Speedy's Cafe - General Chat about anything you like!

[Bluebell]

 

Er... football?

Yes, football. WE WON! WE f***ING WON!!! HOLY SHIT!!!

 

 

Excellent! I have no current overview over the goal statuses, as I have neither tv nor home internet, but I heard Germany also won the last game. Keep on winning and maybe soon there's a match Germany vs Belgium...

 

@Arcadia: Still the euro-championships goin on here. I know you americans say soccer, but we say football.  ;)

[Shadow Dweller]

Testing link(ing):

 

http://web-us.com/brain/right_left_brain_characteristics.htm

It works! :D Wonder what other format were accepted by this forum *is thinking about experimenting*

 

What I would like to know is, why choose left for details or sometimes for mathematics & logics?

[SherlockedCAMPer]

The people who study such things realized that the left side of the brain tends to be the logical/analytical side while the right side tends to be creative.

 

Like you Shadow I've had results show me as left-brain while I'm also and N. I tend to see the big picture and if it interests me the details. I'm an odd sort who is both creative and analytical. I may be classified as an INFP but the STJ show up often enough in their own ways.

[Arcadia]

Same here, I'm both a big-picture person and a detail person ... but I think I parse the details in a different way than a lot of other detail people I know -- I tend to use them to draw new conclusions, other people seem to use them to confirm what they already know (which I find boring, and if I'm bored, I can't be bothered with the details! ) So on the whole I would say my big picture skills are stronger, but that doesn't mean I can't see the details too.

 

I'm not sure that makes any sense ...

[Carol the Dabbler]

... I think I parse the details [in order to] draw new conclusions, other people seem to use them to confirm what they already know.... So on the whole I would say my big picture skills are stronger, but that doesn't mean I can't see the details too.

 

I think I'm sorta like that too (must be an INTP thing).

 

But it's one thing to develop a big picture by analyzing observed details -- and quite another to explain things that way to someone else. I had a boss who drove me nuts in that way. Like if you asked him, "What's a car?" he'd say, "Well, it has a steering wheel and a windshield and a gas pedal." Of course he was explaining technical stuff, not cars, but I swear that's hardly an exaggeration. Made me wonder if he even had the big picture. He sure couldn't convey it.

[Van Buren Supernova]

Nope. I just suspect he mixed something strange into your cuppa.

Oh.. OH! He did mumble about something suspicious and surprisingly nice by preparing breakfast but I thought it's just an excuse so that he can play with my dog.

They are nowehere to be seen right now.. oh, there, they are playing digging in the garden. Wait, what is that they are burying?

 

 

Regarding small and big picture, same here, I think I can see both, maybe almost equally, like I see this person overall intention (for example, manipulation) and then I see the subtle paths or ways or detail of steps that he is attempting.

[Arcadia]

Maybe they're not burying anything. Maybe they're digging up the bodies. :p

[Shadow Dweller]

 

... I think I parse the details [in order to] draw new conclusions, other people seem to use them to confirm what they already know.... So on the whole I would say my big picture skills are stronger, but that doesn't mean I can't see the details too.

 

I think I'm sorta like that too (must be an INTP thing).

 

But it's one thing to develop a big picture by analyzing observed details -- and quite another to explain things that way to someone else. I had a boss who drove me nuts in that way. Like if you asked him, "What's a car?" he'd say, "Well, it has a steering wheel and a windshield and a gas pedal." Of course he was explaining technical stuff, not cars, but I swear that's hardly an exaggeration. Made me wonder if he even had the big picture. He sure couldn't convey it.

To an extent, the Dunning-Kruger effect? That could explain Sherlock's exasperation each time the NSY officers had failed to catch and or interpret clues like he can.

[Van Buren Supernova]

Why Trump not in the list?

[Shadow Dweller]

The list is editable

[Arcadia]

The first time I read that, I thought it said "the list is edible" and I'm going, "huh?" :d

 

That "RationalWiki" is wonderful, thank you for introducing me to it. Although every time it makes me laugh I start coughing, so maybe I shouldn't be thanking you after all. (Darn allergies!)

 

 

[Arcadia]

Trump has his own page: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Trump#Listen_up.2C_Fives.2C_a_Ten_is_speaking.21 

and at the same time

[Carol the Dabbler]

Why Trump not in the list?

Possibly because the list seems weighted toward conservatives (what might we deduce about the list-makers?) and only God knows what Trump is.

[Van Buren Supernova]

He is the first person I think of when I read the definition. And oh, I read his page @Arcadia, I thought it's almost done when realizing I was only about 10%. Dear god! XD but it's good read.

 

I might mess up the term, let me know if my logical calculation is right, so is it true that the biggest idiots of all are the ones who thinks they have impostor syndrome while what they are is actually illusory superiority?

