Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 3322
1
Literate Chaotic / Re: Fanfics of the other kind.
« on: Yesterday at 10:44:17 pm »
Do you have anything with Juggalos?

Mlp and juggalos? the ICP kind or the prostitute kind?

There is only one kind of juggalo. The other word you are thinking of is "gigolo".

What's amazing is that I've used that bit, and it went totally over my head in this thread.   :lulz:

 :lol: I love it when you respond about juggalos with information about gigolos.

2
Literate Chaotic / Re: Fanfics of the other kind.
« on: Yesterday at 10:43:29 pm »
Outside of the scientific community, it's a little known fact that cringing is a defensive mechanism designed to protect the cringer from Nigelling. Tensing up, ducking the head and tightening the abdomen are all classic signs that a person is trying to defend themselves from an imminent attack. The attacker being defended against was unknown until recently. Modern image-capturing technology has allowed us a slow-motion glimpse at people cringing, giving us our first look at a glimmer of Nigel sidling up to each and every one of them.

We now know that when horrifically objectionable and awkwardness inducing content is viewed, Nigel will almost without fail and through the misunderstood power of quantums, make a brief appearance behind and slightly to the side of the viewer of the materal and inspect it over their shoulder, vibrating at a menacing frequency and gibbering with delight. At a primal level, the viewer of the material becomes aware of this presence and the mind recoils in horror, the limbic system tries to wrest control of the body away, misfiring the fight-or-flight engine once or twice before giving up and settling down again leaving the viewer with either a confused boner or a deep sense of shame and regret.

And Nigel? Oh, Nigel. Nigel disappears into the night to consume the awkwardness of another poor soul.

 :lulz:

3
The Big Bang one is probably the one that upsets me the most. The science geeks, god bless them, think they can convince unreasonable people with reasonable arguments when all they're doing is legitimizing an absurd idea by merely giving it the time of day.

This is almost always correct.  I would say the counter-example was the Nye/Ham debates, where Nye used Ham as an example of the ridiculous.  He gave him the time of day, but it wasn't a very good time for Ham...It wasn't so much a debate as a monologue delivered with a crazy person rambling in the background.

I guarantee you that not only does Ham think he "won" the debate, but that he and his followers believe that he handed Nye his ass.

In the meantime, he's become a household name.

Bill Nye isn't done losing my respect, though. My understanding is that he has also recently spent a lot of time with Monsanto scientists and is now ready to sing the virtues of commercial GMO crops, and is revising his book accordingly.

4
So my internet at home has shit the bed.

Complication: My ex is still paying for it. We have talked about this several times and he is convinced that he isn't, but HE IS.

I guess when you make that kind of money a little thing like accidentally paying your ex-wife's utilities for seven years is no biggie. However, the problem is that I can't GET THIS FIXED without him unless I tell Comcast that I'm moving to my house and need new service, in which case in a week and a half they will come out and charge me $50 to "hook up my service".

5
Acted human.

Yeah, I know.   :sad:

It's still like he just shat all over the future.  I've decided to hang on for 6 weeks, in order to get my revenge (Lillie has a history of this, I have discovered, and I hate her and I don't feel like being fair), and to see if the new boss we get is going to cut the mustard.  If there's no light at the end of the tunnel by then, I bail.

Maybe the new boss will be better than you anticipate.

6
Or Kill Me / Re: Uncurious monkeys
« on: March 04, 2015, 11:06:08 pm »
Well, you're certainly not addressing your assumptions directly.

Nigel, I really appreciate your role in this thread, it's instructive to more than just one.

Thanks, I'm trying. It's good to know that I'm not wasting my time.

7
So then I got an email from the neuroimaging lab, wanting to touch bases and asking me for all the things I have already sent them. Twice.

It's a sign.

8
I want to do SCIENCE in a SNAKE LAB.

With actual snakes, one presumes?

Corn snakes are awesome.  Hopefully the lab has those.

