|
On April 29 2016 20:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Plot twist: A Romanian becomes the master of satire and sarcasm on TL, and no one can tell he's joking. + Show Spoiler +
They've kindof always been... Just that the others didn't get their way of joking.
It was the same when I was in Italy (I'm Swedish), and did subtle jokes without the grand hand gestures and big smiles that they do in Italy. People got so confused.... What I said clearly didn't make any sense, but it was also clear to them that I wasn't joking. I think something similar is going on with Romanians here on TL. Their way of joking doesn't get across to (part of) the TL community, at least not in written form, and (some) people just assume Romanians are stupid instead.
|
On April 29 2016 18:06 xM(Z wrote:
you dudes have no idea how all of this started.
once upon a time ...
- human offspring always grew by themselves sheltered by/in matriarchal societies of different sizes. men never belonged to said societies since they had their own male only herds to roam with and were considered to brutal(children were often killed during male-male squabbles) to be allowed to live near/with the offspring.
- then came trading; a woman's invention obv. because ... cravings(during pregnancies initially but once the addiction kicked in they couldn't get enough of that good life). men didn't need to trade; if they wanted something they could fight for it/take it form a weakling or go and forage it.
- with trading came wealth(an evil byproduct) and the need to protect it. other women or/and their (often own)offspring could not be trusted with safeguarding said wealth because they would just eat it. this predicament was solved by introducing (lower ranked)men into matriarchal societies lured by the promise of sex but used as keepers of the trove. during those times, the men were trained to beat other women and children (allegedly)accused of thievery and so the corruption of men began.
- with guarding wealth came jealousy(an eviler byproduct). men started considering their hires as wealth...
end of part one
ps: Yoav is a specialer kind of hipster unicorn right?; above all, above else, has seen it all, has done it all. he's still looking for approval/needs to get noticed thou so daddy issues?, mommy issues?. don't worry dude, i'll be your David!.
Sounds like something straight outta XVIIth century
|
On April 29 2016 21:51 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2016 18:06 xM(Z wrote:
you dudes have no idea how all of this started.
once upon a time ...
- human offspring always grew by themselves sheltered by/in matriarchal societies of different sizes. men never belonged to said societies since they had their own male only herds to roam with and were considered to brutal(children were often killed during male-male squabbles) to be allowed to live near/with the offspring.
- then came trading; a woman's invention obv. because ... cravings(during pregnancies initially but once the addiction kicked in they couldn't get enough of that good life). men didn't need to trade; if they wanted something they could fight for it/take it form a weakling or go and forage it.
- with trading came wealth(an evil byproduct) and the need to protect it. other women or/and their (often own)offspring could not be trusted with safeguarding said wealth because they would just eat it. this predicament was solved by introducing (lower ranked)men into matriarchal societies lured by the promise of sex but used as keepers of the trove. during those times, the men were trained to beat other women and children (allegedly)accused of thievery and so the corruption of men began.
- with guarding wealth came jealousy(an eviler byproduct). men started considering their hires as wealth...
end of part one
ps: Yoav is a specialer kind of hipster unicorn right?; above all, above else, has seen it all, has done it all. he's still looking for approval/needs to get noticed thou so daddy issues?, mommy issues?. don't worry dude, i'll be your David!. Sounds like something straight outta XVIIth century
I don't think I've ever seen someone write out XVIIth instead of just 17th.
|
Some European countries still use Roman numerals to denote centuries.
|
nvm shame
+ Show Spoiler +1+4 = 5 2+5 = 12 3+6 = 21 8+11 = ? Solution + Show Spoiler +The answer is 96 because
1+(1*4)=5
2+(2*5)=12
3+(3*6)=21
8+(8*11)=96
How the fuck are these people getting 40? Are they dumb or am I? Facebook "riddles" should be beneath me
|
+ Show Spoiler +The way to reach 40 is the following:
1+4=5
2+5+5=12
3+6+12=21
8+11+21=40
Riddles like these are fairly dumb.
|
Welp I'm not very smart. Yay.
