Periodic Table of Swearing

[Michael K Gray]

rtOUWCKBKB8

Well done, sir!
But such an obvious parody is almost becoming concrete reality, as the crazy feeds on its-self...
It is so hard to tell these days, apart from the excellent production qualities, of course, which is a 'giveaway'.
None of the remaining spazmos at A+Theism can tie their own bootlaces, let alone produce a quality video clip.

(Ooh! I see that part 2 is up. Gotta go and grab me an oily Victory Gin, Citizen Mykeru 4387.)

[aweraw]

Atheism Plus Social Justice Update Pt. 2: Feeding the Troll

[youtube]711OW6trnAQ[/youtube]

Watching now... first part had me choking on chortles

[Tristan]

Not surprised. Don't think the tapatalk app has a screenshot feature. May have to look into alternatives on my pad.

Press the home button and the power button at the same time.

[Lapsang Souchong]

Atheism Plus Social Justice Update Pt. 2: Feeding the Troll

[youtube]711OW6trnAQ[/youtube]

Excellent videos Mykeru. Thanks for putting so much effort into them. I especially liked the ending of two with Becci Boos.

[Rystefn]

I was doing ok until she compared how she does Art to the scientific method - ending with when it goes up on her website its like putting it up for peer review.

I've never been the same since

Citation needed!!! (or failing that a screencap) Otherwise it never happened!!! I call bullcrap!! No one, no one is that stupid!!!

well, on your own head be it - you were warned

As the residential art student, I feel obligated to chime in with my thorough and educated analysis:

Sulky Amy said:
...but when you really break down the creative process, it's very similar to the scientific method...

No. Just....fucking NO.

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/new ... 14/e39.png

I haven't been an art student in many years (I did go to the Henry Wadsworth Longfellow School for the Creative and Performing Arts, though), but... holy shit, what is wrong with her? I mean... what the fucking fuck? What the everloving fuck? Is my brain bleeding? It feels like my brain is bleeding...

[rayshul]

That place is not a debate forum. It's supposed to be a haven away from having their self-worth as human beings questioned. If they start allowing those kinds of debates there, then it ceases to serve its purpose, and becomes just like all those other places they are trying to get away from.

Rayshul's quote made me think about this quote, and about these people's feelings that the rest of the world somehow considers them less than human. There is discrimination out there, but I think a level of discrimination bad enough to make someone feel like they're not fully human is extremely rare.

I think some people just are on edge and ready to take offence at anything. They get a weird kick out of it. Being offended en masse is great fun, it seems...

[rayshul]

That guy is a little bitch.

I agree with your assessment of Adam Lee. He gives me the same reaction I get to Laden, oddly. Mouth puke. Just not someone I would ever want to encounter IRL in any circumstance.

[Ape+lust]

I was doing ok until she compared how she does Art to the scientific method - ending with when it goes up on her website its like putting it up for peer review.

I've never been the same since

As the residential art student, I feel obligated to chime in with my thorough and educated analysis:

Sulky Amy said:
...but when you really break down the creative process, it's very similar to the scientific method...

No. Just....fucking NO.

I haven't been an art student in many years (I did go to the Henry Wadsworth Longfellow School for the Creative and Performing Arts, though), but... holy shit, what is wrong with her? I mean... what the fucking fuck? What the everloving fuck? Is my brain bleeding? It feels like my brain is bleeding...

A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Cargo Cultist:

"Artists and scientists are very similar in their process when they are trying to come up with something new or make a new discovery. An artist comes up with a hypothesis as to what their next piece of art might be. They gather data or supplies from what is available to them. They experiment and make a detailed analysis of those supplies, combining them in new ways to produce more data and finally a piece of art. They then come to conclusions as to whether the art is acceptable or complete. Finally that art is released into the world to be peer reviewed by an audience of consumers or other artists. While not necessarily as strict of an interpretation as in the sciences, it still illustrates the similarities of the creative process that is used in both fields."

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sym ... of-reason/

Makes me think of this infamous nitwit:

[youtube]kA6rUU0K9xE[/youtube]

[Michael K Gray]

Atheism Plus Social Justice Update Pt. 2: Feeding the Troll

Has anyone told you that you don't sound a bit like Carl Sagan?
(I dare you to covertly insert "Biwwions and biwwions" somewhere in your next production.)

[Skep tickle]

Just a few minutes ago...

Atheism+ Forum:

In total there are 19 users online :: 6 registered, 2 hidden and 11 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes) ...
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], JessicaRabbit, Mocha, SubMor, Yukimi

The Slyme Pit:

In total there are 23 users online :: 6 registered, 0 hidden and 17 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes) ...
Registered users: [6 names, none is a Bot]

[Michael K Gray]

I am being serious for this post:
It is no wonder, (to me at least), that the obviously well-meaning but very naïve Jen is suffering from depression.

I contend that it is a curious transferred form of metaphorical post-natal depression.

Her joy at the birth of her bouncing baby A+Theism Logo, (father unknown, but suspected to be a small town Ass Prof) has proven to be an abject failure by any account, and subject of intense world-wide mockery.

They say that our Great Ideas are our offspring, (males have these possessive drives as well), and that we take it very personally when our magna opera are criticised, even rightly, as though they were somehow our mental children.

So, have a care to at least understand her transferred grief, no matter how "silly" you may think it of her.

[Michael K Gray]

Just a few minutes ago...

