well I'm hardly going to argue their behaviour is ideal...according to common morals that does not excuse or justify israeli behavior towards palestinians.
but they have reason to believe a 'fair' situatiion would be a suboptimal one. this may or may no be the case with israel palestine - but I suggest that having two exactly equal enemies could be a far far worse result for both than having two completly unbalanced ones.if power was equal on both sides the palestinians would, magically, receive a much fairer treatment, regardless of the complexity of the situation. i'm even inclined to state that peace would be much nearer if that were the case.
Israel also has evidence form history that when the arabs (mistakingly) believed they had military parity - they attacked and a lot of people got killed (many arabs) and dislocation of palistinians occured.
On the other hand for a strong secure country it is easy to take a moral high ground and not use suicide bombers or nukes etc and the weak country just can't. Not so easy if you are really in danger of being defeated by such a strategy.
well by definition no - but it could be that it was understandable in the coloquial sense.but do you think it was a lawful killing? even the israeli military didn't think it was.
Fascinating & disturbing. Damned if you are (more subsceptible to bias) & damned if you aren't (you're an idiot).
In my view, the research indicates there is no hope for humanity. The smarter we are, the more likely we are to engage in self-deception. Alternatively, we can be pathologically idiotic. Ironic isn't it? It's as if the human mind is so intrinsically corrupt that it can only further it's own destruction subtly undermining it's very existence as it elevates itself. Seems to match what I've experienced in life & my interpretation of human history & present-day events.
As I've always asserted, true power is to get an entity to do what that power desires all the while convincing the entity to believe it wanted to do it all along. Seems like our own minds work this way intrinsically, especially with ourselves. What a sisyphean existence we are doomed to lead!
though, the mentioned experiments make me doubt a bit. the first two questions seem more like thinking biases rather than confidence biases. for example, i think they can be overcome by not being lazy. i immediately suspected that the obvious answer was the wrong one in both cases and that the author had a point which he would reveal shortly after. an arduous cognitive twist of mind would have very likely resulted in the correct answer. hence, why it seems more cognitive in nature than confidence related. i would assume that such shortcuts in thinking, and perhaps especially logical and arithmetic thinking, are built into the brain as an adaptation. like many other adaptations, they sometimes result in bias and error. many biases, for example, protect our self-esteem. others are simply mistakes and secondary effects of otherwise functioning adaptations. e.g., optical illusions might be similar to these cognitive "illusions".
then again, the correlation with intelligence might suggest that it is, in fact, an error of confidence. it would be interesting to know whether the general consensus on these findings actually is that "the smarter we are, the more likely we are to engage in self-deception."
a little far-fetched maybe but apart from that, if this is true, mankind has been doomed from the very beginning. if that is true, which anyhow i find highly unlikely, i don't really care as long as i'm happy. if you truly believe in it, kill yourself now and do drugs all day. i don't understand you pessimists as you just keep on living your lives even after your gruesome awakenings if really all is lost you're free to do anything.In my view, the research indicates there is no hope for humanity. The smarter we are, the more likely we are to engage in self-deception. Alternatively, we can be pathologically idiotic. Ironic isn't it? It's as if the human mind is so intrinsically corrupt that it can only further it's own destruction subtly undermining it's very existence as it elevates itself. Seems to match what I've experienced in life & my interpretation of human history & present-day events.
then we agree. to me the israeli state is just a modern form of oppressor but the most outrageous, but widespread idea is that israel is behaving morally valid and the whole conflict is a matter of black and white.well I'm hardly going to argue their behaviour is ideal...
power is not only exerted militarily. in the beginning, it seemed that arabs mostly attacked because of political and moral reasons which can be just as devastating as military blows. every following political and military attack of course reinforced all animosity and that's why we're facing the situation today.but they have reason to believe a 'fair' situatiion would be a suboptimal one. this may or may no be the case with israel palestine - but I suggest that having two exactly equal enemies could be a far far worse result for both than having two completly unbalanced ones.