I guess I should've given it more than 1 second of thought. I just assumed these people were idiots, making me the idiot  . I go back to not looking at Facebook now.
|
On April 29 2016 23:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2016 21:51 OtherWorld wrote:On April 29 2016 18:06 xM(Z wrote:
you dudes have no idea how all of this started.
once upon a time ...
- human offspring always grew by themselves sheltered by/in matriarchal societies of different sizes. men never belonged to said societies since they had their own male only herds to roam with and were considered to brutal(children were often killed during male-male squabbles) to be allowed to live near/with the offspring.
- then came trading; a woman's invention obv. because ... cravings(during pregnancies initially but once the addiction kicked in they couldn't get enough of that good life). men didn't need to trade; if they wanted something they could fight for it/take it form a weakling or go and forage it.
- with trading came wealth(an evil byproduct) and the need to protect it. other women or/and their (often own)offspring could not be trusted with safeguarding said wealth because they would just eat it. this predicament was solved by introducing (lower ranked)men into matriarchal societies lured by the promise of sex but used as keepers of the trove. during those times, the men were trained to beat other women and children (allegedly)accused of thievery and so the corruption of men began.
- with guarding wealth came jealousy(an eviler byproduct). men started considering their hires as wealth...
end of part one
ps: Yoav is a specialer kind of hipster unicorn right?; above all, above else, has seen it all, has done it all. he's still looking for approval/needs to get noticed thou so daddy issues?, mommy issues?. don't worry dude, i'll be your David!. Sounds like something straight outta XVIIth century I don't think I've ever seen someone write out XVIIth instead of just 17th.
French habit. Writing centuries in roman numerals just conveys so much more swag, I guess.
|
+ Show Spoiler +
Clearly the conversation moved past the riddle, but I got 40. It's a bad riddle if it has a logical answer that isn't the "desired" one. So this was a pretty bad riddle.
|
meh, i forgot to add in the correlation+hypothetical. to ethology or to not ethology.
it involved drawing parallels between behavioral studies/observations of meat eating chimps(Princeton, Yale, USC other .edu articles), observed social/behavioral patterns in Amazonian tribes(primitive communism in its prime) and instinctive behavioral patterns observed in modern humans, applying them to a time frame of about 5mill to 2.5mill years ago when early humans allegedly separated from monkeys then making the whole thing ADHD proof.
anyway, was revolving around males being better at hunting and females being better at making and using tools, both doing what they could do best from thereon in a (relatively)separated manner(what would've been a shock for some of you is that neither actually cared(in the sense of planning for, or choosing a mate for) about their offspring; they were just unavoidable consequences of biological imperatives.
RIP whole idea now.
|
Shhh it's okay, just stop beating the dead horse now, it's already starting to bloat from all the decaying.
But uhmmmm why is it that sociology, biology, psychology, etc.. are not considered hard sciences when they're only just in their descriptive phase (and maybe now just entering their mathmatical phase)?
|
On April 30 2016 02:04 Uldridge wrote:
Shhh it's okay, just stop beating the dead horse now, it's already starting to bloat from all the decaying.
But uhmmmm why is it that sociology, biology, psychology, etc.. are not considered hard sciences when they're only just in their descriptive phase (and maybe now just entering their mathmatical phase)?
This is my favorite phase of all online arguments.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On April 30 2016 02:04 Uldridge wrote:
Shhh it's okay, just stop beating the dead horse now, it's already starting to bloat from all the decaying.
But uhmmmm why is it that sociology, biology, psychology, etc.. are not considered hard sciences when they're only just in their descriptive phase (and maybe now just entering their mathmatical phase)? 'cause of the implications. you can't handle them.
all i need to control you is that hypothetical and your instinctive reaction to my stimuli and it's all linked by the fact that you need to act.
and there's no dead horse; sneak peek ...male chimpanzees were likely to hunt when accompanied by other males. Males shared meat nonrandomly and reciprocally among themselves, and males exchanged meat for agonistic support. Although several factors are likely to affect chimpanzee hunting decisions and meat sharing, these results indicate that primary causes will not be found through invoking simple energetic or reproductive considerations.