Atheism+ Forum:

In total there are 19 users online :: 6 registered, 2 hidden and 11 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes) ...
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], JessicaRabbit, Mocha, SubMor, Yukimi

The Slyme Pit:

In total there are 23 users online :: 6 registered, 0 hidden and 17 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes) ...
Registered users: [6 names, none is a Bot]

Another stat of interest to me is the number of users who post with their real-world name.

[Steersman]

Tue Oct 16, 2012 4:48 pm

FFS I’ve seen a couple over there seriously suggesting that the ‘@SamanthaBoals’ troll really might be Rebecca Watsons friend! No depths of stupidity are too deep when you hate your foes

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-310504

And you wonder why people have you on "ignore"? ...

That was enough to put him on my ignore list.

I hope you didn’t do that because Lsuoma was threatening to do that to you because you were responding to oolon.

Because in one sense at least I think he was entirely correct: several here – Scented Nectar and Renee Hendricks – did in fact suggest, in effect at least, that “the ‘@SamanthaBoals’ troll really might be Rebecca Watsons friend” – at least in the sense that sockpuppets tend to be used by friends to support the arguments of their friends or by individuals in support of themselves:
http://i49.tinypic.com/351cpl1.jpg
But in another sense I think oolon is seriously out to lunch in his conclusion that “no depths of stupidity are too deep …” [generally an open question otherwise] since Scented Nectar was obviously not prepared to give much credence to the efforts of the supposed “friend” of Watson’s to discredit both Watson and Myers with some apparently highly specious and spurious if not, as SN suggested, totally irrelevant gossip.

And actually oolon, it was your nemesis PZM who leaped, simply from the single acknowledged shakey and entirely hypothetical case of the “sock” described by SN, to the conclusion, accusation and premise that it is Pit dogma or an article of faith that:

So for years and years, Rebecca Watson’s bestest friends have been cobbling up sock puppet accounts to send her hate mail.

Seems to me that you [oolon] – and PZM – might want to delve into the details a little more closely before making such sweeping conclusions ….

[gooby]

As the residential art student, I feel obligated to chime in with my thorough and educated analysis:

Sulky Amy said:
...but when you really break down the creative process, it's very similar to the scientific method...

No. Just....fucking NO.

Well, science, as well as mathematics, and art are both creative endeavors. The same psychopathological traits would appear to undergird all these disciplines—even though art in principle allows more divergent thinking (i.e. you don't have to follow as many rules, if any), it should be noted that even the most rule-driven technical domains have seen their fair share of lunatics: Georg Cantor died in a sanitarium, Bertrand Russell lived in fear of going mad like his relatives did, Kurt Gödel starved to death out of belief that all food was poisoned, and of course we can't forget this guy either:

http://i.imgur.com/B9fFM.jpg

That being said, Surly Amy's analogy, art as a form of hypothetico-deductive inference, is very strange. Because the idea that enters your head isn't an induction or abduction which you are trying to test. It should have the inspired character of a sudden, sharp abduction but it isn't an explanation or a prediction. It's "hey, why don't I do this and see what comes of it?", that's all. And the stuff you gather isn't "evidence" (or, in the H-D model, potential counterevidence), it's just fucking supplies. And finally, at least in my opinion, making art shouldn't fundamentally be about seeking approval from others (re: the "peer review" part of her analogy). It should be about I'm doing this because fuck you, that's why.

In short, it's amusing the level of skill these retards expect of their opponents while they fawn over turds like Sulky Amy.

[gooby]

In other news, PeeZus keeps losing fans:

http://i.imgur.com/CovHa.png

Pretty soon he might even be grateful for all the peanuts we throw him.

[gooby]

Oops. Smaller version for convenience:

http://i.imgur.com/VFQuq.png

[Steersman]

I am being serious for this post:
It is no wonder, (to me at least), that the obviously well-meaning but very naïve Jen is suffering from depression. … So, have a care to at least understand her transferred grief, no matter how "silly" you may think it of her.

You old softie, you …

Although you might also shed a tear or two for the grief at least apparently manifested by several other women on “that” side of the fence over the verbal harassment they’ve received. Misogyny, as the recent speech by the Australian PM indicated, is apparently a rather prevalent problem, although one can also reasonably argue that far too many are far too quick to characterize reasonable criticisms as that ….

[Michael K Gray]

The same psychopathological traits would appear to undergird all these disciplines

WTF?
Passive tense, impenetrable phraseology, unnecessary words, (and that is just in that sub-phrase), leads to a request:-
could you please say that in a way that I might understand your intent?
Or are you just having fun with "meaningless songs sung in very high voices"?
Because they give me the HeeBeeGeeBees.
[youtube]T-gZKRKNy4w[/youtube]
PS: I take it that you are NOT a scientist.
Please correct me should I be in error.

[Philip of Tealand]

FYI -Just finished a conversation with Abbie Smith, probably have podcast up Wed
PS- She is really smart...I know you knew that but I mean really smart

AHAAAA! I suspected as much!

Abbie, your secret is now all over the internet now!

:D

[gooby]

The same psychopathological traits would appear to undergird all these disciplines

WTF?

No "WTF" necessary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity ... al_illness

A longer discussion of this topic can be found in volumes like the Cambridge Handbook of Creativity.

Here's a short news article on the subject:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10154775

And finally, as an added hint, adding the term "(low) latent inhibition" to web searches into the connection between creativity and mental illness will bring up a good number of meaningful results.

[gooby]

And since you had an outburst over nothing, I'd just like to be a pedantic asshole and add that I did not use the passive voice in that sentence.

If I had, it would, it would have been "All these disciplines would appear to be undergirded by the same psychopathological traits."

In any case, active or passive voice, I stand by what I said.

