Phi for All

And the title is incorrect, btw. Jello in the USA has NOTHING to do with jellies, jams, or butters. It's a gelatin dessert eaten by itself with a spoon, sometimes with whole fruit or veg inside. It's stiffer/wigglier than any jelly, has less sugar, and you don't spread it on anything. OTOH, you can eat half a cup of it for about 80 calories.

Empathy is defined by its use. Do you know anyone who is especially empathic who doesn't use it? Do you know of any times when empathy isn't needed? I think your statement is meaningless in this context, something you felt compelled to write that seemed relevant at the time. Yes to sensing the weather, I don't know what you mean by "directions" (and how they can be heard and smelled), no to hearing and smelling people's expressions (if you mean the expression on their face). I envy your time spent with them, but I don't think you've observed them well, BASED ON WHAT YOU'VE WRITTEN. Then it's barometric pressure, or some other sensory process (although I still think your horse is hearing thunder that your ears haven't picked up yet). It isn't some magical "empathy" horses have. They have a remarkable sensory suite, but it's not supernatural. No effect on using an average smile per day metric. I don't understand why you bring it up, other than really wanting to have superpowers. No. Scientific theory represents our best supported explanations for various phenomena. Science "proves" nothing. Science can disprove, or falsify an explanation, but not prove it's true. Our best explanations are theories backed up by mathematical models and mountains of supportive evidence, and they're constantly updated with the latest information. Personal experience isn't interesting to science, since it's subjective and biased and untrustworthy. When enough people think they have supernatural mental powers, it gets tested, and none of the experiments show anything more than the normal ranges of human capabilities. And no matter what you may think, your brain/mind is very much part of the physical world. I'm sorry that your brain isn't special, but don't forget that you're human, and that already makes you part of the most intelligent species on the planet.

It's also not the brave stance many think, but just the opposite. It's a cowardly retreat from brave, innovative behaviors that gave us virtually everything good we have now. We KNOW how much we can accomplish by embracing others and joining their knowledge and efforts with our own. Tribal behavior no longer suits the intelligent, cooperative, communicative processes we've developed. Fear of change is powerful, and accelerated change on a global scale is daunting to many. But we need oversight more than we need tribal mentality pumping the brakes on our society. We can handle the advancement as long as we keep developing the right tools and rules to keep pace. I want to belong to the group that favors the traits that sets us apart as a species. We'll stay "pure" as long as our members react with their brains more than their brawn, and since the whole species is capable, you won't get ostracized as long as you're human. We are H.

! Moderator Note The goal HERE is to discuss science, HERE. Please post your ideas on site rather than trying to take the discussion somewhere else.

Who is? Any evidence for this? Science discussion forum, you know. What? Why don't we need empathy/intuition anymore? Do you have any evidence that "it's going away"? Do you have any evidence that empathy is not being selected as a favorable trait? You can't just make this up, you know. This isn't correct. A horse has better hearing and smell than humans, so it often seems like they sense danger before the rider can see it. Incorrect again. If there were ANYONE that could demonstrate supernatural ANYTHING with 90% accuracy, it would be more than luck, and it would be documented, and it would be part of science. What it is is bullshit, and NOBODY has ever been able to support these types of claims. If you understood evolution, you'd know that it wouldn't take very long for a benefit like that to sweep through a population. If being super empathic was a heritable trait, they would be more successful and spread it through populations over time. Oh yuck. That's like a vague horoscope scam. People smile 20-50 times a day.

We're getting our information from too many unvetted sources, so people aren't on the same page wrt what's happening in the world. There's no national narrative to guide folks away from unreasonable stances. Poorly informed people make poorly informed decisions. Part of the problem, imo, is using subjective terms like "reality" or "truth". Part of the problem is people defining reality however they feel like. Science is interested in the natural world, but whether that's "reality" or not I couldn't say. It should be enough that it's what we observe. Also, there are lots of folks who are basically human trolls, and they say outlandish or unreasonable things because it drives others crazy, and that's what they really want. For some, going viral is the only justification for anything.

