|
On January 19 2011 10:00 Alexson wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 07:27 Danjoh wrote:On January 16 2011 17:38 DTK-m2 wrote:On January 16 2011 16:35 .Aar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Pretty interesting read. Too bad most of this is stuff I don't care about, and would make me sound like a huge douchebag for correcting others for.
"YOU KNOW THERE'S ACTUALLY NO EVIDENCE VIKINGS WORE HORNS ON THEIR HELMETS. THAT'S A POP CULTURE FABRICATION." I learned most of this in that one cracked article of misconceptions. It would makes sense for Vikings to not have horns, of course, because they're basically handlebars for other people. If you're fighting a Viking that has horns on his helmet, you just grab them with your hands and you have pretty good control of his head. You steer it down, and either you bring him to his knees or he loses his helmet. Neither outcome is favorable. Also in the cracked article, I believe, was the fact that ninjas never wore all black, because that makes you stand out and says to everyone, "HEY LOOK I'M A NINJA." It would make much more sense for ninjas to just wear normal clothes, because that's what allows them to blend in. + Show Spoiler +
Also, those ancient Greek statues apparently were not all shining white. The paint chipped off over time, but apparently the Greeks painted them all sorts of trippy rainbow colors.
And of course you don't go around blatantly correcting others for, but if you're already on the topic of misconceptions, somehow (hey, who knows, it's possible) and someone brings up vikings or something, it's interesting stuff to know.
What if the Ninja was operating in the middle of the night? Wouldn't it make sense if he wore black clothes then to easier blend in with the shadows? Blacks actually a bad choice for this, blue would be better.
Isn't dark red the most difficult color for the human eye to pick out in low light?
|
On January 19 2011 10:03 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 10:00 Alexson wrote:On January 17 2011 07:27 Danjoh wrote:On January 16 2011 17:38 DTK-m2 wrote:On January 16 2011 16:35 .Aar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Pretty interesting read. Too bad most of this is stuff I don't care about, and would make me sound like a huge douchebag for correcting others for.
"YOU KNOW THERE'S ACTUALLY NO EVIDENCE VIKINGS WORE HORNS ON THEIR HELMETS. THAT'S A POP CULTURE FABRICATION." I learned most of this in that one cracked article of misconceptions. It would makes sense for Vikings to not have horns, of course, because they're basically handlebars for other people. If you're fighting a Viking that has horns on his helmet, you just grab them with your hands and you have pretty good control of his head. You steer it down, and either you bring him to his knees or he loses his helmet. Neither outcome is favorable. Also in the cracked article, I believe, was the fact that ninjas never wore all black, because that makes you stand out and says to everyone, "HEY LOOK I'M A NINJA." It would make much more sense for ninjas to just wear normal clothes, because that's what allows them to blend in. + Show Spoiler +
Also, those ancient Greek statues apparently were not all shining white. The paint chipped off over time, but apparently the Greeks painted them all sorts of trippy rainbow colors.
And of course you don't go around blatantly correcting others for, but if you're already on the topic of misconceptions, somehow (hey, who knows, it's possible) and someone brings up vikings or something, it's interesting stuff to know.
What if the Ninja was operating in the middle of the night? Wouldn't it make sense if he wore black clothes then to easier blend in with the shadows? Blacks actually a bad choice for this, blue would be better. Isn't dark red the most difficult color for the human eye to pick out in low light?
I'm not sure about that, but I know for sure black isn't, because the average nighttime environment isn't actually solid black, but rather a combination of various dark shades, so wearing a solid color would actually make you more visible.
|
On January 19 2011 10:18 Alexson wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 10:03 Haemonculus wrote:On January 19 2011 10:00 Alexson wrote:On January 17 2011 07:27 Danjoh wrote:On January 16 2011 17:38 DTK-m2 wrote:On January 16 2011 16:35 .Aar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Pretty interesting read. Too bad most of this is stuff I don't care about, and would make me sound like a huge douchebag for correcting others for.
