Phi for All

SimonFunnell has been banned for abusive behavior, an overall lack of trust, and his inability to apply science to any of his discussions. Since this is a science discussion forum, it would be wrong of us to hold him back from his other, unquestionably more productive pursuits.

This happens to some extent, but I think you're leaving out that many of these individuals are secretly hoping someone with better science skills (usually maths) will take up their idea and run with it, fleshing it out into a predictive model the individual could later point to and claim, "That was MY idea originally!" They also often simply hope others will get as excited about an idea as they are, and don't understand why a few mistakes in some science fundamentals means they have to scrap or improve their idea in order to generate that excitement ("OK sure, that part of my idea violates the principles of physics and reality, I see that now, but what do you think of the rest?"). You're right, it's a misunderstanding of the process, and one that probably leads to thinking scientists are all these negative things. I've witnessed a LOT of patience coming from our membership too. So many of our best minds sharing their knowledge, while simultaneously being told they're arrogant and dismissive by someone who came here looking for the best minds, and now regrets getting the rigor he asked for.

He was just asking a question, no need to be insulting.

! Moderator Note Moved from Modern and Theoretical Physics to Religion.

Even by the scales of a questionable test, this is an average score. Far from any imagined borders near "challenged" and "deficient". You're shading this heavily towards negative. It's like saying you almost failed an exam because you got a C. What's challenging you is not your intelligence. You put your thoughts together rationally enough, but your perspective is overly negative. I know life is tough, but you have to maintain enough of a positive out-look to stay out-looking. Being too negative means missing out on signals for opportunities to get what you want. Moshe: "God, I've never asked you for anything else, but I pray to you every week for a year to win the lottery. And every week, someone else wins! Why are you so cruel to me, God? Why do you hate me so?" God: "Moshe, my boy, you gotta meet me halfway on this one. BUY A LOTTERY TICKET!"

We don't have a standard procedure for selecting our experts. If we appointed everyone who deserved it, staff would outnumber regular members on most days. We'll talk about Markus though, thanks. We're very grateful for so many great minds to choose from, and we don't thank you all enough for being so free with your time and knowledge. Thanks ∞.

A good skeptic follows up on the parts they're skeptical of, and learns enough to accept or reject. They should never sit on their skepticism; that's what leads to hand-waving, and arguments from incredulity. And accusations of close-mindedness. You're tweeting that, right?

The perpetual skeptic is a bad thing, and I think many of the same people who accuse scientists of being arrogant are perpetual skeptics. They remain skeptical even when shown evidence that should settle the basis for their skepticism.

The ivory tower intellectual who imprisons himself symbolically with his adherence to what his books teach him, and is eventually rescued by the common sense of the headstrong protagonist is a common character in literature. Intuitive meets hidebound, hidebound is skeptical, intuitive wins out, hidebound is no longer skeptical.

Don't you think part of it is simply perspective? Why wouldn't a conservative think it's a good idea to keep bankers on their toes with sound regulations that don't allow any shenanigans? Why isn't it conservative to realize that private health insurance isn't a practical way to spend our money, given the way it works? Why isn't it conservative to be fiscally smart about the effectiveness of our resources?

I do want to focus on success, but it's hard not to mention mistakes that hamper success. I think assuming the best conservative response is to block everything the other party wants is a big mistake. Many of those "liberals" vote to the right of Eisenhower. If the Republicans treat President H Clinton the way they treated President Obama, I think the whole world is going to rethink their dealings with the US. Some scenarios can benefit best from the ultimate conservative tactic: do nothing. This helps prevent reaction by kneejerks. Unfortunately, it looks like "stay the course" is the worst possible thing for us right now. We need many things to change for the better for the most people. Our current prosperity is being over-enjoyed by the top wealth-earners, to the detriment of those whose ever-increasing productivity is being siphoned away to fuel the overindulgence. Our banking and other business policies are lax to the point of criminal corruption. Our tax revenues need a fresh infusion to help us cope with infrastructure management. At a time when the US can lead by example, we seem to be devolving into whiny, intolerant old nationalists who've changed their minds about being the visionary, moon-landing, dream-catching superpower of Eisenhower and Kennedy. To solve these problems, are there any conservative ideals that can help?

Withholding support for your party's nominee in favor of the opposing party's candidate is hardly a conservative move. It sounds pretty radical, actually. Sometimes I think this is exactly how the GOP thinks, that whatever they dream up must be part of a conservative policy, simply because that's what they call themselves. "We're conservatives, so if we want to throw away tradition, jump ship, and swim with enemy, it must be a conservative move."

What makes a person horrible?

I'm not going to give you any lectures about listening to your father. But I am going to lecture you about skepticism and your health. Being skeptical is great, it keeps us questioning and learning our whole lives, if we're lucky. But the way it works is, you can question a medical doctor's advice, but you can't just dismiss it. You need to follow up, get other opinions, do your research. That's what you're doing here, so you're right on track, doing a good job of being a skeptic. A skeptic's job is to figure out if information can be relied on or not, or whether more research is needed. When the other opinions you gather concur with the medical opinion you got from an otolaryngologist, the conclusion even a skeptic must reach is that the information is reliable, and you have nothing to worry about. Your father's diagnosis that you weren't seriously affected by this incident can be trusted. Critical thinking could be your best friend moving forward. It might help you find reasonable triggers that will help you cope rather than obsess. Good for you! This is hardly what I expected from someone who describes themselves as both "obsessive" and "a smoker". I spend an equal amount of time pulling weeds every week in my yard. Do you think it's OK to call myself "a gardener"?