2001 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour ...Although a scavenging life-style is frequently suggested for the early hominids, modern chimpanzees in the wild have little interest in dead animals as food.When scavenging does take place, the female chimpanzees do show more interest than do the males; the females are also more adept at using tools. The same may have been true of the earliest hominids.
Edit: i mean, how would you feel if you'd discover(and shown proof) that humans(most of) can be and are trained like dogs to perform certain tasks, to hold certain believes and so on?.
|
On April 30 2016 02:04 Uldridge wrote:
Shhh it's okay, just stop beating the dead horse now, it's already starting to bloat from all the decaying.
But uhmmmm why is it that sociology, biology, psychology, etc.. are not considered hard sciences when they're only just in their descriptive phase (and maybe now just entering their mathmatical phase)?
hard science is just a name, it doesnt means it's harder or better
|
I think it's widely accepted that physics, mathmatics, engineering and chemistry are the most difficult fields though..
On April 30 2016 02:23 xM(Z wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 30 2016 02:04 Uldridge wrote:
Shhh it's okay, just stop beating the dead horse now, it's already starting to bloat from all the decaying.
But uhmmmm why is it that sociology, biology, psychology, etc.. are not considered hard sciences when they're only just in their descriptive phase (and maybe now just entering their mathmatical phase)? 'cause of the implications. you can't handle them. all i need to control you is that hypothetical and your instinctive reaction to my stimuli and it's all linked by the fact that you need to act. and there's no dead horse; sneak peek ...male chimpanzees were likely to hunt when accompanied by other males. Males shared meat nonrandomly and reciprocally among themselves, and males exchanged meat for agonistic support. Although several factors are likely to affect chimpanzee hunting decisions and meat sharing, these results indicate that primary causes will not be found through invoking simple energetic or reproductive considerations.
2001 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour ... Although a scavenging life-style is frequently suggested for the early hominids, modern chimpanzees in the wild have little interest in dead animals as food.When scavenging does take place, the female chimpanzees do show more interest than do the males; the females are also more adept at using tools. The same may have been true of the earliest hominids. Edit: i mean, how would you feel if you'd discover(and shown proof) that humans(most of) can be and are trained like dogs to perform certain tasks, to hold certain believes and so on?.
Sorry, but the only thing I tried to do was making a segway to a new topic.
I don't even disagree with your views on biological role assignment per se.
|
On April 30 2016 02:51 Uldridge wrote:I think it's widely accepted that physics, mathmatics, engineering and chemistry are the most difficult fields though.. Show nested quote +On April 30 2016 02:23 xM(Z wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 30 2016 02:04 Uldridge wrote:
Shhh it's okay, just stop beating the dead horse now, it's already starting to bloat from all the decaying.
But uhmmmm why is it that sociology, biology, psychology, etc.. are not considered hard sciences when they're only just in their descriptive phase (and maybe now just entering their mathmatical phase)? 'cause of the implications. you can't handle them. all i need to control you is that hypothetical and your instinctive reaction to my stimuli and it's all linked by the fact that you need to act. and there's no dead horse; sneak peek ...male chimpanzees were likely to hunt when accompanied by other males. Males shared meat nonrandomly and reciprocally among themselves, and males exchanged meat for agonistic support. Although several factors are likely to affect chimpanzee hunting decisions and meat sharing, these results indicate that primary causes will not be found through invoking simple energetic or reproductive considerations.
