lemur

I started to post this as a response to the thread about the periodic table but since I've gotten some criticism lately for assuming I know more than I do with replying to threads, I though I should post it as a separate thread to check my knowledge. Please read and respond with any corrections/critique. Atoms are basically charge-balancing systems. So a stable (charge balanced) atom may not be electrostatically prone to give away electrons, but if bombarded with energy, it can lose some electron(s) due to the fact that the energy it was bombarded with is stronger than the force holding the electrons. An element's relationship to noble gasses is a guide to its behavioral tendencies in that atoms are most stable in a molecular configuration where the outermost "shell" is full. So metals, whose outer shell is nearly empty, are more likely to give up electrons as their nearly-empty shells are almost like "extra baggage" "hanging off" the more stable full shell of the previous level. Non-metals, on the other hand, can also give up electrons but they are more resistant to doing so because their outer electrons have formed relatively stable partial-shell configurations. That last part is where I'm getting confused. I'm beginning to think that certain partial-shell configurations are more stable because, e.g. they have only paired-electrons, whereas an atom with, say, 7 electrons has an unpaired electron. Like I said, though, I'm getting confused with this so I hope I'm not completely perverting the way it is. Thanks in advance for any insight.

Equating democracy to "majority rule" is reductionist. I've explained it many times. It's not "majority rule" but "majority government" where the majority is represented in order to be held accountable to checks and balances such as supreme courts and other conditions and guidelines of governing. Majority "rule" can't be the ultimate basis for democracy because it involves the concept of authoritarian "rule." I.e. someone "rules" someone else without discussion and dissent. The reason classical republicans rejected royal sovereignty was that they believed people should be allowed to self-govern by their own reason. Democratic government was an institutional attempt to preserve institutional authority without it being one-sided and repressive of the freedom of individuals to self-govern within reason.

I can see that possibility. I don't know where I read it, but it suppressed aggression can also result in passive-aggression and enhanced feelings of aggression. The paper I read dealt with the relationship between explicit and implicit communication (sorry, I don't have a citation because it's been so long). Basically this person argued that people move to attempting implicit communication because they have been frustrated from using more explicit means of getting what they want. That sounds pretty Freudian to me, but I don't think it was Freud himself who wrote this. The intensification that comes with suppression also sounds Freudian in that Freud uses talk therapy to allow patients to dissipate repressed issues, which supposedly helps calm them in the long term. I interpret this to also mean that unexpressed aggression will build up and intensify, resulting in more explosive outburst or other expressions. In the event it gets sublimated into passive aggression, it could develop into institutional forms of violence like covert discrimination and other abuses of formal authority. If it becomes depression, as you say, I wonder if it can then be cured without having to resolve the underlying aggression/conflicts. It seems like psychoanalysis would bring out those issues to be expressed and dealt with.

I think it looks like it broke while being loosened, probably because whatever it was threaded into had shifted in a way that prevented it from loosening and whoever was trying to loosen it kept applying torque in the hope that it would break/give (by "break" here, I mean the moment when the bolt goes from being stationary to turning). btw, I think another way to say "bottomed out" could be that it couldn't move further into the hole. Sorry, xitten, if this undermines your insistence on the term "bottomed out" being comprehensible to all English-speakers, which I actually agree with if they would use a tiny bit of imagination. As for your explanation, I tried thinking of ways to tell if it broke while tightening or loosening but I could come up with reasons both ways. Loosening was my initial impression, though.

This may be more of a chemistry or engineering question but since it involves light, I'm posting it in physics. The issue I'm wondering about is whether it is possible for some material, used in flooring for example, to reflect much light and absorb little, but also scatter the light so that photon density close to the surface remains higher than if it were more directly reflective, such as a smooth white surface. If "photon density" is not directly clear in terms of what I mean, I'm thinking in terms of the angle of reflection/refraction for the light being very low so that light beams remain closer to the surface/ground longer. Second, if such a material exists already or is possible, would humid air dry more effectively with the same amount of (sun)light because photon density would be greater? This idea/question came to mind as a spin off of the discussion about microwave interactions with water. Since (humid) air is transparent, I wouldn't immediately think it can absorb light directly, but may it can with certain wavelengths.

I've known people who multitask by, for example, comprehending the minimum possible amount of talk-information being given to them. So, for example, they are listening well enough to the flow of talk to nod, express surprise, interest, etc. but then when asked about what was said, they don't actually know. So, in fact, they're not really paying attention to multiple things at the same time - they're just interacting at a very minimal level with one or more, and perhaps shifting critical attention between several. I think this is how some people can listen to music or watch TV while doing homework or something else that requires more intensive attention. They aren't concentrating on all the parts and lyrics in the music or the details of what's on TV - it's just background noise for them and somehow they can be interested enough at that superficial level to enjoy having it on yet it doesn't distract them from their work. A strange behavior, imo, though seemingly very common for many people.

