by character? You said it pretty well. "Do we mean traits that are produced by the person?" Here is where we disagree and where the heart of the matter resides. Do you disagree that people exist or that traits exist? Both you and I have traits. I have blond hair and blue eyes. I can be hardheaded. Those, my friend, are traits. I agree that environment plays a role in our personalities. Whether or not we inherited our personalities, they are still ours. Genetics determine to what degree you react to your environment. If you are programmed to conform, it will appear that environment is a greater factor for you than for others and vice versa. Also, if a person with a superior genetic composition flourishes in a deficient environment, that's an indicator of the importance of genetics. If you still think genetics affect us only mildly, read this article very carefully. Twins A self that does not exist by means of two contradicting principles? I'm just a little curious. Where are you getting your information? Is this stuff you're making up? What have you been reading?

A Turing machine? I've read a little about those from Stephen Wolfram. Turing machines are computer programs composed of a grid of separate and discrete cells that create results out of initial conditions and a particular set of rules. They are kind of like cellular automata. http://www.turing.org.uk/turing/scrapbook/tmjava.html As time goes on, evolution of such systems create results that are completely contingent on the states of the previous cells. Each cell's state is dependent on its immediate neighbors' states. This is probably why they are good models for natural systems. Ultimately, in all systems, everything is touching each other, touching, carrying messages. After a while of this evolution if the conditions are correct, complex and seemingly random structures can give way. What is meant, I believe by a universal Turing machine is a Turing machine that is able to emulate any other machine. If everything in our universe is ultimately discrete (space, time, matter, energy), then it seems reasonable that such a system could be emulated by a program such as a Turing machine. Indeed, that's what Stephen Wolfram holds to be true. Our universe is a simple program, probably composed of only a few lines of code, running itself over into eternity. Pretty cool idea, I think.

In my psychology book from a couple of years ago, they described an identical twin analyses which suggested a gay gene(s). Using statistical analyses they found this among identical twins: if one of the twins is gay, there is a fifty percent chance that the other twin is gay. Clearly, genetics are a factor. If they weren't, the probabilty of a gay twin having a gay sibling would be around 6 percent, not 50. However, if genes were the only factor in determining a person's sexuality, they would have found that the probability of a gay twin having a gay sibling would be 100 percent. Studies have identified the other major factor: prenatal development. If the fetus (boy) doesn't get enough testosterone or androgen, he will be more likely to develop into a homosexual. If the fetus (girl) gets too much of those hormones, then she will be more likely to exhibit homosexual tendencies. This has been found to be true in other studies. I forget exactly why this happens, but if a mother produces 2 sons and then produces another one, the last one won't get as much of those male hormones as the others; therefore, if you are a third boy in a family, the probability of you being gay is higher than normal. Actually, I am the third male child in my family but I'm not gay. However, I'm not quite as manly as my brothers. They are ripped and always have women around them. I'm pretty big, but not so much like them. My brothers are more masculine than the average male, and I would say I'm about normal. An interesting side note: a homosexual man is more likely to show more natural female skills (communication of emotions, verbal skills, reading subtle cues like body language and facial expressions). The same is true for lesbians. So I'm going to go with the scientists. My answer is that homosexua orientation is primarily determined by genes and prenatal development.

The trick is this: don't think too hard. It's very simple. Just try your best to think of as many different approaches as possible. Think like a child.

Misunderstanding. I wasn't putting words in your mouth. I was referring to what I said before, when I said that women in ultramarathons do compete better with males than they do in other sports. Let's face it, in other sports like baseball, basketball, and football, male superiority is unquestionable. With ultramarathons however, it's unquestionable that women compete better with males. Not better than. The fact that fewer females made it on the top list could be due to the fact that there are fewer female ultramarathoners. I don't know that, but it seems likely. Men have cardiovascular systems with larger capacities like you said. They can produce more energy for longer in a relativistic sense. But after about 3 or so hours on intense physical activity, the blood sugar levels drop and glycogen stores run out. It is at this point when athletes are known to 'bonk' out. Keep in mind that ultramarathons run for over 24 hours. You're going to have to use more than just glucose. In these ultramarathons, you're going to use all three energy nutrients, fat, glucose and protein (and a LOT of them). You'll probably digest muscle in other areas of the body for energy too. You'll definitely burn a lot of fat. This is supposedly where women have an advantage. They can metabolize fat better and use it for energy more efficiently than men.

Kwashiorkor I think it's called. It's a PEM or protein energy malnutrition that effects young children in third world countries where there is very little protein rich food to go around. What it translates into is "Evil spirit that kills children after another one is born". What happens is the child is getting protein from the mother from her breast milk and when the second child is born, there isn't enough milk for the other child and so he suffers the effects of PEM (discoloration in the hair, fluid buildup in the ankles, pot belly, emaciated face, lethargy, etc...) Large breasts can indicate more mammery tissue which means there's plenty of highly nutritious milk to go around for her children, which justifies a man's attraction to those breasts. Plus there is scientific evidence that shows that collustrum is superior to baby forumula. Kids who are breast fed grow up to be healthier and slightly more intelligent than others. I love breasts.

