Phi for All

! Moderator Note It's important to hear various perspectives, even the ugly and odious. Having a dissenting opinion isn't against our rules, but your tactics are unacceptable. As in the above, your incredulity sets a vague standard for what "significant" means, while you ask the membership for exact numbers before you'll concede the point. And even when evidence is provided, you ignore it and jump to your next vaguely presented argument. And nobody knows if you learned anything. You aren't engaging in good faith arguments, Moreno. The membership has no problem showing you the errors on which you base your dissension, but your lack of acknowledgement when someone takes the time to correct a bit of ignorance is soapboxing, and against the rules. We need to know there may be some meaningfulness to be had from these conversations, and you show no signs of learning anything, and you certainly don't present anything anyone here wants to be taught. This isn't your thread, so we won't close it because of your arguments, but you'll be suspended for rules violations. If you want to participate, step up the rigor, and stop using fallacious logic to make your point.

! Moderator Note Please make your posts relevant. No more distractions, no more red herrings, no more fallacious logic.

IOW, "I don't know what I'm talking about, but if YOU do, I would appreciate it if you'd stop making my argument look bad."

If this is a function of high intelligence, it's most definitely affected by the evolutionary process. But you also claim the association is due to subconscious memory, which is subjective to an individual, and evolution is about change within a whole population over time. I found a study through Google Scholar that may offer some insight, but it's more of a psychological treatment than an evolutionary one. I haven't read it myself, but the abstract seemed relevant: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115035

I'd be very careful about overgeneralizing your thoughts on color. Do you have evidence from a study showing that light blue makes us all creative, or that we all associate red with danger? I've always considered color as one aspect of our pattern-recognition abilities. We make sense of the world around us by comparing it with things we already know, things we've experienced in the past that allow us to predict successful patterns in situations that are new to us. If you look at a green ball, you already recognize enough of its pattern to know several things about it, including whether or not it would fit in your hand, and that if tossed it will roll better than a cube, and that it will be hard to see in the grass because it's green. Do you have any studies that suggest consistent emotions are triggered by certain colors? I can easily imagine a sort of pleasure that's felt when one recognizes a particular pattern, but other than that I'm having a hard time thinking of any color that evokes a consistent emotion from people. Again, is there any evidence that emotions associated with color aren't subjective to each individual?

These are personal issues, and I have no problem with Moreno attempting them on their own, wherever they may find themselves. Where I think they need help is with those areas where their personal behavior overlaps with the expectations of a society. It's pretty clear they have no interest in being inclusive wrt the way groups of people interact with them, and still hold on to a very primitive, tribal mentality when it comes to those who look different.

Too many words with no science in them frustrates, not confuses. You're not saying anything testable, you're not giving us any information we can use to predict an outcome. You're just blathering on, and on, and on, about everything BUT the science. You don't address the specific points people are making about your concept, but keep insisting it's probably too hard for us to understand. Stop ignoring the calls for science and tell us about something we can apply some methodology to.

There's been recent success with curing the mosquitoes so they don't infect people with malaria, rather than trying to prevent people catching it. I would hope this moves the various species from the lethal category into the nuisance category, where eradication isn't an option.

In the absence of any science, I'm left to focus on the constant mention of other forums and other discussions and other people. I find it profoundly uninteresting, since the science behind your idea is the topic of this thread. Sorry, but screw Phil. We don't know Phil, he's not a member, he's not part of this conversation. You need to stop trying to massage your audience before the actual discussion takes place. We're only interested in the science. If you want anyone to discuss this with you, the idea should be sound enough on its own without you having to "sell" it. Please don't let this go to multiple pages without actually presenting your concept.

Quite similar to my rubber turtleneck sweater idea, to prevent being assassinated by garrote. That'll teach those bugs! They'll never have the guts to do THAT again.

His MO is to kick you, then scream to his base about how unreasonably angry you are about it, and how you should really get some help for that. We need reform NOW! Every day, as an older white male in the western US, I go through my life with certain expectations. I know if I walk confidently into any situation, and do the things I'm supposed to do (smile, make small talk, stay within the lines, speak up but not TOO loudly, act nice, don't be or say anything awkward, fill out the form, drive on the right, nod with respect, keep it clean, please and thank you), my society will reward me with successful outcomes to my endeavors. The whole system gives me big kiss on the lips every time I do things right. I put in a quarter, and the machine give me candy. But the system doesn't work that way if you aren't a white man. Imagine doing all the right things, but you get glares instead of smiles, distrust instead of doors thrown wide, and sneers instead of any sense of community. Imagine having to always do more than some others to get the same or worse results. Imagine pushing the buttons in the proper sequence just like the white guy in front of you, but you don't get the same access he did. You put in your quarter, the machine keeps it, and you get squat. I think we need to skip the seeds somehow this time. We need a single big tree with lots of room for branches maybe, and a much broader, healthier system for the roots.