Many people live with a cultural taboo regarding interpersonal conflict and confrontation. Because reasons for such conflicts emerge often in everyday life, the potential for confrontation is strong. However, the fact that people may experience such confrontation as taboo may lead them to repress conflicts to avoid confrontation and expect others to do the same. This can result in tension where people develop aggressive feelings toward each other and a desire to express such aggression violently but repress doing so out of fear for social stigma and other invalidation. What psychological effects are possible and/or likely as a consequence of repressing aggression? Does repressing aggression make people more likely to have a "breaking point" where violent outburst is intense? Can such aggression be perpetually sublimated and channeled into constructive social interactions, even when aggression is being actively experienced and contained?

Then are you shirking your responsibility by not exhaustively listing and explaining these 10 principles for discussion? It's like you're trying to tease us with giving us all the information. If you want democracy, you have to explain it and perform it in as many venues as possible.

I call that critical thinking. I don't think it should only be done regarding intuitively implausible entities likes ghosts/spirits. The reason why I mention here is because I get tired of science limiting itself to disproving superstitions. I prefer a slightly more enlightening approach that actually explains the subjective experiences of things that are implausible. Why is this issue of intuition coming up again? I guess it's good though, because it makes me realize that scientists often rely on plausibility intuition within the parameters of scientific knowledge they've accepted as legitimate and experience intuitive disbelief regarding things that seem unlikely. I.e. it is very difficult to be completely objective/neutral when you're thinking with a human brain. I agree. Just because someone thinks they observed something doesn't mean they should accept what they interpret themselves to have seen or thought uncritically.

The task of science, imo, is to identify what people are perceiving when they claim to know that ghosts/spirits exist and then explain those in terms of empirically valid phenomena. Obviously thoughts and other information can be transmitted through sensory-based communication. Maybe there is less certainty whether communication and various psychological activities can occur unconsciously or subconsciously, but both Freud and Jung had theories of the subconscious and these are the most reasonable path to pursuing a more scientific explanation of what underlies phenomena ascribed as ghosts/spirits.

I believe democracy is widely abused when people fail to voice dissent from elected representatives. Without dissent and critique of power, authority cannot be democratic even when it is selected through fair elections. Democracy is also undermined with dissent/critique is restricted by insisting that critics gain some sort of institutional status or approval before they may legitimately voice ideas and be heard. Obviously the goal of authoritarianism in any system is to achieve fear and resistance to dissent by any means. Marat: the problem with non-democratic approaches is that not only is the government bad at governing but it also uses force and authority to suppress reasonable discussion of how to make things better.

I don't think anyone has claimed moon ownership yet. Presumably, anyone planning to do anything on the moon would make their plans public to address any opposition to their plan. At the point, a discussion would take place, sides would be taken, and stakes set. No social force is powerful enough to sell moon property and protect it against invasion, piracy, etc. I think.

Some kinds of multitasking require more attention. E.g. if you want to get a lot of chores done at the same time, you have to keep track of the process of each activity while you're doing other things at the same time. You can't let food burn or clothes spoil in the washing machine, etc. while you're getting yourself and kids ready for an activity and trying to wash dishes.

I think the novelty of the idea that outer space is "beyond the atmosphere" will cause an initial attraction but one people have "been there, done that" it will probably become just another means of transit like transoceanic flight in a jet aircraft. For space vacations to really take off, there would need to be some seriously fun attraction involving zero-gravity activities. Even if there was a moon station, I don't see why it would attract tourism unless there was something to see on the moon besides craters or some activity that is really interesting in low-gravity. Lunar olympics, maybe?

I always thought this had to do with the development of depth-of-thought and critical thinking skills that come with life experience and experience with reasoning and logic. I noticed that when I was a younger student, I could read pages and pages of relatively esoteric academic writing and absorb it at a more superficial level but as I gained critical thinking/reading skills, I would have to slow down reading so I could think about each sentence in depth in terms of what it means, what evidence could support it or call it into question. I had the idea that multitasking and other superficial interactions work easier for younger people for the same reason. I.e. an experienced adult's mind continues to critically process information fragments it gets because it has more experience with making in-depth sense out of them and formulating adequate responses. Younger people, on the other hand, will just receive a piece of information and think, "ok, got it." They're not thinking about what it means or the implications as much because they don't have (much) experience with those. Information is more or less context-free in their minds because they haven't had loads of pattern-repitition and similar argumentation with similar concepts. With adults, however, it often can take only a single word or phrase to evoke an entire discourse. Could this be related to the biological aspect discussed in the OP in some way?

