Phi for All

There are situations as above where differences in gender between humans change the outcome (although it's not consistent - not every professionally trained man can outfight every professionally trained woman). There are situations where it makes no difference at all. In sports, I think ethics are next to impossible to judge with so much competition around. Extreme winning tactics and fair play are not always compatible. But women regularly beat men in equestrian sports, long-distance swimming, rock-climbing, motor sports, and most gymnastics. The sport makes all the difference. Tailor it to showcase strength and speed and it will feature the strongest and fastest.

Handy andy has been banned for ignoring the rules repeatedly, and for threatening to continue as long as he's here. Officially, SFN officially doesn't deal with intellectual terrorists.

Since this has nothing to do with fiber twisting, I'll assume it's a weird and very poor response to the title of the late Steven Vogel's book, Why the Wheel is Round. I highly suggest you read it and add to your knowledge.

The data is tight and the conclusions firm. I'm convinced enough to move on to an alpha-test of a new procedure I'm calling Smart Sex. I'll go to great lengths to help improve cognitive function, no matter how hard on me it is.

We are equally agreeable to JohnLesser 's request to be banned.

If you can say that without smiling, you have a good pucker face.

The vegan version is made from sea salt and ocean plastic....

JohnLesser has been suspended for a week for his caustic combination of trolling while soapboxing. We need evidence if you're going to make anti-mainstream claims, it's in the rules. Without that, it's just your word against all those that have mountains of it.

Terry Pratchett had substitious, for people who believe in things that are true that most people don't believe (like "sometimes things just happen").

Wicked Witch has been banned as a sockpuppet of zbigniew.modrzejewski.

Remember that anybody studying empathic ability is going to be looking for behavior that is way beyond what would be considered normal sensitivity to the feelings of others. If they can't document this extraordinary behavior, if it can't be measured repeatedly in a meaningful way, there's no article to write. When they do find evidence, even if it runs against mainstream science, it must be considered and explained. Here's a good example. People have long held that certain charms can affect the outcome of competitive activities (and lots of rational scientists insist luck is an illusion), so psychologists at the U of Cologne devised an experiment that tested this, and found there was an effect outside what would be considered normal. It's not luck really, but it seems that in situations where a lot of confidence can benefit, a lucky charm actually can increase your chances of success in a measurable way. Perhaps you could undertake your own study on empaths with this perspective. Perhaps people who believe they're superempathic are more confident and successful at using the standard share of empathy we all have.

The best thing would be to understand what empathy really is. People can be empathic for sure, and here's a test for that devised by the University of Cambridge. Empathy is just the ability to see things from another's perspective, and if you do it right, you can't help but feel a bit the same. But that's a far cry from the kind of supernatural sensitivity you mentioned the empath you know told you he could manifest. When that sort of thing is tested for, it's never repeatable, and any variations from statistical normal are explainable through natural means. Earlier, he might have heard loud voices downstairs, now there's silence, he imagines them brooding angrily, empathizes with it, then goes downstairs and sees his roommates scowling at one another. Let me ask you this, have you ever found what you're looking for, an article reviewing the tests, for something else supernatural, like telekinesis, or telepathy? Have you ever found a study saying "We tested x people and found that nobody could guess which card would come up next in a deck better than a certain range of normal capabilities"?

You need to understand that science doesn't attempt to *prove* anything. The only thing we can do is offer explanations, based on observation and testing, supported with evidence, to explain various phenomena. Empathic ability of the kind you mention has been tested and lacks any evidence to suggest there is more there than a normal statistical range of sensitivity. If evidence had been found, studies and experiments to suggest a hypothesis regarding empaths could be put forward. Without some kind of testable, repeatable evidence, you can't have any kind of hypothesis or theory. Science really has no stance on empaths. What you describe as an empath is supernatural, and outside what science is focused on.

You can't prove they don't exist. You can only gather evidence to support an explanation that there's something more than normal heightened empathy going on. And there is none.

There have been enough studies to determine there is no "them".