If you've had little experience even talking to women, the last thing you need is friends focusing on sex with them. You should focus on having a productive conversation with women. It sounds like you don't think women could find you interesting, which isn't a productive mindset. Even if a girl shows interest, you question why and think there must be something wrong with her. It also causes you to compare what you think women want (the smile on your face, the good person to talk to) with what women actually respond to (the things the other guys are doing). This seems like a reasonable plan to you, but in reality you're already convinced none of the women are going to be attracted to the smile on your good-person-to-talk-to face. You're already prepared to lose out to a guy you probably think isn't as nice as you are, and that also leads you to question the women as well. You end up with a horrible impression of everybody, including yourself. Since this isn't something visible to anybody you're just having a conversation with, I would suggest it's addition to your "lack of desirability" is in your mind (which doesn't make it any easier to deal with). This is another example of you pre-judging your opportunities. You're convinced that she won't find you interesting because eventually she might see you with your shirt off, so when the fuse is lit, you're putting it out partly yourself, and your opportunity fizzles.

There is one surefire way to forget anything. I only wish I could remember what it is.

The way you describe this, it doesn't sound like the flame was there for any appreciable length of time. Short exposures to heat shouldn't be hurt, but you should see a doctor if you're concerned since that's the only way to get accuracy in this kind of diagnosis. Mythbusters showed how wet fingers could withstand brief contact with molten lead, due to the Leidenfrost effect. Edit: Not to change the subject too much, but do you think you could use your OCD to stop smoking? Like every time you get the urge to light up, you do something benign instead? Of course I have no idea of the extent of your compulsion, and if this is in any way disrespectful of a difficult condition, I apologize. It just occurred to me and I thought I'd ask.

If the hole is too dark, you can't see the handholds that will let you climb out on your own. Seeking advice from others often helps shine a light on productive solutions.

Keurig K-cups are becoming a problem here. So many Americans have fallen in love with what is basically vending machine coffee, because it comes in a system you load like a shotgun, and the coffee brews quickly enough not to strain your attention span while you stare at it. We have so many people in prison, but people who commit K-cup atrocities roam our streets. The guy who invented them doesn't even own one anymore. Anything that will hasten the demise of this product is a plus for planet Earth.

Why? What is it you think you lack that women are attracted to? What makes you uninteresting? Also, what makes a woman interesting to you? What are you attracted to?

I'm not sure the evolutionary angle is going to help the situation. Perhaps a forensic approach is needed (since it's a crime for mutually attracted people not to get together). Looking at means, opportunity, and motive, it sounds like your motivation isn't strong enough to overcome whatever blocks it, so the opportunities fail to develop. Most blocks like that are caused by the top three on iNow's list: If you can work on minimizing these obstacles, your opportunities for social contact with women will become easier to manage, matching your motivation to turn this into a skill. Let me ask you this: what would be your reaction if someone you know told you they'd arranged for you to have dinner with a woman your age tomorrow night, so you can get to know each other. From a brief description, she sounds very nice. All you have to do is show up to the restaurant at the right time. Do you say yes?

Is that the new GPS unit for measuring plate tectonics? "We're off by a kangaroo because Oz is moving north at a rate of 1 platypus bill per year."

It does seem like an extension of the desire of many of the wealthy to limit their contact with less well-off people, to avoid having to invest any resources in people who somehow managed NOT to amass a personal fortune, for always inadequate reasons. There seems to be no way to quantify qualities like loyalty and dedication, enjoyment of being part of something big and meaningful, and willingness to give up personal wishes to help their employer. The efficiency experts don't bother because they can make the numbers work without it. We've lost the formula, or have been led to believe this new formula is better. Business owes certain considerations to the country that issues the corporate charters that allow the business to tap into that country's market. They should pay their fair share of taxes to maintain infrastructure and social benefits for their workers. They should do everything possible to hire workers from their charter country. They should be more concerned with long range environmental plans that assure their country and their workers that breathing and drinking and being safe and healthy for the many is only a little less important than profits for the few.

I could be off on the timeline, but I think the whole "efficiency expert" trend of the 1960s kicked off this obsession with the bottom line. It started off well-intentioned, saving companies tons of money where they were being sloppy. But you can only target so much actual waste, and eventually these companies started cutting where they shouldn't, like wages and benefits. When your experts tell you the company can spend X in lobbying to save X+1 in taxes, you start negatively affecting your country's revenue and its ability to maintain the infrastructure that your company uses so much of. Efficiency has driven record excess profits straight to the top execs and shareholders, people who keep skimming prosperity away from those below them. It's only going to get worse if it isn't regulated. I think bottom line has always been the #1 priority of most businesses, but I don't think it's ever been so far above the #2, #3, and #4 priorities before. Business has moved to models that remove the importance of the blend of employees you have, in order to make employees easily replaceable. They've replaced the melting pot in their culture with a bland bubble of processed, uniform Cheese Whiz. It fills basic requirements while ignoring any richness of depth of character.