Jun 05 2008
∞
I WON FIRST PLACE!!!!
My essay that I submitted to the San Juan Chamber of Commerce Essay Contest won first place! Out of 50,000 kids in the CUSD I am THE BEST!!!
Jun 04 2008
∞
This is the last week I’ll be able to drive my car! *sob*
So I took some pictures to remember it by.
+
∞
The true story of the time I invented my own religion & converted followers
This is absolutely awesome. A must read. Especially for theists.
May 29 2008
∞
Sanders' Commencement Address
It’s not much advice, but going into Colby it’s really interesting to read. Probably not interesting to anybody else. But hey, this blog is 50% for posterity, so shut your yap.
+
∞
Does Stupid Hurt?
- Fruvous: Another thread has brought my mind round to something that's been on my mind a lot lately, because it's proven to be key to a lot of my psychology.
- I really, really don't want to have to talk to regular people. It's painful and I am not good at it. Always, I am afraid of that wrenching moment when the enormous gulf opens up between me and the other person, where one second I am relating to them fairly successfully, and the next, they are looking at me like I am an alien, and I feel helpless and horrible. Worse, I feel exposed.... as though I was an alien only passing as human, and now that my cover is blown, the wrath of the herd will come down on me.
- This has not been true since the playground of my elementary school.
- Does anyone else on here find themselves in this sort of situation, where you are scared of having to deal with "normal" people?
- AutisticCuckoo: I think it's something you can learn to cope with, if you only realise that you can't expect everyone to be like you. Yes, some people can cause a lot of frustration, but they generally don't do it to be a nuisance. They may very well find it scary to have to talk to the likes of us, too.
- Fruvous: Oh, I am sure they do find it scary to talk to the likes of us. Moreso, really, because intelligence is possibly the most frightening advantage one can have over people.
- SOMjunkie: I admit that at times it can be very frustrating. I work in customer service, so sometimes I get frustrated when I try to explain a very difficult concept in the simplest of terms. It all comes down to relating. I think the biggest thing that my wife has taught me is that just because something is different, doesn't make it inferior or wrong. It just a different way of looking at the world.
- zoophilia: I know what you mean. I always feel like I am introducing a concept into their mind that is causing them neuronal pain because it means reinterpreting the associations they've built up over 30+ years in an instant. You just have to find people that are on a similar level to you.
- Monte314: I have observed that brightest people have discovered how to learn something from people on different intellecual levels from themselves.
- One of my little sayings is, "If you think you are so much smarter than someone that you can't learn something from them, then you are not as smart as you think."
- brianh: The type of attitude of I am smarter than everybody else will lead you into a elitist trap.
- I have met people like that and back in my twenty's I was one.
- People are different they have strengths and weaknesses you have a social one, they have a technical or whatever your conversation was about.
- Delivery is key not everybody is on the same page you are.
- OneHertz: the poisonous snake is afraid of you more than you are of it.
- Frickles: Anytime you think of yourself as fundamentally different from everybody else even before you've entered conversation you're probably going to have a hard time relating. In the end you probably have more in common with "normal people" than you think.
+
∞
ColorFlip.com by Rafaël Rozendaal, collection of Sébastien de Ganay
Not sure what this is. But it’s fun.
May 28 2008
∞
How moral realism CAN exist (without god)
- Marcus Brutus: The theist often accuses the atheist that without a divine law giver, morality is ultimately going to be subjective, as opposed to objective. And even if the atheist resorts to saying that morality is an evolved trait within humans, it still seems that ultimately when we choose to uphold a moral principle there is a degree of arbitrariness about it. Is this problem solveable? I believe so.
- In the same way spatial differences can exist between two objects (i.e. stick A is longer than stick B or rock X is heavier than rock Y), differences in equality can exist in two different outcomes. Consider the case of two children sharing a bowl 20 of jellybeans. Child A takes 15 jelly beans leaving child B with 5 jelly beans. If child B was to exclaim "Thats inequitable! You have no right to more jelly beans than me, we should divide them evenly!" then i believe he is making a moral statement. And furthermore, it is a statement that is ultimately based upon logic as opposed to an arbitrary moral absolute.
- For imagine if everyone existed "outside" of reality. They did not know who they would be in reality, they did not know if they would be born in to a rich or a poor family, if they would be particularly mentally/physically gifted or what not. Then their rational decision to maximise their odds of sucess in reality, would be to choose a system of outcomes that is ultimately equtiable. Any decision which has to do with morality then, i believe also has to do with equality. And furthermore, it seems that such morality can then exist while being extrapolated from purely rational principles.
- What do you all think?
- (And just as a side note, this is not necessarily a support for communism; it would seem equitable that people be rewarded according to their productive input. A capitalistic system seems to be a way (albeit imperfect) of achieving such an outcome.)
- thod: Only under your system of morality. It is quite possible to conceive of someone who believes that they have a "God given right" to a greater share. You see this all the time with Americans feeling they have a right to consume more resources and thus have a higher standard of living than a Chinaman. In the Darwinian systems we see in nature there is no attempt at equality since there is no enforcer. Whoever is the stronger takes the lions share with the weaker fighting for the scraps. This, "might is right", could be argued to be the most moral system of all since it reflects the nature of reality. The only reason to go for an equitable system is if this can be shown to produce better results for the strong.
- Myself: Check out the whole thread. http://intjforum.com/showthread.php?t=5156
May 26 2008
∞
San Juan Capistrano Basically Thinks I'm The Shit
So I got a call from the San Juan Capistrano Chamber of Commerce today about an essay contest that I entered a couple weeks ago and….
I WON!!!