[Carol the Dabbler]

... is it true that the biggest idiots of all are the ones who thinks they have impostor syndrome while what they are is actually illusory superiority?

You mean delusions of grandeur with a coating of false modesty? Yeah, I think you've nailed it.

[Van Buren Supernova]

:cowdance:

[Arcadia]

Possibly because the list seems weighted toward conservatives

 

Possibly because the climate-change deniers etc. tend to be "conservatives"? :P

 

Remember how the "liberals" have tried to rebrand themselves as "progressives"? (A term I dislike, by the way. What's progress got to do with political preferences?) Maybe the "traditional conservatives" should consider trying the same thing! :D (Not sure it's worked for liberals, though, we're still associated with our lunatic fringe too.)

[Arcadia]

By the way, on the news last night they interviewed a girl who said she voted for "Brexit" as a protest, never expecting it would win, and now that it had, she regretted her vote.

 

I wonder if some of the Trump voters aren't experiencing the same sensation...

[Carol the Dabbler]

Possibly because the climate-change deniers etc. tend to be "conservatives"? :P

 

Remember how the "liberals" have tried to rebrand themselves as "progressives"?

You're straining my brain, but yeah, I remember that far back. More lately, seems they're wanting to call themselves " moderates" or "centrists" -- apparently because they're to the right of the lunatic fringe that you mentioned, ignoring the fact that they're still well to the left of half the country. (And before someone mentions that they'd practically be considered conservatives in Europe, let me point out that they're not in Europe -- any more than European politicians should be judged by American standards.)

 

You do realize that referring to climate-change skeptics as "deniers" comes real close to name-calling? (I agree that some of them sound like nut cases, but so do some proportion of any group. In fact, see point #1 below.) Personally, I'd be inclined to assume that the scientific establishment was essentially correct, if it weren't for three things: 1) So many of the climate-change proponents come across as true believers rather than truth seekers (this ain't a religion, folks!), 2) Even the top professionals seem to feel the need to improve their position by cooking the books (even if the accusations derived from Climategate were supposedly shown to be baseless overall, they raised enough red flags that I still question the objectivity of climate scientists, and take their pronouncements with a large grain of salt), and 3) They want me to accept computer modeling as proof.

 

On that last point, the usefullness of computer modeling relies on two factors, the accuracy of the data and the objectivity of the programming. Achieving the former is merely difficult. The latter is well-nigh impossible, simply because in order to write the software, you have to make SOME sort of assumptions about what's going on. So the best you're ever going to achieve is something like "if A is true, then B is the likely outcome.". They tend to omit telling us about A.

[T.o.b.y]

By the way, on the news last night they interviewed a girl who said she voted for "Brexit" as a protest, never expecting it would win, and now that it had, she regretted her vote.

 

I wonder if some of the Trump voters aren't experiencing the same sensation...

If this is true - people just voting on shit for a lark or to show "the establishment" the finger - then I have little hope left for democracy and I am really scared for the future. If the only people left who care enough to take voting seriously are extremists and fanatics of some kind, what's to become of the rest of us? We risk handing power over from the rational many to the passionate few, which I think is neither safe nor wise.

[Shadow Dweller]

Some of my friends were fond of the term of 'oligarchy' to call what essentially they saw the US government is. From UK to US, the similarity of angry and 'disillusioned' grass root cannot be denied. These people was, is and would be lashing out the only way they know of when they 'feel' that they had been forced to deal with worsening living conditions but no power to attempt change. These people, largely uninformed about what actually happened outside their own bubble, is easy prey for a demagogue who only serves his own interests. These people believe on vague promises that rings true to their own world view (confirmation bias?) while disregarding the use of critical thinking that if utilized, will show them that the world is not so black and white after all.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I agree.

 

But on the other hand, I tend to be really irked when politicians claim that I disagree with them only because I "don't understand.". So maybe when I look at people who are supporting a certain demagogue, and say that they just don't understand -- well, maybe I'm oversimplifying too. (Not that I'd even consider voting for the S.O.B.) The world is a big, complex, confusing place.

[Shadow Dweller]

The materials to educate ourselves about the current affairs are out there and can be accessed by anyone with data plan (if we don't have channels to national security professionals and the likes). The question is, would we actually do that? Here we arrives again to the Dunning-Kruger effect previously discussed.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Trouble is, very few of us have access to the original information. All we have available is the media's spin on what the government is willing to release.

[Shadow Dweller]

What is available is still enough to see the rough outline of the players, their ever-shifting positions and how they were connected to each other directly and not. At this age we are no longer have to rely on official channels, and in general people is willing to talk for a 'price'.