Shall Mr Vacula Make a Misstep in the Capital of Eire?

[John Greg]

Regarding FTBCon participation, a few folks here posted pics of participation figures showing 112 participants following a list of 111 speakers -- or something approximately like that. Of course, as it turned out, those screenshots were taken before the event actually began, and so far no one has posted any screenys showing participation counts from after the event actually got going. Cats got tongues? Hostile narratives skewed?

Did anyone take screens of those figures mid-conference? Care to post them?

Also, I noticed that in fact many Pitters actually did follow some of the discussions, contrary to the general meme beforehand.

Can any Pitters give a fair review of what they witnessed? I saw none of it, so while I would love to say it was all just goldfish in a bowl of mirrors, I am getting the impression that in fact it may have been rather successful with some good discussions.

Do we not have the intellectual integrity and honesty to point out good stuff where it happens, even if it's on the network of evil?

Anyone know how it all went? One way or the other?

Are we just becoming too much of a kind of collective of naysaying seers who then clam up when the prognostications go south? I hope not. In the early days of the Pit, people often came back and stated when one of their claims or prognostications turned out to be wrong. I do not seem to see that so much anymore. Now it's just a lot of talk shit and go shtum.

Oh, and I scored 22, but the test is obviously shit, as has been pointed out: too vague; too ambiguous; totally lacking an allowance for neutral responses; too mood-based, etc.

[Mykeru]

Can any Pitters give a fair review of what they witnessed?

http://scarbchat.files.wordpress.com/20 ... b18883.jpg

https://janeaustensworld.files.wordpres ... g-lady.jpg

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7446093568/hC161A697/

Done in one.

[Tfoot]

For the attendance of FTBcon, I would guess that most of their talks never made it into three digits for viewership.

Their welcome by dave silverman is on pz myers yt page and barely has 300 views.

As for the rest of it, I looked briefly at their facebook, and typically each talk would be 'liked' by one or two people (ghost town). The twitter feed seemed equally dead.

Most of the blog posts pz myers wrote on the subject had less than 10 comments.

From the ratings on videos that Myers etc forgot to disable the ratings on, they were getting venomfangx style ratings.
http://vidstatsx.com/pzamyers/youtube-channel
(click the videos tab).

I only watched the intro. It was boring. 10 minutes of faceplant was enough, after that I had better things to do.

[Cunning Punt]

As a dues-paying member of Procrastinators-R-Us, I decided to take a quick look at the academic work of Richard Carrier, and what I found was far worse than even my meager expectations.

You might recall from up-thread it being mentioned that Richard Carrier was extremely upset that someone put a link to Stephanie Fisher's critique of his book on his Wikipedia page. He edited his page to remove this, and wrote an "official response" (one wonders what an unofficial response would look like). Fisher's critique is more than 8000 words long, but I decided to look further into one specific matter.

Richard Carrier claims that the field of New Testament Studies has "collapsed into a chaos of opinions" about Jesus, and cites one Tom Verenna as an authority who claims this. Fisher states that Verenna is simply unqualified to make such a statement about an entire academic field of study. This upsets Carrier, who spends a good part of his "official response" defending Verenna. Verenna is "completely competent", according to Carrier, has "considerable skill" and Fisher's remarks are an insult to a scholar in the field. Moreover, according to Carrier, Verenna has "published a chapter on this subject in a peer reviewed academic book"!

Well! Certainly one should have wonderful credentials to be able to criticize an entire field of study! So, let's take a look at the Tom Verenna who Carrier views as an expert.

Verenna's chapter in a "peer reviewed academic book" is described on Carrier's Amazon.com store, and his CV can be found here. (In case the gentle reader is concerned that Verenna's CV might be out-of-date, notice that the CV lists the book, so must be at least as recent as the book.) And what do we find? We find that Tom Verenna, who according to Carrier is eminently qualified to critique the whole field of New Testament Studies, is a sophomore of Northampton Community College. And before that, was a student at none other than Montgomery Community College! So, yes, this scholar of Carrier's is just an undergrad at a local community college.

But, you might cry, Carrier said that this book was a "peer reviewed academic book"! So, let's take a look at it. Notice that one of the two editors is none other than Tom Verenna. So, Verenna's chapter appeared in the book he himself edited! Not to worry, Carrier cries in one of his other blog posts, the other contributers to this book "peer-reviewed" Verenna's chapter! (Why does Carrier know so much about how this book was written?) So, according to Carrier, the way peer review works is that an editor chooses people to contribute to a book, who then approve of the editor's own chapter in said book. No conflict of interest there! Isn't peer review wonderful!

Now, knowing you pytters, I'm sure none of you are at all skeptical about Carrier, Verenna or this supposed academic book at this point. I am, however, a horrible horrible person, so I decided to take a look at the press who'd print an "academic" book edited by an undergrad with such an interesting definition of peer-review.

Verenna's book was printed by Equinox Press, and you can find their Author Form for Book Proposals here. Notice that his form doesn't ask for text or sample chapters. It does ask for biographical information, but only "for preparing the jacket copy and the title page of the book, and as a basis for catalogue and leaflet entries and press releases." It asks for a brief bio sketch for the jacket copy, and a short blurb for advertising purposes. And it does ask for the names of "reviewers", because they "may wish to send the draft manuscript" to reviewers "to improve the final draft of the manuscript". So, in other words, this "scholarly" press thinks it is really, really important to have the jacket copy written immediately, and getting a copy of the actual book or, for that matter, a critical review of the contents, not so much.

So, this is what Carrier views as a "peer reviewed academic book", and the credentials of an eminent scholar in his chosen field of study. It turns out, moreover, that chapters of this book are used as sources in his own book. Isn't Carrier just an amazing scholar!

Knowing who Tom Verrana is makes this soooo fucking hilarious to me. I can't wait to see how Carrier handles it.

It gets even more lulzworthy..............

http://thomasverenna.blogspot.com/

I haven't had a chance to check this out in detail, but it looks very interesting. :lol:

[Cunning Punt]

Rook fucking Hawkins...LMAO

YES! I just learned it myself. Rook Hawkins formerly of the Rational Response Squad! :o

[youtube]9lnFobYlsF4[/youtube]

Say this isn't so... if this gets out this will make Carrier the absolute laughing he was always destined to be.

[dogen (as anon)]

As a dues-paying member of Procrastinators-R-Us, I decided to take a quick look at the academic work of Richard Carrier, and what I found was far worse than even my meager expectations.

