Deidre

This is interesting, have you read this, rocket?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelation

Adding a turbine doesn't solve the problem. You do this by making the tank deeper, but that means it takes more energy to create the bubble, because the pressure is greater at the bottom. There's no way to win. There's not even a way to break even.

Unfortunately, this is too true.

 

Deidre, I see that you are form the United States.

 

Perhaps that is why your experience of arrogance is different from mine amd you identify it with a feeling of inferiority.

 

Being English, I have a lifetime's experience of the english upper classes where to many (but not all) arrogance comes naturally from a feeling of superiority (deserved or not).

I certainly wouldn't propose that this group has any higher level of intelligence than the population at large, though fortune has smiled on them somewhere along the line.

This is a curious view, and I'll have to ponder it some.

 

 

 

Turion - no, I am not saying that I would not work with an arrogant person regardless of whether they were intelligent or not. I'm saying that I would not like to socialise with an arrogant person regardless of their degree of intelligence. By extension, I grant that I also would not like to work with an arrogant person regardless of their degree of intelligence. However, most employees have little/no choice with respect to the person(s) with whom they are expected to work, and usually have to get on with it. Socialising is different - we have much more control over our human environment in social circles - I certainly would prefer to befriend humble rather than arrogant people.

 

I think in most cases, arrogant people do not recognise the attitude that they are espousing. 'Arrogant people' is a bit of a misnomer, too - individuals are not 100% arrogant versus 100% humble in 100% of cases. Typically, their behaviour will vary in accordance with their human environment and with the situational context. If, as Deidre has mentioned, arrogance is indeed a trait that surfaces as a defensive response to a perceived threat, i.e. the person feels threatened by an attribute that they perceive to be lacking in themself (whether the attribute is lacking in fact or not, it is the person's self-perception that is important) and which they identify in one or more of their immediate neighbours - then it would be expected that the person would have a high probability of displaying arrogant behaviours when surrounded by these people. I do not think it is helpful to take a person with self-esteem issues underlying their arrogance and then labelling them as 'arrogant' or as 'an arrogant person'. The person would require sympathy/empathy, kindness and possibly counselling to address the ultimate source of their personal issues - I will admit that it is easier to recommend this course of action than to actually act on it when dealing with an arrogant person who is being irritating.

I agree with this, good points.

Great thoughts so far in this thread.Then, there's all the root causes of cancer, where to begin? An individual has varying degrees of control over potential risks to cancer-causing agents. As has been said here, cancer cells, and how they grow, remain unpredictable and in some cases mysterious. Even after seemingly effective treatments, ''tricky'' cancer cells are able to sort of 'hide' in some patients and resurface at later dates. It's very terrifying in that sense, that doctors think they have the disease under control, but come to find out, they don't. I think there have been trememdous strides though, so at least progress is being made.

This is pretty sobering! I don't imagine robots will replace humans in all lines of work, but it sounds like for tasks that don't require interaction with the general public, etc...robots could be a viable alternative to human employees.

 

Will these robots get pensions and vacations, too?

 

It feels like this happened over night, but honestly, it's been a long time in the making, when we stop and think about it.

hello everyone, first time posting here, but I need some advice

 

I'm currently in Geo/Trig mathematics and Bio/Chem classes ((sophomore)), but I need some advice.

 

I'm currently able to take a classes level Physics 1 class, and it's a rather large investment of time, so I would like to know.

 

Would it be good to start with Physics 1 (physics a), then move to b and c physics, then start reading quantum physics books and etc, or would it be better for me to just skip traditional physics and go right into qm books.

I know basic physics stuff, not a ton of equations but I know a decent amount.

 

Just for added information, I'd love to go into a job that has to do with particle physics, and/or something to do with that. Could someone maybe offer choices that someone who is interested in this type of physics would be good to try and get a job in?

 

At this point i'm just trying to figure out what to start on to get into a decent college, and from there work on a ph.d in particle physics (i've seen this at some colleges, i'm not sure if it's called ph.d in particle physics though? would it just be a ph.d in physics orrrrr).

 

Thank you.

I wouldn't skip traditional physics. It's good to build a solid understanding and foundation. We can't run until we learn how to walk, so my advice would be to not skip. Good luck to you with your studies!

I think you have made a mistake; a persons insecurities can be because of real life pressures, therefore a persons personal "insecurity", is not breeding arrogance, but rather the enmity between geniuses that causes them to interact with each other on such a frequent basis. I suppose it can be thought of as intelligence, but I would say it's reality-based. Reality is arrogant, as well as other 'socially perverse' things. You could say it was luck and pin it to the person but it's not necessarily luck and the scene which brings geniuses together is more to blame - predisposed luck.

My own findings tell me that arrogance points more to someone feeling inadequate. Arrogance is an outward sign to others saying, 'notice me.' If someone is happy with his or her own life, confident and satisfied, in essence 'at peace,' then that type of person has no reason to be arrogant. Arrogance is often perceived as something that naturally happens when someone becomes successful, etc. But, the opposite (in my opine) is true. Usually people who are arrogant, feel that they are inadequate, so no matter how intelligent, successful, attractive, wealthy they may be, they don't feel content with their lives. It's hard for me to completely explain. lol

Tridimity,

 

You're basically saying that you wouldn't work with an arrogant person regardless of whether they were intelligent or not.

 

You bring up some valid points and I have another question.

 

Do you think arrogant people know that they are being arrogant?