They are actually adorable garter snakes, which IMO are the cutest snakes of all.

I realized today that if there is anything that this class has taught me, it's that I don't want to work in behavioral neuroscience. Behavioral neuroscience is essentially the interface of psychology and neuroimaging, and I realized today that the thing about it is that it is neuroimaging is to neuroscience what geography is to geology; it makes a great map, but it doesn't tell you much about the territory.

Garter snakes are good too.  Those and ball pythons are acceptable corn snake substitutes.

Awww ball pythons!  They're so sweet. Little sweet bundles of snaky sweetness.

9
Also HI GUYS IT'S FINALS.

AND MIDTERMS

YOU SAY THAT LIKE IT IS SOME KIND OF A JOKE BUT I HAD A FINAL LAST WEEK AND NEXT WEEK I HAVE A MIDTERM AND A FINAL FOLLOWED BY FINALS.

SEND HELP.

10
That's an awesome analogy.

Thanks! I admit I'm a little proud of myself for that one.

12
I want to do SCIENCE in a SNAKE LAB.

With actual snakes, one presumes?

Corn snakes are awesome.  Hopefully the lab has those.

They are actually adorable garter snakes, which IMO are the cutest snakes of all.

I realized today that if there is anything that this class has taught me, it's that I don't want to work in behavioral neuroscience. Behavioral neuroscience is essentially the interface of psychology and neuroimaging, and I realized today that the thing about it is that it is neuroimaging is to neuroscience what geography is to geology; it makes a great map, but it doesn't tell you much about the territory.


13
Your employers are criminals, dude. Wow.

Trust me, it's really NOT just his. Or the UK.

And really, really, not a minority either.

ETA - Well that sounds condescending as fuck. Not the intention/tone.

I happen to live in the asshole of the West coast, but everyone I've worked for has turned out to be either criminally negligent (drivers well known for checking their phones while driving vans full of people resulting in speeding through red lights and many episodes of high speed near misses yet management continues to let them drive, repeatedly returning from group field trips without individuals who have severe mental retardation and are essentially small children in adult bodies), requiring outright fraud as part of their verbal policy, and all of them engaged in wage theft (requiring work related duties to be done off the clock, not fixing "errors" on their timesheets but only if it screws the employee).

I just walked out of my last job after accruing enough savings to get me by while I look for legit work. I knew it was going to be bad here but I wasn't prepared for how prevalent the nepotism, incompetence, and casual fraud actually would be. And that's just the clearly illegal behavior, which is just the tip of the shitberg that I've personally witnessed. I know they all aren't this way, but holy hell is it hard to find an even halfway decent place to work. You wouldn't know this is the West coast from visiting here, you'd be positive you're in a depressed Midwest shithole full of shady scumbags that just happens to have an astonishing number of bike lanes that no one uses.

When did you move to Sacramento?

14
Or Kill Me / Re: Uncurious monkeys
« on: March 04, 2015, 09:02:53 pm »
Let me walk you through what I meant when I asked you what assumptions you are making with the questions I quoted.

Behind every single question you asked, there is an assumption. In some cases you are flat-out begging the question. When you ask a question, it's not an insignificant part of the critical thinking process to start with examining whether the assumptions behind the question are valid. I will go through these one at a time.


What assumptions are you making with these questions, and are you curious about whether they're sound assumptions?

...don't you agree that this is strange?

Why are (adult) humans so very not curious?

Show them something they don't know or understand, and they shy away or get offended and rationalize it as unimportant. Why??

What happens during a human's growing up process to kill that curiosity?

What happened to our species to make us blind?

What happened to some of us to have avoided it?

Quote
...don't you agree that this is strange?


The assumption is that it is strange.

Quote
Why are (adult) humans so very not curious?

The assumption is that adult humans lack curiosity.

Quote
Show them something they don't know or understand, and they shy away or get offended and rationalize it as unimportant. Why??