You would have to know something about specific bicycle maintenance procedures to come up with techniques that make it more efficient to fix multiple bikes using multi-bike methods than fixing one at a time. I think, though, that if you go to a bike repair shop, they will tell you that they make repairs one by one. Further, I think you underestimate the effect that having to maintain one's own things has on the way people treat those things. Maintaining a machine can be a hassle and almost always involves making a greasy mess of your hands and often clothes as well. Straightening a wheel is just tedious, and usually impossible to get perfect, so I would never do wheelies or jump and crash unnecessarily, knowing that I would be paying for either in labor, the irritation of a slight wobble in the wheel, or having to buy a replacement wheel. Of course, many people don't care about the cost of a replacement because they have plenty of money but what if they had to serve a certain amount of time in a bike wheel factory for every new wheel they needed? Would they THEN try to take better care of their own bicycles? I bet that if you set up a public bike-sharing system where maintenance was done by users according to a lottery that assigned a certain number of flat-tire repairs and other scheduled maintenance that people would prefer to own and maintain their own personal bike individually than to have to perform their share of labor on the public bikes.

What makes you think that terrorists don't make anyone who isn't with them against them and thus not mind incurring nuclear attacks on governments that would "rat them out?" They would just have to take a strategy of leaking information that suggests that those governments are concealing information about them. Then, what could those governments do except deny that the leak was legit - but who believes it when a government source denies a leak?

Is this a subtle way of saying that poor people should be enslaved to authoritarianism? If so, how are they supposed to become rich and well-fed enough for democracy to work for them? By pleasing their authoritarian masters?

Love for what they would be destroying?

No, because at the ideological level, groupism is little more than a relationship experienced/expressed between the individual and the collective identity as an abstract image first and a set of inter-individual relations second. Nationalism is not a natural extension of the family. It is an abstract ideology used to generate distinctions between families and individuals on the basis of ideologies of collective belonging. Actually, that is just national-socialism (social nationalism you could call it). You could also view nationalism as purely an ideological commitment but that would undermine the essentialism of it as an innate identity. This all translates into subordination of the individual to social-interests. Nothing more. There is logic in what you're saying, but there's a difference between a will to help others because you recognize value in it and a will to collectivist submission to authority. In the latter, you express your individuality in the interest of good beyond yourself whereas in the former, you just suppress your individuality in submission to external authority. Collectivism neutralizes the ontology of individuality. You'll have to give specific data. 'Smaller nations' tend to utilize the ideology of smallness to promote ideological distinctions vis-a-vis other 'larger nations." At the individual level, no nation is larger or smaller except at an abstract conceptual level. At that level, ideological framing makes a difference. What does any of this have to do with nukes? You should start a different thread on nationalism if you want to discuss its relevance beyond the relationship with nuclear warfare, imo.

If it only absorbs, why do clouds show up on radar?

Why would clouds reflect some microwaves for radar to detect, while wet food and drinks absorb microwaves in a microwave oven? Is it something about the density?

I think you have to be cautious responding to global provocations for police action. Obviously there are economic benefits involved with luring lots of well-paid soldiers to your economy and letting them spend money. You wouldn't want people manufacturing 'crises in democracy' to manipulate the US or any other pro-democracy government into providing fiscal stimulus. That would be highly undemocratic to manipulate political-economy in such a way, wouldn't it?

Water must reflect microwaves or it couldn't be used in doppler radar to track storms, right?

Imo, it works like this. Hegemons seek to exercise social control by indoctrinating people with collective identity. This way they don't have to deal with humans as individuals. They can just demonize an ethnic identity and cause people to discriminate and self-segregate as a result. Once you get people into their "separate pens," you can manipulate them in all sorts of ways just by using global mechanisms like currency exchange, international relations histories, etc. Typically, people tend to individualize as they develop as individuals. This happens to everyone in adolescence. Once they start to express and exercise independence from collective authorities such as parents, teachers, church officials, etc. it can help to terrorize them in some way that makes them feel relatively helpless. If the threat of terror is symbolized as being directed against the individual as part of a collective identity/group, they will feel and express solidarity with others who share that identity, revile those identified as threats/enemies of the group, etc. Simmel was the first to note this commonly referenced phenomenon of war bringing people together, as far as I know, though I would guess people recognized it far earlier. The nuclear threat thus has the effect of making people feel that they share a common vulnerability and common threat/enemy. Thus Americans were Americanized by being told that communism/sovietism was threatening to evaporate them while the same was probably true in the USSR. Europeans were threatened that both US and USSR were going to absorb them into cultural homogeneity, so they would rally and express solidarity in national cultural distinctions and small-country autonomy. What's more, conflicts between EU nation-states were/are also used to promote solidarity among national citizens and hostility toward other national citizens as a response to remembrance of historical abuses and threats. I think the nuclear threat is the means by which people are consistently moved to national-level social solidarity by confronting them with the threat of national others evaporating them "collectively as a people."