 

Deidre,

 

Your definition of arrogance gives off a vibe that arrogance is a side effect or manifestation of mental illness. If I understood you correctly, how can it be a choice?

 

I agree that we all have issues however I don't believe we are helpless with these issues for life. For me, physical activity brings out my best side and inactivity brings out my worst side.

 

I'm glad we can move forward in a positive direction.

No, I actually said that I thought arrogance is more of an attitude or character flaw.

I don't believe we are helpless with our issues either, just said we all have foibles, and for some, arrogance might be their struggle to overcome. It's usually the byproduct of something else, like feeling inferior or feeling small, and trying to overcompensate. That has just been my thoughts about it, but everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Mine is just one in a sea of many.

Never mind. Found the answer to my question.

If someone is truly "humble," whether of high intelligence or not, then an observer wouldn't think such a person is arrogant simply based on his or her IQ. (or educational accomplishments)

 

Arrogance is a choice, high (innate) intelligence isn't. Arrogance stems from many things but it is a behavior, a choice to treat others as though he or she is superior to them. In my observations, usually arrogant people feel small and are trying to overcompensate for what they feel they lack as compared to those around them. It can be helpful to try to see that instead of writing the person off because everyone has issues, they just manifest in different ways. We all have our own foibles, I should say but to me, geniuses will only be viewed as arrogant if they choose to act superior due to their intelligence. Of those I know who are of high natural intelligence, they are pretty modest people.

 

To the OP: thanks for clarifying your original point and stating that you weren't being sarcastic. I didn't read your words as a compliment so my apology to you. I should have asked for clarification before leaping to the wrong conclusion.

Several shots of tequila?

lol that sounds good

 

If someone wonders why females or really anyone would be put offf here, just read the "arrogance" thread in the general philosophy section. If that is the way people exchange ideas here, by insulting others for no reason, then looks like I don't quite fit here.

Thank you for sharing an exceptional definition of arrogance Deidre. I guess curing the insecurity would cure the arrogance? Physical activity as a cure perhaps?

What I meant to ask was if the behavior of a humble genius, such as being independent and solving problems independently with an exceptional ability can be misunderstood as arrogance from a mentally inferior outsider looking in at the actions of the humble genius.

I think you are trying to insult me for some reason, as this reply seems sarcastic. So you can answer your own question.

If we knew what happened prior to the Big Bang (what caused it), we probably could be more definitive in our answers, But, all of our known physical laws, including GR (which have so far assumed spacetime to be flat) breakdown at singularities due to the curvature of spacetime.

I'm female, and I'm posting more now. Do I get a cookie or a gold star or something?

Intelligence can be innate, or it can be earned. Arrogance is either a character flaw, or an attitude. Arrogance is often an insecure person's character flaw, for truly confident people don't have anything to prove or brag about. It's usually those who feel inferior to others, even if they possess high intelligence, who exhibit arrogant behavior. So, intelligence doesn't breed arrogance. Insecurity does.

I've noticed on OSF, and many other forums that people who make erroneous statments tend to receive far more responses than people with honest to god questions....why is this?

 

~ee

You mean questions that are of a pseudoscience nature? If so, think it's because the answers that follow run a wide spectrum from religious notions, to philosophical, to actual scientific explanations. I've seen this also in other forums, and when you see questions like that, the person posing the question isn't looking for an actual answer, he or she is more than likely, just looking for attention, and the longer the thread drones on, the better for the person. Sad to say that, but that is how I see it. Pages upon pages of posts later, there's no resolution, and you forget what the thread was initially about by that point.

 

 

I'd be surprised if you have ever encountered a female.

 

 

I gathered from rereading the text that they were saying that the qualia cannot be accounted for by a physical brain state on any machine as of now. It suffices to say that the mind is possibly a distinct entity from the brain that produces it and that each can interact in both directions. But it sounds lunatic to me personally speaking. How are they saying these kind of things will require more research on my part before i throw in the towel already.

 

 

Forgetting qualia just for a minute! How does matter (tangible brain) produce mind (intangible)???

Actually, I think that is a common 'argument' for the evidence of where our consciousness comes from--that the brain produces the mind, the mind being our consciousness. (meaning, our ability to be aware of what is happening around us)

Relating to the OP, I don't believe robots will ever be 'conscious,' as to be conscious would mean to be aware. Robots will never be aware of what is happening, they are merely programmed to fulfilling tasks. Fulfilling tasks in an automated, robotic fashion, with no emotion or consciousness of actions.

Yippee another one

 

The poll still shows a more than 6:1 ratio though

lol I just voted!

I'm female, but have been lurking mainly. I should post more.

Only bad thing about this, is it looks time consuming!

And indeed as emotional creatures with very complex thoughts and a subconscious, not all are decisions are based on well founded logical thought taking into account all the possible outcomes.

 

And then we come to the pressures of culture and peers in our decisions making...

yes, I agree with this totally. I think at first, I thought the thread intent was implying that people are somehow not responsible for their actions. This makes sense to me, now.

We are responsible for our decisions, regardless of what drives us to make the decisions. Circumstances don't dictate our decisions. If that were the case, we would see only people with fantastic circumstances making good decisions and leading peaceful lives. Events that happen in our lives can shape our subconscious and we may make decisions based on our worldview but we are still responsible for our decisions. I don't disagree that our subconscious mind carries with it thoughts that may be ingrained say from childhood, etc...and that can affect our decisions.

Maybe we could ask George Zimmerman for an example...

 

 

 

I don't understand what this is illustrating.