You might recall from up-thread it being mentioned that Richard Carrier was extremely upset that someone put a link to Stephanie Fisher's critique of his book on his Wikipedia page. He edited his page to remove this, and wrote an "official response" (one wonders what an unofficial response would look like). Fisher's critique is more than 8000 words long, but I decided to look further into one specific matter.

Richard Carrier claims that the field of New Testament Studies has "collapsed into a chaos of opinions" about Jesus, and cites one Tom Verenna as an authority who claims this. Fisher states that Verenna is simply unqualified to make such a statement about an entire academic field of study. This upsets Carrier, who spends a good part of his "official response" defending Verenna. Verenna is "completely competent", according to Carrier, has "considerable skill" and Fisher's remarks are an insult to a scholar in the field. Moreover, according to Carrier, Verenna has "published a chapter on this subject in a peer reviewed academic book"!

Well! Certainly one should have wonderful credentials to be able to criticize an entire field of study! So, let's take a look at the Tom Verenna who Carrier views as an expert.

Verenna's chapter in a "peer reviewed academic book" is described on Carrier's Amazon.com store, and his CV can be found here. (In case the gentle reader is concerned that Verenna's CV might be out-of-date, notice that the CV lists the book, so must be at least as recent as the book.) And what do we find? We find that Tom Verenna, who according to Carrier is eminently qualified to critique the whole field of New Testament Studies, is a sophomore of Northampton Community College. And before that, was a student at none other than Montgomery Community College! So, yes, this scholar of Carrier's is just an undergrad at a local community college.

But, you might cry, Carrier said that this book was a "peer reviewed academic book"! So, let's take a look at it. Notice that one of the two editors is none other than Tom Verenna. So, Verenna's chapter appeared in the book he himself edited! Not to worry, Carrier cries in one of his other blog posts, the other contributers to this book "peer-reviewed" Verenna's chapter! (Why does Carrier know so much about how this book was written?) So, according to Carrier, the way peer review works is that an editor chooses people to contribute to a book, who then approve of the editor's own chapter in said book. No conflict of interest there! Isn't peer review wonderful!

Now, knowing you pytters, I'm sure none of you are at all skeptical about Carrier, Verenna or this supposed academic book at this point. I am, however, a horrible horrible person, so I decided to take a look at the press who'd print an "academic" book edited by an undergrad with such an interesting definition of peer-review.

Verenna's book was printed by Equinox Press, and you can find their Author Form for Book Proposals here. Notice that his form doesn't ask for text or sample chapters. It does ask for biographical information, but only "for preparing the jacket copy and the title page of the book, and as a basis for catalogue and leaflet entries and press releases." It asks for a brief bio sketch for the jacket copy, and a short blurb for advertising purposes. And it does ask for the names of "reviewers", because they "may wish to send the draft manuscript" to reviewers "to improve the final draft of the manuscript". So, in other words, this "scholarly" press thinks it is really, really important to have the jacket copy written immediately, and getting a copy of the actual book or, for that matter, a critical review of the contents, not so much.

So, this is what Carrier views as a "peer reviewed academic book", and the credentials of an eminent scholar in his chosen field of study. It turns out, moreover, that chapters of this book are used as sources in his own book. Isn't Carrier just an amazing scholar!

Knowing who Tom Verrana is makes this soooo fucking hilarious to me. I can't wait to see how Carrier handles it.

It gets even more lulzworthy..............

http://thomasverenna.blogspot.com/

I haven't had a chance to check this out in detail, but it looks very interesting. :lol:

This would all be fine, had Carrier not addressed these issues almost a month ago:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/3951

I'm afraid I just can't get too excited about any of this...

[Jan Steen]

Well, look at what you've done! Cromunist is packing it in.

First Loftus, now Crommie? Maybe Ed and Peez can give his slot to half-fish. That will definitely fill the hole that this will leave.

His blog filled a much-needed hole.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

clearly not SF 62F/16.6C overcast with a nice breeze. I love SF

and I scored 22

That score makes sense -- it must be your "fascination with numbers" that caused you to add an extra decimal place when converting temps. :lol:

[Steersman]

As a dues-paying member of Procrastinators-R-Us, I decided to take a quick look at the academic work of Richard Carrier, and what I found was far worse than even my meager expectations.

You might recall from up-thread it being mentioned that Richard Carrier was extremely upset that someone put a link to Stephanie Fisher's critique of his book on his Wikipedia page. He edited his page to remove this, and wrote an "official response" (one wonders what an unofficial response would look like). Fisher's critique is more than 8000 words long, but I decided to look further into one specific matter. ...
<snip>

<snip>
Carrier is the Dunning-Kruger effect personified. Two years ago he wrote a post in which he proposed a radical new idea in physics in order to resolve the EPR paradox. The only catch was that he didn't know enough physics to put his idea in mathematical form, so he called on all physicists to examine his proposal and to let him know if it made any sense.

It is all a bit sad, really. But if schadenfreude is your thing, you may want have a peek at his post.

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... cists.html

The opening paragraph displays all the symptoms of the crackpot:

Thank you. Entertaining and informative. The last quote is gold! Lots of lulz. Ta.

I’ll agree than Carrier is a bit of a dickhead, and his use of Bayesian statistics to justify his “mythian” hypothesis about Jesus looks a little suspect – Hoffmann and Fisher seeming to have a point or two.

However, I don’t think it reasonable to throw that many stones at him for his “radical new idea in physics”. Considering that there are some dozen different scientific interpretations of quantum mechanics, and, as Feynman argued, no one really knows why it is the way it is, it seems like speculation is a game that everyone can at least kibitz about. Now if Carrier was insisting that his interpretation was the revealed truth as people like Chopra apparently do then one might reasonably call him a crank. But just advancing a “proposal” or hypothesis hardly seems to justify that.

FWIW, my AQ score was 33, although there is probably a fairly wide error-band to it, as to everyone else’s.

[Jan Steen]

Regarding FTBCon participation, a few folks here posted pics of participation figures showing 112 participants following a list of 111 speakers -- or something approximately like that. Of course, as it turned out, those screenshots were taken before the event actually began, and so far no one has posted any screenys showing participation counts from after the event actually got going. Cats got tongues? Hostile narratives skewed?

Did anyone take screens of those figures mid-conference? Care to post them?

Also, I noticed that in fact many Pitters actually did follow some of the discussions, contrary to the general meme beforehand.

Can any Pitters give a fair review of what they witnessed? I saw none of it, so while I would love to say it was all just goldfish in a bowl of mirrors, I am getting the impression that in fact it may have been rather successful with some good discussions.