This is a discussion site, and all you're doing is ranting. You aren't listening to anything else being posted, only yourself. This is supposed to be people talking around a table, and you've jumped up on top of it and started screaming about a long list of disconnected topics. You either need to go somewhere else and start a blog, or stay here and DISCUSS SCIENCE! Otherwise, we're going to get pretty tired of your ceaseless, meaningless, unfocused whining. Oh wait! Too late! What do you say, should you stay or should you go? We'd like you to stay but not if you're going to be this vague and unclear.

! Moderator Note Moved to Homework Help.

Kabutoo and Shijune have been banned as spammers, sockpuppets, and time-wasters, oh my.

A combination of reasons, as one would expect. Regulatory craziness is part of it, like how in the US you have to buy a car from a local dealership instead of a national chain or even direct from the manufacturer. Iirc, competition laws in Greece and Italy make forming large business groups difficult, so they don't benefit from economy of scale (such as small pharmacies that can't merge to form a CVS or Walgreen's). Then the small businesses have to employ a certain amount of people no matter what their industry is, and iirc more than half of Greeks work at small businesses. It's hard to make some efforts pay off if you have too many workers. They don't have a healthy mix of large and small business, imo. Unfortunately, corruption is worse usually in small business practices. Big corporations are more heavily watched and audited, and don't deal with as much cash. And corruption is what keeps many small businesses afloat that would otherwise have gone under. If you have a great business, it deserves to start small and grow on merit into a big business where it will be of more use to the economy, so the framework of small business tends to simultaneously give people a lot of potential to succeed and grow, as well as limiting their growth and making short cuts tempting. Plus the Greeks had borrowed heavily when they entered the EU (which they shouldn't have qualified for), and they suffered massive tax evasion from wealthy entrepreneurs so they had no revenue to pay back the loans. They also weren't as productive when using the new EU metrics, but still had access to all the borrowing power of an EU country.

Try not to think about a fog that swirls around you quickly before vanishing, leaving you unexpectedly covered in bugs! STOP!

This is a science discussion forum, so you should use a browser for questions like this. If you wish to discuss some science, you need to actually listen and respond as if you were having a conversation. Right now you look like a bad bot.

What is a "generatoir"? Is it French?

! Moderator Note A new thread for Global Economy has been split to here.

I've always felt informing the public of things they need to know in order to make reasoned decisions was the duty of the government. Education should only be a priority if you want your populace to succeed, and if that's the case then higher education should be baked into citizenship, be an integral part of it. If making a profit is a bigger priority, then charging money for accumulated human knowledge becomes very lucrative. Unfortunately, as we're seeing these days, when you don't focus on intelligence and your citizenry loses half their IQ, they become Q.

I didn't ask you what the problem with "the courses is", if you go back and read what I wrote. That's how discussion works, we have a conversation, between multiple people. We don't sit here and listen while you stand on the table and rant. Forgive me, but I don't have the time to listen to you preach like this. If you want to discuss your idea, you need to actually engage with the people speaking to you.

I'll stop being so critical then. Quantity over quality, controversy over conciseness. Got it.

I'm not as enamored of the "Archie Bunker" perspective as a negative example. Whatever a person's opinion, it's intellectually dishonest to hold anyone to their exact words while tap-dancing around your own. I'm always appalled when intelligent people use words to obfuscate instead of elucidate. It's mental snake oil, imo.

This would be a good place to mention that in two of your other discussions, you gained accurate information about the genetic aspects of inbreeding, and how the sun's radiation causes it to slowly lose mass over time, affecting the orbits of the planets. I suggest you are also wrong about life being a game, and about it being rigged. The perspective you take alters your perceptions, and it's important to align yourself with positive outcomes. Hope and positivity are sustainable, where doom and gloom are not. This perspective only serves to isolate you from several of our best features as a species. Humans are highly cooperative, and the societies we form allow us to achieve great things, as well as some not-so-great, and even some downright bad. It's up to each of us to choose what we do to affect those around us, and to ensure our societies prosper. Communication is another area where we excel, and it doesn't favor hermits. A single person will have access to a limited amount of knowledge, but two or more people can increase what they know exponentially. Money is a financial tool, and we long ago learned the value of creating tools to make life more productive. Opposable thumbs and rich communication and cooperative cognition, all areas where humans kick butt, and all mostly lost if we don't form societies. If money hadn't been invented, you'd still be required to have a marketable skill, and you'd have to barter with others who have the goods/skills you wish to trade for. Money means you don't have to search for the guy who makes toilet paper who also needs the gaskets YOU make. I also have to point out what a pointless argument it is to claim you didn't ask for this life, for this society, for the way things are done. Unless you figure out some way to fix it all at once and very quickly, you have to help your society change the way the rest of us do, focusing on one thing we can change at a time. There is an inherent problem with sudden change; if people aren't ready for it, it's not likely to stay changed for long. Steady progress helps us predict the best uses of our efforts.