Israel also has evidence form history that when the arabs (mistakingly) believed they had military parity - they attacked and a lot of people got killed (many arabs) and dislocation of palistinians occured.
if you believe that arabs attack "just because" i think you're buying into the myth of dispositional traits dominating and deciding the conflict (e.g., arabs are bad or fundamentalists, etc.).
true, especially in regard to suicide bombers. palestinians can't hold israelis at bay with a superior military because they're powerless. it is easy for western media to make them out as the bad guys and perhaps it's also easy to illustrate them as martyrs on arab lands.On the other hand for a strong secure country it is easy to take a moral high ground and not use suicide bombers or nukes etc and the weak country just can't. Not so easy if you are really in danger of being defeated by such a strategy.
possibly, but wouldn't that be an incredible coincidence as cameras usually aren't present in such situations? in the face of other, similar information we receive about the conflict it would surprise me if this was a totally coincidental incident. that's how nation officials usually explain such events. it has been done in regard to abu ghraib and the afghanistan "kill team" for example. it was only due to some individual factors going wrong and these don't represent the actual military, etc. of course, similar incidences have been reported several times.well by definition no - but it could be that it was understandable in the coloquial sense.
So for example lybia looks like tribes of the west vs tribes of the east. syria looks like alawi and the various groups that benefited from their fairly secular rule vs others etc. then the media paints it as black and white - well - maybe one is more evil than the other (and if syria is doing what they say it has then yes their reigeme may have become pretty bad) but noone is white and the new elite are not "the people" when has that ever been the case?..
well if you argue against the extreme position you will always be right...then we agree. to me the israeli state is just a modern form of oppressor but the most outrageous, but widespread idea is that israel is behaving morally valid and the whole conflict is a matter of black and white.
I suggest this is irrelevant to my point. The only relevant factor for the purposes of my point is that they were able to attack and did so because they had some sort of belief it might suceed. doesnt matter where on the scale from "not very good" to "really bad" their other (contributory) reasons fall.if you believe that arabs attack "just because" i think you're buying into the myth of dispositional traits dominating and deciding the conflict (e.g., arabs are bad or fundamentalists, etc.).
I think it's almost always easy to do that... It isnt as if the iraqis and iranians would have struggled to whip up hatred for eachother despite military parity.. it is easy for western media to make them out as the bad guys and perhaps it's also easy to illustrate them as martyrs on arab lands.
you seem to be adressing a different point.possibly, but wouldn't that be an incredible coincidence as cameras usually aren't present in such situations? .
i mean understandable in the sense that if hamas places israel in a certain situation (im arbitrarily putting hamas at the top of this causal chain - doesnt matter if we put somthing else there) it is understandable that down the other end of the chain israeli soldier will end up shooting innocent people in the sense that the entire chain might deeply regret it afterwards and yet still feel it was a sort of "collateral damage" or ... some sort of unavoidable cost of an unavoidable conflict.
Last edited by ScottieX; 06-16-2012 at 12:53 PM.
In any case, the criteria I've set forth above are exactly equivalent for both internal revolt and external intervention. At the same point at which insiders would be able to determine that revolution is necessary we could also say that external assistance would be justified---on the assumption that we care about fundamental human rights.
I myself initially took the short cut to which the article alluded. But before I read past the opening puzzle, I thought about my answer to check if it could possibly be right and realized it wasn't. That all took about 3-5 seconds. So I took another 3 seconds or so to come up with the right answer. So I conclude that the secret to being both smart and right is to be suspicious and pessimestic even toward oneself. The problem, however, is that this is a slow process. Taking short cuts, even if imperfect, is more helpful in the long run. Smart people might make mistakes in these kinds of puzzles, but they'll be more successful overall. As Grayson once said apropos of Civ Rev, he plays with his blinders on. If he calculated every possible move in every game it would take too much time. It's much better to make good tactics into unthinking habits; that's how smart people win!
So just reading the article i could easily have got it wrong. And in fact, dispite my tiny bit of pride invested in getting it right - maybe you are right above and maybe i "should" get it wrong...
the lilly pad one didnt get me either but more because i love powers.. i used to memorise 2^x series - (what a dork!) and i have seen the problem before.