[Trophy]

No, I think from where I was sitting people were talking at cross purposes. You guys need to sit down and have a beer together.

I love you Dilurk! You should drop by more often :).

[Michael K Gray]

In any case, active or passive voice, I stand by what I said.

But, are you a scientist?

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Si I'm both crazy and doing something akin to science? Sweet!

[gooby]

In any case, active or passive voice, I stand by what I said.

But, are you a scientist?

In a manner of speaking, yes, I use statistical methods to find patterns in raw data i.e. data mining, which you could consider a very computational, stylized approach to the scientific method.

I'm confused though. Why is this relevant again?

[Philip of Tealand]

[youtube]rtOUWCKBKB8[/youtube]

Lowbar:

The long-awaited Atheism Plus update with the required level of snark, random humor, and baby otters

Shout outs go to

The Slyme-Pit: http://www.slymepit.com

The ever-amusing YouTuber boogie2988, whose character clip I shamelessly lifted.

MyCatsareMyGodsfor her fanatical belief in 'Becca

People (you know who you are) who send me the dirt.

The massive butt-hurt that is Atheism Plus and Freethought Blogs.

And, as always the Endymion Ensemble, The London Voices, Terry Edwards & Dominic Muldowny for their indispensable music for the film adaptation of Nineteen Eighty-Four.



Part Two still mixing down, will upload before I sleep the sleep of the lulz-y.

You may owe me a new laptop as this one is covered in Tea from too much bursting into laughter!

Really good videos, not only do they point out the worst of the nonsense of the FtB, Atheism +, Skepchick crowd but they also have that really cool guitar music too!

Seriously, well done, I enjoy watching your videos a ton!

Cheeeeeeeers!

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Reap: podcast with Abbie??? Ooooh, linky as soon as available please!

[Pinker]

Mykeru:

:clap: :lol: :clap: :clap:
Your videos are magnificent.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Great videos Mykeru. Oh, and "Anton Lavey impersonator Matt Dillahunty"?

Why do you hate our laptops so much?

[Michael K Gray]

In any case, active or passive voice, I stand by what I said.

But, are you a scientist?

In a manner of speaking, yes, I use statistical methods to find patterns in raw data i.e. data mining, which you could consider a very computational, stylized approach to the scientific method.
I'm confused though. Why is this relevant again?

You referred to science as a "psychopathological trait", (vis: clearly meaning, not implying, irrespective of your very and obviously passive "would appear to undergird", that scientists are mentally ill) and that scientists have "had their fair share of lunatics", and employ obscure terminology, restricted to psycho-philosopho-mavens, such as "abduction" in its obscure and fairly meaningless sense of induction, but with a weak rationale.
These I take to be the outpourings of someone with science-envy.

You seem to be as much a "scientist" to me, as is Surly Aimee.
That is why it is "relevant" to me, "again [sic]".
What are your formal qualifications by which to cement your claim to being a scientist, "in a manner of speaking"?

[TheMan]

[youtube]rtOUWCKBKB8[/youtube]

Lowbar:

The long-awaited Atheism Plus update with the required level of snark, random humor, and baby otters

Shout outs go to

The Slyme-Pit: http://www.slymepit.com

The ever-amusing YouTuber boogie2988, whose character clip I shamelessly lifted.

MyCatsareMyGodsfor her fanatical belief in 'Becca

People (you know who you are) who send me the dirt.

The massive butt-hurt that is Atheism Plus and Freethought Blogs.

And, as always the Endymion Ensemble, The London Voices, Terry Edwards & Dominic Muldowny for their indispensable music for the film adaptation of Nineteen Eighty-Four.



Part Two still mixing down, will upload before I sleep the sleep of the lulz-y.

You may owe me a new laptop as this one is covered in Tea from too much bursting into laughter!

Really good videos, not only do they point out the worst of the nonsense of the FtB, Atheism +, Skepchick crowd but they also have that really cool guitar music too!

Seriously, well done, I enjoy watching your videos a ton!

Cheeeeeeeers!

I resemble this comment and a great eye opener for me.

Those poor otters.

[Lost Moose]

I am being serious for this post:
It is no wonder, (to me at least), that the obviously well-meaning but very naïve Jen is suffering from depression.

I contend that it is a curious transferred form of metaphorical post-natal depression.

Her joy at the birth of her bouncing baby A+Theism Logo, (father unknown, but suspected to be a small town Ass Prof) has proven to be an abject failure by any account, and subject of intense world-wide mockery.

They say that our Great Ideas are our offspring, (males have these possessive drives as well), and that we take it very personally when our magna opera are criticised, even rightly, as though they were somehow our mental children.

So, have a care to at least understand her transferred grief, no matter how "silly" you may think it of her.

In a seriously serious manner, I was thinking along a similar line, that since she passed her General exam in May. Does she have some degree of Post Achievement Depression? But I know nothin' 'bout physo-psyco-brain-stuff!

[gooby]

You referred to science as a "psychopathological trait", (vis: clearly meaning, not implying, irrespective of your very and obviously passive "would appear to undergird", that scientists are mentally ill)

Perhaps not full-blown mentally ill, but having traits along a continuum that starts in boring normality and ends in abject craziness. Psychometric tests for schizotypy for example don't give you a yes or no response, they put you on a statistical distribution. Some people have a lot of these traits, some people have virtually none. Most people are somewhere in the middle. Some people have just enough that they are actually useful (see below).

N.b. there are some advantages to having these traits.