So I get to go to a big fancy shmancy awards ceremony and get honored. The awards are scholarships ranging from $250 to $1000. I hope I get the latter!
So if you want you can check out the essay I submitted here.
+
∞
Obliteration by Incorporation - Susceptibility of INTJs?
As an INTJ (“Scientist” per se) I often find myself always wanting hard, tangible, reliable facts to base my objective thought upon, no matter what the subject at hand. As I perceive the world through my own eyes I usually apt to seeking information that is relative to what I am thinking and/or concerned about. In this process though, I find myself quoting or referring to criterial evidence that I have come across at one point or another, but lacking the knowledge of or even memory of seeing its source… and I have wondered why this is (I find it rather embarrassing, too).
When I take in all information possible, I many times fall into the habit of caching it in the back of my mind, generally as a “whole picture” concept that pertains to a particular subject. It remains there until the need to recall it comes up. However, the source of such information is lost, misconstrued, or even becomes entangled with other sources that have no correlation. Information also becomes so embedded into my mind that I see it as “general knowledge” instead of a theory or concrete esoteric fact (ties into my dislike of incompetency). To counter this, I often need to research [again] to acquire either my source or its origin.
I made reference of this to my Sociology teacher at school, and she said it sounded like Obliteration by Incorporation (OBI). Upon learning of this, I have found that:
Obliteration by Incorporation (OBI) occurs when at some stage in the development of a science, certain ideas become so accepted that their contributors are no longer cited or given credit to. Eventually, its source and creator are forgotten as the concept enters “common knowledge.”
Building upon this notion, OBI indicates that both the original idea, concept, or proposition of a subject are forgotten, due in part to widespread use, knowledge of the general populace, or irrelevant to the task at hand.
(Referring to my class notes. Alas, a source I remember!)
Does anyone else find that their thought processes follow this trend, where the source of the information they refer to is lost or forgotten, yet specific facts are not? Is this a trait of an INTJ mind, ignorance of paying heed to sources, or something else? Share your thoughts and experiences.
As a test, do not “research” or perform any outside source acquiring. Go by what has solely been retained by your mind :)Building upon this notion, OBI indicates that both the original idea, concept, or proposition of a subject are forgotten, due in part to widespread use, knowledge of the general populace, or irrelevant to the task at hand. (Referring to my class notes. Alas, a source I remember!) Does anyone else find that their thought processes follow this trend, where the source of the information they refer to is lost or forgotten, yet specific facts are not? Is this a trait of an INTJ mind, ignorance of paying heed to sources, or something else? Share your thoughts and experiences. As a test, do not “research” or perform any outside source acquiring. Go by what has solely been retained by your mind :)
See the thread here.
May 25 2008
∞
This is an amazing video. You must watch it. (if you want optimum quality, watch it on the Vimeo site and make sure HD is turned on)
I don’t think it’s for or against war. It’s broader than that. It’s about human motivations. It’s about humanity and its relative values. I’d love to have a group conversation about this with people who know what they’re talking about.
+
∞
Does Evolution have a purpose?
- rocksteady: I know, it's traditional for humans to wrongly view themselves as the center of the universe, but when thinking in terms of evolution, why? What is causing this, why is this the way of the world. Is it a computer program written by some god-like species? I know it is a bit fantastic to think in this direction, but I have always had a sense of unease when thinking of the nature of evolution.
- Ian: The word Purpose implies a goal or pr-planned end product - nature does not have these; nature joes 'is' and just 'does'.
- The concept of evolution is man's attempt to try to understand how the natural variation from one generation to another, to another in a sequence in which successive generations may have some ort of advantage in their environment. If the do - then there is a chance that they will out-survive their peers, if they don't there is a chance that they will not, so the advantaged siblings are in a better position to pass on their genes.
- The advantage does not have to be major; maybe slightly different colouring to allow them to hide better in that environment, it may be that they can run or swim faster, or see better or have slightly thicker fur, gradual changes over time to allow them to store fat and sleep during winter months.
- Not planned, not pre-destined, just 'is'.
- GOD: Ok, if we assume Earth was seeded from genetic material (bacteria etc) that came from an external source... then it’s obvious that the path of evolution via DNA could be following its predetermined Unidirectional path.
- I had a really off beat theory that any life form +10b years (As there are sun systems about 14b years old) more advanced, may well have evolved to lose their physical existence (Their decision as its more functional to send encoded data around the Universe and then recreate physical existence at the destination)... However, that would not explain why we're still not in contact. So, I realized that just perhaps life itself could be a unique existence allowing aliens to feel and live like they once did... In effect Earth is an amusement park that we share for our lifetimes in the ultimate escapist reality.
- To me, the Universe is probably teaming with the basic building blocks for life and I think that Earth is just part of some spawn, just like a desert island gets populated by the floating coconut seed.
- brewmaster: God,
- I find your theory interesting, and have had similar theories in the past.
- There is a theory put forth by evolutionary biologists that DNA itself is the only important molecule. In that it, not the organisms that it inhabits, is the 'intelligent' being that insists upon its survival. It evolves to continue its survival, and continues to interact with other DNA molecules to create elaborate beings to diversify itself.
- I didn't explain that very well because I pretty much ignored that theory when I heard it. The reason is that bacteria, the first lifeform, is far more adaptive than any other organism. So why the need to evolve to create organisms that are less adaptive, when the current vehicle is so adaptive that it can simply diversify within it?
- If you want some interesting reading try googling 'RNA world' if you have access to it go for the scientific journals. Possibly try scholar.google.
- Jeff in his blog: This conversation quickly explodes into a couple really engaging subconversations. Take a look at it: http://intjforum.com/showthread.php?t=1246