"YOU KNOW THERE'S ACTUALLY NO EVIDENCE VIKINGS WORE HORNS ON THEIR HELMETS. THAT'S A POP CULTURE FABRICATION." I learned most of this in that one cracked article of misconceptions. It would makes sense for Vikings to not have horns, of course, because they're basically handlebars for other people. If you're fighting a Viking that has horns on his helmet, you just grab them with your hands and you have pretty good control of his head. You steer it down, and either you bring him to his knees or he loses his helmet. Neither outcome is favorable. Also in the cracked article, I believe, was the fact that ninjas never wore all black, because that makes you stand out and says to everyone, "HEY LOOK I'M A NINJA." It would make much more sense for ninjas to just wear normal clothes, because that's what allows them to blend in. + Show Spoiler +
Also, those ancient Greek statues apparently were not all shining white. The paint chipped off over time, but apparently the Greeks painted them all sorts of trippy rainbow colors.
And of course you don't go around blatantly correcting others for, but if you're already on the topic of misconceptions, somehow (hey, who knows, it's possible) and someone brings up vikings or something, it's interesting stuff to know.
What if the Ninja was operating in the middle of the night? Wouldn't it make sense if he wore black clothes then to easier blend in with the shadows? Blacks actually a bad choice for this, blue would be better. Isn't dark red the most difficult color for the human eye to pick out in low light? I'm not sure about that, but I know for sure black isn't, because the average nighttime environment isn't actually solid black, but rather a combination of various dark shades, so wearing a solid color would actually make you more visible.
That's only true if you're outside and in the moonlight. You choose black because of the lack of sunlight which leads to many more shadows (which are also much darker, almost to the point of pitch black). You don't choose black to be less visible out in the moonlight, you choose black to be less visible in the shadows.
|
On January 19 2011 10:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 10:18 Alexson wrote:On January 19 2011 10:03 Haemonculus wrote:On January 19 2011 10:00 Alexson wrote:On January 17 2011 07:27 Danjoh wrote:On January 16 2011 17:38 DTK-m2 wrote:On January 16 2011 16:35 .Aar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Pretty interesting read. Too bad most of this is stuff I don't care about, and would make me sound like a huge douchebag for correcting others for.
"YOU KNOW THERE'S ACTUALLY NO EVIDENCE VIKINGS WORE HORNS ON THEIR HELMETS. THAT'S A POP CULTURE FABRICATION." I learned most of this in that one cracked article of misconceptions. It would makes sense for Vikings to not have horns, of course, because they're basically handlebars for other people. If you're fighting a Viking that has horns on his helmet, you just grab them with your hands and you have pretty good control of his head. You steer it down, and either you bring him to his knees or he loses his helmet. Neither outcome is favorable. Also in the cracked article, I believe, was the fact that ninjas never wore all black, because that makes you stand out and says to everyone, "HEY LOOK I'M A NINJA." It would make much more sense for ninjas to just wear normal clothes, because that's what allows them to blend in. + Show Spoiler +
Also, those ancient Greek statues apparently were not all shining white. The paint chipped off over time, but apparently the Greeks painted them all sorts of trippy rainbow colors.
And of course you don't go around blatantly correcting others for, but if you're already on the topic of misconceptions, somehow (hey, who knows, it's possible) and someone brings up vikings or something, it's interesting stuff to know.
What if the Ninja was operating in the middle of the night? Wouldn't it make sense if he wore black clothes then to easier blend in with the shadows? Blacks actually a bad choice for this, blue would be better. Isn't dark red the most difficult color for the human eye to pick out in low light? I'm not sure about that, but I know for sure black isn't, because the average nighttime environment isn't actually solid black, but rather a combination of various dark shades, so wearing a solid color would actually make you more visible. That's only true if you're outside and in the moonlight. You choose black because of the lack of sunlight which leads to many more shadows (which are also much darker, almost to the point of pitch black). You don't choose black to be less visible out in the moonlight, you choose black to be less visible in the shadows.