In fact I think normal people are somehow worse off.

and that scientists have "had their fair share of lunatics"

Yeah—that's not really in question. It can be determined true or false with a quick glance at some people's biographical details. It is true.

and employ obscure terminology, restricted to psycho-philosopho-mavens, such as "abduction" in its obscure and fairly meaningless sense of induction, but with a weak rationale.

Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. It's wank. Complete and utter wank:

http://i.imgur.com/HxxBX.png

Software implementations of abductive inference are based on logic, and logic is philosophy, and as we all know, philosophy is nothing but aimless navel-gazing. And I am an aimless navel-gazer. You've exposed me as the charlatan I really am. Well done.

These I take to be the outpourings of someone with science-envy.

Not one bit. I myself have some of the "psychopathological traits" in question, need to control them with Seroquel, and see them as an asset regardless. They allow me to see things from a rather detached, alien perspective.

You seem to be as much a "scientist" to me, as is Surly Aimee.

And you seem to be an idiot to me.

What are your formal qualifications by which to cement your claim to being a scientist, "in a manner of speaking"?

An MS in computer science. (Think they'd call that "MSc" in your neck of the woods?)

In all seriousness: you should just quit now, while you're slightly behind.

[Michael K Gray]

Perhaps not full-blown mentally ill, but having traits along a continuum that starts in boring normality and ends in abject craziness.

That's quite a bit of lee-way that you have pulled out of thin air there.
From zero to hero.
From 0 to ∞!
And with a single bound, the hero is free from his previous assertions!
You made the very, very clear claim, in clear and unambiguous terms, that scientist are pathological nutjobs.
Don't try and squirm out of it now that you have been sprung.

Psychometric tests for schizotypy for example don't give you a yes or no response, they put you on a statistical distribution. Some people have a lot of these traits, some people have virtually none. Most people are somewhere in the middle. Some people have just enough that they are actually useful (see below).

What a load of gobbledegook Deepak Chopra garbage!
A spectrum of pure bullshit.
An "out" for all seasons.
You cannot lose with such a loose definition.
I'm not going to stand for such chicanery.

N.b. there are some advantages to having these traits.

Which "traits"?
Psychopathology, schizotypy, mentally ill (but not "full blown"), or some other philosophico-psychobabble word?

In fact I think normal people are somehow worse off.

Define "normal", please. Do you mean neurotypical, or the average female citizen in rural China?
If you mean Aperger's Syndrome, then I am forced to agree, but you might have clearly outlined that from the outset, rather than shotgunned the entire spectrum from completely sane to the utterly Mabus by which to make your point.

and that scientists have "had their fair share of lunatics"

Yeah—that's not really in question.

Well, YES: it IS IN QUESTION, as I was asking that exact fucking question!!
Are you Oolon in disguise?
I strongly question the "fare share of" adjectival projunct¹ to your bold assertion.
Define "fair share of". I used to think that I knew what it meant, but now still do assume that I know what it means.

It can be determined true or false with a quick glance at some people's biographical details.

More fucking passive tense. At least you have superior grammar than that which Oolon displays, I shall 'give you' that.
But your passive assertion is without the foundation of evidence, nor examples.
It stands as a mere assertion. Resting on the very shaky pedestal of your unproven personal authority.
Which, given that you choose to remain entirely anonymous amongst the bazzillion humans on this planet, and that I am a singularly identifiable individual ape, renders your erstwhile claim to authority as (as a first approximation) nil.

It is true.

Oh, alright then.
I stand corrected.
A voice from on high hath informed me.
(Or is that paraformed me? I can never quite get the hang the hang of these philosophical word-games)

and employ obscure terminology, restricted to psycho-philosopho-mavens, such as "abduction" in its obscure and fairly meaningless sense of induction, but with a weak rationale.

Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. It's wank. Complete and utter wank:

Whilst I, with my Aspergery-sense, can see that remark as sarcasm, it has the ring of truth to it.

What are your formal qualifications by which to cement your claim to being a scientist, "in a manner of speaking"?

An MS in computer science. (Think they'd call that "MSc" in your neck of the woods?)

Yes, you count (with me) as a scientist. Honestly. And you are quite correct in your regional "MSc" nomenclature.

In all seriousness: you should just quit now, while you're slightly behind.

The day that I take advice from an entirely anonymous internet poster, is the day that I believe that I have won the Reader's Digest $2,000,000 lottery.
_____________________
¹ Dr. Johnson meets Blackadder

[Jan Steen]

The Americans can’t get over the unhampered use of ‘cunt’ abroad, as attested by this dialogue from the ever-funny, USA-centric A+ forum:

(http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 388#p32349)

http://i.imgur.com/zyoI3.jpg

Not just the Brits, apparently, have memoryholed the original meaning of cunt because of rampant misogyny. In the Netherlands the word ‘kut’ (cunt) is a common, rude swear word, used by men and women alike, not to denote a person, but to express anger or dismay. Not only the names of female genitalia are so used, however. In Dutch, the equivalent of an asshole (male only) is ‘klootzak’ (scrotum), and to indicate in a rude way that something is of poor quality, the prefix ‘klote’ (derived from testicle) is often attached to a noun. For example, ‘klotefiets’ is something you may shout to your bicycle (‘fiets’) when you have a punctured tyre. ‘Kut’ can be used in the same way (‘kutfiets’), but is considered somewhat ruder. The female equivalent of ‘klootzak’ (asshole) would be ‘klotewijf’ (‘wijf’ is a rude form of ‘woman’, almost equivalent to bitch), while ‘kutwijf’ is even more offensive. So there may be some gender inequality in play.