Do we not have the intellectual integrity and honesty to point out good stuff where it happens, even if it's on the network of evil?

Anyone know how it all went? One way or the other?

Are we just becoming too much of a kind of collective of naysaying seers who then clam up when the prognostications go south? I hope not. In the early days of the Pit, people often came back and stated when one of their claims or prognostications turned out to be wrong. I do not seem to see that so much anymore. Now it's just a lot of talk shit and go shtum.

Oh, and I scored 22, but the test is obviously shit, as has been pointed out: too vague; too ambiguous; totally lacking an allowance for neutral responses; too mood-based, etc.

I guess most pitters punished the mission creeps in the cruellest way possible: by ignoring them.

Anyway, according to http://lanyrd.com/2013/ftbcon/ 141 people attended, while there were 115 speakers. You do the maths.

[John Greg]

Jan said:

Anyway, according to http://lanyrd.com/2013/ftbcon/ 141 people attended, while there were 115 speakers. You do the maths.

Thanks for that. Maybe it was only goldfish in a bowl of mirrors after all -- as it should be. I just thought it odd (and potentially telling) that no one had yet posted such an image from when the thing was actually underway.

[Kareem]

Latest Ally Fogg:

Zimmerman, Martin and patriarchal misandry: An intersectional analysis
http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013 ... -analysis/

(no comments from the penny section please)

So the extra fear and suspicion black men face for being men is patriarchy and joining with the group of people who think all men you don't know should be considered potential rapists will help with that. Seems legit.

[bhoytony]

What Rook Hawkins is not

[John Greg]

So, according to the lanyrd list/stats, there were 115 speakers, and 141 followers, and of the 141 "known followers", 91 were listed as speakers (50 non-speakers).

I guess the stats are kind of funny, but it seems like some of the speakers were listed as followers, and others were not. That strikes as rather odd. Does anyone know how the lanyrd stuff works? Do you have to meet certain criteria to be listed as a follower? Is it possible that there were a few/some/several followers who are not listed?

So, that would seem to mean that of the big wide world of FfTB's self-claimed millions of followers, only 50 actually followed the thing? Also, I see almost none of the regular FfTB commentariat listed as followers -- unless they are all going under other names/nyms. Hmm. Curious.

I know it doesn't really matter; I'm just curious about this stuff. I mean, many of us here keep predicting the ultimate downfall of FfTB, and keep pointing out the declining following -- while they keep claiming a growth in followers.

[ERV]

Hate the 'AQ test'.

"I prefer to do things with others rather than on my own."
Every group project ever: One person does all the work while everyone else does nothing (at best), or actively interferes at worst (IM HELPING! DERP!!!). Yeah, sign me up for a group project. *shudder*

"I frequently get so strongly absorbed in one thing that I lose sight of other things."
Its called 'being focused'.

"I often notice small sounds when others do not." "I tend to notice details that others do not." "I don't usually notice small changes in a situation or a person's appearance."
Its called 'being aware of your surroundings'.

"I find social situations easy." "I enjoy social chitchat." "I find it hard to make new friends."
I have nothing to talk about with most people. Im not interested in the things they are interested in. When I was younger, I would compensate for this by watching several television shows at once (talk shows and 'The Soup' were perfect for catching up with pop culture). Put me around scientists and atheists, Im fine. Put me around normal people and Im not happy.

"I am good at social chitchat." "I enjoy social occasions."
WE GET IT. Introvert = Aspie to the test writers. Fantastic.

"I tend to have very strong interests, which I get upset about if I can't pursue."
Who doesnt get mad if they cant pursue things that interest them? wtf? Tell Tiger Woods he cant play golf anymore. If he gets mad--> ASPIE!

"I notice patterns in things all the time."
Im a product of numerous math teachers. Patterns = shortcuts. Look for the pattern, save time and effort.

"It does not upset me if my daily routine is disturbed." "I enjoy doing things spontaneously." "I like to carefully plan any activities I participate in."
I got shit to do, okay? I have to plan things to fit what I want to do in, in the most efficient manner. 'Spontaneity' pisses me off. People/Things screwing up my routine piss me off.

"When I talk on the phone, I'm not sure when it's my turn to speak."
The only person I talk to on the phone is my mother. Everyone else I Skype/Google/text. What a weird question.

Stupid test.

[Angry_Drunk]

You know how to really tell that you're a 'spergetard? If you fucking 'sperge out over a fucking test on fucking wired.com that purports to measure your level of 'sperginess.

[Jan Steen]

It gets even more lulzworthy..............

http://thomasverenna.blogspot.com/

I haven't had a chance to check this out in detail, but it looks very interesting. :lol:

This would all be fine, had Carrier not addressed these issues almost a month ago:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/3951

I'm afraid I just can't get too excited about any of this...

He has hardly 'addressed' these issues. Take also a look at the link that Slither provided:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1739

If we are to believe Carrier, Verenna is a serious scholar.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Seriously, I got a 13 on the test, but my answers were all one extreme or another -- I focus on details, but also do well in social interactions.

As a trainer, I've become very attuned to minute changes in body language & the environment. People are amazed when I tell them, "your horse is about to do X"; they never saw it coming and can't figure out how I did. Yet reading people's expressions & guessing their state of mind (which is the same task, really) is absent from the syndrome of autism.

I've always had extra-range (tested) in both hearing & peripheral vision. I hear things before even my dogs, like the front gate opening a 1/4 mile* away, or the pumas** they barked at all last night. I know my horses not just by their whinnies, but by their smell and the sound of their hoof-falls.

Background noise & imagery (animated ads, for example) drive me nuts. I tried to watch the Chelsea Lately Show at my GF's house, and went into one of those sensory-overload seizures japanese children get from watching cartoons.

I can't remember birthdays worth a damn.


In Animals in Translation, Temple Grandin describes all animals as 'autistic' after a fashion. I think I have some of the traits typically described as autistic, which help me work with animals.

I must be Autistic-Queer.


* .40234 km;
** "mountain lion", "catamount", "panther cat", "cougar"; not "MILF", "Cougar!", "PUMA"

[Dave]

However, I don’t think it reasonable to throw that many stones at him for his “radical new idea in physics”. Considering that there are some dozen different scientific interpretations of quantum mechanics, and, as Feynman argued, no one really knows why it is the way it is, it seems like speculation is a game that everyone can at least kibitz about. Now if Carrier was insisting that his interpretation was the revealed truth as people like Chopra apparently do then one might reasonably call him a crank. But just advancing a “proposal” or hypothesis hardly seems to justify that.