2001 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour ... Although a scavenging life-style is frequently suggested for the early hominids, modern chimpanzees in the wild have little interest in dead animals as food.When scavenging does take place, the female chimpanzees do show more interest than do the males; the females are also more adept at using tools. The same may have been true of the earliest hominids. Edit: i mean, how would you feel if you'd discover(and shown proof) that humans(most of) can be and are trained like dogs to perform certain tasks, to hold certain believes and so on?. Sorry, but the only thing I tried to do was making a segway to a new topic. I don't even disagree with your views on biological role assignment per se.
I don't really think that topics with answers to their questions is all that hard outside of memorization.
|
On April 30 2016 04:20 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2016 02:51 Uldridge wrote:I think it's widely accepted that physics, mathmatics, engineering and chemistry are the most difficult fields though.. On April 30 2016 02:23 xM(Z wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 30 2016 02:04 Uldridge wrote:
Shhh it's okay, just stop beating the dead horse now, it's already starting to bloat from all the decaying.
But uhmmmm why is it that sociology, biology, psychology, etc.. are not considered hard sciences when they're only just in their descriptive phase (and maybe now just entering their mathmatical phase)? 'cause of the implications. you can't handle them. all i need to control you is that hypothetical and your instinctive reaction to my stimuli and it's all linked by the fact that you need to act. and there's no dead horse; sneak peek ...male chimpanzees were likely to hunt when accompanied by other males. Males shared meat nonrandomly and reciprocally among themselves, and males exchanged meat for agonistic support. Although several factors are likely to affect chimpanzee hunting decisions and meat sharing, these results indicate that primary causes will not be found through invoking simple energetic or reproductive considerations.
2001 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour ... Although a scavenging life-style is frequently suggested for the early hominids, modern chimpanzees in the wild have little interest in dead animals as food.When scavenging does take place, the female chimpanzees do show more interest than do the males; the females are also more adept at using tools. The same may have been true of the earliest hominids. Edit: i mean, how would you feel if you'd discover(and shown proof) that humans(most of) can be and are trained like dogs to perform certain tasks, to hold certain believes and so on?. Sorry, but the only thing I tried to do was making a segway to a new topic. I don't even disagree with your views on biological role assignment per se. I don't really think that topics with answers to their questions is all that hard outside of memorization.
That's actually the reason why it's so hard though; you can't just make up subjective, interpretive shit based on your feelings and get an A 
A good science or math class will force you to interpret and truly understand science and mathematics, rather than just letting you get away with rote memorization.
|
On April 30 2016 07:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2016 04:20 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 30 2016 02:51 Uldridge wrote:I think it's widely accepted that physics, mathmatics, engineering and chemistry are the most difficult fields though.. On April 30 2016 02:23 xM(Z wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 30 2016 02:04 Uldridge wrote:
Shhh it's okay, just stop beating the dead horse now, it's already starting to bloat from all the decaying.
But uhmmmm why is it that sociology, biology, psychology, etc.. are not considered hard sciences when they're only just in their descriptive phase (and maybe now just entering their mathmatical phase)? 'cause of the implications. you can't handle them. all i need to control you is that hypothetical and your instinctive reaction to my stimuli and it's all linked by the fact that you need to act. and there's no dead horse; sneak peek ...male chimpanzees were likely to hunt when accompanied by other males. Males shared meat nonrandomly and reciprocally among themselves, and males exchanged meat for agonistic support. Although several factors are likely to affect chimpanzee hunting decisions and meat sharing, these results indicate that primary causes will not be found through invoking simple energetic or reproductive considerations.
2001 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour ... Although a scavenging life-style is frequently suggested for the early hominids, modern chimpanzees in the wild have little interest in dead animals as food.When scavenging does take place, the female chimpanzees do show more interest than do the males; the females are also more adept at using tools. The same may have been true of the earliest hominids. Edit: i mean, how would you feel if you'd discover(and shown proof) that humans(most of) can be and are trained like dogs to perform certain tasks, to hold certain believes and so on?. Sorry, but the only thing I tried to do was making a segway to a new topic. I don't even disagree with your views on biological role assignment per se. I don't really think that topics with answers to their questions is all that hard outside of memorization. That's actually the reason why it's so hard though; you can't just make up subjective, interpretive shit based on your feelings and get an A A good science or math class will force you to interpret and truly understand science and mathematics, rather than just letting you get away with rote memorization.