[Michael K Gray]

In Dutch, the equivalent of an asshole (male only) is ‘klootzak’ (scrotum), and to indicate in a rude way that something is of poor quality, the prefix ‘klote’ (derived from testicle) is often attached to a noun. For example, ‘klotefiets’ is something you may shout to your bicycle (‘fiets’) when you have a punctured tyre. ‘Kut’ can be used in the same way (‘kutfiets’), but is considered somewhat ruder. The female equivalent of ‘klootzak’ (asshole) would be ‘klotewijf’ (‘wijf’ is a rude form of ‘woman’, almost equivalent to bitch), while ‘kutwijf’ is even more offensive. So there may be some gender inequality in play.

Dat is je mannelijke privilege wordt onthuld.

[rayshul]

:geek:

Re Altair's earlier comments and quotes...

Was watching an episode of Elementary where they had an AA meeting.

The telling of the life stories, talking to an audience, revealing shit, etc, is very much what A+ forums seems to do.

[rayshul]

Also on the Australian PM having a little shout about misogyny, I'm fairly sure that was a political move to direct attention away from something she fucked up, which made papers start reporting that she had "let down women (wtf)". Shouting MISOGYNIST at someone else, particularly a dickwit like the opposition, was a smart derail.

Not a fan of the Australian PM.

[Michael K Gray]

:geek:
Re Altair's earlier comments and quotes...
Was watching an episode of Elementary where they had an AA meeting.
The telling of the life stories, talking to an audience, revealing shit, etc, is very much what A+ forums seems to do.

Save for the fact that admitted drug addicts have a physiological reason to attend such fora, as ineffective as they may be.
That reason is to seek an escape from their destructive addiction.

Yet A+Theism is the polar opposite.

The participants actively seek to prolong and enhance their suffering and addiction to pity.
It is a drug to them.
They join A+Theism not to abandon their plainly self-destructive obsessions, but to amplify them!
Et tu, Flewellenæ?

[rayshul]

:geek:
Re Altair's earlier comments and quotes...
Was watching an episode of Elementary where they had an AA meeting.
The telling of the life stories, talking to an audience, revealing shit, etc, is very much what A+ forums seems to do.

Save for the fact that admitted drug addicts have a physiological reason to attend such fora, as ineffective as they may be.
That reason is to seek an escape from their destructive addiction.

Yet A+Theism is the polar opposite.

The participants actively seek to prolong and enhance their suffering and addiction to pity.
It is a drug to them.
They join A+Theism not to abandon their plainly self-destructive obsessions, but to amplify them!
Et tu, Flewellenæ?

It is imitating the AA meeting style except that the point where you take responsibility is absent, and all you get is the pity and the attention and agreement.

[Michael K Gray]

It is imitating the AA meeting style except that the point where you take responsibility is absent, and all you get is the pity and the attention and agreement.

[Imagine in Rowan Atkinson fey voice]

Erm, hell-oh, I'm a bit nervous, erm, um.
Ha ha.
My name is, erm, well, Marmaduke, and I am, um, a rapist...
No! ERM! Not an actual rapist but erm a "potential" erm rapist, you understand.
Well, um, I've been potentially been an erm rapist since 1957, (is that right Ophelia?), yes: since 1957 whatever.
Phew!
I'm glad that bit is over. I was dreading it as much as my parking fine that got when overstaying the limit outside the local Women's Lesbian's Shelter for nearly-battered spouses just up the erm, road? (if that's not a sexist term ah hah aha), oh deary me, I plum forgot where I was now. Oh, thankyou Greta. At the two-hourly meeting of emasculated "men", or is that "xen" now, I never can keep up.
And a warm um welcome to erm Matt, is that right? Yes, Matt in the corner there. With the ice-pack on his groin.

Now I seem to have strayed from my erm notes here a bit.
Perhaps I should just let the president of A+Theism work me like the marionette that I am!
Please give a warm welcome to:
The Puppet-Master, PX Ximself!!
Yay Fozzie!
The bear's a comedian! The comedian's a bear! (What's with the hat? Doesn't that make him a queer or summink?)

[gooby]

You made the very, very clear claim, in clear and unambiguous terms, that scientist are pathological nutjobs.

Some are; I gave examples which I will repeat below; I don't think anyone would really contest them. Most aren't, at least not the extent that you think people are trying to assassinate you, but see below for clarification. Scientific creativity, as well as other forms of creativity, are in any case associated with a certain measure of psychopathological traits. I stand by that; I'm not backing down from that claim; I'm not changing it; and I have no reason to do so, because there's quite a lot of research to that effect—not all of it is any good, but quite a bit is:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=psy ... creativity

Don't try and squirm out of it now that you have been sprung.

No "trap"; you just can't read.

Psychometric tests for schizotypy for example don't give you a yes or no response, they put you on a statistical distribution. Some people have a lot of these traits, some people have virtually none. Most people are somewhere in the middle. Some people have just enough that they are actually useful (see below).

