Phi for All

We've started a usergroup of members who won't get any negative rep points because of vendettas and other abuse. We won't be mentioning who gets put in that group, but the Admins have easy ways of finding stalkers and abusers, and they'll stop getting any negative votes. Their numbers jump out, and a quick investigation usually shows who they've decided to torment. I'm glad to hear so many members talk about reversing rep when they see a vote that makes no sense. That's part of the system too.

For the posts where you're discussing science, you're doing well for a secondary school student. You've spent a great deal of your early time criticizing the site, but we expect that. Young people and questioning authority and wondering why things are the way they are go hand in hand in hand. It's healthy, to a point. By now, you've hopefully realized nobody is going to eat you. Everyone wants you to succeed here, and be a meaningful and productive part of our discussions. Just keep learning.

Much of this play is preparation and training for hunting skills, at least for predators. Do we see examples of play in animals that have no other purpose than enjoyment? Come to think of it, is that why we developed sports, for enjoyment, or was it for some other reason?

Outside this thread, stupid and freak aren't appreciated without a LOT of smilies. I have no idea why you think "dude" is harsh (I use it sparingly for other reasons).

In a thread titled, "Does Humor Have a Place on SFN"? Really?! Dude. This is an example of juxtaposed concepts matched for their absurdity. I actually borrowed part of it from a Weird Al Yankovic song. His lyric was about an astrological forecast: "Scorpio: Work a little harder on improving your low self-esteem, you stupid freak." See how matching the idea of improving self-esteem is juxtaposed to calling someone names, leaving you with a laughably absurd situation? No? Tough crowd.

I think you should remove "I won't discuss about reputation" from your signature if you're going to continue to discuss it. My personal opinion. Unofficially, I'm also not very happy that your signature seems to imply that talking about reputation is against the rules. Could you do something about that, unofficially? You may also want to rethink the apologies that are now appearing on every single post you make. Just sayin'. Give yourself some time to adjust to the community. You're doing well. Just stay curious, re-read what you're about to post before you post it, and remember that everyone here wants to learn. An observation: Perhaps you should say "Thank you" instead of "I'm sorry". You don't offend anyone by being wrong about something, unless you make them feel like they're kicking the dog when they correct you. If someone corrects you, aren't they doing you a favor? That deserves thanks, not an apology.

Great advice, you freak. It's even less obvious than I thought.

I do see sports as an evolutionary specialization. Our intelligence gave rise to farming and animal husbandry, which gave us a lot more time that was previously spent hunting and gathering. Put a bunch of budding creative humans in a setting where they have nothing much to do and they're going to figure out all kinds of things. I think soccer was probably invented much farther back in our history. The only question I have for you is about the "mental disorientation" you mention in part b) of what sports are a sign of. Do you really believe early man was mentally disoriented, or just not as focused as when they started playing sports?

This isn't in keeping with the spirit of discussion. Why not post where everyone can see? Are you calling yourself a prophet?

I don't expect you'll ever realize how intellectually dishonest you're being here. I do expect you to realize that quoting people out of context from an entirely different thread isn't going to earn you much credibility.

The red one will show up for you after you have 30 posts total. Then you get 3 negative reputation votes per day. You get quite a bit more positive votes, and you get those right away. So I clicked Quote on your post, it placed that in my Reply to this Topic editor (at the bottom of the page) and let me break it apart to reply to your questions. Are you saying you did that and it didn't work?

I haven't seen this. I've seen how you reacted to my question (Why is this theory better than the mainstream explanations?), and it wasn't with encouragement. Yeah, you're going to have to explain this one, since a literal interpretation is demonstrably false. These are the kinds of things that I ask clarifying questions about, to see if it's worth 3.5 hours of my time. The shaman is the rain?! Please. AFAIK, there's never been documented experiments showing shaman can affect rainfall. If they could make it rain on command, why wouldn't this be testable? JREF still offers a million dollars to any dowser that can make it rain on command. There have been numerous studies testing all kinds of people who claim to be able to find water, make it rain, or otherwise affect the weather. None, repeat NONE, have ever found anyone who could do more than chance alone could. It's one thing to philosophize on nature, and another to actively support reality. Belief in the ability to make it rain, or find water by dowsing, has led to some very dangerous behavior. I'm reminded of the story of the dowsing technology sold to the Iraqis for finding IEDs. Hundreds of people died from this, and the man responsible for the fraud has been convicted. All because a lack of an education in rational thought makes a person easy to exploit.