So many armchair ninjas in this thread.
|
On January 19 2011 11:02 FrostOtter wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 10:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2011 10:18 Alexson wrote:On January 19 2011 10:03 Haemonculus wrote:On January 19 2011 10:00 Alexson wrote:On January 17 2011 07:27 Danjoh wrote:On January 16 2011 17:38 DTK-m2 wrote:On January 16 2011 16:35 .Aar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Pretty interesting read. Too bad most of this is stuff I don't care about, and would make me sound like a huge douchebag for correcting others for.
"YOU KNOW THERE'S ACTUALLY NO EVIDENCE VIKINGS WORE HORNS ON THEIR HELMETS. THAT'S A POP CULTURE FABRICATION." I learned most of this in that one cracked article of misconceptions. It would makes sense for Vikings to not have horns, of course, because they're basically handlebars for other people. If you're fighting a Viking that has horns on his helmet, you just grab them with your hands and you have pretty good control of his head. You steer it down, and either you bring him to his knees or he loses his helmet. Neither outcome is favorable. Also in the cracked article, I believe, was the fact that ninjas never wore all black, because that makes you stand out and says to everyone, "HEY LOOK I'M A NINJA." It would make much more sense for ninjas to just wear normal clothes, because that's what allows them to blend in. + Show Spoiler +
Also, those ancient Greek statues apparently were not all shining white. The paint chipped off over time, but apparently the Greeks painted them all sorts of trippy rainbow colors.
And of course you don't go around blatantly correcting others for, but if you're already on the topic of misconceptions, somehow (hey, who knows, it's possible) and someone brings up vikings or something, it's interesting stuff to know.
What if the Ninja was operating in the middle of the night? Wouldn't it make sense if he wore black clothes then to easier blend in with the shadows? Blacks actually a bad choice for this, blue would be better. Isn't dark red the most difficult color for the human eye to pick out in low light? I'm not sure about that, but I know for sure black isn't, because the average nighttime environment isn't actually solid black, but rather a combination of various dark shades, so wearing a solid color would actually make you more visible. That's only true if you're outside and in the moonlight. You choose black because of the lack of sunlight which leads to many more shadows (which are also much darker, almost to the point of pitch black). You don't choose black to be less visible out in the moonlight, you choose black to be less visible in the shadows. So many armchair ninjas in this thread.
Hey now I was a fuckin' boss at laser tag like 15 years ago. Clearly we know what we're talking about, lol.
|
On January 19 2011 11:02 FrostOtter wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 10:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2011 10:18 Alexson wrote:On January 19 2011 10:03 Haemonculus wrote:On January 19 2011 10:00 Alexson wrote:On January 17 2011 07:27 Danjoh wrote:On January 16 2011 17:38 DTK-m2 wrote:On January 16 2011 16:35 .Aar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Pretty interesting read. Too bad most of this is stuff I don't care about, and would make me sound like a huge douchebag for correcting others for.
"YOU KNOW THERE'S ACTUALLY NO EVIDENCE VIKINGS WORE HORNS ON THEIR HELMETS. THAT'S A POP CULTURE FABRICATION." I learned most of this in that one cracked article of misconceptions. It would makes sense for Vikings to not have horns, of course, because they're basically handlebars for other people. If you're fighting a Viking that has horns on his helmet, you just grab them with your hands and you have pretty good control of his head. You steer it down, and either you bring him to his knees or he loses his helmet. Neither outcome is favorable. Also in the cracked article, I believe, was the fact that ninjas never wore all black, because that makes you stand out and says to everyone, "HEY LOOK I'M A NINJA." It would make much more sense for ninjas to just wear normal clothes, because that's what allows them to blend in. + Show Spoiler +
Also, those ancient Greek statues apparently were not all shining white. The paint chipped off over time, but apparently the Greeks painted them all sorts of trippy rainbow colors.
And of course you don't go around blatantly correcting others for, but if you're already on the topic of misconceptions, somehow (hey, who knows, it's possible) and someone brings up vikings or something, it's interesting stuff to know.