It really depends on how you define hard. The goal of STEM is to get the correct answers (until you get into research mode where you start looking for unfound answers)
The goal of humanities is to create a new unexplored idea--which is impossible for 99% of the human population to do, and so they just don't focus on grades since no one would pass.
Like, could a freshman really say something about Shakespeare that hasn't already been said by someone during the 400 years since Shakespeare died? Getting A's or B's sure, that's easier in softer things like the humanities. Realistically speaking, its more about what do we define as hard more than which is actually harder.
|
On April 30 2016 08:45 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2016 07:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 30 2016 04:20 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 30 2016 02:51 Uldridge wrote:I think it's widely accepted that physics, mathmatics, engineering and chemistry are the most difficult fields though.. On April 30 2016 02:23 xM(Z wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 30 2016 02:04 Uldridge wrote:
Shhh it's okay, just stop beating the dead horse now, it's already starting to bloat from all the decaying.
But uhmmmm why is it that sociology, biology, psychology, etc.. are not considered hard sciences when they're only just in their descriptive phase (and maybe now just entering their mathmatical phase)? 'cause of the implications. you can't handle them. all i need to control you is that hypothetical and your instinctive reaction to my stimuli and it's all linked by the fact that you need to act. and there's no dead horse; sneak peek ...male chimpanzees were likely to hunt when accompanied by other males. Males shared meat nonrandomly and reciprocally among themselves, and males exchanged meat for agonistic support. Although several factors are likely to affect chimpanzee hunting decisions and meat sharing, these results indicate that primary causes will not be found through invoking simple energetic or reproductive considerations.
2001 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour ... Although a scavenging life-style is frequently suggested for the early hominids, modern chimpanzees in the wild have little interest in dead animals as food.When scavenging does take place, the female chimpanzees do show more interest than do the males; the females are also more adept at using tools. The same may have been true of the earliest hominids. Edit: i mean, how would you feel if you'd discover(and shown proof) that humans(most of) can be and are trained like dogs to perform certain tasks, to hold certain believes and so on?. Sorry, but the only thing I tried to do was making a segway to a new topic. I don't even disagree with your views on biological role assignment per se. I don't really think that topics with answers to their questions is all that hard outside of memorization. That's actually the reason why it's so hard though; you can't just make up subjective, interpretive shit based on your feelings and get an A A good science or math class will force you to interpret and truly understand science and mathematics, rather than just letting you get away with rote memorization. It really depends on how you define hard. The goal of STEM is to get the correct answers (until you get into research mode where you start looking for unfound answers) The goal of humanities is to create a new unexplored idea--which is impossible for 99% of the human population to do, and so they just don't focus on grades since no one would pass. Like, could a freshman really say something about Shakespeare that hasn't already been said by someone during the 400 years since Shakespeare died? Getting A's or B's sure, that's easier in softer things like the humanities. Realistically speaking, its more about what do we define as hard more than which is actually harder.
I understand what you're getting at, but that hasn't been true in math and science education for about 30 years now. I mean, obviously correct answers are great and all, but the goal of science and math hasn't been "to get the correct answers"; it's been to perform science and mathematics. And that includes a lot of trial and error, trying things, getting them wrong, understanding the scientific process and mathematical proof, etc. Learning science and math through doing science and math has been the biggest objective of STEM education since around the 80s/90s. (That way they're better prepared for further research, and have learned and retained necessary math and science skills. It's less about facts and correct answers and more about strategies and skills.)
