A list of the most "common" things people think are true, but actually aren't. I actually had enough time+interest to read all of them and even though I already knew about most of them, some of them still surprised me.
For example, I think pretty much every educated human being knows that bats aren't really blind, and that Christopher Columbus didn't actually try to prove the Earth was round (people already knew that). But here are a few that I found particularly interesting:
1. Searing doesn't actually "seal in" moisture, it actually causes meat to lose moisture.
2. The Great Wall of China is actually NOT visible from the Moon. In fact, none are.
3. A popular myth regarding human sexuality is that men think about sex every seven seconds. In reality, there is no scientific way of measuring such a thing and, as far as researchers can tell, this statistic greatly exaggerates the frequency of sexual thoughts.
4. Thomas Edison did not invent the light bulb. He did, however, develop the first practical light bulb in 1880 (employing a carbonized bamboo filament), shortly prior to Joseph Swan, who invented an even more efficient bulb in 1881 (which used a cellulose filament).
A list of the most "common" things people think are true, but actually aren't. I actually had enough time+interest to read all of them and even though I already knew about most of them, some of them still surprised me.
For example, I think pretty much every educated human being knows that bats aren't really blind, and that Christopher Columbus didn't actually try to prove the Earth was round (people already knew that). But here are a few that I found particularly interesting:
1. Searing doesn't actually "seal in" moisture, it actually causes meat to lose moisture.
2. The Great Wall of China is actually NOT visible from the Moon. In fact, none are.
3. A popular myth regarding human sexuality is that men think about sex every seven seconds. In reality, there is no scientific way of measuring such a thing and, as far as researchers can tell, this statistic greatly exaggerates the frequency of sexual thoughts.
Obviously #3 isnt real, dont think anyone ever thought it was. How would you even start to measure thoughts, and how would you define "1 thought"?
I didnt know that sugar didnt cause hyperactivity in children though. I still think it does, maybe not directly because of the sugar, but because they are excited to get candy or whatever, lol
"It is a common misconception, even among adults, that humans and dinosaurs (in the ordinary sense of the term) coexisted: According to the California Academy of Sciences, around 41% of U.S. adults mistakenly believe they co-existed.[102] The last of the dinosaurs died around 65 million years ago, after the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, whereas the earliest Homo genus (humans) evolved between 2.3 and 2.4 million years ago."
lol who actually believes humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
On January 15 2011 01:26 Yuljan wrote: "It is a common misconception, even among adults, that humans and dinosaurs (in the ordinary sense of the term) coexisted: According to the California Academy of Sciences, around 41% of U.S. adults mistakenly believe they co-existed.[102] The last of the dinosaurs died around 65 million years ago, after the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, whereas the earliest Homo genus (humans) evolved between 2.3 and 2.4 million years ago."
lol who actually believes humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
On January 15 2011 01:26 Yuljan wrote: "It is a common misconception, even among adults, that humans and dinosaurs (in the ordinary sense of the term) coexisted: According to the California Academy of Sciences, around 41% of U.S. adults mistakenly believe they co-existed.[102] The last of the dinosaurs died around 65 million years ago, after the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, whereas the earliest Homo genus (humans) evolved between 2.3 and 2.4 million years ago."
lol who actually believes humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
creationists
Interesting response. In a sense yes they should think this way, but I don't believe most do. Even though the bible states that we must have coexisted (because of the time line of which humans and dinosaurs were here) they don't think about the relation to the time line.
Really though most of those that believe we were here while the dinosaurs are just idiots who watch to much TV.
On January 15 2011 01:26 Yuljan wrote: "It is a common misconception, even among adults, that humans and dinosaurs (in the ordinary sense of the term) coexisted: According to the California Academy of Sciences, around 41% of U.S. adults mistakenly believe they co-existed.[102] The last of the dinosaurs died around 65 million years ago, after the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, whereas the earliest Homo genus (humans) evolved between 2.3 and 2.4 million years ago."
lol who actually believes humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
Well, if Jurassic Park taught me anything, its that Dinosaurs eat people.
Don't forget the alt text! 'Grandpa, what was it like in the Before time?' 'It was hell. People went around saying glass was a slow-flowing liquid. You folks these days don't know how good you have it.'
On January 15 2011 01:26 Yuljan wrote: "It is a common misconception, even among adults, that humans and dinosaurs (in the ordinary sense of the term) coexisted: According to the California Academy of Sciences, around 41% of U.S. adults mistakenly believe they co-existed.[102] The last of the dinosaurs died around 65 million years ago, after the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, whereas the earliest Homo genus (humans) evolved between 2.3 and 2.4 million years ago."
lol who actually believes humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
creationists
I thought they didn't believe in dinosaurs. Test from god etc.
On January 15 2011 01:26 Yuljan wrote: "It is a common misconception, even among adults, that humans and dinosaurs (in the ordinary sense of the term) coexisted: According to the California Academy of Sciences, around 41% of U.S. adults mistakenly believe they co-existed.[102] The last of the dinosaurs died around 65 million years ago, after the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, whereas the earliest Homo genus (humans) evolved between 2.3 and 2.4 million years ago."
lol who actually believes humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
creationists
Interesting response. In a sense yes they should think this way, but I don't believe most do. Even though the bible states that we must have coexisted (because of the time line of which humans and dinosaurs were here) they don't think about the relation to the time line.
Really though most of those that believe we were here while the dinosaurs are just idiots who watch to much TV.
On January 15 2011 01:26 Yuljan wrote: "It is a common misconception, even among adults, that humans and dinosaurs (in the ordinary sense of the term) coexisted: According to the California Academy of Sciences, around 41% of U.S. adults mistakenly believe they co-existed.[102] The last of the dinosaurs died around 65 million years ago, after the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, whereas the earliest Homo genus (humans) evolved between 2.3 and 2.4 million years ago."
lol who actually believes humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
On January 15 2011 01:26 Yuljan wrote: "It is a common misconception, even among adults, that humans and dinosaurs (in the ordinary sense of the term) coexisted: According to the California Academy of Sciences, around 41% of U.S. adults mistakenly believe they co-existed.[102] The last of the dinosaurs died around 65 million years ago, after the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, whereas the earliest Homo genus (humans) evolved between 2.3 and 2.4 million years ago."
lol who actually believes humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
creationists
...ZING!
OT: Cool find.
Bookmarked.
EDIT:
On January 15 2011 01:31 Hawk wrote: A moustache will make you look attractive and mature
# People do not use only ten percent of their brains. While it is true that a small minority of neurons in the brain are actively firing at any one time, the inactive neurons are important too.[152][153] This myth has been commonplace in American culture at least as far back as the start of the 20th century, and was attributed to William James, who apparently used the expression metaphorically.[154] Some findings of brain science (such as the high ratio of glial cells to neurons) have been mistakenly read as providing support for the myth.[154]
On January 15 2011 01:26 Yuljan wrote: "It is a common misconception, even among adults, that humans and dinosaurs (in the ordinary sense of the term) coexisted: According to the California Academy of Sciences, around 41% of U.S. adults mistakenly believe they co-existed.[102] The last of the dinosaurs died around 65 million years ago, after the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, whereas the earliest Homo genus (humans) evolved between 2.3 and 2.4 million years ago."
lol who actually believes humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
Hahaha oh my god I lived off that movie growing up, I can't believe I forgot about it!
On a more related note, I remember finding this wiki page when the xkcd comic got published. There definitely should just be a "general knowledge" course in school for information like this.
The whole searing meat thing... I'd love to see a source... There is a restaurant in Seattle, Washington (or the area around it "Daniel's Broiler"), my father took me there once on our "father son vacation"... They take a much larger steak, sear the hell out of it (i don't remember the number, but its in the 1000+ Fahrenheit) then cut the outside off... Then throw it in a pan to brown it real quick, but it's really something different... It was the juiciest most delicious steak I've ever eaten in my life, yes it cost a shitload, but I wasn't paying
EDIT: I looked at the sources, maybe it doesn't seal in moisture on a normal sized steak... But something me tells me that searing an EXTRA LARGE steak, cutting off the chared and burned crust, leaves extra moisture on the inside, maybe not and its just a big waste xP
Food Network's Alton Brown, who agrees with McGee, even conducted an experiment to see if searing helps keep meat moist. Brown measured the moisture content of both seared and un-seared meat that had been cooked to the same internal temperature. The result: seared meat actually had less moisture.
We still think that searing is the way to go. Properly searing meat gives it a brown crust, which lends two things to the finished dish: flavor and contrast. The rich flavor and mouthfeel of a beautifully browned crust makes the interior seem juicier (even if it isn't).
On January 15 2011 01:26 Yuljan wrote: "It is a common misconception, even among adults, that humans and dinosaurs (in the ordinary sense of the term) coexisted: According to the California Academy of Sciences, around 41% of U.S. adults mistakenly believe they co-existed.[102] The last of the dinosaurs died around 65 million years ago, after the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, whereas the earliest Homo genus (humans) evolved between 2.3 and 2.4 million years ago."
lol who actually believes humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
On January 15 2011 05:22 VonLego wrote: Common misconception: Christians believe Genesis is literal.
I've found that atheists take the Bible much more literally than most Christians I know. So fundamentalist Christians and atheists must believe dinosaurs and people co-existed.
On January 15 2011 01:26 Yuljan wrote: "It is a common misconception, even among adults, that humans and dinosaurs (in the ordinary sense of the term) coexisted: According to the California Academy of Sciences, around 41% of U.S. adults mistakenly believe they co-existed.[102] The last of the dinosaurs died around 65 million years ago, after the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, whereas the earliest Homo genus (humans) evolved between 2.3 and 2.4 million years ago."
lol who actually believes humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
creationists
Interesting response. In a sense yes they should think this way, but I don't believe most do. Even though the bible states that we must have coexisted (because of the time line of which humans and dinosaurs were here) they don't think about the relation to the time line.
Really though most of those that believe we were here while the dinosaurs are just idiots who watch to much TV.
The Bible states 7 days. Unfortunately lengths in times had not been invented then, and most Christians will tell you that they believe that each "day" was close to a a few million years.
Which is an awesome loophole that allows the bible time line to match up with the scientific time line. Yay Christianity loopholes!
Edit: If you want to find people who take the bible super seriously, read some Nathaniel Hawethorne. Yay Purtians! And Yay Amish!