The first obstacle sounds like the biggest. Wanting to educate others while lacking your own knowledge seems counterproductive. Why not start with a SINGLE, identifiable goal you can reach, and focus your efforts on that? Educating yourself, removing the gaps in your knowledge, and giving yourself more high-quality information to work with is one of the smartest things you could ever do. Ignorance is a spectrum, and we're all on it, and the more we can learn the better and more informed our choices are. Does that make sense to you?

I suggest you start studying science, and perhaps discuss your findings with peers on an internet forum. A focus on the natural world can help you overcome your animosity towards supernatural beliefs. And hey, I know just the forum! However, discussion means you have to get off your soapbox and listen. Right now you're preaching woe and doom to a bunch of science-minded folks who are astounded and amazed every day by the wonders we discover by observing the universe and studying the reasoned explanations developed for various phenomena. Right now you're hurting over something, and your focus is... unfocused, so you approach your obstacles (we all have them) all at once, as if you can possibly deal with them simultaneously. Instead, I would suggest more of a laser focus on one thing you can change. You can change the society nearest you if you make your lifestyle more appealing, for instance. We don't know what your life has been like, and there's nothing we can really do about it. But we can talk your ears off about science and reasoned methodology. If that sounds good, step down from the pulpit, this isn't your blog, it's a science discussion forum. Ask some questions, or share some knowledge. That's what we're good at here, not trying to talk down a rant or play internet psychologist for people we've never met. You picked this site for a reason, so I'm wondering if that reason is that you like science? Can we talk about that?

I'd really like to know, since that particular tepui doesn't seem to be attached to the rest of the landscape. Do you think there's enough rainfall to fill a small lake?

I have a friend who votes Republican, mostly because he equates small government with NO government. He thinks he's conservative, because that's what most Republicans think of themselves (in my experience), often equating it with "common sense". The problem is, he's anything BUT conservative, in many ways. I can't think of any area where my friend thinks conservatively, not the clothes he wears, the hobbies he has, and certainly not the politics he supports. What my friend really is is an antigovernment radical, an extremist. He has extreme positions wrt what should be done to fix this country. From a young age, he was taught to mistrust the government and do everything he could to pay as little taxes as possible. He's not so energized that he goes to rallies or anything (wife and two daughters ground him a bit), but he cheered the Jan 6 insurrectionists as freedom fighters, and happily defends Trump (until it comes to the pussy-grabbing, which he believes every politician has done at some time or other, so that cancels out in his mind). The way he wants to fix things doesn't account for compromise. His faction thinks compromise is part of what got us into our present troubles, so they take the extreme position of "My way or the highway". I think zapatos might be picking up on some of YOUR extremism, Airbrush. Some of your solutions over the years have been a bit over the top, and here you are making plans to defend the capital using our science discussion forum, so perhaps that makes you seem a bit Trumpy wrt this issue. edit: cross-posted with zapatos

Now that this has been done, does it change your overall arguments? It should, so if it didn't, then perhaps you aren't focused enough. You start with a genetics question about incest, and by the end of your opening post, you've attacked science and scientists, brought up conspiracies, blamed the current stance on negligence, and made claims about the wealthy preferring non-inbred batteries to inbred ones.

I'm unsure of your stance; your laughter doesn't make your thoughts clear on the subject. No, it's not like that at all. Why would reducing such a complicated situation to a oversimplified travel analogy help anyone understand the situation better? I googled Japan and Afghan refugees, and the first hit was this: https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Afghanistan-turmoil/In-rare-move-Japan-prepares-to-offer-refuge-to-Afghans, and Uzbekistan is accepting refugees but they aren't being given asylum (they won't be allowed to stay) which is NOT the same as not accepting them across the border, so I'm going to ignore your opinion on these matters from now on. If you'd like to support your assertions with evidence, please do so since that will be much more trustworthy.