What if the Ninja was operating in the middle of the night? Wouldn't it make sense if he wore black clothes then to easier blend in with the shadows? Blacks actually a bad choice for this, blue would be better. Isn't dark red the most difficult color for the human eye to pick out in low light? I'm not sure about that, but I know for sure black isn't, because the average nighttime environment isn't actually solid black, but rather a combination of various dark shades, so wearing a solid color would actually make you more visible. That's only true if you're outside and in the moonlight. You choose black because of the lack of sunlight which leads to many more shadows (which are also much darker, almost to the point of pitch black). You don't choose black to be less visible out in the moonlight, you choose black to be less visible in the shadows. So many armchair ninjas in this thread.
Anyone who have read Terry Pratchett knows that a smart assasin wears a mix of dark green, brown and grey.
|
On January 19 2011 07:47 SCdinner wrote:
Your logic assumes that people's will power allows for their desire to no have childern to overpower their desire to have sexual intercourse. This is not the case in many people and the fact that many people have unwanted children even though they have easy access to contraceptives prooves your assuption to be faulse.
People's willpower does not actually need to be THAT strong. For one thing, people can restrict themselves to oral and anal. Furthermore, even if that's not good enough for them, simply using the withdrawal method is actually much more effective than most people would assume from their high school sex-ed classes (if they even have any =[ )
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/withdrawal-pull-out-method-4218.htm
"Of every 100 women whose partners use withdrawal, 4 will become pregnant each year if they always do it correctly."
In other words, you can have regular sex (as in several times per week) for an entire year and as long as you always pull out there's only a 1 in 25 chance of the girl getting pregnant. Assuming the average couple has sex 150 times per year that's 0.0026% chance of getting pregnant per sex act.
Mature adults simply are not as virile as you might think and even some people actually trying to get pregnant may have to have sex dozens or hundreds of times before actual pregnancy occurs.
Teenagers are the most virile and the most likely to get unintentionally pregnant but most societies that for whatever reason do not have access to contraceptives generally greatly restrict the freedom of teenagers compared to first world societies that DO have easy access to contraceptives. Consequently, the rate of unintended teen pregnancies is actually higher in countries with better access to contraceptives even though by your logic we would assume the opposite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_incidence_of_teenage_pregnancy
|
On January 19 2011 17:43 Hautamaki wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 07:47 SCdinner wrote:
Your logic assumes that people's will power allows for their desire to no have childern to overpower their desire to have sexual intercourse. This is not the case in many people and the fact that many people have unwanted children even though they have easy access to contraceptives prooves your assuption to be faulse. People's willpower does not actually need to be THAT strong. For one thing, people can restrict themselves to oral and anal. Furthermore, even if that's not good enough for them, simply using the withdrawal method is actually much more effective than most people would assume from their high school sex-ed classes (if they even have any =[ )
I think the women would love that... "sorry hun, i dont want any children so from now on i will only take you in the ass and let you blow me". '
Expecting people to NOT have sex does not work on a larger scale.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/withdrawal-pull-out-method-4218.htm
"Of every 100 women whose partners use withdrawal, 4 will become pregnant each year if they always do it correctly."
In other words, you can have regular sex (as in several times per week) for an entire year and as long as you always pull out there's only a 1 in 25 chance of the girl getting pregnant. Assuming the average couple has sex 150 times per year that's 0.0026% chance of getting pregnant per sex act.
Mature adults simply are not as virile as you might think and even some people actually trying to get pregnant may have to have sex dozens or hundreds of times before actual pregnancy occurs.
Problem with withdrawal is that it is so increadibly easy to fail... And then suddenly the rate goes from 4 to 27 women per year. Granted, if you can do it perfect every time it is somewhat safe, but the risk inwolved is very big unless the couple have a lot od experience and no alcohol is involved.