What a load of gobbledegook Deepak Chopra garbage!
A spectrum of pure bullshit.
An "out" for all seasons.
You cannot lose with such a loose definition.
I'm not going to stand for such chicanery.

http://www.nelft.nhs.uk/_documentbank/o ... scales.pdf

The Oxford-Liverpool Inventory of Feelings and Experiences (O-LIFE) is an instrument based on analysis of what is probably the largest single dataset of schizotypal measures (Claridge et al., 1996). It contains four sub-scales called 'Unusual Experiences', 'Cognitive Disorganisation', 'Introvertive Anhedonia' and 'Impulsive Nonconformity'. Since its introduction, the O-LIFE has enjoyed wide currency. Early work established its high internal consistency (Mason et al., 1995) and test–retest reliability (Burch et al., 1998). It has also been used in a variety of studies across many research domains, firmly establishing its construct validity as a genuine measure of schizotypal traits. Laboratory investigations have demonstrated predictable effects in relation to neuropsychological function (e.g. Avons et al., 2003); on several perceptual and attentional paradigms (e.g. Steel et al., 2002); in psychophysiological responding (e.g. Mason et al., 1997a); on reasoning tasks (e.g. Sellen et al., 2005) and in learning, notably on measures of 'latent inhibition' (e.g. Moran et al., 2003). Differences have also been found in hemispheric function: for language task performance (Nunn and Peters, 2001), face processing (Mason and Claridge, 1999), and handedness (Shaw et al., 2001). With clinical relevance, the O-LIFE has been used successfully to investigate schizotypy in relation to such topics as dissociative experience and childhood abuse (Startup, 1999) and paranormal beliefs and experiences as a function of mental health (Goulding, 2004).

and:

http://i.imgur.com/Qv95M.png

Soooo ... submitting a psychometric to rigorous empirical testing and quantifying what it means is "psychobabble" and a (presumably Gaussian) distribution of the traits measured is in Deepak Chopra territory.

Can you expand upon this a bit?

N.b. there are some advantages to having these traits.

Which "traits"?
Psychopathology, schizotypy, mentally ill (but not "full blown"), or some other philosophico-psychobabble word?

I have the divergent thinking that attends schizotypy in mind, whose potential is borne about by a good many things, like say, the study I mentioned a few posts ago:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10154775

Some of the world's leading artists, writers and theorists have also had mental illnesses - the Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh and American mathematician John Nash (portrayed by Russell Crowe in the film A Beautiful Mind) to name just two.

Creativity is known to be associated with an increased risk of depression, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

Similarly, people who have mental illness in their family have a higher chance of being creative.

Associate Professor Fredrik Ullen believes his findings could help explain why.

He looked at the brain's dopamine (D2) receptor genes which experts believe govern divergent thought.

He found highly creative people who did well on tests of divergent thought had a lower than expected density of D2 receptors in the thalamus - as do people with schizophrenia.

The thalamus serves as a relay centre, filtering information before it reaches areas of the cortex, which is responsible, amongst other things, for cognition and reasoning.

"Fewer D2 receptors in the thalamus probably means a lower degree of signal filtering, and thus a higher flow of information from the thalamus," said Professor Ullen.

He believes it is this barrage of uncensored information that ignites the creative spark.

This would explain how highly creative people manage to see unusual connections in problem-solving situations that other people miss.

Even measured and interpreted at the biological level, I'm guessing this is still gonna be new age voodoo for you.

Define "normal", please. Do you mean neurotypical, or the average female citizen in rural China?
If you mean Aperger's Syndrome, then I am forced to agree, but you might have clearly outlined that from the outset, rather than shotgunned the entire spectrum from completely sane to the utterly Mabus by which to make your point.

So you believe the pop-psychology about how "every scientist ever had Asperger's because they were weird" but you don't take stock in more rigorous psychological work, upheld with responsible application of statistical methodology, chucking it in the same drawer as chakras and crystal healing.

Wonder of wonders...

Well, YES: it IS IN QUESTION, as I was asking that exact fucking question!!

Then why are you asking that question? A number of scientists and mathematicians were pretty clear-cut certifiable. Nash, who I just mentioned (several times actually), believed at one point that he was the "emperor of Antarctica" and that he was depicted as Pope John XXIII on the cover of LIFE Magazine. Is that not crazy?

Are you Oolon in disguise?

Do you have an extra chromosome?

I strongly question the "fare share of" adjectival projunct¹ to your bold assertion.

Rates of psychopatholological traits above those seen in the general population.

This from The Dark Side of Creativity for instance:

Take the positive association between high-level creativity and psychoticism (Eysenck, 1995): People who score high on psychoticism are not just more creative than the norm but also more aggressive, cold, unempathetic, antisocial, impulsive, impersonal, egocentric, and tough-minded; even worse, they often engage in more “overinclusive” or “allusive” thinking that at times can border on the weird. Even scientists, who are supposedly the least pathologic of creators, are far from representing exemplars of goodness. On the contrary, highly eminent scientists tend to be (a) withdrawn, skeptical, internally preoccupied, precise, and critical as well as (b) introspective, restrained, brooding, and solemn of manner (Cattell, 1963).

More fucking passive tense.

"Passive voice" and there's nothing wrong with using it.

But your passive assertion is without the foundation of evidence, nor examples.

I already gave you FOUR in the field of mathematics: Cantor, Gödel, Nash and Russell (OK he was kind of borderline, but there are quite a few others—Norbert Wiener for example displayed pretty clearly defined manic-depressive characteristics).

It stands as a mere assertion. Resting on the very shaky pedestal of your unproven personal authority.

It stands because I just gave you a bunch of examples which you have somehow managed to overlook and will in all likelihood overlook again.

Which, given that you choose to remain entirely anonymous amongst the bazzillion humans on this planet, and that I am a singularly identifiable individual ape, renders your erstwhile claim to authority as (as a first approximation) nil.

Oh great, ad hominem.

I'm wrong because I choose to preserve my anonymity.

Whilst I, with my Aspergery-sense, can see that remark as sarcasm, it has the ring of truth to it.

Yes, using abductive inference to assist medical personnel is wank. Utter wank. Check and mate. You win.

The day that I take advice from an entirely anonymous internet poster

See above.