Reading over his little foray into physics (a field that I have a little training in), I am reminded of a quote that has been variously attributed: Carrier's ideas are both true and original. Unfortunately, those that are original are not true and those that are true are not original.

The correspondence received by most University physics departments will attest to the number of laymen who believe they have discovered something new in physics. The vast majority of them are utterly wrong, but believe themselves both capable and qualified to tell those who have dedicated their lives to the matter that they know the subject better. The fact is that the physics is the math. You can read about GR all you want, but until you have derived the equations yourself, you are not going to understand it. Similarly for QM. Carrier deserves ridicule for his conceit that he can throw out a half-assed philosophy argument and expect physicists to critique it, not for having a dumb theory.

FWIW, my AQ score was 33, although there is probably a fairly wide error-band to it, as to everyone else’s.

I took it several times, not trying to direct my answers, but trying different "interpretations" of the questions. My scores varies from 9 to 16. For whatever thats worth in assessing the error-band.

[dogen]

It gets even more lulzworthy..............

http://thomasverenna.blogspot.com/

I haven't had a chance to check this out in detail, but it looks very interesting. :lol:

This would all be fine, had Carrier not addressed these issues almost a month ago:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/3951

I'm afraid I just can't get too excited about any of this...

He has hardly 'addressed' these issues. Take also a look at the link that Slither provided:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1739

If we are to believe Carrier, Verenna is a serious scholar.

Nah, still can't get stiff about this. In the link Slither provides, Carrier doesn't hid the fact that Verenna is a student. I agree that the 'peer review' which Carrier discusses is very different from that practiced elsewhere (e.g., in my own field of astrophysics), but I'm not seeing some grant attempt to pass Verenna off as something he's not.

[ERV]

You know how to really tell that you're a 'spergetard? If you fucking 'sperge out over a fucking test on fucking wired.com that purports to measure your level of 'sperginess.

'Superspurg'.

[dogen]

You know how to really tell that you're a 'spergetard? If you fucking 'sperge out over a fucking test on fucking wired.com that purports to measure your level of 'sperginess.

I strongly object to your abbreviation of Asperger's syndrome as "'spergers". It completely misses the awesomeness that is "arse-burgers".

[Steersman]

Hate the 'AQ test'.
<snip>
"I notice patterns in things all the time."
Im a product of numerous math teachers. Patterns = shortcuts. Look for the pattern, save time and effort.

<snip>
"When I talk on the phone, I'm not sure when it's my turn to speak."
The only person I talk to on the phone is my mother. Everyone else I Skype/Google/text. What a weird question.

Stupid test.

So. Aspie AND curmudgeon? ;-)

But, in passing relative to your “product of numerous math teachers”, as it is one of my abiding interests if not a monomania, although I’m not much more than a dilettante, the mathematician Jacob Bronowski [The Ascent of Man, BBC documentary and book] said, with maybe some hyperbole, that mathematics was the greatest metaphor imaginable. And you might enjoy this paper titled The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics.

[Aneris]

Regarding FTBCon participation, a few folks here posted pics of participation figures showing 112 participants following a list of 111 speakers -- or something approximately like that. Of course, as it turned out, those screenshots were taken before the event actually began, and so far no one has posted any screenys showing participation counts from after the event actually got going. Cats got tongues? Hostile narratives skewed?

Did anyone take screens of those figures mid-conference? Care to post them?

Also, I noticed that in fact many Pitters actually did follow some of the discussions, contrary to the general meme beforehand.

Can any Pitters give a fair review of what they witnessed? I saw none of it, so while I would love to say it was all just goldfish in a bowl of mirrors, I am getting the impression that in fact it may have been rather successful with some good discussions.

Do we not have the intellectual integrity and honesty to point out good stuff where it happens, even if it's on the network of evil?

Anyone know how it all went? One way or the other? [...]

I did point out above, with video, that the one on “Critical Thinking” was very good. People who read along — as it seems — often get a skewed perception, too (not just this incident, but also different opinions on topic x).

Yesterday I watched the one on “Atheism in Pop Culture” and found it very bland. I had it running in the background while doing the chores, otherwise I wouldn't have seen it through the end. Rebecca Watson was the best on the panel (no sarcasm). But it was overall just too weak, and her contributions weren't special enough to change the overall impression. Hemant Mehta, Ashley F. Miller and Tauriq Moosa sometimes gave some good cues. JT Eberhardt said near nothing and came across as a douche, which may be influenced by the only two texts I've ever read of him. There wasn't a good proportion between “interesting things” and “saying something” for Heina Dadabhoy, and the host, Ian “Crommunist” Cromwell, had no sense of pacing and moderating. He also displayed a weird sense of humour, like introducing the panelists as the “ugliest people imaginable”. When people like him really act like that spontaneously, while pontificating about social warrior political correctness, I really do see Projection as a major force of them.

Factually, they just enumerated a few instances of atheists in pop culture and the most interesting idea was the Flat Earth Atheist where apparently Watson at least has read the TVTtropes page as a preparation. Just throwing out a few quick ideas (stream-of-conciousness):

• Big Ban Theory or the relation of geekiness, science, atheism and religion. You can go in all kinds of directions, but with staying close to the headline (I don't know what concept they had for the panel), they could explore the “Mad Scientist” or the socially inept atheist (geek). You have the portrayal of Sheldon Cooper, and you can then discuss what atheism/religion has to do with being interested in “Things rather than People” and the portrayal of atheists as anti-social (they briefly touch on it with Dr. House, but could have explored more why Atheists are seen as nihilistic curmurgeons or socially inept, are religions more social?).
• Another direction would be, how it comes that (atheist) geek culture is full of supernatural entities, magic, deities and so on. Escapism is a key word here, and how religion maybe is just like a 2000+ year old transmedia franchise and religious people are really nothing different than rabid fans, who fight over details in their fandom.
• Another trope with atheist in (pop) culture is the “playing god” idea, that goes back to Satan himself, who was, in a sense, the prime disbeliever. The mad scientist is just one facette that plays with this satanic idea. When theatre became secular again (early modern period), the role of the devil in the mystery plays went to the fool (or jester), and traces of the same concepts manifested in the Devil's Advocate, i.e. someone who is allowed to formally disobey authority and to speak their minds, with the idea that they either keep a ruler sane in case of the fool (since everyone else probably lied to them at all times out of fear), or to have someone who is a skeptic when assessing whether someone should be canonized, introduced in the 16th century. This translates to pop culture in many different tropes, a version of the Faustian Bargain (in a strict sense they aren't atheists, but in pop culture were a supreme divine entities exists, it's the closest you get), the Dr. Frankenstein style Mad Scientists, and generally topics around hubris and humbleness (the humble option would be to “obey” the other to become “godlike” etc.)
• Dogma by Kevin Smith. The movie is by no means important, nor does it have to be featured in a panel like this, it just could have been used to discuss various topics on Atheism, or critique of religion in popular media. They mentioned Life of Brian and Simpsons a bit, but didn't explore it.
• There was also nothing on Straw Vulcans or skepticism in popular media (except the Flat-Earth Atheist). Julia Galef was on the Critical Thinking panel, but she would have been good here, since she apparently already used that trope in her presentation (which I haven't seen yet).
• I like the Mentalist, who is depicted as a former fraudster who claimed to have to psychic powers, but a tragic incident makes him rethink his ways. Throughout the series, he often comes across “believers” who either believe he really has powers. He also comes across other “psychics” who still claim to have special abilities with some interesting interaction. Religion (and Atheism) also comes up a few times. When I remember correctly, there is one episode where someone really wants to believe in angels and ghosts and the like, and despite him telling them that they don't exist, they insist but are also emotionally very dependent. He then “plays along” to solve the crime. This is an interesting moral dilemma: what to do with people who really need a comforting belief? (and how this is portrayed in media). Again, I didn't expect that they discuss this show or this character, they could have picked other examples, but they never went into anything substantial.
  