On January 15 2011 01:26 Yuljan wrote: "It is a common misconception, even among adults, that humans and dinosaurs (in the ordinary sense of the term) coexisted: According to the California Academy of Sciences, around 41% of U.S. adults mistakenly believe they co-existed.[102] The last of the dinosaurs died around 65 million years ago, after the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, whereas the earliest Homo genus (humans) evolved between 2.3 and 2.4 million years ago."
lol who actually believes humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
On January 15 2011 01:26 Yuljan wrote: "It is a common misconception, even among adults, that humans and dinosaurs (in the ordinary sense of the term) coexisted: According to the California Academy of Sciences, around 41% of U.S. adults mistakenly believe they co-existed.[102] The last of the dinosaurs died around 65 million years ago, after the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, whereas the earliest Homo genus (humans) evolved between 2.3 and 2.4 million years ago."
lol who actually believes humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
creationists
Interesting response. In a sense yes they should think this way, but I don't believe most do. Even though the bible states that we must have coexisted (because of the time line of which humans and dinosaurs were here) they don't think about the relation to the time line.
Really though most of those that believe we were here while the dinosaurs are just idiots who watch to much TV.
The Bible states 7 days. Unfortunately lengths in times had not been invented then, and most Christians will tell you that they believe that each "day" was close to a a few million years.
Which is an awesome loophole that allows the bible time line to match up with the scientific time line. Yay Christianity loopholes!
The above statement was written by someone who is unfamiliar with the concept of allegory.
I love the Korean one where you die if you fall asleep with the fan blowing in your face. My aunt and uncle refused to let me fall asleep like that in Korea when it was humid and hot as tits even though I knew it was untrue
On January 15 2011 01:26 Yuljan wrote: "It is a common misconception, even among adults, that humans and dinosaurs (in the ordinary sense of the term) coexisted: According to the California Academy of Sciences, around 41% of U.S. adults mistakenly believe they co-existed.[102] The last of the dinosaurs died around 65 million years ago, after the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, whereas the earliest Homo genus (humans) evolved between 2.3 and 2.4 million years ago."
lol who actually believes humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
creationists
Interesting response. In a sense yes they should think this way, but I don't believe most do. Even though the bible states that we must have coexisted (because of the time line of which humans and dinosaurs were here) they don't think about the relation to the time line.
Really though most of those that believe we were here while the dinosaurs are just idiots who watch to much TV.
The Bible states 7 days. Unfortunately lengths in times had not been invented then, and most Christians will tell you that they believe that each "day" was close to a a few million years.
Which is an awesome loophole that allows the bible time line to match up with the scientific time line. Yay Christianity loopholes!
The above statement was written by someone who is unfamiliar with the concept of allegory.
I am actually a Christian. I think it's within my right to poke fun at my own religion occasionally. Edit: And even then I was referring to the fact that most atheists love to take the bible word for word as a lot of it can be misconstrued, and bended to fit their point...
On January 15 2011 01:26 Yuljan wrote: "It is a common misconception, even among adults, that humans and dinosaurs (in the ordinary sense of the term) coexisted: According to the California Academy of Sciences, around 41% of U.S. adults mistakenly believe they co-existed.[102] The last of the dinosaurs died around 65 million years ago, after the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, whereas the earliest Homo genus (humans) evolved between 2.3 and 2.4 million years ago."
lol who actually believes humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
creationists
Interesting response. In a sense yes they should think this way, but I don't believe most do. Even though the bible states that we must have coexisted (because of the time line of which humans and dinosaurs were here) they don't think about the relation to the time line.
Really though most of those that believe we were here while the dinosaurs are just idiots who watch to much TV.
The Bible states 7 days. Unfortunately lengths in times had not been invented then, and most Christians will tell you that they believe that each "day" was close to a a few million years.
Which is an awesome loophole that allows the bible time line to match up with the scientific time line. Yay Christianity loopholes!
The above statement was written by someone who is unfamiliar with the concept of allegory.
I am actually a Christian. I think it's within my right to poke fun at my own religion occasionally.
As do I. Unfortunately it is sometimes difficult to interpret tone on the internet
On January 15 2011 01:26 Yuljan wrote: "It is a common misconception, even among adults, that humans and dinosaurs (in the ordinary sense of the term) coexisted: According to the California Academy of Sciences, around 41% of U.S. adults mistakenly believe they co-existed.[102] The last of the dinosaurs died around 65 million years ago, after the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, whereas the earliest Homo genus (humans) evolved between 2.3 and 2.4 million years ago."
lol who actually believes humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
creationists
Interesting response. In a sense yes they should think this way, but I don't believe most do. Even though the bible states that we must have coexisted (because of the time line of which humans and dinosaurs were here) they don't think about the relation to the time line.
Really though most of those that believe we were here while the dinosaurs are just idiots who watch to much TV.
The Bible states 7 days. Unfortunately lengths in times had not been invented then, and most Christians will tell you that they believe that each "day" was close to a a few million years.
Which is an awesome loophole that allows the bible time line to match up with the scientific time line. Yay Christianity loopholes!
The above statement was written by someone who is unfamiliar with the concept of allegory.
I am actually a Christian. I think it's within my right to poke fun at my own religion occasionally.
As do I. Unfortunately it is sometimes difficult to interpret tone on the internet
When you get a pain in your stomach from not eating its not a hunger "pain" but a hunger "pang". I went 23 years of my life not knowing that till last week lol!
On January 15 2011 05:53 Attiicus wrote: When you get a pain in your stomach from not eating its not a hunger "pain" but a hunger "pang". I went 23 years of my life not knowing that till last week lol!
actually, it's both, so you can't correct someone that uses "pain" instead of "pang" or you'll be the one that's wrong.
On January 15 2011 05:32 Rokusha wrote: I love the Korean one where you die if you fall asleep with the fan blowing in your face. My aunt and uncle refused to let me fall asleep like that in Korea when it was humid and hot as tits even though I knew it was untrue
haha I remember watching a news report when I was little in korea about a guy dying from the fan blowing in his face all night. I swear most koreans believe anything they see on the news
Oh really? Well either way I never had known about the word pang until I read it. A lot of times you will just hear a similar word and assume its correct.
On January 15 2011 05:22 VonLego wrote: Common misconception: Christians believe Genesis is literal.
What is interesting was hearing Jewish Rabbi's talk about the Torah. The ones I talked to said that The Torah is not history. While much of it appears to be based on real events such as the wars between Israel and the other bordering tribes, it is still scripture in the end and the point is to teach you a lesson. But I really do not know what to say about Deuteronomy and all the massacres, rapes, and extreme sexism.
Also, the Israelite were not monotheistic. They were pagan.
There are two versions of how the earth was created.
In the first version, God appears to know what he is doing and creates man without problem. The second version is God creates everything, then he creates Adam. He gives him a lovely garden but Adam really is not satisfied. Then he gives him animals to name and he is still not satisfied. Then Yahweh creates Eve and Adam is finally satisfied. In that particular story, God seems somewhat clueless about man and decides to experiment.
Alton brown disproved the searing thing, the real trick for juicy steak is to let your steak rest for a few minutes after your done cooking but before you serve
On January 15 2011 05:22 VonLego wrote: Common misconception: Christians believe Genesis is literal.
What is interesting was hearing Jewish Rabbi's talk about the Torah. The ones I talked to said that The Torah is not history. While much of it appears to be based on real events such as the wars between Israel and the other bordering tribes, it is still scripture in the end and the point is to teach you a lesson. But I really do not know what to say about Deuteronomy and all the massacres, rapes, and extreme sexism.
Also, the Israelite were not monotheistic. They were pagan.
There are two versions of how the earth was created.
In the first version, God appears to know what he is doing and creates man without problem. The second version is God creates everything, then he creates Adam. He gives him a lovely garden but Adam really is not satisfied. Then he gives him animals to name and he is still not satisfied. Then Yahweh creates Eve and Adam is finally satisfied. In that particular story, God seems somewhat clueless about man and decides to experiment.
On January 15 2011 05:22 VonLego wrote: Common misconception: Christians believe Genesis is literal.
What is interesting was hearing Jewish Rabbi's talk about the Torah. The ones I talked to said that The Torah is not history. While much of it appears to be based on real events such as the wars between Israel and the other bordering tribes, it is still scripture in the end and the point is to teach you a lesson. But I really do not know what to say about Deuteronomy and all the massacres, rapes, and extreme sexism.
Also, the Israelite were not monotheistic. They were pagan.
There are two versions of how the earth was created.
In the first version, God appears to know what he is doing and creates man without problem. The second version is God creates everything, then he creates Adam. He gives him a lovely garden but Adam really is not satisfied. Then he gives him animals to name and he is still not satisfied. Then Yahweh creates Eve and Adam is finally satisfied. In that particular story, God seems somewhat clueless about man and decides to experiment.
Well the Torah has plenty of mis-conceptions about it.
I can name four things off the top of head that people probably didn't know about it
1.Moses did not write all the books in it 2.Slaves did not built the Pyramids, the builders were actually well paid workers and most likely farmers working in the off season 3. Deuteronomy was not "discovered" until the reign of King Josiah. It was most likely written as a power play to establish Yahweh, the family god of Josiah, as the national god. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah 4. Monotheism is not expressed the in Torah. That came latter with second Isaiah. The early Jews worshiped Cananite gods. Yawhew, Dagon, Baal, Asherah, El Elyon, are all Cannite gods that are all mentioned in the Bible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_religion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh
On January 15 2011 05:22 VonLego wrote: Common misconception: Christians believe Genesis is literal.
Also, the Israelite were not monotheistic. They were pagan. .
That doesn't make them "pagan." They were monolators (worshiped one god but believed in others, but believed others gods to be inferior), and then over time ruled out the other gods as even being real.
On January 15 2011 05:22 VonLego wrote: Common misconception: Christians believe Genesis is literal.
What is interesting was hearing Jewish Rabbi's talk about the Torah. The ones I talked to said that The Torah is not history. While much of it appears to be based on real events such as the wars between Israel and the other bordering tribes, it is still scripture in the end and the point is to teach you a lesson. But I really do not know what to say about Deuteronomy and all the massacres, rapes, and extreme sexism.
Also, the Israelite were not monotheistic. They were pagan.
There are two versions of how the earth was created.
In the first version, God appears to know what he is doing and creates man without problem. The second version is God creates everything, then he creates Adam. He gives him a lovely garden but Adam really is not satisfied. Then he gives him animals to name and he is still not satisfied. Then Yahweh creates Eve and Adam is finally satisfied. In that particular story, God seems somewhat clueless about man and decides to experiment.
Well the Torah has plenty of mis-conceptions about it.
I can name four off the top of head
1.Moses did not write all the books in it 2.Slaves did not built the Pyramids, the builders were actually well paid workers and most likely farmers working in the off season 3. Deuteronomy was not "discovered" until the reign of King Josiah. It was mostly written as a power play to establish Yahweh, the family god of Josiah, as the national god. 4. Monotheism is not expressed the in Torah. That came latter with second Isaiah.