But all subjects can be made challenging and rewarding for students- or boring and only simple fact/lecture-oriented.
|
On April 30 2016 09:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2016 08:45 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 30 2016 07:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 30 2016 04:20 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 30 2016 02:51 Uldridge wrote:I think it's widely accepted that physics, mathmatics, engineering and chemistry are the most difficult fields though.. On April 30 2016 02:23 xM(Z wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 30 2016 02:04 Uldridge wrote:
Shhh it's okay, just stop beating the dead horse now, it's already starting to bloat from all the decaying.
But uhmmmm why is it that sociology, biology, psychology, etc.. are not considered hard sciences when they're only just in their descriptive phase (and maybe now just entering their mathmatical phase)? 'cause of the implications. you can't handle them. all i need to control you is that hypothetical and your instinctive reaction to my stimuli and it's all linked by the fact that you need to act. and there's no dead horse; sneak peek ...male chimpanzees were likely to hunt when accompanied by other males. Males shared meat nonrandomly and reciprocally among themselves, and males exchanged meat for agonistic support. Although several factors are likely to affect chimpanzee hunting decisions and meat sharing, these results indicate that primary causes will not be found through invoking simple energetic or reproductive considerations.
2001 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour ... Although a scavenging life-style is frequently suggested for the early hominids, modern chimpanzees in the wild have little interest in dead animals as food.When scavenging does take place, the female chimpanzees do show more interest than do the males; the females are also more adept at using tools. The same may have been true of the earliest hominids. Edit: i mean, how would you feel if you'd discover(and shown proof) that humans(most of) can be and are trained like dogs to perform certain tasks, to hold certain believes and so on?. Sorry, but the only thing I tried to do was making a segway to a new topic. I don't even disagree with your views on biological role assignment per se. I don't really think that topics with answers to their questions is all that hard outside of memorization. That's actually the reason why it's so hard though; you can't just make up subjective, interpretive shit based on your feelings and get an A A good science or math class will force you to interpret and truly understand science and mathematics, rather than just letting you get away with rote memorization. It really depends on how you define hard. The goal of STEM is to get the correct answers (until you get into research mode where you start looking for unfound answers) The goal of humanities is to create a new unexplored idea--which is impossible for 99% of the human population to do, and so they just don't focus on grades since no one would pass. Like, could a freshman really say something about Shakespeare that hasn't already been said by someone during the 400 years since Shakespeare died? Getting A's or B's sure, that's easier in softer things like the humanities. Realistically speaking, its more about what do we define as hard more than which is actually harder. I understand what you're getting at, but that hasn't been true in math and science education for about 30 years now. I mean, obviously correct answers are great and all, but the goal of science and math hasn't been "to get the correct answers"; it's been to perform science and mathematics. And that includes a lot of trial and error, trying things, getting them wrong, understanding the scientific process and mathematical proof, etc. Learning science and math through doing science and math has been the biggest objective of STEM education since around the 80s/90s. (That way they're better prepared for further research, and have learned and retained necessary math and science skills. It's less about facts and correct answers and more about strategies and skills.) But all subjects can be made challenging and rewarding for students- or boring and only simple fact/lecture-oriented.
I understand, which is why I said "until you get to research mode."
But the thing is, all these "trials and errors" in experiments are the repetitions of already performed experiments. There are understood conclusions you are expected to get, or not get. The goal in 99% of these experiments is not to find something new, but to find something that has already been quantified.
This is because STEM is limited to the observable realities of objects. It is working with defined values, defined goals, with predefined outcomes. Its not really until you get to exploratory science that you actually go back into the realm of the abstract.
Humanities is supposed to start at the abstract--where you have a room full of people looking at the same object and are supposed to prove that there is or isn't meaning in the observed object. But how do you grade that? And what if the argument made by a student was already disproven by some scholar 200 years prior? What if it turns out that crux of a student's argument disappears had the text been read in Swahili instead of Old French? So much of it is simply ignored in the sake of simplicity, contexts and data cleared out just to make it easier on students, just to make it easier on teachers. its too hard otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VHlPuJN.gif)