And the red one will start showing up for new joiners after 30 posts.

Gorgeous bike. Motorcycles would seem to be a great choice for electric engines. I don't mean to take this thread in a direction it wasn't meant to take, but I'd like to talk just a bit about the criticism I hear about electric vehicles with regard to their silence. The BBC article mentions the pushback from skeptics. Is it really that dangerous? Are we seeing a lot of people being run down by electric cars and motorcycles because they didn't hear them? Or is this just grasping at straws to keep internally combusting engines infernally loud? I get the vibration appreciation though. It's a pleasure guys appreciate more, I think. Women have horses, guys have hogs.

I can see your point. We do tend to eventually ignore the patterns once we've found and identified them. This could lead us to expect certain behavior on a more frequent basis. So far in my practice of using this formula, I haven't become jaded or expect certain behavior from others. CB sort of guarantees I'll ignore what I'm not looking for in favor of what I want, so I'm exploiting that by wanting things that seem to have a universal appeal. I don't know anyone who likes having to get out of their car to move a cart out of a parking space. Driving seems to be an area of frustration where this karma/confirmation bias works really well for me. I'm not a racer; I don't have to be out front. I'm a bit of a pack driver; I tend to stay (for however long) with a pack of other drivers who just want to keep moving, don't make a lot of sudden moves, and maintain a fairly consistent speed. I'm leery of other drivers who want to cut in, since I have no idea how they're going to fit in with my temporary "pack" (after all, they're trying to cut in, who knows what they'll do next!). So I recognize that this is the way I've been conditioned. But recent studies show that it's this very type of behavior (following too closely, not using signals for fear other drivers won't let you merge, braking a lot, etc) that causes bad traffic in the first place. If we all backed off the car in front of us and gave more space for merging, traffic would flow smoother for everyone. So I think this is one instance, at least, where adopting this strategy as a cultural norm, something to be expected of all of us, would be the best thing possible. And don't discount the multiple benefits of a lack of traffic gridlock. We'd save time and fuel, our cars would last a little longer, we probably wouldn't need to expand the road systems as often, we'd pollute less, and we'd be more efficient drivers. And personally, I think this would reduce a great deal of stress on most drivers, every day. Then let's don't. Let's assume it's in everyone's best interest for you to search out the people who are supposed to bring satisfaction to others but always seem to disappoint. Clerks who should be helpful but aren't. Receptionists who don't know who does what at their companies. Anyone in foodservice who can't smile. Now you simply filter for those folks, and figure out what will simultaneously help the rest of us out while making you feel immense pleasure at being disappointed. I would suggest getting your grump on with an extremely well-worded admonishment designed to shake up that person and make them re-assess their life choices. If you ever decide to adopt this formula, let me know. I would go to great lengths to have someone follow you with a video camera in hopes of catching you in rare form, possibly for my own entertainment, possibly as the next HBO Pay-per-View vehicle.

No, attacking the idea is not automatically attacking the idea-haver. The whole point of the title is that certain words seem to do that all on their own and we should avoid them in the interest of keeping conversations flowing. Many religious people have a hard time separating themselves from what they believe in, and some have used this in the past to claim any attack on their faith is an attack on them personally. The rule is there in Religion/Philosophy to let people know that beliefs are like ideas, fair game for rigorous scientific inquiry, and are not the people who have them. I'm still not interested in allowing insults just because some people find it diverting. Drawing the line between people and their ideas still seems the easiest way for us to be consistent.