1. Moses did not write 100% of the Pentateuch, ok. 2. wat? 3. double wat? 4. lol? dude.. i'm only responding to this post in case someone believes what you typed.
On January 15 2011 06:33 danl9rm wrote: 1. Moses did not write 100% of the Pentateuch, ok. 2. wat? 3. double wat? 4. lol? dude.. i'm only responding to this post in case someone believes what you typed.
At the very least, you're probably wrong about #2. Jswizzy is probably right, according to Wikipedia; the workers were paid wages (or were levied as part of a tax) and worked in the off-seasons.
Dutch misconception: If you mess with a swan, it may get angry and break your arm with a stroke of on of its wings. Told to children to keep them away from swans, nest-guarding swans may hurt small children, but there has not been a single report of a swan breaking someone's bones, ever.
On January 15 2011 07:03 nepeta wrote: Dutch misconception: If you mess with a swan, it may get angry and break your arm with a stroke of on of its wings. Told to children to keep them away from swans, nest-guarding swans may hurt small children, but there has not been a single report of a swan breaking someone's bones, ever.
They had a swan drown a black lab that went swimming in a lake near my parent's house so I can see were this is coming from.
On January 15 2011 01:26 Yuljan wrote: "It is a common misconception, even among adults, that humans and dinosaurs (in the ordinary sense of the term) coexisted: According to the California Academy of Sciences, around 41% of U.S. adults mistakenly believe they co-existed.[102] The last of the dinosaurs died around 65 million years ago, after the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, whereas the earliest Homo genus (humans) evolved between 2.3 and 2.4 million years ago."
lol who actually believes humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
creationists
Interesting response. In a sense yes they should think this way, but I don't believe most do. Even though the bible states that we must have coexisted (because of the time line of which humans and dinosaurs were here) they don't think about the relation to the time line.
Really though most of those that believe we were here while the dinosaurs are just idiots who watch to much TV.
Every creationist I've ever met (a fair few) does in fact believe that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. This is probably because the ones I know are smart enough to know that 'god put fossils there to test us' is an incredibly stupid thing to say, but they're not smart enough to realise that young earth creationism is a total joke.
(Please, if anyone is feeling the urge to argue that point, don't.)
Bulls are not enraged by the color red, used in capes by professional matadors. Cattle are red-green color-blind. It is not the color of the cape that angers the bull, but rather the movement of the fabric that irritates the bull and incites it to charge
On January 15 2011 07:03 nepeta wrote: Dutch misconception: If you mess with a swan, it may get angry and break your arm with a stroke of on of its wings. Told to children to keep them away from swans, nest-guarding swans may hurt small children, but there has not been a single report of a swan breaking someone's bones, ever.
does happen in canada with our geese though those things are nasty
On January 15 2011 05:17 FrostOtter wrote: Anyone here watch QI? I think about half of those have been on the show.
Also, Behemoth is usually translated as hippo or something of the sort.
QI is just writers at the BBC testing how much bullshit "smart" people will swallow.
The answer it quite a lot. People believe that show just because of how it's presented, that is as a show that is set to "disprove" these misconceptions, but all it does is spread more.
It takes a lot of people a long time before they realise this. An italian friend of mine believed every word he heard until a piece about Italians throwing pasta at walls to see if it's ready was on the show. That's not true either by the way, Italians don't throw pasta at the wall to see if it's cooked. At least not any I know.
Just read through that whole Wiki article. I feel much smarter in some regards - the 'alcohol doesn't actually make you warmer' thing was an eye opener.
On January 15 2011 05:22 VonLego wrote: Common misconception: Christians believe Genesis is literal.
I've found that atheists take the Bible much more literally than most Christians I know. So fundamentalist Christians and atheists must believe dinosaurs and people co-existed.
Most atheists I know actually seem generally to disregard the Bible altogether, so they definitely don't believe humans and dinosaurs coexisted.
I tend to carry a more allegorical interpretation of Genesis, as you said (I think) :>
How did this get into a theological discussion/debate? lolol (Though the title really tends to lend itself to said discussion.)
On January 15 2011 05:22 VonLego wrote: Common misconception: Christians believe Genesis is literal.
What is interesting was hearing Jewish Rabbi's talk about the Torah. The ones I talked to said that The Torah is not history. While much of it appears to be based on real events such as the wars between Israel and the other bordering tribes, it is still scripture in the end and the point is to teach you a lesson. But I really do not know what to say about Deuteronomy and all the massacres, rapes, and extreme sexism.
Also, the Israelite were not monotheistic. They were pagan.
There are two versions of how the earth was created.
In the first version, God appears to know what he is doing and creates man without problem. The second version is God creates everything, then he creates Adam. He gives him a lovely garden but Adam really is not satisfied. Then he gives him animals to name and he is still not satisfied. Then Yahweh creates Eve and Adam is finally satisfied. In that particular story, God seems somewhat clueless about man and decides to experiment.
Well the Torah has plenty of mis-conceptions about it.
I can name four off the top of head
1.Moses did not write all the books in it 2.Slaves did not built the Pyramids, the builders were actually well paid workers and most likely farmers working in the off season 3. Deuteronomy was not "discovered" until the reign of King Josiah. It was mostly written as a power play to establish Yahweh, the family god of Josiah, as the national god. 4. Monotheism is not expressed the in Torah. That came latter with second Isaiah.
1. Moses did not write 100% of the Pentateuch, ok. 2. wat? 3. double wat? 4. lol? dude.. i'm only responding to this post in case someone believes what you typed.
There's a lot of evidence that supports his points. Since it seems like you haven't even heard them mentioned before, I would suggest that you at least look into the evidence that supports them before you dismiss them offhand.
On January 15 2011 09:09 CreditM wrote: Gas has no odor to it. Odors are added to it so that it can be easily detected for obvious safety reasons.
What's up with all the religious debate here? A real atheist embraces atheism instead of bashing theism. That's my opinion.
...
Oh, you mean the gas in your kitchen stove or outside grill. Yeah, propane and what-not has odors added to it.
Let's see...common misconception was that Puritans in England and New England were a sexually repressed theocracy, quite the opposite in fact. Damn you, Hawthorne.
On January 15 2011 09:09 CreditM wrote: Gas has no odor to it. Odors are added to it so that it can be easily detected for obvious safety reasons.
What's up with all the religious debate here? A real atheist embraces atheism instead of bashing theism. That's my opinion.
I agree. I was raised in a very conservative Christian home, where the Bible was considered the unadulterated word of God, and every single word was placed there for a reason. It made me, in large part, the person I am today. Just because I no longer share the beliefs of my mother and former church does not mean that I don't respect religion and the opinions and beliefs of religious people. Several of my closest friends are still members of that religion, and one is even a young-Earth creationist with a Ph.D in Biology (yes, seriously).
I don't agree with what they believe, but I understand why they believe the way they do and I respect it. It was easy for me to leave Christianity, because it never really meant anything personal to me. Finding purpose and meaning as part of a self-aware universe came much easier to me than following the will of a God that I struggled futilely to communicate with. For some people this is not the case, and a belief in and relationship with God gives them the drive and purpose to live a fulfilling, productive life. One of my most respected mentors is a physician who is extremely religious, and that conviction has led him to devote his life to serving people in places like Haiti and sub-Saharan Africa. How can you NOT respect that?
The only time you'll ever find me "bashing" theism is when people ignorantly and naively use their beliefs as a platform for talking down to others with absolutely no clue about where their beliefs likely even came from. A case in point is the post I quoted just above. There's just so much to learn in this world, and the handful of decades we have as intelligent adults is far too short to spend acting like we have all the answers. If people stopped arguing about stupid shit and just started taking notes, the world would be a much more enlightening place.
On January 15 2011 01:26 Yuljan wrote: "It is a common misconception, even among adults, that humans and dinosaurs (in the ordinary sense of the term) coexisted: According to the California Academy of Sciences, around 41% of U.S. adults mistakenly believe they co-existed.[102] The last of the dinosaurs died around 65 million years ago, after the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, whereas the earliest Homo genus (humans) evolved between 2.3 and 2.4 million years ago."
lol who actually believes humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
Hahaha. I don't know if this is on the list, but apparently only like 65% of Americans know the sun is a star.
Lol Tasteless just said that milk causes mucous. I had never heard of it until I read it on the list of common misconceptions today - failure of our education system, clearly.
Vaccines do not cause autism. Fraudulent research by Andrew Wakefield claimed a connection. The results could not be reproduced. Subsequently the research was shown to be flawed and fraudulent.
please, tell anyone who claims this to go do some reading and that its completely wrong
On January 15 2011 15:42 gogogadgetflow wrote: Lol Tasteless just said that milk causes mucous. I had never heard of it until I read it on the list of common misconceptions today - failure of our education system, clearly.
Never had a cold a tried drinking milk? Feels like you're clogging up right away (atleast I do).
On January 15 2011 15:57 Pitto wrote: Vaccines do not cause autism. Fraudulent research by Andrew Wakefield claimed a connection. The results could not be reproduced. Subsequently the research was shown to be flawed and fraudulent.
please, tell anyone who claims this to go do some reading and that its completely wrong
Are you saying that the claim "vaccines do not cause autism" is wrong, or the other way around?
And if I'm not mistaken, the definition of Autism was changed fairly recently (as in about 10 years ago or so) to include even less severe form of autism. And since Autism usually shows it first signs around the times you start getting your first vaccines, some doctor came up with the "fact" that vaccines cause autism.
On January 15 2011 15:42 gogogadgetflow wrote: Lol Tasteless just said that milk causes mucous. I had never heard of it until I read it on the list of common misconceptions today - failure of our education system, clearly.
In a related note, Artosis said a few days ago that Elephants are not actually afraid of mice. Mythbusters prove that indeed they are [or at the very least will go out of their way to aviod them].
On January 15 2011 07:03 nepeta wrote: Dutch misconception: If you mess with a swan, it may get angry and break your arm with a stroke of on of its wings. Told to children to keep them away from swans, nest-guarding swans may hurt small children, but there has not been a single report of a swan breaking someone's bones, ever.
does happen in canada with our geese though those things are nasty
No kidding, when I was younger, I was with my grandma at high park, and this goose was squawking at us and following us. It stopped, and we walked away. As I looked over my shoulder, I saw a flying mass of feathers hurtling through the air towards my grandma. I yelled to duck and it was like the matrix for old people, wooshed over her head, but didn't try to attack again. Stay away from dem geese!
Most people think that the Mont Blanc with 4,808m is the highest mountain in Europe. In fact the Эльбрус or Mount Elbrus with 5,642m in the Caucasus is it's highest mountain. The mistake is probably so common because most people don't even know the European borders.