It's a successful tactic, because it took your focus off what's important. Stop falling for distractions! I think it's a mistake to assume it doesn't make sense. I think a lot of his supporters commiserate with the way he struggles for words sometimes, and his train of thought rambles are like throwing candy in the air. People can grab their favorites and let the rest fall to the ground. He speaks the way a LOT of people think, disjointed and reactive and often surprisingly weird. Her expressions and gestures are hilarious. I'd honestly love to know if a Trump supporter would think differently about his words when they hear them together with Cooper's expressions and gestures. I'd like to hope they'd see the inanity starkly revealed.

In the US at least, those wrong reasons became the blueprint for a flawed process that skews the way the system is applied. And I think the wrong foot was placed with the assumption that the native Americans, the poor immigrants, and the freed slaves held a LOT of resentment over unfair treatment at white hands. Leadership at the time reacted like oppressors, rather than like people interested in forming community.

In the US, police forces were established before the Civil War (Boston was the first, in 1838) mainly to handle perceived native and immigrant problems. After slavery was abolished, the model was expanded to include perceived threats from free black men.

The whole "bad apple" argument is also a distraction. In the US, it's used by the far right the way they use "lone gunman" to describe a white terrorist. People who espouse this concept are helping bad programs and policies continue. The focus should be on methodology and practice, not on individual police officers. This is a systemic problem.

If you don't focus on the distraction of the medium, there is a great deal to discuss about the warped way this "leader" speaks. He seems to blather, and his supporters have each learned to glean what they want from the mess, and ignore the vast majority of the rest of it. Watching someone lip-sync to the nonsense helps highlight it's most bizarre qualities.

I think science is ONLY interested in the best explanations. Truth is too subjective to be a scientific pursuit, so I don't see how using it as a bridge to religious claims can be either defensible or valid.

Speaking with one unified voice often sounds just like angry slogan chanting. It's not their fault that you're smarter and want deeper reasoning than their average spectator. Speaking as if to a child is about as inclusive as you can expect anybody to be in a protest where safety is a concern. I don't see the problem here, MigL.

! Moderator Note And this is why we have the rule about good faith arguments. Despite several pages of reasoned arguments, the OP continues to soapbox about AGW's existence and disparage all scientists, and it's clear this was the agenda all along since they've taken NONE of the arguments under consideration. Discussion has to be a two-way street here to have any meaning. Not a blog, a science discussion forum. Thread closed.

I don't think many knew Cap'n Refsmmat was THAT young. He seemed more like a know-it-all high school kid or college freshman. He must be around 26, now that I do the math. Not sure he's involved in climate science though, otherwise he'd have this whole warming thing handled, I'm sure.

! Moderator Note Careful, we don't disparage whole groups here. One of our current admins joined when he was 11. Not sure how many degrees he has presently, but I don't think he's old enough to drink legally.

No, in physics space and time represents a dimensional coordinate system. Three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension allow us to plot the where and when of an event. This is a big stumble in your reasoning. Can you give an example in a duality where only one part exists? Space is empty volume. Is that what you're observing? And why can't you observe time? We have LOTS of ways to measure it, so why do you think there's an absence of observation? Relativity treats space and time as a continuum called spacetime. Space does NOT pass by, or travel. Space is volume. Matter inside a particular point in space can travel (is always traveling), but the space itself doesn't move (other than through expansion). I need to come up with a name for what you're doing here, because it's getting to be more common on the internet. Your education probably didn't emphasize STEM subjects, but you've read some popular science articles and find you enjoy them and they aren't as far over your head as you thought. But instead of asking questions, or researching further on your own, you started making stuff up to fill the gaps in your knowledge, and that's a problem. First because science isn't required to be intuitive. Some aspects of physics are really tough to understand without a good foundation. And second because anything you make up is going to make PERFECT SENSE to you, but ONLY to you. You need to study more. The popular science articles are written to be enjoyed, but not necessarily to teach. They're trying to get you more interested in digging deeper, and I encourage you to do so. You're obviously smart, so go straight to the source and get the good stuff, the mainstream science knowledge humans have been putting together for you for a thousand years.

! Moderator Note You behave like an idiot. You see persecution in rigor. You cherry-pick what makes sense to you. You don't do science. So pretty soon, I imagine you'll break enough rules and we won't have to respond to your ungrateful crap. Have a great day!

XVV has been suspended for 3 days for abusive language. If you aren't happy here, inflict yourself elsewhere. If you stay, be civil.

! Moderator Note I hope you're beginning to see how important context and clarity are. If anyone here hopes to give you a decent reply, they obviously need more than what you gave in your OP. The evidence? Look how much better the replies got when you answered some questions. So can we please drop the whole "You dont even read the whole thing and then you speak" bullshit? Everyone replying is trying to HELP YOU do some science, and you seem most ungrateful.