Scotchmana

Really? I admit to not knowing what the original post content was, yet I do know something the Mod does not. In all of my arrogance, an ego is not me. Still I know the physics laws the Mod wished to protect and also that they are not worth protecting. The thread subject matter is a physics theory mistaken for a law that was never proven. Still it is about to be shattered in the next 20 years. Yes, I do know this to be a fact and would say more but forum rules restrain my claims. It seams that even stating what the thread was would be a forum violation in the face of accepted scientific dogma without sufficient proof to shatter the dogma single handily. That's rough. P.S.: Well I got my first Mod reprimand.

Thank you for your notice. If we assume I am not stupid (no hostility or second meaning intended) then perhaps I did in fact provide you with a means of corroboration. You just didn't see it. I understood the request and formatted it so Phd would not see it, I just provided it in a form you are unfamiliar with. I stated that it was my own discovery so am lacking internet sources to quote from also considering that I am 12 years removed from this branch of research I lack access to the references even if they were what you seek. I know what I said looks like wild claims. It is! I knew that all along as well as the rules these forums have with the intention not to violate them even if I flexed them abit. Please keep in mind the invite in the OP to post your thoughts. "What's the psychological reason for this?" Did you think I would reproduce a study, an authoritative document all backing up my personal thoughts? I gave my thoughts. Phdwannabe was so fixed on his frame of thinking he mist the most obvious thing in front of his face. So I had fun with that! Why not? More outlandish and bigger claims without sound reasoning all because the request for explanation was flawed in the face of the context (the part about the IQ tests was perfectly valid however and I removed it right away). Anyway, point taken, I will tone down my pranks.

Well, you and I don't get along. You say I make everything I know up, I say your just rude. The mind is not complex at all and your view of it shows your comprehension of it. Simplicity is the base parts that make up something. Complexity is a collection of simplicities. The degree of complexity is determined by the lack of one's ability to see the simplicities something is made of. And you sir are a complex man.

I have nothing at all against moderators. Then again I have never received a warning or citation. Anyway, while looking over these forums, I saw a notice of violation from a mod that went something like "What you are talking about is speculation and does not belong here" and this was in a topic of theoretical physics! I find that mind bogglingly funny. Please go one post up and replay Picard face palm now. I don't care what the Mod thinks he/she knows, it's wrong. No one here knows and I am certain that in another 100 years or maybe a thousand, we will have an entirely new set of laws that put his/her ideas to shame. In the race to be so exact, the errors made in common subjects can be so far off as to be laughable. Take time, you know there is no proof at all that you can go back in time? But there is proof you can skip forward. Need proof? wait just a sec... And there you have it! (I thought that was funny ) But it is proof! My point is simply that we think we know so much, it fact we know far less (mostly theory about why the results we see) . So in fact, if what we know is simply what we believe, then closing the door on anyone that does not believe as we do is hypocrisy (I do understand the need to keep fanatics out).