On January 15 2011 20:19 REDBLUEGREEN wrote: Most people think that the Mont Blanc with 4,808m is the highest mountain in Europe. In fact the Эльбрус or Mount Elbrus with 5,642m in the Caucasus is it's highest mountain. The mistake is probably so common because most people don't even know the European borders.
I know really, the east coast of the black sea just SCREAMS Europe. Who decreed these "official" borders for Europe? Was it the EU? They're the supreme authority over everything after all, even god bows to them. If they said it, it must be true.
On January 15 2011 20:19 REDBLUEGREEN wrote: Most people think that the Mont Blanc with 4,808m is the highest mountain in Europe. In fact the Эльбрус or Mount Elbrus with 5,642m in the Caucasus is it's highest mountain. The mistake is probably so common because most people don't even know the European borders.
I know really, the east coast of the black sea just SCREAMS Europe. Who decreed these "official" borders for Europe? Was it the EU? They're the supreme authority over everything after all, even god bows to them. If they said it, it must be true.
On January 15 2011 21:29 Manifesto7 wrote: It isn't necessary to deflate your bicycle tires when transporting your bicycle by air, despite what the airlines will tell you.
Also contrary to what air hostesses frequently informed me when I was a lad there is no way for a Gameboy to mess with the planes navigation system. So many hours of tedium thanks to their ignorance.
Drinking water,Coca cola or anything else like that won't work against anything spicy. For example if you eat KFC chicken, and you drink water because its incredibly spicy nothing happens. Instead if you really want your mouth to ''calm down'' drink milk. Milk has certain chemicals which neutralize the spicy acid(or something like that).
On January 15 2011 20:19 REDBLUEGREEN wrote: Most people think that the Mont Blanc with 4,808m is the highest mountain in Europe. In fact the Эльбрус or Mount Elbrus with 5,642m in the Caucasus is it's highest mountain. The mistake is probably so common because most people don't even know the European borders.
I know really, the east coast of the black sea just SCREAMS Europe. Who decreed these "official" borders for Europe? Was it the EU? They're the supreme authority over everything after all, even god bows to them. If they said it, it must be true.
...the fuck? It's just a mountain dude relax.
I'm not angry, I just thought what he said was silly. Theres not really borders for Europe, it's kind of a concept with historical and cultural basis. I don't think of Europe when I think of the Caucasus. I'm concerned about his mindset, and the high horse he rides over all the ignorant people that don't know the borders of Europe. Not the Mountain.
On January 15 2011 07:03 nepeta wrote: Dutch misconception: If you mess with a swan, it may get angry and break your arm with a stroke of on of its wings. Told to children to keep them away from swans, nest-guarding swans may hurt small children, but there has not been a single report of a swan breaking someone's bones, ever.
does happen in canada with our geese though those things are nasty
No kidding, when I was younger, I was with my grandma at high park, and this goose was squawking at us and following us. It stopped, and we walked away. As I looked over my shoulder, I saw a flying mass of feathers hurtling through the air towards my grandma. I yelled to duck and it was like the matrix for old people, wooshed over her head, but didn't try to attack again. Stay away from dem geese!
Geese in gaggles or skeins are nasty critters, but they're neither as rare nor beautiful as swans, so I'd figured the next time they tried to waggle in on me, I'd kick one, then see what the rest does. Never had any problems with them since I decided that, it's all about confidence
Another one: Spelling has something to with or is equal to language. It is not. It's a cultural thing, which acquires some parallel connections in the brain. Every time someone starts whining to me about how people can't spell any more and ERGO the/their language is devolving, I've got to explain it again and often-times JUST WONT ACCEPT IT THE BASTARDS! Don't whine to me because I study languages, and if you do, at least have the common courtesy to stfu and obey my authority! The worst kind will, when confronted with languages which lack a written form, say they're dialects. MAY THEY SUFFER!
Philo Farnsworth did not invent the television. The first television transmission was made in 1925 by Scottish inventor John Logie Baird[240] using an electromechanical system. Farnsworth did transmit the first live human images in 1928,[241] and was pioneering in the development of all-electronic television.
I thought everyone knew JLB invented the TV? It's pretty common knowledge in Scotland anyway
On January 15 2011 08:33 Jonoman92 wrote: It sounds like most Koreans honestly believe the fan myth... that is funny.
Some of the article really surprised me, good to know the truth. Assuming everything written was correct of course.
koreans also genuinely believe that personality is based on blood type lol
thats east asia in general
Is this a provincial belief? I never met any Asians believing that, films aside. I've only met students, and the couple running a nearby snack-bar which I haven't asked :p
Just read through that whole Wiki article. I feel much smarter in some regards - the 'alcohol doesn't actually make you warmer' thing was an eye opener.
Alcohol doesn't "make you warmer" but it does make you FEEL warmer.
It dilates your blood vessels making the outer skin feel more of the warmth from your blood, but it causes to you to cool down faster.
Not to mention that you care less that you're cold when you're intoxicated...
EDIT: Oh i just got to that part of the article, yea it says that...
On January 15 2011 08:33 Jonoman92 wrote: It sounds like most Koreans honestly believe the fan myth... that is funny.
Some of the article really surprised me, good to know the truth. Assuming everything written was correct of course.
koreans also genuinely believe that personality is based on blood type lol
thats east asia in general
Is this a provincial belief? I never met any Asians believing that, films aside. I've only met students, and the couple running a nearby snack-bar which I haven't asked :p
On January 15 2011 22:19 brijan wrote: This article makes me so happy. Especially the science section.
Now I have a handy article which I can link people to and they'll have to believe it because Wikipedia is always right!
It's actually about as correct as any other more respected encyclopedia but you can continue on eating up everything your highschool teachers tell you. It also provides references and reasons that these misconceptions are wrong which is more than the misconception tells you.
rofl fan death... *facepalm* as a korean myself, all i can do is shake my head in woe and disappointment whenever this stuff comes on the news every summer. and yes, it actually does. lol.
as far as that blood type thing goes, i blame Japan (same thing w/ white day), no offense intended. this one guy in like, the 1910s came up with it and it was only a matter of time before everybody fell for it. and asians are supposed to be smart... sheesh
On January 15 2011 21:29 Manifesto7 wrote: It isn't necessary to deflate your bicycle tires when transporting your bicycle by air, despite what the airlines will tell you.
Also contrary to what air hostesses frequently informed me when I was a lad there is no way for a Gameboy to mess with the planes navigation system. So many hours of tedium thanks to their ignorance.
Uh, people keep saying that, and the airlines are obviously aware of it. They just want you to watch the security video instead of playing your gameboy, that is the main reason. Some of the airlines still say it just to make sure you watch the video
Here's mine: Milk is perfectly suitable for consumption by adults.
Milk aids with pain relief from spicy foods (that is, the chemical capsaicin) better than water does, because capsaicin is only very weakly soluble in water, and much more readily dissolved (and washed away) by the lipids in the milk.
Yes, the fan death myth in Korea is real. It's due to a few very publicized cases where a person was found dead with the fan on. In all cases, the victim was either extremely drunk, elderly, or sick. Of course, the news headline was "Death By Fan".
The blood type/personality thing is pretty real, too. I've had numerous conversations with people who say "Of course I don't believe in it. You know. It's just, sometimes it's right."
On January 15 2011 01:26 Yuljan wrote: "It is a common misconception, even among adults, that humans and dinosaurs (in the ordinary sense of the term) coexisted: According to the California Academy of Sciences, around 41% of U.S. adults mistakenly believe they co-existed.[102] The last of the dinosaurs died around 65 million years ago, after the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, whereas the earliest Homo genus (humans) evolved between 2.3 and 2.4 million years ago."
lol who actually believes humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
creationists
Zing! Come now buddy, only creationists with fun imaginations or dinosaur obsessions. I have gone to church all my life and never once encountered anyone who believe this.
On January 15 2011 07:03 nepeta wrote: Dutch misconception: If you mess with a swan, it may get angry and break your arm with a stroke of on of its wings. Told to children to keep them away from swans, nest-guarding swans may hurt small children, but there has not been a single report of a swan breaking someone's bones, ever.
does happen in canada with our geese though those things are nasty
No kidding, when I was younger, I was with my grandma at high park, and this goose was squawking at us and following us. It stopped, and we walked away. As I looked over my shoulder, I saw a flying mass of feathers hurtling through the air towards my grandma. I yelled to duck and it was like the matrix for old people, wooshed over her head, but didn't try to attack again. Stay away from dem geese!
On January 15 2011 07:03 nepeta wrote: Dutch misconception: If you mess with a swan, it may get angry and break your arm with a stroke of on of its wings. Told to children to keep them away from swans, nest-guarding swans may hurt small children, but there has not been a single report of a swan breaking someone's bones, ever.
does happen in canada with our geese though those things are nasty
Oh god ;_; Canadian geese are SCARY. Normal birds flee when you run at them. Canadian geese RUN TOWARDS YOU.
On January 15 2011 05:17 FrostOtter wrote: Anyone here watch QI? I think about half of those have been on the show.
Also, Behemoth is usually translated as hippo or something of the sort.
QI is just writers at the BBC testing how much bullshit "smart" people will swallow.
The answer it quite a lot. People believe that show just because of how it's presented, that is as a show that is set to "disprove" these misconceptions, but all it does is spread more.
It takes a lot of people a long time before they realise this. An italian friend of mine believed every word he heard until a piece about Italians throwing pasta at walls to see if it's ready was on the show. That's not true either by the way, Italians don't throw pasta at the wall to see if it's cooked. At least not any I know.
Throwing pasta at the wall/ceiling is just a really old trick used by cooking noobs to see if it's ready, and it works. Doesn't matter who doesn't or does use it. I can imagine there's even Italians that do
On January 16 2011 01:32 LittLeD wrote: I heard somewhere that its a common myth that USA invented the internet?
Our former vice president Al Gore was once quoted as saying he "invented the Internet". The quote is real, but the context in which Gore intended its use is debatable.
I actually didn't know that alcohol doesn't kill brain cells. That's reassuring.
It's wrong to think people are stupid for believing any of these misconceptions. Most of these things were learned in school, and nobody has told us differently since. In fact, in school I was taught that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, and that bats are blind, and that tastebuds can only sense certain tastes, etc. although I have since learned differently. Still, some of these "common sense" misconceptions do surprise me.
On January 16 2011 01:32 LittLeD wrote: I heard somewhere that its a common myth that USA invented the internet?