The assumption is that your statement, that adults are avoidant of things they are unfamiliar with or don't understand, is true.

Quote
What happens during a human's growing up process to kill that curiosity?

The assumption is that our curiosity is destroyed during our maturation process.

Quote
What happened to our species to make us blind?

The assumption is that our species is blind.

Quote
What happened to some of us to have avoided it?

The assumption is that some of us retained our curiosity. The subtext is that this is unusual, and that those who have retained curiosity into adulthood are special.

Essentially, the entire post read as "here are my assumptions, please validate them so that I feel validated in my sense of specialness".

I was curious whether you were able to look at the questions you posed, and see the subtext, which is really extremely obvious.

I was also curious about whether you have the capacity for curiosity to ask yourself, and perhaps others, whether the assumptions you made in each question is valid, and to look around for evidence to support or to falsify them.

I'm mostly curious about whether you show any actual indications of intellectual curiosity other than simply proclaiming yourself more curious than other people, which isn't curiosity, it's just narcissism.

Next, I will be curious to see whether you respond to this post by continuing to shy away or get offended and rationalize it as unimportant, because the irony is delicious.

15
Or Kill Me / Re: Uncurious monkeys
« on: March 04, 2015, 08:43:46 pm »
Examining your own beliefs is a learned skill.  It takes practice.
I know, I'm doing my best.



axod - Suppose we must on some level assume we know and notice enough to consider our judgment sound. Open to reconsideration and adjustments upon receiving new data, but still stable enough as to not be crippled with

Then the question regards the importance of what we care about noticing, recognizing and carying-on.  Is there something then perhaps, not itself percieved, that goes about ordering their relevance according to an a priori unifying principle?  Otherwise my capacity for "sound judgement" may result arbitrary and incomplete.  Funny business.
I think so. People who reject science in favor of their gut instinct have a different "judging thing" than those who do the opposite. I think you can even alter that thing, start consciously valuing some kind of stimuli higher than others, and eventually it'll come instinctively.
Say the alteration you mention fashions consciousness to be an emergent property, like a self-correcting/learning/evolutionary algorithm.  What is it that allows said experience to be something that particularly concerns you?  Imagine a world of objects percieved absolutely without relevance.
Huh, that's a good question. Of course people have to assign value to everything, rank them in importance, so it is not really strange that they do so in different manners. I guess I'm curious about what allows us to be so different.
Aha, so, is it possible, for the ground of similarity, which enables said distinction, to then also be itself both part and parcel of the percieved?  Or, does the set of all sets contain itself?
Hrrm. Tough. But I'd say yes, the very fact that we're discussing it means it can and is perceived, and as such can be judged. What do you suppose this ground of similarity is, exactly, though? Men can have vastly different outlooks, for many reasons, even on things as seemingly basic as "pain is bad" or "eating is good". Or do you mean a more general basis, higher-tier so to speak?

But you're still not actually going to put any time or thought into taking apart your own questions and critically examining the assumptions behind them, are you?
Consider that your critical thinking and analytic skills may differ from mine, so much that what for you takes little effort to see is not the same for me, rather than me being in denial or too precious to question myself. Because I'd like to understand what you're getting at, but I really don't.

I'm going to be completely honest here, and say that I flat-out assumed from the beginning that my critical thinking and analysis skills are different from yours. The reason for that is because they ARE skills, learned skills that don't come especially easily or naturally to most people, and I've been working on them for a long time.

As Howl said, it takes practice. I keep asking you questions because that's where you start; if you can't come up with your own critical questions, answering other people's gives you a good launching-off point.

But you don't seem to want to ask or answer questions about your assumptions or the validity of your statements, so I can't help concluding that you aren't interested in improving your critical thinking skills. Which is too bad, really, because you don't seem stupid, but ultimately it means that you and I will probably have little to talk about, and I love a good conversation.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 3322