Ok, that is just funny, this is a thread about "What do you think?". I was trying to avoid anything technical. Most people I come across want the simple version. The formula is simple. A person has perceptions, these perceptions are not just the "five". They include perception of ones own thoughts. Thoughts have a value attached to each. The mind works by assigning a value based on 2 qualities. The first quality is the length of time the thought has occupied the person'a attention. The second is the size/density of the attention that is consumed by the thought. Examples of both are 1: A friend you have had for some time will be considered more important then a stranger. Even a old stump the person has known for years and used as a navigational point as a child will be important to the person in latter years. 2. Have you even seen a person that is consumed by an idea? they can't get it out of their head and so it is very important them. Have not seen this? How about a person with a strong chronic pain, again it consumes their attention and thus will be of great importance to them. The person will, especially in youth, establish the importance of things based on these two factors. Take your car, if there is a loud squeal and a very small one you will tend to be more concerned about the loud one. Why? second rule applies. Also anther equation to take into account is that a person will become accustomed to some perceptions and the intensity of the perception. The military uses this in their training. Take a loud explosion, it can be shocking. In a war, to keep troops performing, they do such things as yell loudly in your face, make you run till you are exhausted, anything else they can do to overwhelm you with perceptions so that when that bomb goes off, the soldier is not bothered by it. In training for many things, they subject you to the worst of things so that when it happens you will not be phased. This however has a side effect. The intensity and longevity of this intense training tends to "harden" a person. If you simply talk to these people about their experiences, they tend to use terms such as "intense", "hard" and even "solid". This is not in error, it is in fact perceived this way so it makes perfect sense that these would be described as such. On the other hand, some things come across as "thin", "mild" or "weak". Take a simple question, thought itself and "feeling" tend to register as a low volume perception, "what do you think about what he/she thinks?" is asking a parson to compare two "soft" things. If the person is conditioned to "strong" or "solid" things as being all that matter, he/she will have trouble thinking with something as vague as "feelings" because they are far below the intensity the person is accustomed to. So a person can get so accustomed to intense perceptions that weak ones are assigned the value of nothing. So the question "How do you feel about another person's feeling?" is like asking such a person "How do you (nothing) about someone's else's (nothing)?" Of course the person will get the answer (nothing)! But don't take my word for it, find a "hardened" guy and ask him "What do you think about how he/she feels?" And watch the answer you get! You asked him about nothings so he does not think anything, he does not even think you asked him a valid question! Hold up the color "light pink" and ask him what the color is. He will not want to answer the question. Why? because light pink is too soft a color and does not register at the intensity he is looking for before he considers he has something that has a value that he can think with. Hold up "dark red" and he will be happy to tell you. THis gets into another topic that becomes clear as you examine this. Because the person is looking for things at a range of intensity that he is accustomed to, he will tend to ignore anything outside of this. Take a sign that does not stand out, ask people what it said. They will not be able to answer, many will not know what sign you are talking about. Why? They saw something that was below the intensity they were looking for and gave it a value of "no value". You can test this all you like, take microbes, ask people how they feel about microbes on Catalina island? Most people have never seen microbs and have never been to Catalina island. So you ask "How do you feel about (nothing) on (nothing)". This also works in reverse, people accustomed to a low intensity will see the color "light pink" with vivid clarity. Ask "how do you feel about how someone else feels?" and they will gladly tell you all about it. Yell as loud as you can in their face and it will be very unwanted to the point that all they hear is "blah blah blah blah" because it is too intense. You need to tone it down before they will be able to think with it. Small children are cared for so much that they often can't handle a yelling mad parent until they get accustomed to it. Now we get to an offshoot of research into this area. People that get accustomed to a level of intensity will get so accustomed to it they can have trouble with anything outside of that range. Ask these people to use their imagination to conceive of an object with 1 lbs, 10 lbs, 1000 lbs and so on and you will find people have trouble with objects outside of their range. Even more, they will tend to be uninterested in anything outside of their range. Here we get into the subject of engineering. "Imagine how to hold back 300 millions lbs of water" can in fact be hard for some people to conceive of. To think with 300 million lbs, you need to know how things react at 1 lb, 1000 lbs, 1,000,000 lbs and so on. So if they are unfamiliar with the intensities of things at 300 million lbs, they may find it hard or entirely unable to think with. Males have for some time been for some time exposed to the harder work of the day and so find it easier to think with "hard" concepts. While females have been given lighter work and so the tendency to be interested in "lighter" subjects. You have a specialized idea of the word "research". It is simply the collection of information with the purpose of deriving an educated conclusion. The formality of the collection process is not what you state it to be. Yet I did a very extensive research into this and feel it is worthy of a post on this forum. Oxford University IQ test of 1918. Harvard University IQ test of 1932. Prinston University IQ test of 1948. Yes, all of them are university IQ tests....

There is nothing intended in these words that the meaning found in a dictionary does not address. http://www.thefreedi...y.com/mentality mentality [mɛnˈtælɪtɪ]n pl -ties1. (Psychology) the state or quality of mental or intellectual ability 2. a way of thinking; mental inclination or character his weird mentality http://www.thefreedi...ry.com/physical phys·i·cal (fz-kl)adj. 2. Of or relating to material things: our physical environment. 3. Of or relating to matter and energy or the sciences dealing with them, especially physics. http://www.thefreedi...ry.com/elements elements 1. A fundamental, essential, or irreducible constituent of a composite entity. "is a relative explanation intended to help distinguish common differences between males and females." The original poster asked for reasons and this post states one. As for research, it originates from my observations and so I have the research in my head of nearly 200 cases. Is it OK for me to proclaim something? If not, then I guess you can overlook my post. I guess you got me there. In the back of my mind as I posted that comment, I knew that many newer tests were being made that I could not account for... older tests yes, newer ones, no. I have removed the comment from my post as well as another line to make my post more acceptable.