Our former vice president Al Gore was once quoted as saying he "invented the Internet". The quote is real, but the context in which Gore intended its use is debatable.
oh come on, no he wasn't. that's even in the OP link
On January 16 2011 01:32 LittLeD wrote: I heard somewhere that its a common myth that USA invented the internet?
Our former vice president Al Gore was once quoted as saying he "invented the Internet". The quote is real, but the context in which Gore intended its use is debatable.
oh come on, no he wasn't. that's even in the OP link
He certainly was. March 9, 1999 in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer. In response to Wolf Blitzer's question: "Why should Democrats, looking at the Democratic nomination process, support you instead of Bill Bradley?", Gore responded:
I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be. But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.
On January 16 2011 03:30 JeeJee wrote: yeah i don't see a word 'invent' in there do you? don't use quotes when you don't mean you're actually QUOTING the perosn
invent, create, the meaning is essentially the same.
2. The Great Wall of China is actually NOT visible from the Moon. In fact, none are.
This is the thing about Wikipedia, great as it is, (supposedly, actually more accurate than the Encyclopaedia Britannica) it can still be wrong.
The Great Wall of China is not visible from space, that is correct. But there is a man made structure which is visible. I forget what it's called, but it's a man made island built by some insanely rich oil baron. I've never been to the moon, mind so I cannot tell you from personal experience.
2. The Great Wall of China is actually NOT visible from the Moon. In fact, none are.
This is the thing about Wikipedia, great as it is, (supposedly, actually more accurate than the Encyclopaedia Britannica) it can still be wrong.
The Great Wall of China is not visible from space, that is correct. But there is a man made structure which is visible. I forget what it's called, but it's a man made island built by some insanely rich oil baron. I've never been to the moon, mind so I cannot tell you from personal experience.
Many man made structures are visible from space (just like they are visible from an airplane... 6 miles v. 20 miles is not that much of a difference) None are visible from the moon
On January 16 2011 03:30 JeeJee wrote: yeah i don't see a word 'invent' in there do you? don't use quotes when you don't mean you're actually QUOTING the perosn
invent, create, the meaning is essentially the same.
in other words, what we can take away from this is that al gore never said he invented the internet.
On January 16 2011 03:30 JeeJee wrote: yeah i don't see a word 'invent' in there do you? don't use quotes when you don't mean you're actually QUOTING the perosn
invent, create, the meaning is essentially the same.
No it's not. Inventing is coming up with the idea. Creating is installing it. (Funding, Hardware, Network etc.)
On January 16 2011 03:41 The_A_Drain wrote: ...But there is a man made structure which is visible...
There are a lot. In Spain we have a curious one.
This is Spain from "space". You can see a lot of white areas, all of them are snow covered surfaces but one. The one at the south-east, close to the sea.
In fact, it's a huge area of greenhouses in Almería.
This kind of stuff should be mandatory in schools. I love the OP link, this is valuable stuff. I can't wait till I hear someone make some claim that is totally untrue.
On January 16 2011 03:41 The_A_Drain wrote: ...But there is a man made structure which is visible...
There are a lot. In Spain we have a curious one. + Show Spoiler +
This is Spain from "space". You can see a lot of white areas, all of them are snow covered surfaces but one. The one at the south-east, close to the sea.
In fact, it's a huge area of greenhouses in Almería.
This I didn't know! After so many years of elementary/high school/post secondary, you'd think I should at least have heard of this place. It actually looks pretty cool lol. Good call, Telemako. Edit: Spoilering images.
On January 16 2011 03:30 JeeJee wrote: yeah i don't see a word 'invent' in there do you? don't use quotes when you don't mean you're actually QUOTING the perosn
invent, create, the meaning is essentially the same.
No it's not. Inventing is coming up with the idea. Creating is installing it. (Funding, Hardware, Network etc.)
Where did you get the idea that creating is installing?
It's a common misconception that alcohol kills brain cells. Early temperance writers promoted the idea that drinking causes brain cells to die (as well as the assertion that the alcohol in the blood stream could cause people to catch fire and burn alive). According to Queensland Brain Institute director Professor Perry Bartlett, there is no evidence drinking alcohol leads directly to the death of brain cells. In fact, alcohol has positive health benefits when used moderately and new brain cells are generated on a daily basis.Alcohol can lead indirectly to the death of brain cells in chronic, heavy alcohol users whose brains have adapted to the effects of alcohol, where abrupt cessation following heavy use can cause excitotoxicity leading to cellular death in multiple areas of the brain.
I NEVER knew this. this thread has been an eye-opener
On January 16 2011 03:30 JeeJee wrote: yeah i don't see a word 'invent' in there do you? don't use quotes when you don't mean you're actually QUOTING the perosn
invent, create, the meaning is essentially the same.
No it's not. Inventing is coming up with the idea. Creating is installing it. (Funding, Hardware, Network etc.)
On January 16 2011 03:30 JeeJee wrote: yeah i don't see a word 'invent' in there do you? don't use quotes when you don't mean you're actually QUOTING the perosn
invent, create, the meaning is essentially the same.
No it's not. Inventing is coming up with the idea. Creating is installing it. (Funding, Hardware, Network etc.)
Where did you get the idea that creating is installing?
I think he meant 'installing' as in the context of making the idea 'come to life/take shape' so to speak
Can we not derail an interesting thread with stupid semantic arguments? Al Gore did not specifically use the word "invent" in his comment. That's all that needs to be said. A comparative analysis of the etymology of the two words is not going to help this thread remain interesting.
It is not harmful to baby birds to pick them up and return them to their nests, despite the common belief that doing so will cause the mother to reject it.
On January 15 2011 01:26 Yuljan wrote: "It is a common misconception, even among adults, that humans and dinosaurs (in the ordinary sense of the term) coexisted: According to the California Academy of Sciences, around 41% of U.S. adults mistakenly believe they co-existed.[102] The last of the dinosaurs died around 65 million years ago, after the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, whereas the earliest Homo genus (humans) evolved between 2.3 and 2.4 million years ago."
lol who actually believes humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
On January 15 2011 01:26 Yuljan wrote: "It is a common misconception, even among adults, that humans and dinosaurs (in the ordinary sense of the term) coexisted: According to the California Academy of Sciences, around 41% of U.S. adults mistakenly believe they co-existed.[102] The last of the dinosaurs died around 65 million years ago, after the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, whereas the earliest Homo genus (humans) evolved between 2.3 and 2.4 million years ago."
lol who actually believes humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
On January 15 2011 01:26 Yuljan wrote: "It is a common misconception, even among adults, that humans and dinosaurs (in the ordinary sense of the term) coexisted: According to the California Academy of Sciences, around 41% of U.S. adults mistakenly believe they co-existed.[102] The last of the dinosaurs died around 65 million years ago, after the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, whereas the earliest Homo genus (humans) evolved between 2.3 and 2.4 million years ago."
lol who actually believes humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
creationists
Creationists don't believe dinosaurs existed.
What do they believe? I was raised as a Creationist and still know a huge number of them. I don't think I've ever met one who didn't believe dinosaurs existed. How would they explain the fossils?
The difference lies in when they believe dinosaurs existed.
Here's another one. Ab exercises do not help you get a six pack. We already have abs, we just need to get rid of the fat surrounding it. Ab exercises help strengthen abs, but it does not give you a six pack... got this from
On January 16 2011 15:44 CreditM wrote: Here's another one. Ab exercises do not help you get a six pack. We already have abs, we just need to get rid of the fat surrounding it. Ab exercises help strengthen abs, but it does not give you a six pack... got this from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95xRTID478I
This is common sense. Anyone who has done sit-ups can find out that they aren't getting abs anytime soon with ab exercises, if they have any common sense. But if they're stupid they will keep on doing these exercises thinking they are helping themselves.
On January 16 2011 16:35 .Aar wrote: 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.
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.
On January 15 2011 01:26 Yuljan wrote: "It is a common misconception, even among adults, that humans and dinosaurs (in the ordinary sense of the term) coexisted: According to the California Academy of Sciences, around 41% of U.S. adults mistakenly believe they co-existed.[102] The last of the dinosaurs died around 65 million years ago, after the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, whereas the earliest Homo genus (humans) evolved between 2.3 and 2.4 million years ago."
lol who actually believes humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
On January 16 2011 16:31 Jswizzy wrote: Okay this is just to sad. Watermelon eating Dinosaurs
It actually seems pretty reasonable to me to say that you can't conclude with certainty what kind of diet an animal had based solely on its teeth bones. It's still pretty likely that T-Rexes were carnivorous, but you can't really know for sure.
On January 15 2011 06:30 TymerA wrote: Its a common misconception that the word theory means ''guess'' in science.
I find the opposite to be true. Most people believe a theory is fact.
Theory is a collection of facts.
That is not quite true, here's an extract from my last semester Antirealisim essay.
The Pessimistic meta-induction is an argument brought forth by Larry Laudan (1981) in which he states that for a theory to be true, it must be empirically successful, and that its terms must refer to actual phenomena in the objective world, furthermore, if the theory is not empirically successful, it cannot be true, since it appears to contradict what we know of the world.
Past theories that where once empirically successful and which were deamed to refer to phenomena that existed in the real world are now are considered to not be true and the phenomena to which they refer to not exist. Since previously accepted and empirically successful theories were later considered to be false it then seems to follow that current and future accepted and empirically successful theories will also subsequently be considered false. Althought it might seem that modern theories may currently have empirical and predictive accuracy, but so to did previous theories of their time.
If a theory relies on "facts" to support it, but those facts are later falsified, were they really true to begin with? History shows us that they were not and gives a warning against casually accepting current and future scientific theory as ironclad truth.
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?
On January 16 2011 15:44 CreditM wrote: Here's another one. Ab exercises do not help you get a six pack. We already have abs, we just need to get rid of the fat surrounding it. Ab exercises help strengthen abs, but it does not give you a six pack... got this from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95xRTID478I
This is common sense. Anyone who has done sit-ups can find out that they aren't getting abs anytime soon with ab exercises, if they have any common sense. But if they're stupid they will keep on doing these exercises thinking they are helping themselves.
it's certainly not hurting them to do ab exercises provided they are done properly.
yes, primarily abs are 'made in the kitchen' so to speak, but if you are already quite skinny (like, nerd-skinny) and have no abs, doing an ab workout will help your abs become more prominent provided nothing else changes. when i was skinnier, i did ab-x from p90x every other day (never skipped a day) and got "teh 6pakc" after 3 months while staying same weight/not reducing my diet. it's a combination of things; certainly the diet is the biggest factor here (but not the only one)
1. Regular medical check-ups are not good for you. At best they have no effect, at worst they're actually harmful.
2. Fever-reducing drugs (antipyretics with paracetamol) have no evidence supporting that they actually help you. In fact, fever is what's good for you although it might not feel like it.