  /braindump

[dogen]

I was just reading the reviews of Greta's new book on Amazon.com, and came across this:

Bending is excellently written -- and it's not the usual one-dimensional porn I've encountered on the internet (you know what I mean: the "Tab A goes into Slot B" kind of porn that reads like an Ikea manual, with lube). It's the kind of porn that explores what people are actually thinking and feeling, and it's stronger for it.

My only reservation, and it's not a criticism, is that it's got a focused theme. This is a book of stories about dom/sub relations and spanking, and it doesn't match up well with my personal kinks (which I will not discuss, except to note that the word "tentacle" only appears ONCE in the entire book, and then as a metaphor). But if it does align with your interests, expect quality arousal.

An expert on Internetz Pr0n who likes tentacles? Who can this be, I ask, after washing the newly-upchucked vomit from my mouth...

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Rook fucking Hawkins...LMAO

YES! I just learned it myself. Rook Hawkins formerly of the Rational Response Squad! :o

[youtube]9lnFobYlsF4[/youtube]

Say this isn't so... if this gets out this will make Carrier the absolute laughing he was always destined to be.

The Rookie does have a certain stage presence. And I'm convinced that he's read Price & Mason with comprehension. But "Wayne's World Does Sachkritik" is no substitute for real scholarship.

Quibbles:
* Josephus was not a "forgery"; Josephus contains "interpolations":

* Don't do a Jesus Myth 101 but not introduce Josephus, much less give a passing mention to "the Testimonium";

* Bigger (though hardly better) scholars that The Rookie have made the mistake of conflating a debunking of the miraculous Jesus with one of the historical Jesus.

[John Greg]

Aneris, thanks for that. Your posts and ideas are always interesting to read. And given that English is clearly not your first language, you really do state yourself very well.

[Badger3k]

I know it doesn't really matter; I'm just curious about this stuff. I mean, many of us here keep predicting the ultimate downfall of FfTB, and keep pointing out the declining following -- while they keep claiming a growth in followers.

Sounds like Scientology, the Raelians, and other religious groups that shore up their numbers to give the appearance of growth while their numbers decline. No wonder they keep trying to add new blogs (although the rarely come up in their main combined feed). They are the Catholic Church of atheists - hemorrhaging followers right and left while telling each other they are growing madly.

[Steersman]

However, I don’t think it reasonable to throw that many stones at him for his “radical new idea in physics”. Considering that there are some dozen different scientific interpretations of quantum mechanics, and, as Feynman argued, no one really knows why it is the way it is, it seems like speculation is a game that everyone can at least kibitz about. Now if Carrier was insisting that his interpretation was the revealed truth as people like Chopra apparently do then one might reasonably call him a crank. But just advancing a “proposal” or hypothesis hardly seems to justify that.

Reading over his little foray into physics (a field that I have a little training in), I am reminded of a quote that has been variously attributed: Carrier's ideas are both true and original. Unfortunately, those that are original are not true and those that are true are not original.

The correspondence received by most University physics departments will attest to the number of laymen who believe they have discovered something new in physics. The vast majority of them are utterly wrong, but believe themselves both capable and qualified to tell those who have dedicated their lives to the matter that they know the subject better.

Know what you mean about the “University physics departments”; I think Carl Sagan talked about that – or maybe Leon Lederman in his The God Particle – and had pointed to a case of someone so disturbed that he (frequently a “he”) wound up killing the person who had rejected his “theory”.

The fact is that the physics is the math. You can read about GR all you want, but until you have derived the equations yourself, you are not going to understand it. Similarly for QM. Carrier deserves ridicule for his conceit that he can throw out a half-assed philosophy argument and expect physicists to critique it, not for having a dumb theory.

If he had actually “expected” a critique then maybe that might justify some “ridicule”, but I still don’t see how it was beyond the pale to present his “proposal”. Although I haven’t actually read it so maybe his pretentiousness had crossed a line. But some physicist could have used it as a "teaching opportunity".

FWIW, my AQ score was 33, although there is probably a fairly wide error-band to it, as to everyone else’s.

I took it several times, not trying to direct my answers, but trying different "interpretations" of the questions. My scores varies from 9 to 16. For whatever thats worth in assessing the error-band.

That’s an average of 12.5 +/- 3.5 or +/- 28.0%. Which, assuming the same percentage range, for my score that means 23.76 to 42.24. Maybe there’s some justification for the criteria, but the test looks a little iffy.

[Percentage]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... d-kingdom/

Nothing really to say, except that PZ seems obsessed with the word "privilege". I've seen it cropping up in non-SJW posts pretty regularly. Dude needs to take a breather.

[Dave]

The fact is that the physics is the math. You can read about GR all you want, but until you have derived the equations yourself, you are not going to understand it. Similarly for QM. Carrier deserves ridicule for his conceit that he can throw out a half-assed philosophy argument and expect physicists to critique it, not for having a dumb theory.

If he had actually “expected” a critique then maybe that might justify some “ridicule”, but I still don’t see how it was beyond the pale to present his “proposal”. Although I haven’t actually read it so maybe his pretentiousness had crossed a line. But some physicist could have used it as a "teaching opportunity".