Honestly for the purposes of this discussion I could be a high school dropout and you'd still have your head deep, deep up your ass.

If you're gonna portray yourself as a "true skeptic" then you need to stop pretending that who a person is has any relevance to the truth value of their claims.

[gooby]

And re: your claim that abduction is a degenerate form of induction, from Abductive Inference - Logical Investigations into Discovery and Explanation:

[W]e shall understand abduction as reasoning from a single observation to its abductive explanations, and induction as enumerative induction from samples to general statements. While induction explains a set of observations, abduction explains a single one. Induction makes a prediction for further observations, abduction does not (directly) account for later observations. While induction needs no background theory per se, abduction relies on a background theory to construct and test its abductive explanations. (Note that this abductive formulation does not commit ourselves to any specific logical inference, kind of observation, or form of explanation.)

This not counting of course because logic is psychobabble. The computer you are shooting off your next shitwitted response on, for example, does not at all rely on this "logic" for its operations, nor was the bullshit artist C.S. Peirce—who coined the term "abduction" in the logical sense—the first to suggest, in the 19th century, that a "logical" "computing" "device" could be built from "electrical" "switching elements" like "relays".

[gooby]

"I have the divergent thinking that attends schizotypy in mind, whose potential is borne about"

Should be "borne out".

My jimbobs get really flustered when I'm dealing with stupidity of this magnitude and it is easy to make clerical errors like this.

[Keating]

Also on the Australian PM having a little shout about misogyny, I'm fairly sure that was a political move to direct attention away from something she fucked up, which made papers start reporting that she had "let down women (wtf)". Shouting MISOGYNIST at someone else, particularly a dickwit like the opposition, was a smart derail.

Not entirely. Some background is needed to put it into context. Tony Abbott, the leader of the Opposition, is known for having 'questionable' views on women. For example, as Health Minister during the previous government, he made his anti-abortion views well known and said some rather off-colour things about women as a result. The real catalyst for the Prime Minister's speech actually dates from the week before. There is a talk-back radio host in Sydney who is fairly powerful, and very right wing; Alan Jones, and to say he doesn't like the Labor Party (currently in government) would be an understatement. He has said things like Gillard should be put in a sack and thrown out to sea. Anyway, the Prime Minister's father died a couple of weeks ago. The PM didn't make a big deal of it publicly, but Alan Jones said he 'died of shame' (albeit he didn't think he was on the record at the time). The PM didn't respond, but she was clearly very hurt by the remark. Just before the PM's speech, Abbott claimed the government should 'die of shame'. That's clearly what set the Prime Minister off. This speech is more the release of the combined weight of the various attacks that have been made on the Prime Minister since she took over the job, some of which have definitely been sexist, and triggered by Abbott's attempt to rub salt into the still fresh wound of her father's death.

Not a fan of the Australian PM.

I'm more disappointed. Gillard was my choice for Prime Minister during the Howard era. I was never a fan of Kevin Rudd, but watching Julia Gillard perform in parliament was a thing of beauty. Unfortunately, she brought none of that passion to the role of Prime Minister, add numerous questionable policies and many moral back downs in the name of political expediency and she hasn't been the Prime Minister I hoped for. I found this speech another example of the disappointment I feel in her, because it reminds me of the passion I thought she'd bring to the role of Prime Minister.

[Michael K Gray]

If you're gonna portray yourself as a "true skeptic"...

But: you see, I do not forward myself as a "true skeptic".
And I shall leave to other readers to determine as to our respective bona fides.

I hereby terminate our intercourse.
Not on the basis of your chronic faux juvenile, nay: puerile¹ protestations that I "have won", which I shan't accept as entirely sincere, (even though they may well plausibly be, one never knows), but on the basis that I do not have the time to waste on recidivist wankers.

My cast-irony Soviet era Bullshit-detector is peaking at 7 and a half Sagans.

I propose to not interact with you further², as interaction seems rather less than fruitful at this juncture, but I wish you well in your Kampf, nonetheless.
Others, apart from you or I, shall have to judge as to whose style they prefer between us.
__________________
¹ With its implications that one must be male to be puerile, accept my apologies if you happen to be female and gynile.
² Lest it be for legal reasons

[papillon]

:geek:

Re Altair's earlier comments and quotes...

Was watching an episode of Elementary where they had an AA meeting.

The telling of the life stories, talking to an audience, revealing shit, etc, is very much what A+ forums seems to do.

" - Hmm, thank you. Thank you for sharing that raysul. Now, would anyone else like to share their story?"
*nervously clears throat* .... My name is papillon and I'm riddled with guilt about my privilege
" - Thank you papillon, acknowledgement is often the hardest step. Would you like a biscuit?"
Are they ethically produced free trade ones?
"- Yes, of course"
Er, no thank you, I'll stick with the Lark's tongues. I'm having dinner with the Patriarchy after this.
" - Oh, ok, so next up is Rebecca, and she's going to talk about how oppressed her vagina is.."

[gooby]

If you're gonna portray yourself as a "true skeptic"...

But: you see, I do not forward myself as a "true skeptic".
And I shall leave to other readers to determine as to our respective bona fides.

I hereby terminate our intercourse.
Not on the basis of your chronic faux juvenile, nay: puerile¹ protestations that I "have won", which I shan't accept as entirely sincere, (even though they may well plausibly be, one never knows), but on the basis that I do not have the time to waste on recidivist wankers.

My cast-irony Soviet era Bullshit-detector is peaking at 7 and a half Sagans.