I completely agree, and I was just thinking about this the other day. Jordanian and Lebanese immigrants to Mexico blended shawarma style techniques with local ingredients and spices to form a trombo (pork roast and bacon blended and triple chili-spiced, topped with a mound of pineapple rings) and cooked in an upright broiler. Slice off some of the meat and pineapple into a small tortilla, add some finely chopped cilantro, salsa, and raw onion and you have Tacos al Pastor. I would tear down a wall to get these done right by Mexicans from the Middle East.

Twisting fibers together to form threads not only makes the thread stronger in thickness, it transfers stress more efficiently since the sides of the thread compresses when the ends are pulled. The average bed sheet has about a million twists of fiber. Source: Why the Wheel is Round by Steven Vogel

steveupson has been suspended for a week for continued hijacking of threads. Remember folks, tangents are often important enough for their own threads. If it's not in the opening post, think about starting a different thread about it.

Air Between the Notes has been banned permanently for continued preaching, and using the same refuted arguments for everything, ad infinitum. "Science is a religion" is too weak to support more than one discussion.

mohamed777 has been banned as a sockpuppet of farolero, giordano bruno, strangelove, & Hipaso. Next is a spam report to IPBoard, so he won't be able to register on any forum that uses the software. If only he'd been this persistent studying....

Whoa, almost as torturous as the real thing! What I'd like to see is how he'd handle the incident where Bush II had a shoe thrown at him. Bush dodged, but would Donald duck?

farolero has been added for six months. Posts that don't make sense waste everyone's precious time. Too many people asking what you're on about. Let's get it together, mod queue folks. Posts that make sense get approved!

notpittsburghjoe has been banned as a sockpuppet of pittsburghjoe, who should be using his vacation time more wisely.

We've had a few posts and even some topics opened lately about dismissing ideas for lack of evidence. Most are criticizing some kind of "liberal" agenda on staff's part, so it occurs to me this is in part motivated by the recent POTUS election. I want to clear up some points on that. It's both an official stance (because it concerns the rules, and because I'm posting this where the only reply can be from other staff members), and a personal one (since it may concern judgements not covered by the rules). Adherence to the rules that have evolved over SFN's lifetime is hardly "liberal". We're interested in discussions that are scientifically productive, to ensure a sound learning experience for everyone involved. This means following rules. In this, we're actually being pretty conservative. Adherence to scientific methodology is also a conservative stance. Here, I'd have to say we're only moderately conservative. We're far too liberal for many of our most experienced scientific minds (bless you all for your patience and understanding, you know who you are), and it's true we give some folks more rope than others. It's not because we think anyone's wrong idea is better than another's, but often there is a reverse benefit that might be realized by further discussion (How-Not-To threads are valuable - in moderation). But if you joined and now think we're too liberal because we dismiss an idea for lack of supportive evidence, you need to know that's not going to change. We're not going to start allowing Wild Ass Guessing to take the place of scientific enquiry. If you have a question, post it in a mainstream section, and discuss the question without resorting to your speculative ideas. If your idea is speculative, you need to understand that it has no weight without evidence in support. No matter how nifty you think the idea is, it's just another WAG until you support it, and you can go to LOTS of other forums for that kind of "science". It's just not something we want to waste anyone's time on past a certain point. That point is when it should dawn on a scientific mind that evidence is the weight our scale measures best.

The differences have been explained, so I'll attempt an analogy. Let's make it a capitalist analogy and say you own a store that sells merchandise. The Trump to Hitler comparison works because he's getting an invitation to come visit our store and look around, see if there's anything he likes. He's charismatic and friendly if you stay on his good side, and before you realize it he's got a truck parked around back, and he's filling it up with your merchandise, and thanking you for your generosity. He's in control of your life because you invited him. Sharia in the US would be like trying to drive the truck through the front of the store to steal the merchandise. We've got all kinds of security cameras watching the front, we've arranged the approach to the store so a truck can't get going very fast, and we've put those steel posts in front of the doors to prevent the truck from smashing through and ransacking. And as a last resort, even if they could get the merchandise, we've got ways to track it so we can get it back. And we have the police to help us stop these attempts as well. As long as we keep our protections in place, this is NOT a successful strategy.