3. If you're randomly checked for a disease and given a positive, and the doctor says it's 95% (or whatever number) certain you have the disease because the method gives 95% correct positives, he's wrong. If 1 in 1000 people actually have the disease, and the machine also gives a 5% false positive (as is common), the actual chance you have the disease is about 2% and you can sleep well until they can do further testing.
4. You can never know you don't have cancer. The testing is done on a sample of cells, not all the actual cells.
5. Placebos can work even if you know they are placebos.
Psychology:
1. Projective testing techniques are as factual as horoscope readings. This goes for any projective testing (including inkblots (Rorschach), sentence completion, etc.)
2. Adult behavior is not determined mainly by childhood experiences, especially subtle or repressed ones.
3. Your therapeut's degree and experience has no positive effect on how good therapy he gives.
4. Phobias and anxieties are not symptoms of a deeper disturbance.
5. Poor self-esteem is not the root cause for every type of failure or problem. If you want to change your behavior you don't have to (and should not) elevate your self-esteem first through illusions or other means.
Business
1. Greed is not the cause of fraudulent behavior. Bad incentives are.
2. The more "democratic" the company (the more people the upper management rely on), the more likely it is to resort to fraudulent behavior if things turn sour.
3. Brokerage firms that show more profit for their investors than others are not necessarily more skilled. Put 100 people on flipping coins and some would flip more heads than tails for a while, and claim they are more "skilled".
Sex
1. Contraceptives have a marginal (at best) effect on how many children are born.
2. Women don't want sex as often as men.
3. Animals didn't evolve sex and genders to reproduce.
4. Anti-polygamy laws do more to protect men than women.
Morals
1. All humans are not of equal worth. No one in the entire world acts that way.
On January 17 2011 09:46 Mayfly wrote: Psychology:
1. Projective testing techniques are as factual as horoscope readings. This goes for any projective testing (including inkblots (Rorschach), sentence completion, etc.)
I think this one is wrong. The TAT reaches validities of .30 and is, to my knowledge, the exception of the rule.
Sugar does not cause hyperactivity in children.[126] Double-blind trials have shown no difference in behavior between children given sugar-full or sugar-free diets, even in studies specifically looking at children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or those considered "sensitive" to sugar. The difference in behaviour proved to be psychological
Just heard this on new episode of House. Cool coincidence
2. Fever-reducing drugs (antipyretics with paracetamol) have no evidence supporting that they actually help you. In fact, fever is what's good for you although it might not feel like it.
Sorry mate but paracetamol and antipyretics really do work. You just have to take the right dose.
2. Fever-reducing drugs (antipyretics with paracetamol) have no evidence supporting that they actually help you. In fact, fever is what's good for you although it might not feel like it.
Sorry mate but paracetamol and antipyretics really do work. You just have to take the right dose.
I don't think it says that they DON'T work, but rather it's their helpfulness that's being disputed. A fever is your body's response to an illness and is in fact helpful for fighting the illness. Taking drugs to reduce or eliminate your fever is therefore not helpful. It makes your immune system less effective.
What about a patient with a dangerously high fever? I'd rather risk a slightly compromised immune system than permanent brain damage.
Edit: Re- Placebos. There is no such thing as the placebo effect. The psychological effect that most people THINK is the placebo effect is actually much smaller, and rarely if ever measurable. The so-called "placebo effect" comes from the fact that most diseases resolve themselves with time, and their severity fluctuates with time. If a certain disease only lasts a 4-6 days and someone shows up on day three and gets a placebo, did the placebo alleviate their symptoms, or did their body alleviate them?
2. Fever-reducing drugs (antipyretics with paracetamol) have no evidence supporting that they actually help you. In fact, fever is what's good for you although it might not feel like it.
Sorry mate but paracetamol and antipyretics really do work. You just have to take the right dose.
I don't think it says that they DON'T work, but rather it's their helpfulness that's being disputed. A fever is your body's response to an illness and is in fact helpful for fighting the illness. Taking drugs to reduce or eliminate your fever is therefore not helpful. It makes your immune system less effective.
This guy gets it. Many bacterial and viral infections grow best within a certain temperature range, and an elevation in body temperature can often retard said infection.
Ergo, a WORKING anti-pyretic is a bad one.
Now, SockMonkey is also right. Fever over a temperature of around 102.1 degrees F, can cause tissue damage in vital areas, like the brain. In these circumstances, dramatic steps are often taken to reduce fever.
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.
On January 15 2011 15:42 gogogadgetflow wrote: Lol Tasteless just said that milk causes mucous. I had never heard of it until I read it on the list of common misconceptions today - failure of our education system, clearly.
In a related note, Artosis said a few days ago that Elephants are not actually afraid of mice. Mythbusters prove that indeed they are [or at the very least will go out of their way to aviod them].
I have to say that Mythbusters test seems far more reliable than the one cited as a source on Wikipedie. They tested with wild elephants in a natural enviroment, the source for wikipedia is with domesticated cirkus elephants and tame mice and not on floor level but eye level.
While i like wikipedia, dont treat it as an absolute truth...
On January 15 2011 07:03 nepeta wrote: Dutch misconception: If you mess with a swan, it may get angry and break your arm with a stroke of on of its wings. Told to children to keep them away from swans, nest-guarding swans may hurt small children, but there has not been a single report of a swan breaking someone's bones, ever.
does happen in canada with our geese though those things are nasty
will you PLEASE take those assholes back? I live in upstate new york and canadian geese are everywhere. You can't even shoo them away because it's a felony .
One of the most common misconceptions: Irregardless.
If something is irregardless, it means you disregard that it is regardless. That's horrible english. Please, for the good of humanity, use the word regardless, and drop the ir.
Just read through that whole Wiki article. I feel much smarter in some regards - the 'alcohol doesn't actually make you warmer' thing was an eye opener.
Alcohol doesn't "make you warmer" but it does make you FEEL warmer.
It dilates your blood vessels making the outer skin feel more of the warmth from your blood, but it causes to you to cool down faster.
Not to mention that you care less that you're cold when you're intoxicated...
EDIT: Oh i just got to that part of the article, yea it says that...
Well, i "have heard" (so it must be true!) that when you come into a warm plce from a cold place, like if you get rescued from being lost in snow, alcohol will indirectly make you warmer. Same theory, dilutes the blood vessels meaning more blood in outer skin meaning more blood gets heated if you are cold in a warm enviroment.
Also that it helps preventing frostbite by getting more blood into the extremeties. Colder blood meaning colder core temperature but still.
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.
1. Contraceptives have a marginal (at best) effect on how many children are born.
Are you saying this is a myth or that this is true? I dont understand... Of cource Contraceptives have a huge effect on child birth rates, maybe not in 3rd world countries but just take sweden as an example. Me and most of my friends have sex with our partner all the time and yet very few children are born. And if you look how it was for our grandparents they all had huge families since they also had sex all the time, but without any birth control this lead to children...
Most people believe that trees get most of their mass from soil. In fact, most of the mass of a tree is carbon taken out of the air (carbon dioxide). The soil merely provides some nutrients and is a negligible part of the actual mass of a tree.
1. Contraceptives have a marginal (at best) effect on how many children are born.
Are you saying this is a myth or that this is true? I dont understand... Of cource Contraceptives have a huge effect on child birth rates, maybe not in 3rd world countries but just take sweden as an example. Me and most of my friends have sex with our partner all the time and yet very few children are born. And if you look how it was for our grandparents they all had huge families since they also had sex all the time, but without any birth control this lead to children...
It doesn't have an effect on the likelihood of two people to produce a child, just an effect on the likelihood of a given sex act to produce a child. If you and your partner didn't want to have a child but had no access to contraceptives, you just wouldn't have so much sex, or you'd restrict it to oral/anal. By the same token, when you DID want to have a child, you just wouldn't use contraceptives. The only real factor that affects birth rate is how much people want to have a child. The availability of contraceptives just gives them more options for sex acts without child production.
1. Contraceptives have a marginal (at best) effect on how many children are born.
Are you saying this is a myth or that this is true? I dont understand... Of cource Contraceptives have a huge effect on child birth rates, maybe not in 3rd world countries but just take sweden as an example. Me and most of my friends have sex with our partner all the time and yet very few children are born. And if you look how it was for our grandparents they all had huge families since they also had sex all the time, but without any birth control this lead to children...
It doesn't have an effect on the likelihood of two people to produce a child, just an effect on the likelihood of a given sex act to produce a child. If you and your partner didn't want to have a child but had no access to contraceptives, you just wouldn't have so much sex, or you'd restrict it to oral/anal. By the same token, when you DID want to have a child, you just wouldn't use contraceptives. The only real factor that affects birth rate is how much people want to have a child. The availability of contraceptives just gives them more options for sex acts without child production.
Not necessary, there are plenty of people who enjoy having sex who doesn't want kids but will have sex anyway with or without contraceptive.
Hell, my sister is a walking prove that contraceptive helps reduced birthrate.
1. Contraceptives have a marginal (at best) effect on how many children are born.
Are you saying this is a myth or that this is true? I dont understand... Of cource Contraceptives have a huge effect on child birth rates, maybe not in 3rd world countries but just take sweden as an example. Me and most of my friends have sex with our partner all the time and yet very few children are born. And if you look how it was for our grandparents they all had huge families since they also had sex all the time, but without any birth control this lead to children...
It doesn't have an effect on the likelihood of two people to produce a child, just an effect on the likelihood of a given sex act to produce a child. If you and your partner didn't want to have a child but had no access to contraceptives, you just wouldn't have so much sex, or you'd restrict it to oral/anal. By the same token, when you DID want to have a child, you just wouldn't use contraceptives. The only real factor that affects birth rate is how much people want to have a child. The availability of contraceptives just gives them more options for sex acts without child production.
Not necessary, there are plenty of people who enjoy having sex who doesn't want kids but will have sex anyway with or without contraceptive.
Hell, my sister is a walking prove that contraceptive helps reduced birthrate.
When you are talking about a whole society though, the percentage of unintended to intended births is very low. Also in the real world for the most part a lack of availability of contraceptives is strongly correlated with a more conservative world-view vis a vis sex which also tends to reduce the number of unintended pregancies in a given society just as contraceptives would.
1. Contraceptives have a marginal (at best) effect on how many children are born.
Are you saying this is a myth or that this is true? I dont understand... Of cource Contraceptives have a huge effect on child birth rates, maybe not in 3rd world countries but just take sweden as an example. Me and most of my friends have sex with our partner all the time and yet very few children are born. And if you look how it was for our grandparents they all had huge families since they also had sex all the time, but without any birth control this lead to children...