Shrug. I expect we will have to agree to disagree. That said, a few of the phrases he used that indicated to me the conceit I describe above are as follows:

To all who review and critique it, you can annotate it in MS Word and email the annotated copy back to me

Really? He expects those who critique it to mark it up rather than just give him a few pointers?

I’m hoping for constructive critical comment from as many physicists as possible.

He wants multiple physicists to provide "constructive" feedback for an idea he cant be bothered to research beyond Science News.

Ideally, a physicist who reads this will be willing, and offer, to co-write a final draft of this article, putting in any references, mathematics, and other details and terminological fixes that would render it even a passable scientific paper.

Thats a lot to ask.

I welcome any patient explanation to that effect from an actual expert (and it will be helpful if you identify your credentials).

Mere peons are not qualified to critique Carrier. Only actual experts may, once Carrier deigns to consider your credentials.

Yes, Im reading between the lines. Yes, you can bend over backwards (would that be in Greta's book?) to interpret each statement charitably. But taken as a whole, I think his blogpost and the intro to his "paper" reek of conceit and entitlement as he forays into a field that the actual work indicates he has done no significant research into.

[sacha]

Regarding that test.

I can't answer honestly because I know their "agenda". I know what they are driving at. So for me to answer "honestly" I sort of have to try and un-know what I know...and that's inherently dishonest.

And like others have said, I could try and answer honestly but depending on my mood, and current situation, I'd answer differently. Also, the questions are filled with ambiguity. For example when they ask about a "party"...there are a lot of kinds of parties. And the library? The assumption is a library is a quiet calm place. Not crowded. ... Yeah right. So do I answer 'honestly" or do I interpret the question in a certain way as to answer the gist of the question instead of the reality of my situation? etc Fun, interesting, but completely bogus. IMO.

yes, I agree, I tried my best. A big party or a library are not my type of thing. I can do a dinner party once in a while, and then I'm exhausted from socialising. I'd rather be home on the internet with my dog snuggled up, like now

[sacha]

[...] That's how it works: You smack together two seemingly unrelated things, like A Day in the Life and you've got something which might be good but, free-standing was definitely crap. [...]

Exactly. What you wrote is very similar for me. Including forgetting numbers. But I am very good in seeing patterns, trends and tendencies, which always was more important

before mobile phones were ubiquitous, I was a number memorising master. A very long time ago when I had a stack of credit cards (I don't do credit now), I knew all the numbers and expiration dates, phone numbers were a breeze. There is this test I was given as a child - a long string of numbers which I had to repeat backwards, it was easy for me. At the same time, I was dreadful with anything regarding maths. Now I can't remember a bloody thing.

I do remember my first boyfriend's telephone number. Italian kid - bad boy. I was 6 he was 7

[Steersman]

The fact is that the physics is the math. You can read about GR all you want, but until you have derived the equations yourself, you are not going to understand it. Similarly for QM. Carrier deserves ridicule for his conceit that he can throw out a half-assed philosophy argument and expect physicists to critique it, not for having a dumb theory.

If he had actually “expected” a critique then maybe that might justify some “ridicule”, but I still don’t see how it was beyond the pale to present his “proposal”. Although I haven’t actually read it so maybe his pretentiousness had crossed a line. But some physicist could have used it as a "teaching opportunity".

Shrug. I expect we will have to agree to disagree. That said, a few of the phrases he used that indicated to me the conceit I describe above are as follows: ...

No, I think I can concede the point. :-)

[sacha]

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7446093568/hC161A697/

Done in one.

I'm actually quite concerned about why that dog's tongue is so swollen.

[sacha]

clearly not SF 62F/16.6C overcast with a nice breeze. I love SF

and I scored 22

That score makes sense -- it must be your "fascination with numbers" that caused you to add an extra decimal place when converting temps. :lol:

hahaha! I'm still a natural blond, my dear

[sacha]

Hate the 'AQ test'.

"I prefer to do things with others rather than on my own."
Every group project ever: One person does all the work while everyone else does nothing (at best), or actively interferes at worst (IM HELPING! DERP!!!). Yeah, sign me up for a group project. *shudder*

"I frequently get so strongly absorbed in one thing that I lose sight of other things."
Its called 'being focused'.

"I often notice small sounds when others do not." "I tend to notice details that others do not." "I don't usually notice small changes in a situation or a person's appearance."
Its called 'being aware of your surroundings'.

"I find social situations easy." "I enjoy social chitchat." "I find it hard to make new friends."
I have nothing to talk about with most people. Im not interested in the things they are interested in. When I was younger, I would compensate for this by watching several television shows at once (talk shows and 'The Soup' were perfect for catching up with pop culture). Put me around scientists and atheists, Im fine. Put me around normal people and Im not happy.

"I am good at social chitchat." "I enjoy social occasions."
WE GET IT. Introvert = Aspie to the test writers. Fantastic.

"I tend to have very strong interests, which I get upset about if I can't pursue."
Who doesnt get mad if they cant pursue things that interest them? wtf? Tell Tiger Woods he cant play golf anymore. If he gets mad--> ASPIE!

"I notice patterns in things all the time."
Im a product of numerous math teachers. Patterns = shortcuts. Look for the pattern, save time and effort.

"It does not upset me if my daily routine is disturbed." "I enjoy doing things spontaneously." "I like to carefully plan any activities I participate in."
I got shit to do, okay? I have to plan things to fit what I want to do in, in the most efficient manner. 'Spontaneity' pisses me off. People/Things screwing up my routine piss me off.

"When I talk on the phone, I'm not sure when it's my turn to speak."
The only person I talk to on the phone is my mother. Everyone else I Skype/Google/text. What a weird question.

Stupid test.

hahahaha!

especially this: Put me around normal people and Im not happy. I may use that as a new sig

[Slither]

...

As a dues-paying member of Procrastinators-R-Us, I decided to take a quick look at the academic work of Richard Carrier, and what I found was far worse than even my meager expectations.

You might recall from up-thread it being mentioned that Richard Carrier was extremely upset that someone put a link to Stephanie Fisher's critique of his book on his Wikipedia page. He edited his page to remove this, and wrote an "official response" (one wonders what an unofficial response would look like).

.....
This upsets Carrier, who spends a good part of his "official response" defending Verenna. Verenna is "completely competent", according to Carrier, has "considerable skill" and Fisher's remarks are an insult to a scholar in the field. Moreover, according to Carrier, Verenna has "published a chapter on this subject in a peer reviewed academic book"!