Actually, though, now that you mention it... I think sometimes an awareness of the context is itself a bit unfair. For example, when I'm reading an article like that with a puzzle in it, I immediately know, as I'm sure you do too, that something unusual should be expected. Why else would there be an article on it? So once we know that others have been tricked, we can be more alert and careful and thus avoid the same mistake. Not necessarily cheating, but it perhaps leads to a result which is skewed and misleading.
you guys seem to forget that you are less intelligent than those who get the answers wrong according to the evidence!
in regard to your syria argument i can only conclude that i do not know enough about the conflict. it seems highly unlikely to me, though, that the media portrays this in a light only favorable to them. of course, i may only be biased here.
the idea that israel is behaving morally valid is no extreme, but a mainstream opinion.well if you argue against the extreme position you will always be right...
Then the elite of organizations like the muslim brotherhood (with their own elite) etc might or might not have been major players in strategically organizing protests in all these places and whiping up what might have been just another death under the reigeme.
to bring it back a bit - Im not saying the media is completely wrong. there is corruption and the public are aware of it and the majority is the disadvantaged group and al assad seems to be grossly crossing the line in his increasingly desperate attempt to retain power. So I take the civil war if sucessful is proably a good thing, but I suggest we not be under an illusion that there are not elites at various levels at every stage doing exactly what elites do.in regard to your syria argument i can only conclude that i do not know enough about the conflict. it seems highly unlikely to me, though, that the media portrays this in a light only favorable to them. of course, i may only be biased here.
Last edited by ScottieX; 06-17-2012 at 01:33 PM.
So there are certain causes with massive public support and anger that get no protests at all because the support isnt via such an organization, and certain causes with only minority support that constantly have protests.
I was watching family guy yesterday and they had a thing about the tea party and peter's father in law (the rich industrialist) was secretly oin control of the tea party organizing the 'sheeple' as they say. Might not be quite such a conspiracy - but for someone like showtek how he views the tea party might be a good way of demonstrating the sort of thing im talking about.
Even though we are different in many respects, that fact that there is someone else who can find some aspect of moral analysis in something so inconsequential as sports, gives me comfort at a personal level. My sons think I'm a freak of nature. Now I can tell them there's at least 1 more.
I think most people have genuine dissonance sometimes with accepting the simultaneous reality of the beauty & severity of humanity, life, & even the notion of God. In my view, this duality exists within every single one of us, without exception, whether we admit it or not. Ironically, I think this inability to accept the beauty & severity simultaneously is what makes most people unable or unwilling to accept, understand, & know Christ & His teachings effectively or to even understand the crucifixion properly. Most people opt for one version without the other in equal measure & genuinely can't seem to fathom the simultaneous existence of both in equal measure. I'm not sure why exactly. Perhaps it's more disturbing for most to think in these terms. It probably is but that doesn't make it invalid imo. Sorry I digressed a bit... shutting up now...
thanks & best regards,
Just a great Indie developer success story. Love to see stuff like this. Confirms my belief in "when there's a will, there's a way".
We have one of us that is now a superstar in the civ V part of the forum. They presented a game with the new expansion and they named their capital Madjinnville in honor of him.
I think we should all get a part of the merit for making him what he is now
i noticed lately why i am such a racist when it comes to football. (e.g., i always disliked that a majority of the french and english starters are not ethnically french and english respectively). what i always liked particularly about national competition (as i'm an anarchist this is even more ironic) is the competition of one people that wandered from africa and settled in a place, developed distinct language, culture, and evolutionary optical traits against another such people.
perhaps you've noticed yourself that, in my definition, optical appearance is one part of belonging to a "people". in that regard this opinion makes me an absolute racist. simply put, non-ethnic frenchman will never be true or whole frenchmen because they don't look like it. they miss that part of belonging ethnically that is optics. similarly, when players of polish descent play for germany it doesn't bother me as much because they look much like germans and their culture doesn't deviate very much. players of middle eastern descent bother me a little more and african players bother me most.
i find it unaesthetic. the aesthetics of peoples competing is destroyed as genetics will mostly be a part of belonging to a people. of course, this part of belonging might increasingly forfeit importance as western societies are becoming more and more multi-ethnic. still, my racist little autistic enjoyment suffers.
of course, this is of no central significance to my views or life and i am aware of my probable ignorance on this topic. mainly, i just enjoyed discovering this immensely unpopular opinion that i hold and sharing it. moreover, i find it interesting to note that, contrary to liberal effort, appearance is part of national identity, at least as long as there is relative homogeneity of one ethnic group which is still the case in almost all societies.