It doesn't have an effect on the likelihood of two people to produce a child, just an effect on the likelihood of a given sex act to produce a child. If you and your partner didn't want to have a child but had no access to contraceptives, you just wouldn't have so much sex, or you'd restrict it to oral/anal. By the same token, when you DID want to have a child, you just wouldn't use contraceptives. The only real factor that affects birth rate is how much people want to have a child. The availability of contraceptives just gives them more options for sex acts without child production.
I am sorry but i call bullshit on this one. I think that in every society where Contraceptives are readily avialable and it is not considered morally wrong to use them they will have a very real effect on child birth rates.
I think that the availability of contraceptives have planted they idea that you dont have to have a big family, or children early, or even children at all even if you are married. Without contraceptives this would not even be an option. I think the age where couples get their first child are steadily rising in Sweden.
It took me not 5 min to find an actual example of it working:
Iran has succeeded in sharply reducing its birth rate in recent years. Iran is the only country where mandatory contraceptive courses are required for both males and females before a marriage license can be obtained. The government emphasizes the benefits of smaller families and the use of contraception,
1. Contraceptives have a marginal (at best) effect on how many children are born.
Are you saying this is a myth or that this is true? I dont understand... Of cource Contraceptives have a huge effect on child birth rates, maybe not in 3rd world countries but just take sweden as an example. Me and most of my friends have sex with our partner all the time and yet very few children are born. And if you look how it was for our grandparents they all had huge families since they also had sex all the time, but without any birth control this lead to children...
It doesn't have an effect on the likelihood of two people to produce a child, just an effect on the likelihood of a given sex act to produce a child. If you and your partner didn't want to have a child but had no access to contraceptives, you just wouldn't have so much sex, or you'd restrict it to oral/anal. By the same token, when you DID want to have a child, you just wouldn't use contraceptives. The only real factor that affects birth rate is how much people want to have a child. The availability of contraceptives just gives them more options for sex acts without child production.
I am sorry but i call bullshit on this one. I think that in every society where Contraceptives are readily avialable and it is not considered morally wrong to use them they will have a very real effect on child birth rates.
I think that the availability of contraceptives have planted they idea that you dont have to have a big family, or children early, or even children at all even if you are married. Without contraceptives this would not even be an option. I think the age where couples get their first child are steadily rising in Sweden.
You are trying to establish a causation when no causation can be shown here. There is a correlation, yes, but there are numerous other factors at work that most likely have a much higher effect on birth rates. Aside from access to contraceptives, people in the first world are also much better educated and much richer/more economically stable. I don't want to go into a massive sociological treatise on it but the bottom line is that people in the first world do not place a high value on having a large family whereas throughout the third world a man's success is measured by the amount of children he has (especially males), and this has a much more important effect on birth rates than availability of birth control. People tried to lower birth rates in India and Africa by saturating people with condoms. Poor people were literally roofing their houses with unused condoms. They didn't use them because they wanted to produce children.
As for you and your girlfriend, is it really contraceptives that prevent you from having a child? Of course not--you choose to use contraceptives because you don't want a child, not the other way around.
1. Contraceptives have a marginal (at best) effect on how many children are born.
Are you saying this is a myth or that this is true? I dont understand... Of cource Contraceptives have a huge effect on child birth rates, maybe not in 3rd world countries but just take sweden as an example. Me and most of my friends have sex with our partner all the time and yet very few children are born. And if you look how it was for our grandparents they all had huge families since they also had sex all the time, but without any birth control this lead to children...
It doesn't have an effect on the likelihood of two people to produce a child, just an effect on the likelihood of a given sex act to produce a child. If you and your partner didn't want to have a child but had no access to contraceptives, you just wouldn't have so much sex, or you'd restrict it to oral/anal. By the same token, when you DID want to have a child, you just wouldn't use contraceptives. The only real factor that affects birth rate is how much people want to have a child. The availability of contraceptives just gives them more options for sex acts without child production.
I am sorry but i call bullshit on this one. I think that in every society where Contraceptives are readily avialable and it is not considered morally wrong to use them they will have a very real effect on child birth rates.
I think that the availability of contraceptives have planted they idea that you dont have to have a big family, or children early, or even children at all even if you are married. Without contraceptives this would not even be an option. I think the age where couples get their first child are steadily rising in Sweden.
You are trying to establish a causation when no causation can be shown here. There is a correlation, yes, but there are numerous other factors at work that most likely have a much higher effect on birth rates. Aside from access to contraceptives, people in the first world are also much better educated and much richer/more economically stable. I don't want to go into a massive sociological treatise on it but the bottom line is that people in the first world do not place a high value on having a large family whereas throughout the third world a man's success is measured by the amount of children he has (especially males), and this has a much more important effect on birth rates than availability of birth control. People tried to lower birth rates in India and Africa by saturating people with condoms. Poor people were literally roofing their houses with unused condoms. They didn't use them because they wanted to produce children.
As for you and your girlfriend, is it really contraceptives that prevent you from having a child? Of course not--you choose to use contraceptives because you don't want a child, not the other way around.
So your point is that contraceptives don't work just from being in proximity to people, they actually have to be used? I don't think anyone is disputing that.
1. Contraceptives have a marginal (at best) effect on how many children are born.
Are you saying this is a myth or that this is true? I dont understand... Of cource Contraceptives have a huge effect on child birth rates, maybe not in 3rd world countries but just take sweden as an example. Me and most of my friends have sex with our partner all the time and yet very few children are born. And if you look how it was for our grandparents they all had huge families since they also had sex all the time, but without any birth control this lead to children...
It doesn't have an effect on the likelihood of two people to produce a child, just an effect on the likelihood of a given sex act to produce a child. If you and your partner didn't want to have a child but had no access to contraceptives, you just wouldn't have so much sex, or you'd restrict it to oral/anal. By the same token, when you DID want to have a child, you just wouldn't use contraceptives. The only real factor that affects birth rate is how much people want to have a child. The availability of contraceptives just gives them more options for sex acts without child production.
It took me not 5 min to find an actual example of it working:
Iran has succeeded in sharply reducing its birth rate in recent years. Iran is the only country where mandatory contraceptive courses are required for both males and females before a marriage license can be obtained. The government emphasizes the benefits of smaller families and the use of contraception,
Unless you can actually give me a valid source/study not done by religious group or with political motive behind it you wont convince me at least.
This doesn't change my point: the government of Iran wanted to lower the birth rate first, the contraceptives were introduced afterwards as a means towards that goal. If there was no desire to change the inherent value structure of big family = good, merely introducing contraceptives would have a negligible effect.
Here's another quote from the article you linked:
"In 1993, Parliament passed further legislation withdrawing food coupons, paid maternity leave, and social welfare subsidies after the third child."
Don't you think that that legislation would be just as if not much more effective in curbing birth rates?
1. Contraceptives have a marginal (at best) effect on how many children are born.
Are you saying this is a myth or that this is true? I dont understand... Of cource Contraceptives have a huge effect on child birth rates, maybe not in 3rd world countries but just take sweden as an example. Me and most of my friends have sex with our partner all the time and yet very few children are born. And if you look how it was for our grandparents they all had huge families since they also had sex all the time, but without any birth control this lead to children...
It doesn't have an effect on the likelihood of two people to produce a child, just an effect on the likelihood of a given sex act to produce a child. If you and your partner didn't want to have a child but had no access to contraceptives, you just wouldn't have so much sex, or you'd restrict it to oral/anal. By the same token, when you DID want to have a child, you just wouldn't use contraceptives. The only real factor that affects birth rate is how much people want to have a child. The availability of contraceptives just gives them more options for sex acts without child production.
I am sorry but i call bullshit on this one. I think that in every society where Contraceptives are readily avialable and it is not considered morally wrong to use them they will have a very real effect on child birth rates.
I think that the availability of contraceptives have planted they idea that you dont have to have a big family, or children early, or even children at all even if you are married. Without contraceptives this would not even be an option. I think the age where couples get their first child are steadily rising in Sweden.
You are trying to establish a causation when no causation can be shown here. There is a correlation, yes, but there are numerous other factors at work that most likely have a much higher effect on birth rates. Aside from access to contraceptives, people in the first world are also much better educated and much richer/more economically stable. I don't want to go into a massive sociological treatise on it but the bottom line is that people in the first world do not place a high value on having a large family whereas throughout the third world a man's success is measured by the amount of children he has (especially males), and this has a much more important effect on birth rates than availability of birth control. People tried to lower birth rates in India and Africa by saturating people with condoms. Poor people were literally roofing their houses with unused condoms. They didn't use them because they wanted to produce children.
As for you and your girlfriend, is it really contraceptives that prevent you from having a child? Of course not--you choose to use contraceptives because you don't want a child, not the other way around.
So your point is that contraceptives don't work just from being in proximity to people, they actually have to be used? I don't think anyone is disputing that.
My point is that the availability of contraceptives has no effect on a person's desire to produce offspring, and that a person's desire to produce offspring is the only significant factor in whether or not said person will actually produce offspring because the proportion of unintended pregnancies compared to total pregnancies is extremely small.
I've been calling these things daddy longlegs spiders my entire life, and they aren't even spiders. Mind = blown.
41% of Americans believe Dinosaurs and humans coexisted ... just made me want to facepalm. I'm also pissed at the taste bud/part of tongue misconception, My group got a question wrong at a bar trivia night recently because we didn't know which type of taste bud was located on the tip of your tongue.
1. Contraceptives have a marginal (at best) effect on how many children are born.
Are you saying this is a myth or that this is true? I dont understand... Of cource Contraceptives have a huge effect on child birth rates, maybe not in 3rd world countries but just take sweden as an example. Me and most of my friends have sex with our partner all the time and yet very few children are born. And if you look how it was for our grandparents they all had huge families since they also had sex all the time, but without any birth control this lead to children...
It doesn't have an effect on the likelihood of two people to produce a child, just an effect on the likelihood of a given sex act to produce a child. If you and your partner didn't want to have a child but had no access to contraceptives, you just wouldn't have so much sex, or you'd restrict it to oral/anal. By the same token, when you DID want to have a child, you just wouldn't use contraceptives. The only real factor that affects birth rate is how much people want to have a child. The availability of contraceptives just gives them more options for sex acts without child production.
I am sorry but i call bullshit on this one. I think that in every society where Contraceptives are readily avialable and it is not considered morally wrong to use them they will have a very real effect on child birth rates.
I think that the availability of contraceptives have planted they idea that you dont have to have a big family, or children early, or even children at all even if you are married. Without contraceptives this would not even be an option. I think the age where couples get their first child are steadily rising in Sweden.