This would all be fine, had Carrier not addressed these issues almost a month ago:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/3951

Nice try, dogen, but the link you provided just happens to be to Carrier's "official response." In other words, it is in that very document that Carrier claims that Verenna is "completely competent" and "published a chapter on this subject in a peer reviewed academic book".

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I'm actually quite concerned about why that dog's tongue is so swollen.

I have a friend who is the proud owner of a tongue with a dog attached to it. Don't sweat it, he's doing really fine.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Don't know if this will work:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/ ... 5672_n.jpg

[sacha]

I'm actually quite concerned about why that dog's tongue is so swollen.

I have a friend who is the proud owner of a tongue with a dog attached to it. Don't sweat it, he's doing really fine.

it's 4x thicker than it should be, like it was stung by a wasp

[sacha]

Don't know if this will work:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/ ... 5672_n.jpg

haha! yes, I've seen plenty of that, I'm concerned about the thickness of the other dog's tongue

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

haha! yes, I've seen plenty of that, I'm concerned about the thickness of the other dog's tongue

It looks like a lens/camera artefact to me. Look at the size of that nose!

[sacha]

haha! yes, I've seen plenty of that, I'm concerned about the thickness of the other dog's tongue

It looks like a lens/camera artefact to me. Look at the size of that nose!

okay, that makes me feel better. I sent you a pm regarding ecigs

[welch]

For the attendance of FTBcon, I would guess that most of their talks never made it into three digits for viewership.

Their welcome by dave silverman is on pz myers yt page and barely has 300 views.

As for the rest of it, I looked briefly at their facebook, and typically each talk would be 'liked' by one or two people (ghost town). The twitter feed seemed equally dead.

Most of the blog posts pz myers wrote on the subject had less than 10 comments.

From the ratings on videos that Myers etc forgot to disable the ratings on, they were getting venomfangx style ratings.
http://vidstatsx.com/pzamyers/youtube-channel
(click the videos tab).

I only watched the intro. It was boring. 10 minutes of faceplant was enough, after that I had better things to do.

I had no interest, so I ignored the entire thing. If they all had a good time, and feel it was worthwhile, good on them.

[KiwiInOz]

I'm actually quite concerned about why that dog's tongue is so swollen.

I have a friend who is the proud owner of a tongue with a dog attached to it. Don't sweat it, he's doing really fine.

it's 4x thicker than it should be, like it was stung by a wasp

It looks to me like it is just curled over rather than swollen.

[KiwiInOz]

Don't know if this will work:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/ ... 5672_n.jpg

I imagine that this dog's tongue is rolled up in it's head, like a fire hose, or a woodpecker.

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/wil ... -info1.gif

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Boh (yeah, that's his name) keeps his tongue out at all time. My right leg still remembers the feeling of it as he was sleeping at my feet.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Sacha: answered to your PM.

[katamari Damassi]

Speaking of autism: what you never wanted - a chance to see Grimalkin and Kassiane from A+ (with sweaty PZ in the background) talk about neurodivergence for an hour:

[youtube]NWXGUCkxZ6E[/youtube]

They look like the kind of people who make themselves look different from most people so they can revel in how different they are.

Wow! "Hyperskepticism" and "inappropriate applications of skepticism" mentioned within 1.10 minutes!

[katamari Damassi]

Hate the 'AQ test'.

"I prefer to do things with others rather than on my own."
Every group project ever: One person does all the work while everyone else does nothing (at best), or actively interferes at worst (IM HELPING! DERP!!!). Yeah, sign me up for a group project. *shudder*

"I frequently get so strongly absorbed in one thing that I lose sight of other things."
Its called 'being focused'.

"I often notice small sounds when others do not." "I tend to notice details that others do not." "I don't usually notice small changes in a situation or a person's appearance."
Its called 'being aware of your surroundings'.

"I find social situations easy." "I enjoy social chitchat." "I find it hard to make new friends."
I have nothing to talk about with most people. Im not interested in the things they are interested in. When I was younger, I would compensate for this by watching several television shows at once (talk shows and 'The Soup' were perfect for catching up with pop culture). Put me around scientists and atheists, Im fine. Put me around normal people and Im not happy.

"I am good at social chitchat." "I enjoy social occasions."
WE GET IT. Introvert = Aspie to the test writers. Fantastic.

"I tend to have very strong interests, which I get upset about if I can't pursue."
Who doesnt get mad if they cant pursue things that interest them? wtf? Tell Tiger Woods he cant play golf anymore. If he gets mad--> ASPIE!

"I notice patterns in things all the time."
Im a product of numerous math teachers. Patterns = shortcuts. Look for the pattern, save time and effort.

"It does not upset me if my daily routine is disturbed." "I enjoy doing things spontaneously." "I like to carefully plan any activities I participate in."
I got shit to do, okay? I have to plan things to fit what I want to do in, in the most efficient manner. 'Spontaneity' pisses me off. People/Things screwing up my routine piss me off.

"When I talk on the phone, I'm not sure when it's my turn to speak."
The only person I talk to on the phone is my mother. Everyone else I Skype/Google/text. What a weird question.

Stupid test.

I'm kind of with you on not liking the test. Sometimes I like to work with others, sometimes I like to do a project on my own. Sometimes I like being around people, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I like my daily routine, sometimes I find it monotonous.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I love staying alone in a dark, small space. I'm a clostrophiliac.

[Badger3k]

Dan Fincke has a post up about bad werdz : here

He goes off against those who tell people to ignore words, but makes to me a fatal error - attributing malice to every usage of a phrase:

Astoundingly these people enjoining stoicism to the targets of words like “cunt” or “bitch” or “fag” or “stupid”, etc. are blaming the words’ insulting powers not on those who are vigorously employing the words with full intentions to insult, demean, marginalize, demonize, silence, etc. but they are blaming the occurrences of insults on the words’ targets for taking the words as their definitions and normal usage naturally indicate they should be taken. It’s supposedly not the fault of the people knowingly using insulting terms, it’s the fault of those saying “stop insulting me and trying to verbally assault a whole class of people like me in the same gesture”. This is like blaming someone who is punched for falling down and making an act of violence happen. Had only they had not been physically affected there would have been no violent effect!

At the risk of getting another overblown Steersman defense, he seems to be agreeing with the SJWs who say all usage of a term is bad, no matter what the intent is (except, of course, for when they or one of their allies use it, at which point it magically becomes harmless). I think he also misses the point of the "ignore the trolls" type comments - intentionally ignoring someone who is deliberately trying to take over a conversation by throwing shit around. You can either respond (and keep responding) therefore feeding the trolls and giving them victory, or you can ignore them and they eventually become bored and wander off in disgust. Without a baseline or common definition on the usages and the terms, the argument basically falls apart.