That's a tough one. Most of why the karma/confirmation bias relationship works in a limited fashion for me is because I have time to react appropriately. Being in a hurry messes that up quickly. Being in a hurry is one of our worst set of circumstances, because we have the least amount of time for recognition. I'd like to talk about this one more. There should be a way to reciprocate others in a hurry if you want that kind of treatment when you are. Selfish needs and wants, OK. Let's go with that. I want a parking space free of carts, that's selfish I suppose. So I always put my carts where they belong, and this makes me extra aware of when I enter a parking lot and find a space free of carts. I feel good when I put my cart away, and I feel good when I get a clear space. Selfish and selfish, I guess. But I'm not interested in overcoming this at all. Where's the downside to this bit of selfishness on my part? I don't see how it's better for all if I don't think this way. I'm acknowledging that confirmation bias can be very bad for the person who wants to be honest with himself and the way he treats the world. I'm also acknowledging that it seems an almost insurmountable obstacle to overcome. But maybe I can use it. Karma, Pay It Forward, whatever you want to call it, it just seems to me that it's really just a mental filter, making you aware of certain actions. I let someone into traffic because it not only helps the flow, it feels good for me and helps someone else. Without actively thinking about it, I'm looking out for situations where it makes sense to give a little. And as a by-product, I'm also looking out for situations where people do me a good turn. I'm filtering for pleasant experiences where I usually expect frustration. And at the time I'm doing a good turn for someone, I'm not thinking about payback. In fact, it works best when you're surprised by any reciprocity. It makes your life feel like everything is clicking into place. Horrible, awful, selfish me. I hold doors for people on account of I'm greedy.

I was looking for a reason to invest so much time by asking some clarifying questions. I did NOT offer any opinions. Don't worry, I got my answer.

You're mixing God in with what you're calling a scientific theory, you don't know how quantum mechanics works but you want us to believe you when you tell us why it works, and the one reply that dealt with reality was dismissed as being hair-splitting. Why is this theory better than mainstream?

I'm pretty sure his frustration is over the fact that this thread called for specific help regarding Christian concepts, and your scriptural dick-joke revisions aren't in the spirit of that request. I don't know, not being an adherent I try to respect what others hold sacred without embracing it. I try not to poop on the parade when it's not my parade.

In the thread on Killer Drones, it was reported that one member was being uncivil and rude. Upon review, there are no personal attacks, just attacking the idea. If we can focus on ideas and remove our egos, a discussion happens instead of a debate. You win knowledge when you discuss, you win nothing when you win a debate.

! Moderator Note It isn't rude to point out mistakes in an idea, or in an argumentative methodology. It's what we do here, hopefully without attacking the person who had the idea. Disagreement isn't an uncivil action. If you have problems with this modtip, don't bring it up in this thread, just Report it.

I agree with the first sentence, but not the second. The misappropriation of cause and effect caused by CB can be used appropriately by using karma. It's like CB is the baseball pitching machine that's not aimed at home plate and you can't move it. Insisting it's mutually exclusive with karma is like insisting on standing with your bat next to home plate when the machine is pitching to the dugout. If you want to hit the ball, you have to move and take your stance where the balls are being pitched, right? Overcoming CB is hard, but I'm not really talking about that. I see the inclination to confirm what you already like as a good way to help yourself recognize when those things you like happen every day. If I'm not thinking about giving people a break while I drive, I'm less likely to recognize it when they give me a break. Does that make sense? I think the mechanism that causes confirmation bias can be used to help us find and use patterns we want to perpetuate.

The Big Bang wasn't an explosion, it was an expansion. Explosions are matter bursting into space around a point. There was only a point and no matter until it rapidly expanded to a great size, and the contents expanded to fill the space created. Bang as in "There it is all at once!", not "BOOM!" Even if you could show that this universe will crunch (which current science says is unlikely), that still wouldn't be an "answer", would it? Just because it happens once doesn't mean it's a cycle, does it?

There may be other mechanisms at work. If being cold affects your sleep adversely, that could definitely lower your immune system's effectiveness.