I propose to not interact with you further², as interaction seems rather less than fruitful at this juncture, but I wish you well in your Kampf, nonetheless.
Others, apart from you or I, shall have to judge as to whose style they prefer between us.
__________________
¹ With its implications that one must be male to be puerile, accept my apologies if you happen to be female and gynile.
² Lest it be for legal reasons

So let me summarize this:

• You tell me that the research I'm referring to is "psychobabble" without no real reason why.
• I point out how the O-LIFE inventory stands up very well to validity measures, has generated testable predictions across multiple domains, etc. and how neural, directly physical correlates of creativity as psychoticism pan out as expected by theory, etc., etc., etc.!
• In response, you don't address this or anything else I presented—in considerable detail!—but instead come up with this hoity-toity horseshit about how you have the high ground and oh my what riff-raff you are and basically declare yourself the winner by default, as far as I can tell.

Forum, what do you think of this disgraceful exchange?

[gooby]

*with no real reason

[Jan Steen]

In Dutch, the equivalent of an asshole (male only) is ‘klootzak’ (scrotum), and to indicate in a rude way that something is of poor quality, the prefix ‘klote’ (derived from testicle) is often attached to a noun. For example, ‘klotefiets’ is something you may shout to your bicycle (‘fiets’) when you have a punctured tyre. ‘Kut’ can be used in the same way (‘kutfiets’), but is considered somewhat ruder. The female equivalent of ‘klootzak’ (asshole) would be ‘klotewijf’ (‘wijf’ is a rude form of ‘woman’, almost equivalent to bitch), while ‘kutwijf’ is even more offensive. So there may be some gender inequality in play.

Dat is je mannelijke privilege wordt onthuld.

Michael, did you use Google Translate? Your Dutch is ungrammatical, but I suppose you wanted to say, 'That is your male privilege showing.'

Now where did I hear that one before?

[papillon]

:geek:

Re Altair's earlier comments and quotes...

Was watching an episode of Elementary where they had an AA meeting.

The telling of the life stories, talking to an audience, revealing shit, etc, is very much what A+ forums seems to do.

[youtube]0AgZwHIsH-E[/youtube]

[gooby]

lol naive use of Google Translate as well

what a fucking wanker

[mikelf unplugged]

Forum, what do you think of this disgraceful exchange?

He said that he terminated your intercourse. Your continued responding to him is an act of rape.

/baboolie

[Jan Steen]

Forum, what do you think of this disgraceful exchange?[/quote]

I think it's above anything else off topic. Let's not turn this site into the equivalent of PZ's Thunderdome, that wellspring of pointless BS.

[gooby]

Well, framed in those terms, it could be said on the other hand that he was acting like Twatson.

[Michael K Gray]

Michael, did you use Google Translate? Your Dutch is ungrammatical, but I suppose you wanted to say, 'That is your male privilege showing.'
Now where did I hear that one before?

Yes, mea culpa. My usual 'go to' Dutch translator has 'gone to meet the choir invisible', and thus the resort to Google.
Son of a decorated war-hero. Michelson.
He told me about the unpronounceable accent 'shibboleth' word that the Dutch underground used during WW2.
Used to reliably distinguish a true Nederlander from a Nazi imposter.
I'll remember the word in a while.
And not "vriend". I am sure that it was longer than that.

Oh yes! It was "Scheveningen"!
I pride myself on my mimicry, but my attempts to reproduce it in front of an all Dutch family had them in laughing-fitd to the point of collapse.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I'd rather drink myself to death than go to a AA meeting.

Gooby: you should try to get more familiar with Michael and his views on philosophy and such. He's certainly not a wanker, by any shade of perception. The way I see it, your initial post about this topic was a bit too general. Yes, there are, and have been, and will be, great scientists who are also loons (mostly about fields other than their own). Einstein would be a good exemple, as he spent his last years barefoot to "toughen up" for the oncoming nuclear winter.

Still, your phrasology and choices of terms sound a bit Tuppak Sha...err Deepak Chopra. Not an assessment of your character, maybe more one of my inability to read correctly, or Michael's Asperger.


Why the fuck am I getting into these discussions I don't care about?

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Oh yes! It was "Scheveningen"!

Hey, that's where my grand-father used to have his movie-subtitles factory. He taught Paul Verhoeven how to use an edit table. I went there almost every summer when I was about 7/8. The Pier was my favorite place.

What do you mean "who cares"?

[Jan Steen]

Michael, did you use Google Translate? Your Dutch is ungrammatical, but I suppose you wanted to say, 'That is your male privilege showing.'
Now where did I hear that one before?

Yes, mea culpa. My usual 'go to' Dutch translator has 'gone to meet the choir invisible', and thus the resort to Google.
Son of a decorated war-hero. Michelson.
He told me about the unpronounceable accent 'shibboleth' word that the Dutch underground used during WW2.
Used to reliably distinguish a true Nederlander from a Nazi imposter.
I'll remember the word in a while.
And not "vriend". I am sure that it was longer than that.

Oh yes! It was "Scheveningen"!
I pride myself on my mimicry, but my attempts to reproduce it in front of an all Dutch family had them in laughing-fitd to the point of collapse.

Yes, it was 'Scheveningen' (name of a place near The Hague). Had I been a member of the Dutch resistance, I would have chosen the far more difficult 'Oegstgeest' (name of a place near Leiden), which would have betrayed even the most cunning Gestapo spy.

But I should not get off-topic myself now, that would be A+ grade hypocrisy.

[Tigzy]

@Mykeru

Excellent vids! 'Somewhere, a cat is going unfed.' :lol: :lol: :lol: