StringJunky

Yes, happens here all the time doesn't it?

I answered your question in the general sense:' by nature' is generally a hard-wired attribute. Humans aren't special; they just have another layer of filters to put their urges through whether act on them or not. I don't know, but doubt, that women are monogamous by nature..

Interesting. It illustrates that people don't know what they don't know; that there is an horizon beyond the one theycan see.

I was grinding teeth this morning. ;

Yes, AT that type of test measuring those types of parameters. Intelligence has many faces, not just the ones they measure. Believe it or not, someone with an IQ of 140 can be thick in some activities or lack commonsense; it's not a global metric. It can be seriously deflating to a person that does not excel in the parameters measured by IQ itests yet they may be fabulously artistic, articulate, linguistic etc which they don't measure. That's why people who are not savvy with them should avoid self-testing with them. It's a bit like prescribing yourself with pharmaceutical drugs without the training.

I'll give it a whirl.

I use two computers. Normally, I just work with the problems but this morning and yesterday I couldn't work with it. It's quoting the people who were quoting someone else as well and putting my own input into a quote box. This what I left this morning after trying to fix it: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/96920-clocks-and-rulers/?p=937263\

If you were fluent in the maths you would see what is meant when these physical terms are used and what aspects they are describing. Why not just learn the language and concepts as they are understood and described instead of criticising it or offering alternatives ? I don't know myself but I know there are ideas beyond what I know at the moment; no point in arguing from ignorance... is there?

Quoting is nigh on impossible.

It's a mathematically-based science at the end of the day that requires concerted effort on the part of the learner. You can inform someone but you can't do the thinking for them as well. To paraphrase Einstein: one can only explain things as simply as is possible but there's a limit to how simple before it becomes useless.

Who decides what is detrimental? Whatever way you look at it, it's eugenics. Also, it goes against the principle of preserving genetic diversity which strengthens populations in the evolutionary sense against extinction.

I hate the Apple model but... This is is the problem with preserving security and keeping dabs on customer data for commercial exploitation . Whatsapp, with end-to-end encryption, and Apple, with no backdoors, seem to be genuinely concerned about aiming towards 100% security and privacy.

The brain is plastic; use it or lose it. Repetition. and practice in general, causes new pathways to be formed so eventually things can be done more or less without thinking. This is what learning is; creating new pathways.

IQ tests are indicative of the ability to do IQ tests. They are only meaningful to specialists who understand what the tests are measuring. Joe/Josephine Public should avoid them for the reason just stated.

Choice in whether to actually to do something about it but not so much in the initial emotional/physical response - the hard-wired bit.. A gorgeous man/woman walks passed, you don't think: "No, I'm not going to think carnal thoughts about this person... Mmm... yeah." We are still animals but with a manual override evolved in us.

" "The more people I meet the more I miss my dog" - Mark Twain

Hard-wired, as with any other organism.

Wherever I go, I am the centre of the observable universe.

No.

Indeed. The number of frames is irrelevant to the thought I posted.

Verbal diarrhoea is common.

Yes. The niceness or kindness of humans is really only a cleverly worn veneer, masking a selfishly motivated agenda. It is rare as rocking horse droppings to find a genuinely kind human, once you've delved deeper into the person.

I'm sure he will enlighten us as to his meaning.

No such thing as mutants then? You only have to find one example to prove your belief wrong that humans were "singularly" dark skinned..