You are trying to establish a causation when no causation can be shown here. There is a correlation, yes, but there are numerous other factors at work that most likely have a much higher effect on birth rates. Aside from access to contraceptives, people in the first world are also much better educated and much richer/more economically stable. I don't want to go into a massive sociological treatise on it but the bottom line is that people in the first world do not place a high value on having a large family whereas throughout the third world a man's success is measured by the amount of children he has (especially males), and this has a much more important effect on birth rates than availability of birth control. People tried to lower birth rates in India and Africa by saturating people with condoms. Poor people were literally roofing their houses with unused condoms. They didn't use them because they wanted to produce children.
As for you and your girlfriend, is it really contraceptives that prevent you from having a child? Of course not--you choose to use contraceptives because you don't want a child, not the other way around.
So your point is that contraceptives don't work just from being in proximity to people, they actually have to be used? I don't think anyone is disputing that.
I think the point is people's desire for small/large families has a much greater impact on the average family size than the availability of contraceptives
1. Want large family + have contraceptives->large family 2. Want large family + no contraceptives->large family
3. Want small family + have contraceptives->small family 4. Want small family + no contraceptives->small family
However, family #4 would be bigger than family #3 (even if both are much smaller than #1+2) because family #4 would have slightly more unintended pregnancies.(due to people wanting to have sex) The core issue is how much bigger.
Contraceptives might play a role in people Wanting smaller families by breaking the "virile man"=lots of sex=lots of kids connection in society (because when contraceptives are present more sex=/=more kids)
But I'd generally agree, the economic / other cultural conditions (ie no support for child 3) are probably more important
Nice find, will keep me distracted for a while longer heehee. And ya, the Great Wall of China one is a myth for sure. I even wondered it as a kid, if big ass buildings become so small as you're on a plane, how could one possibly see a smaller wall in space?
On January 15 2011 06:30 TymerA wrote: Its a common misconception that the word theory means ''guess'' in science.
I find the opposite to be true. Most people believe a theory is fact.
Theory is a collection of facts.
That is not quite true, here's an extract from my last semester Antirealisim essay.
The Pessimistic meta-induction is an argument brought forth by Larry Laudan (1981) in which he states that for a theory to be true, it must be empirically successful, and that its terms must refer to actual phenomena in the objective world, furthermore, if the theory is not empirically successful, it cannot be true, since it appears to contradict what we know of the world.
Past theories that where once empirically successful and which were deamed to refer to phenomena that existed in the real world are now are considered to not be true and the phenomena to which they refer to not exist. Since previously accepted and empirically successful theories were later considered to be false it then seems to follow that current and future accepted and empirically successful theories will also subsequently be considered false. Althought it might seem that modern theories may currently have empirical and predictive accuracy, but so to did previous theories of their time.
If a theory relies on "facts" to support it, but those facts are later falsified, were they really true to begin with? History shows us that they were not and gives a warning against casually accepting current and future scientific theory as ironclad truth.
Here's how science works: observe phenomenas (natural/experimental) - formulate theory - do experiments to test theory. So in a way theory is kind of a guess, a very educated guess based on observed data and existed theory.
In response to previous post: in science you should never think in absolute true/false terms. If a new experiment produces a surprise result not predicted by the current theory, that doesn't mean the theory is total garbage. Instead you should work to explain the new phenomena by expanding the theory. Dumb example: from midair releasing a metal ball in a warehouse, ball drops, gravity works; next day someone put a big magnet on the roof, ball rise up and stuck to the roof; does that mean that gravity theory is wrong? Some statistics guy said this and I think it's relevant: "All theories are wrong, but some are useful."
On January 19 2011 02:15 p4NDemik wrote: I've been calling these things daddy longlegs spiders my entire life, and they aren't even spiders. Mind = blown.
41% of Americans believe Dinosaurs and humans coexisted ... just made me want to facepalm. I'm also pissed at the taste bud/part of tongue misconception, My group got a question wrong at a bar trivia night recently because we didn't know which type of taste bud was located on the tip of your tongue.
There are still regions of your tongue with a greater sensitivity to certain tastes, so it's not completely a myth. The myth is that those regions are exclusive, and you can ONLY taste certain things in those regions. It's just a difference of relative receptor concentrations.
1. Contraceptives have a marginal (at best) effect on how many children are born.
Are you saying this is a myth or that this is true? I dont understand... Of cource Contraceptives have a huge effect on child birth rates, maybe not in 3rd world countries but just take sweden as an example. Me and most of my friends have sex with our partner all the time and yet very few children are born. And if you look how it was for our grandparents they all had huge families since they also had sex all the time, but without any birth control this lead to children...
It doesn't have an effect on the likelihood of two people to produce a child, just an effect on the likelihood of a given sex act to produce a child. If you and your partner didn't want to have a child but had no access to contraceptives, you just wouldn't have so much sex, or you'd restrict it to oral/anal. By the same token, when you DID want to have a child, you just wouldn't use contraceptives. The only real factor that affects birth rate is how much people want to have a child. The availability of contraceptives just gives them more options for sex acts without child production.
It took me not 5 min to find an actual example of it working:
Iran has succeeded in sharply reducing its birth rate in recent years. Iran is the only country where mandatory contraceptive courses are required for both males and females before a marriage license can be obtained. The government emphasizes the benefits of smaller families and the use of contraception,
Unless you can actually give me a valid source/study not done by religious group or with political motive behind it you wont convince me at least.
This doesn't change my point: the government of Iran wanted to lower the birth rate first, the contraceptives were introduced afterwards as a means towards that goal. If there was no desire to change the inherent value structure of big family = good, merely introducing contraceptives would have a negligible effect.
Here's another quote from the article you linked:
"In 1993, Parliament passed further legislation withdrawing food coupons, paid maternity leave, and social welfare subsidies after the third child."
Don't you think that that legislation would be just as if not much more effective in curbing birth rates?
I agree that the most important thing when it comes to birth rates is economy, China has had the problem resently where they actually have tried to increase the birth rate but since thier population have now become more financially stable the population has not really wanted to - but when they first introduced thier "one child rule" contraception was a vital part of making it possible.
If you look at urban areas with low birth rate you could argue that the birth rate would remain low even without contraceptions, but i think that only would hold true over a shorter time. I seriously doubt that you could get any society to go into forced celibacy because of the goverments wishes, and over time they will not even want to and having big famieles will again be the norm.
So maybe contraceptions are not the direct cause for any society lowering thier birth rates, but they certainly play a vital role and have a big effect on child births.
If I didn't have contraceptives, I am sure I would of caused many girls to be pregnant. Condoms are great. Sure without them I would restrain myself more. But hell there are times when I would of done it anyway. With or without protection.
1. Contraceptives have a marginal (at best) effect on how many children are born.
Are you saying this is a myth or that this is true? I dont understand... Of cource Contraceptives have a huge effect on child birth rates, maybe not in 3rd world countries but just take sweden as an example. Me and most of my friends have sex with our partner all the time and yet very few children are born. And if you look how it was for our grandparents they all had huge families since they also had sex all the time, but without any birth control this lead to children...
It doesn't have an effect on the likelihood of two people to produce a child, just an effect on the likelihood of a given sex act to produce a child. If you and your partner didn't want to have a child but had no access to contraceptives, you just wouldn't have so much sex, or you'd restrict it to oral/anal. By the same token, when you DID want to have a child, you just wouldn't use contraceptives. The only real factor that affects birth rate is how much people want to have a child. The availability of contraceptives just gives them more options for sex acts without child production.
I am sorry but i call bullshit on this one. I think that in every society where Contraceptives are readily avialable and it is not considered morally wrong to use them they will have a very real effect on child birth rates.
I think that the availability of contraceptives have planted they idea that you dont have to have a big family, or children early, or even children at all even if you are married. Without contraceptives this would not even be an option. I think the age where couples get their first child are steadily rising in Sweden.
You are trying to establish a causation when no causation can be shown here. There is a correlation, yes, but there are numerous other factors at work that most likely have a much higher effect on birth rates. Aside from access to contraceptives, people in the first world are also much better educated and much richer/more economically stable. I don't want to go into a massive sociological treatise on it but the bottom line is that people in the first world do not place a high value on having a large family whereas throughout the third world a man's success is measured by the amount of children he has (especially males), and this has a much more important effect on birth rates than availability of birth control. People tried to lower birth rates in India and Africa by saturating people with condoms. Poor people were literally roofing their houses with unused condoms. They didn't use them because they wanted to produce children.
As for you and your girlfriend, is it really contraceptives that prevent you from having a child? Of course not--you choose to use contraceptives because you don't want a child, not the other way around.
So your point is that contraceptives don't work just from being in proximity to people, they actually have to be used? I don't think anyone is disputing that.
My point is that the availability of contraceptives has no effect on a person's desire to produce offspring, and that a person's desire to produce offspring is the only significant factor in whether or not said person will actually produce offspring because the proportion of unintended pregnancies compared to total pregnancies is extremely small.
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.
On January 19 2011 07:52 NIJ wrote: Its not that hard to avoid pregnancy w.o contraceptives. Yeah its riskier, but not that hard.
I think his point is that the mere presence of contraceptives is not enough to prevent births. People have to want to use them, is more or less what I am getting from him. In other words, people seem to wonder what the disconnect is between parts of Africa and birth prevention, and he is saying that it isn't that birth prevention isn't present or that there is misinformation about birth prevention, but that people just don't want to do it.
Which is why those will be the countries that run the world in 200 years, when all of our "enlightened" Western countries have the population of a small town.
Most of these 'X% of people think Y' statistics are flat out misrepresentations. They make really misleading multiple choice questions and often draw conclusions that aren't based off of the question/answer. Nevermind the sample size. I'll try to find an article about it.
41% of of Americans think that dinosours and humans coexisted? Really? Because I live in one of the dumbest places in the U.S. and I haven't met one that thought that.
"Mathematics * Contrary to a widespread perception, the real number 0.999... is exactly equal to 1. They are two different ways of writing the same real number."
On January 19 2011 09:49 elmizzt wrote: "Mathematics * Contrary to a widespread perception, the real number 0.999... is exactly equal to 1. They are two different ways of writing the same real number."
oh no, not this again hahahahahah.
Contrary to a widespread perception, the real number 41.999... is exactly equal to 42. They are two different ways of writing the same real number.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 =[ )
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
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![[image loading]](http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/misconceptions.png)
![[image loading]](http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/6865/9780345384560.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.portal-cifi.com/scifi/images/noticias/Iberia_1km_lr.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.portal-cifi.com/scifi/images/noticias/Almeria_ISS_Ir_invernaderos.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://media.arstechnica.com/news.media/400/526893292_e95eb57c10.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/edifG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/ik5rC.png)