We all have contradictions within us, some more disturbing than others. It is an interesting & significant contradiction (or several actually) but for my part, it makes you seem more authentic & transparent. As often as we disagree on so many topics, that's one attribute I've always found you to be, which is essential for me to engage with another. So I'm not terribly suprised in one sense, despite the apparent & glaring contradiction on the surface. Good to see you're still human like the rest of us too!
Anyway, if James wins this year or next I'll be upset, but at this point he's probably learned a lesson or two. In that way I'm sure the media will frame it as a redemptive story, and that would be true to some extent imo.
Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study
''Right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers, and people with low childhood intelligence tend to grow up to have racist and anti-gay views, says a controversial new study.''
''The authors claim that people with low intelligence gravitate towards right-wing views because they make them feel safe.''
''Crucially, people's educational level is not what determines whether they are racist or not - it's innate intelligence, according to the academics.''
I would be interested to see how the author see themselves...
Pedal must be the exception that confirms the rules
it took a while for me to realize that sport events in which nations compete are not only about sports. merkel visiting the german national football team's games has to be the most embarrassing way to strengthen her own reputation. the times where i would watch such games clothed in overpriced football shirts is over and i'm starting to enjoy sport events less.
but all in all i'm way too nihilistic to not enjoy sports as a fan. it's fun? do it.
lately i brought a discussion from this board to a real life situation. i defended the position that pedophilia might possibly, at some point, be accepted as a sexual orientation alongside hetero- and homosexuality rather than as a paraphilia. people were outraged and afterwards some of them were convinced that i was arguing that grown ups should have sex with children.
while i mostly react with humor to such reactions in some situations it can be dangerous to damage your social reputation. i am quite sure that i would not be making friends in most of my social circles by claiming that appearance is an important part of ethnic identity and that danes of dark pigmentation aren't real danes.
This forum is rare in that there is a large lattitude of ideas discussed w/o much backlash. Zef has set a good example for discussion & so most of us mirror that example typically.
1) that the intelligent people are much more efficiently selected and promoted to doing things like office work.
2) the guys working there are much more part time because there is no thought of using a job like that as a career, so the staff dont intimately know the role anymore. maybe far less owner operators or family of owner operators. to combine with (1) less smart family of owner operators forced to work in a job far below their ability.
3) people remember the old days with nostalgia, maybe there were lots of useless guys in the past - and maybe in the old days people just didnt expect them to be anything other than useless. or maybe they had far less variety of products and less customers so exceeding expectations was easier.
the other possibility (that this generation sucks) is the sort of conclusion i'd leave for after all other things were explained away...
on the plus side I'd be suprised if any time in the past I could have got a burger with the speed consistancy of service and consistancy of product that i get from my local McDs, and that is what i care about. So its not all bad.
i like facebook anyway. firstly, because i'm a narcissist as well. messages don't have to be as dull as your example, they can also be witty or funny, which serves the narcissistic need even better, or they can be useful, entertaining, informative, you name it. secondly, facebook is very practical. i use it for all kinds of social and semi-social purposes. arranging study groups, barbeque parties, information about psychology courses, deadlines, which room the course will take place in, etc. the sharing aspect of facebook is very useful and group conversations are often more effective than individual phone calls. though, i have to admit that most of the time on facebook is used for viewing photos and the like. facebook is a terrible time killer.
but that's what's it about for most people others won't understand why some people play video games. that's quite subjective.
but you're absolutely right. if you want access to girls you most often need to adhere to established social standards and keep your unpopular opinions to yourself. i am sometimes too proud for that though.