iNow

That's what she said.

You don't think there's a degree of politics involved in every sexual encounter? . EDIT: Sorry for the off-topic jaunt, Acme. We can request the mods split this off if the tangent continues.

CORRECTION: Politics is what happens any time more than one single human being is involved in any interaction.

I'm can't decide whether to be pleased or pissed about the fact that Cheese Nips contain real cheese, but not real nipples.

Having too much time on ones hands to just piss away.

Not really, no.

The problem is that a household budget is not an accurate analogy or model when dealing with the US economy (nor how it interacts with the global economy as a whole), and the treatment of both must differ for some very core reasons. It might make for some quickly accessible bumper-sticker wisdom for the under-informed among us, but it's based on a deeply flawed understanding of the system and should be discarded from use. http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/federal-budget-not-household-budget-here-s-why http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/running-government-like-a-business-or-family/ http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/why-government-family-budgets-arent-th tldr? Here's the same rebuttal through easily accessible analogy (since analogies are what brought this up): http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/11/what-if-a-typical-family-spent-like-the-federal-government-itd-be-a-very-weird-family/

Knowing Moontanman as long as I have, reevaluation of this conclusion would serve you well, IMO. It seems clear to me that MTM is making a broader point suggesting that he is a complex being with diverse thoughts and views which themselves vary from topic to topic. He is suggesting that monolithic labels are far too remedial, broad, and one-dimensional to accurately convey his stance and that we must be cautious using them to describe the stances of others. He's telling you to be cautious of splitting the world into false dichotomies of us/them since continued attempts to do so will only lead you farther astray from the truth. We can speak of trends so long as we recognize those trends won't always represent the end all be all of a single individuals worldview. Viewed in this light, I hope you can see how your conclusion / paraphrasing of his position, "since the subject is scientific studies, there's nothing of interest to see here," is both inaccurate and ill-conceived.

No, of course not. It's clearly quite severe, and oftentimes wholly impervious to treatment or reason.

I don't know who this Rorschach guy is, but does anyone else find it strange that he keeps painting pictures of my parents fighting?

It's not. See post #11 above. That's a good point, but even the laws of one's own nation do not give them license to say whatever they want nor that this site has to host or display any and every comment that any and every person makes. I believe that's sort of the point of this thread.

Do you also suspect that your post is what prompted Randall to publish this particular cartoon on this particular day?

No, but that's really another discussion entirely.

Such a conclusion, however, must be based on an unfortunately narrow definition and limited understanding of what psychology truly involves and represents. Hint: It's more than just therapy and counseling.

FYI Ed - Perhaps a better home for that brand of jokes exists over here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/35130-political-humor/ Cheers.

Perhaps this one is more to your liking:

We're still over at TFS if you ever want to come by and say hello. Police arrested two kids yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one - and let the other one off.

There's some powerful awesome here: http://world.mathigon.org/

Wait a minute. Just one day ago in post #11, you said you didn't know and cannot confirm how common this is. Yet, here you are now repeating that "most people cannot do it naturally." You're not being consistent. If you have evidence that "most people cannot do it naturally," then share that. However, if you lack such evidence, then you need to stop making the claim.

Thanks for sharing, but that doesn't really answer the question I asked.

If you do not have real figures of how may people can do this naturally, then how can you know it's not a very common ability?

Yes, but I do not believe this is a unique ability or even that uncommon. Also, I'm unsure that I could do it "for as long as I want." A quick test suggests that a minute or two is easy, but I suspect prolonged attempts to do this (entire days/weeks/months/etc.) would result in muscle fatigue.

It really depends on which specific aspect of psychology you're discussing. Therapy is more art than science, for example, but there are other very scientific aspects about it and many experiments that follow quite strictly to the scientific method. Where it can be challenging sometimes is in measuring complex situations or concepts and forming conclusions that map on to others or help you to form a valid model of the world. Humans, after all, aren't simple billiard balls where interactions can be calculated to the 14th decimal.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/18/wolfram-alpha-launches-problem-generator-to-help-students-learn-math/?ncid=fb Here's a link to the tool: http://www.wolframalpha.com/problem-generator/

Mahatma Gandhi, as you know, walked barefoot most of the time, which produced an impressive set of calluses on his feet. He also ate very little, which made him rather frail and, with his odd diet, he suffered from bad breath. This made him a... (Oh man, this is so bad, it's good) super-calloused fragile mystic hexed by halitosis.