[debaser71]

I think this video was posted here before but I liked it.



"In a culture where being social and outgoing are prized above all else, it can be difficult, even shameful, to be an introvert. But, as Susan Cain argues in this passionate talk, introverts bring extraordinary talents and abilities to the world, and should be encouraged and celebrated."

[dogen]

...

As a dues-paying member of Procrastinators-R-Us, I decided to take a quick look at the academic work of Richard Carrier, and what I found was far worse than even my meager expectations.

You might recall from up-thread it being mentioned that Richard Carrier was extremely upset that someone put a link to Stephanie Fisher's critique of his book on his Wikipedia page. He edited his page to remove this, and wrote an "official response" (one wonders what an unofficial response would look like).

.....
This upsets Carrier, who spends a good part of his "official response" defending Verenna. Verenna is "completely competent", according to Carrier, has "considerable skill" and Fisher's remarks are an insult to a scholar in the field. Moreover, according to Carrier, Verenna has "published a chapter on this subject in a peer reviewed academic book"!

This would all be fine, had Carrier not addressed these issues almost a month ago:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/3951

Nice try, dogen, but the link you provided just happens to be to Carrier's "official response." In other words, it is in that very document that Carrier claims that Verenna is "completely competent" and "published a chapter on this subject in a peer reviewed academic book".

Whatevs. You just continue to chillax on the fainting couch, I'll keep looking for some real dirt...

[katamari Damassi]

New avatar. Not sure I'm entirely happy with it :/

I likes it, although I would crop about half the dead space on the left to balance it better.

I will miss the old avatar, which was full of stop-and-look-at-this awesome.

Meh, changed it.

Well neither will look nearly as sexy with Al's head photoshopped on.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I haz a happy: tonight, Ali and I went to the beach together. It was the first time I was in the sea for over ten years.

I haz a sad: it reminded me of my ears problem. I am now deaf from my right ear. Fucking fluid blocking it!

Doing it again tomorrow anyway, it was too good!

[katamari Damassi]

Dan Fincke has a post up about bad werdz : here

He goes off against those who tell people to ignore words, but makes to me a fatal error - attributing malice to every usage of a phrase:

Astoundingly these people enjoining stoicism to the targets of words like “cunt” or “bitch” or “fag” or “stupid”, etc. are blaming the words’ insulting powers not on those who are vigorously employing the words with full intentions to insult, demean, marginalize, demonize, silence, etc. but they are blaming the occurrences of insults on the words’ targets for taking the words as their definitions and normal usage naturally indicate they should be taken. It’s supposedly not the fault of the people knowingly using insulting terms, it’s the fault of those saying “stop insulting me and trying to verbally assault a whole class of people like me in the same gesture”. This is like blaming someone who is punched for falling down and making an act of violence happen. Had only they had not been physically affected there would have been no violent effect!

At the risk of getting another overblown Steersman defense, he seems to be agreeing with the SJWs who say all usage of a term is bad, no matter what the intent is (except, of course, for when they or one of their allies use it, at which point it magically becomes harmless). I think he also misses the point of the "ignore the trolls" type comments - intentionally ignoring someone who is deliberately trying to take over a conversation by throwing shit around. You can either respond (and keep responding) therefore feeding the trolls and giving them victory, or you can ignore them and they eventually become bored and wander off in disgust. Without a baseline or common definition on the usages and the terms, the argument basically falls apart.

When he first started his civil posting policy it was to prevent his comments section from turning into Pharyngula. The SJW's hated it, claiming it was oppressive(ironic that they were suddenly concerned about freeze peach) and practically screaming that it was a tool of privilege.
Not sure what to make of this post now. In a way he has turned his comments section into a shakesvillian "safe space" so it seems logical that by adopting their protocols he has also adopted some of their methodologies.

[Aneris]

Aneris, thanks for that. Your posts and ideas are always interesting to read. And given that English is clearly not your first language, you really do state yourself very well.

Thank you http://i.imgur.com/GW9zq6B.png?1

When I recall correctly, you do professional writing? I always like to improve (at least) my english. If you note systematic errors, please do not hesitate and point them out (directly, or per PM, both totally fine by me). That's an open invitation to everyone else, too. Sometimes I really just write almost as I would talk, where in retrospect I could have structured sentences a little bit better (I often don't revise text for the forum because I fall into the perfectionism trap and then I don't finish it), so please feel free to let me know where my English could be improved. :)

[bovarchist]

Hate the 'AQ test'.

"I prefer to do things with others rather than on my own."
Every group project ever: One person does all the work while everyone else does nothing (at best), or actively interferes at worst (IM HELPING! DERP!!!). Yeah, sign me up for a group project. *shudder*

"I frequently get so strongly absorbed in one thing that I lose sight of other things."
Its called 'being focused'.

"I often notice small sounds when others do not." "I tend to notice details that others do not." "I don't usually notice small changes in a situation or a person's appearance."
Its called 'being aware of your surroundings'.

"I find social situations easy." "I enjoy social chitchat." "I find it hard to make new friends."
I have nothing to talk about with most people. Im not interested in the things they are interested in. When I was younger, I would compensate for this by watching several television shows at once (talk shows and 'The Soup' were perfect for catching up with pop culture). Put me around scientists and atheists, Im fine. Put me around normal people and Im not happy.

"I am good at social chitchat." "I enjoy social occasions."
WE GET IT. Introvert = Aspie to the test writers. Fantastic.

"I tend to have very strong interests, which I get upset about if I can't pursue."
Who doesnt get mad if they cant pursue things that interest them? wtf? Tell Tiger Woods he cant play golf anymore. If he gets mad--> ASPIE!

"I notice patterns in things all the time."
Im a product of numerous math teachers. Patterns = shortcuts. Look for the pattern, save time and effort.

"It does not upset me if my daily routine is disturbed." "I enjoy doing things spontaneously." "I like to carefully plan any activities I participate in."
I got shit to do, okay? I have to plan things to fit what I want to do in, in the most efficient manner. 'Spontaneity' pisses me off. People/Things screwing up my routine piss me off.

"When I talk on the phone, I'm not sure when it's my turn to speak."
The only person I talk to on the phone is my mother. Everyone else I Skype/Google/text. What a weird question.

Stupid test.

This has got to be worth an extra ten bonus points. ;)