Definition of personality: The totality of qualities and traits, as of character or behavior, that are peculiar to a specific person. As long as you don't get all quantum physical, it can be agreed that humans indeed exist. Let me know now if we're not on the same wavelength. If humans exist, then it follows that personalities exist since all humans have traits and qualities that pertain to character or behavior. Are there any flaws in my logic? The way a person appears and conducts himself are parts of his personality. Scientific studies strongly indicate that these factors are determined by both nature and nurture, however probably more by nature as shown in identical twin studies. However, I'd still like to hear more about your theory and how you explain identical twins. P.S. What do you mean be external and internal principles? You gotta be more specific and less hazy with your communication. Do you mean external as in nurture and internal as nature?

That's interesting glider, and from my experience with women, it seems to be true. It definitely seems true that women devote more brain bandwidth to encoding emotion into communication. After all, emotions can communicate a LOT of information if encoded and interpreted properly. That's why so many of those geniuses with Asperger's Syndrome often fail in life. They cannot read subtle cues. I have a more simple proposition, however, and maybe it's just part of an explanation: females write more. I'm a guy and I have fairly masculine handwriting. Small, jagged, unkempt loops and pulls. However, if I find myself writing for an extended amount of time, something remarkable happens. I write bigger, loosen my wrist and let a broader motion carry the work as this technique involves less exertion, and well, better pennmanship. The result is big, beautiful, easy to read and voluptuous letters. For a fleeting instant, I know what it's like to be a woman. Do any guys experience this? As for grammar? I dunno. I like what Glider said.

husmusen: Muscles use fat, glucose and protein for energy. The standing scientific reason why women compare well with men relative to other sports in ultramarathons is because their bodies are more efficient at store and using fat stores. As said, females compete better with males in ultramarathons compared to other sports, but there still seems to be a notable difference in performance and results between the genders. http://www.badwaterultra.com/results.html

Yeah.. these things are pretty dangerous. Not quite in the same class as those annoying red lasers that were ubiquitous in the late 90's. Eye damage could easily be done especially by the more powerful green and blue lasers. Heh! Nevermind eye damage, you can burn a person's skin with these suckers. Imagine a baseball game where someone in the crowd sets his car battery powered 1W green laser on the pitcher's flesh. It would be nearly impossible to identify the offender; he wouldn't even necessarily have to be in the park.

That's why it's necessary to test many people. Then use statistical analysis to uncover trends.

Physical stress experiments... well that might be hard to get willing participants. If the woman is not an athlete, you could have her run a couple of miles and then have her perform a math or verbal test (Sports are also mental.). If the woman is really hardcore, you could ask her math and verbal questions why you're exerting physical pain on her (Poking with needles, cattle prod =p, smacking with rubber bands, nothing that will cause real damage, just stress.). However, the first test would probably be better. Something that combines physical and mental abilities together in a practical way, like paintball. Good luck.

That's aspergeriffic!

IDENTIFY YOURSELF

I take this time to ask those part of the Sciforums community to identify themselves now that it has apparently gone under. I used to go under apendrapew. In other words, I exchanged one moronic alias for another . I noticed you, Invert Nexus, are posting here, which inspired me to inquire others from sciforums who also may be under alterative aliases.

I had a great idea this morning while eating Cheerios. Holographic video conferencing. Think about it. We’ve had hologram technology for a long time now. Same is true for video conferencing. Why not combine the two? Think about how awesome it would be! Here is how it would work. Both of the users would be sitting at different remote terminals designed to seat two people side by side. Each person would sit on the opposite side so that when the system is on and working and the system is taking holograms and relaying them to the complementing terminal 24 times every second, the missing person at each terminal person would appear to be occupying the empty seat at both terminals. And as a given, you’d also have audio so you could hear the person (Come to think of it, you could design it so the sounds are coming from that person’s holographic image). Shouldn’t be too hard to set up. The system would actually be taking holograms at the rate of 24 times per second of the entire room (not just the person), but since the rest of the room is static, it just overlaps itself in the corresponding room. You don’t notice it. All you notice is a living, breathing human being with whistling nose hairs sitting right next to you. Because there are no cameras to look at, you could give each other direct eye contact. As long as both of the terminals and immediate environments are the same, you could easily move around and spatially interact with one another as you would in real life (without the touching). The weird thing I noticed is that despite how obvious of an invention it seems to be, I’ve never even seen it implemented in any sci-fi films. There are holograms in Star Wars, but they are pre-rendered. They’re holographic movies, unlike in my concept. Even in Star Trek, they only use regular video conferencing. The image of the Klingons are projected on a 2D surface. Bottom line: holographic video conferencing would be totally sweet. Who's with me?

Hi, I'm new here. I'm 21 years old and am attending New Hampshire Technical Institute majoring in Computer Information Systems. My interests are: music, all sciences (in particular, physics, psychology, biology, anthropology, computer science, etc..) , running, working out, studying and learning, writing and reading. I post at another science forum AKA sciforums.com, and I have to say the differences are interesting and remarkable. People seem a lot more respectful here.