Men psychologically have been subjected to heavier labor and so adopted a mentality that better computes physical elements. This phenomenon is not strictly limited to men or true of all men vs women. It is unique to individuals and is a relative explanation intended to help distinguish common differences between males and females. The way it works is that a person (man or women) can be subjected to instances were strong perceptual influences can be driven into the person and produce a generally "male" mentality that becomes acquainted with things that impinge more on the senses. The person after a time begins to ignore any impingement on the senses that does not register strongly enough. Things like "thought", "feelings" and even the color pink for example do not always have a heavy impingement and so the "male" psyche tends to not be able to compute these. Yet a friendly fist into the shoulder is the perfect way to say "hi". Again this applies to men and women. Thou it happens that men generally have been the ones doing the more psychical labor and hence the more male personality. On the other hand, something like an "IQ" test is more thought based. So women have been found to score higher when these two differences are distinct in a culture (men automatically get 5 additional points in IQ tests just for finishing the test so that they tend to score the same as their female counterpart). So back to the original question about why males dominate Engineeing. Because it is a profession that requires a talent in working with physical elements and having an intimate grasp of solid laws. Mostly, men fit this bill. But never be cough believeing women are handicapped in this line of work because you will encounter females that can run circles around their lesser talented male counterparts were natural talent and/or hard work has pushed them to excel. male-dominated field?

I suppose it could be in that it is body of related neurological phenomenon. We know quite a few mental disorders. Did you know that not one is worked out as to exactly what is causing the disorder? I suppose a few reading this may believe I am being harsh. After all, the brain is complex. Yet have you ever asked for a definitive test that proved these the exact disorder being labeled? You know that you can't get one right? Not one.... In fact if you go to different psychologists and list the same list of troubles you will get different diagnosis. That's right, different OPINIONS of what is wrong with you. Sound Like a well grounded science to you? The drugs given out have a big list of side effects, even side effects that lead to a greater problem the drug was meant to help. Why? Because the exact problem is not understood well enough to know what will happen. Also, I hope you understand that these drugs are not weak or mild. To have these running through you system can alone give you additional disorders. Not to mention addictions. You could ask that if they don't know exactly what causes a particular disorder, how do they know if the drug will fix an exact mental problem? They don't. The list of Mental Disorders given in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is increased ever year. There has never been a disorder removed for any reason and the book is getting quite thick. The process of adding the disorders is that experienced psychologists observe people and try to describe distinct hehavior that may be due to a mental disorder. The observation is then checked in the DSM to see if it is already covered by existing lables. If not, a clear description of the disorder is then recited at an annual meeting where the disorder is voted upon as to weather it should be added to the manual. There is never a clear chemical analysis or any other definitive test to determine the eligibility of the disorder (hence why no clear test exist). Now lets take the word "Psychology". What does it mean and how did it become the subject it is today? The word's origin means "The study of the spirit or mind (not a big distinction at the time)". The original psychologist were men that called themselves authorities on the subject of the soul (hence the word) and were payed professions circa 1600AD. You payed them to tell you if demons or black magic could be what's ailing you or something you care about (no joke). If you found a witch in the time of "witch hunts" they adopted the job of determining the truth of things from priests and Inquisitions. After a time this became unpopular and funding ran scarce. Fortunately, the over throwing of governments started becoming popular in the time of the US war of independence circa 1800AD. A number of aristocratic and government individuals became very interested in how to understand human thinking and behavior (especially how to modify human behavior to keep themselves in power). This spawned the first institutions for the insane. The idea being that these guys were already calling themselves experts on what makes man tick and the insane were people that experts needed look into to see what ailed them. It was not long after that experiments in "human behavioral modification" got underway in these institutions. Pavlov for example was accepted as a leader in the subject with his famous experiments on dogs. Did I leave out that they were claiming that there was not soul anymore? Scientific opinions were already separating from religious and so with the decline in popularity (and money) so too did the experts of the soul abandoned it and declared there is no soul, yet they kept the name. And how could we forget Sigmund Freud? He was employed from some years by the Dutch if memory serves me correctly to dig deeper into what makes people act the way they do. His work was quite popular. We are now starting to come to 1900AD. The idea that mental disorders were influenced by a chemical basis was not introduced until after would war 2. The US and many other nations were investing quite-a-bit into warfare. Included in this was the means to attack or disable large populations at a time like entire cities and their populations. One promising subject were drugs. LSD for example was created with the idea that it could be dropped into a water works before a military invasion to pacify it's populace. As a side note, the word "high" refers to a state of mental euphoria often induced by drugs but not always. It came from the then US Air Force who had been recently formed in the time of WW2 and had large numbers of personnel being added to their ranks. Would be pilots would do test flights and it was noticed that if you went too high, a condition called "anoxia" would set in that caused the pilot to act erratically due to a lack of oxygen to the brain. "Anoxia" also causes euphoria thus "high" referred to this condition as a slang term. These same recruits were asked to assist in the drug testing of drugs like LSD and much of what provided the base compounds of modern behavioral drugs. "High" then became adopted by the general populace. As for the drugs, with so much money invested into research, drug induced behavioral modification and the effects of chemicals on people was now documented and the effects of chemicals on human behavior became the basis of the modern pharmaceutical trend. And as another side fact: Psychiatric care is the only proclaimed help profession that reserves the right to overturn patient rights and lock you up against your will.