From that site "Pull-out-method is not recommended for teens and sexually inexperienced men because it takes lots of experience before a man can be sure to know when he's going to ejaculate"
That coupled with the significat risk even if you do it perfectly, makes it a very flawed contraception even under the best circumstances.
Teenagers are the most virile and the most likely to get unintentionally pregnant but most societies that for whatever reason do not have access to contraceptives generally greatly restrict the freedom of teenagers compared to first world societies that DO have easy access to contraceptives. Consequently, the rate of unintended teen pregnancies is actually higher in countries with better access to contraceptives even though by your logic we would assume the opposite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_incidence_of_teenage_pregnancy
I see a lot of information going both ways in that article, the fact that netherlands have a really low birth and abortion rate aswell as one of the countries that spends most time on education about sex and contraception for example. Or that the biggest reason for USA's decline in teen births are credited to contraceptions. And by "greatly restricting teenagers" you mean having young girls marry at young age and knocking them up regardless of thier own wishes then yeah, i agree.
Swedish RSFU (National Society for Sexual awareness) have succesfully run sexual awareness and education projects in:
Baltic countries, Russia, China, India, Mongol, Wietnam, Tanzania, Zambia, Kenya and Uganda. They are also one of the main participants of anually run SIDA projects all over the worlds.
In theese projects they work together with local authoroties in order to educate people and create a working medical presence for whatever issue the project focuses on. In case of high teen birth rates/abortions (usually go hand in hand with lots of AIDS/HIV) contraceptions, or more specificly condoms play a vital role. But they are only effective with proper education aswell making it morally accepted to use them. And being free in areas of poverty.
I will link the first project report i found that was in English:
http://www.rfsu.se/Bildbank/Dokument/Rapporter-studier/building-trust.pdf?epslanguage=sv
It is a detailed report of a project in India.
I just cant find any basis of your claim anywhere, looking at succesfully run Birth Rate projects all over the world contraceptions play a vital role.
|
On January 19 2011 00:55 DND_Enkil wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2011 23:49 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On January 17 2011 09:46 Mayfly wrote:
3. Your therapeut's degree and experience has no positive effect on how good therapy he gives. Do you have evidence for this one? Degree sure, but I'd expect a therapist who has seen all sorts of patients to be better able to deal with a given random patient than one without any experience. I dont really understand this one... You mean a random guy with absolutely no education or experience regarding therapy is just as good as thoose with experience and education? That sounds like some bull some "alternative therapist" has come up with to be honest.
If you want to call Robyn Dawes an alternative therapist, go ahead. But then you would be pretty unfair to one of the most influential people in the field of psychology. There are a lot of misconceptions and myths in psychology today, but even more when he was active. He debunked most of it, but some of it has survived. He had the most fine-tuned bullshit-o-meter that I've ever seen.
You would also be battling Paul Meehl and, indirectly, Karl Popper. Not sure that is a fight you wanna have.
Anyway, most people needing therapy basically needs an ear to talk into, so the "skill" of the therapist has a very marginal effect. Then there's also the case of the young, inexperienced therapist still relying on checklists vs the older, experienced one that don't. Checklists win. That's why I specifically wrote "positive effect", because the effect might actually be negative.
If you're interested I recommend reading House of Cards. I like the first review on Amazon:
I am a therapist myself, so I naturally began reading this book with trepidation. But instead of the blanket attack I expected, I found instead a very carefully written book that exposes that deeply flawed foundations to much of current psychotherapy, pop psychology, and professional reputation. I read this book at a time in my own career when a respect for science and the need for verifiable information were re-emerging, and House of Cards has provided me with a number of insights and tools that have helped me to provide therapy that is more effective and that avoids pie-in-the-sky promises or beliefs. Dawes is right: although therapy is not a science itself, it should be founded on scientific knowledge.
|
A common misconception is that you can steal an idea (such as telling people about the common list of misconceptions) from a popular website (such as xkcd) without crediting them for the idea at all on the same day they run a strip with that idea and that nobody will find out what you're doing. Maybe you should edit wikipedia and add that one to the list :-P.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
