*** The Official CUCKposting thread ***

[wufwugy]

Of course it is, it's the same as profit, because it is capital gain.

While a capital gain is a profit, it is a different "profit" than wage or salary income because of present value. In short, a capital gain in the future can be much larger than a wage today yet both have the same present value. This is one of the main math reasons why capital gains are better treated as "less than wage/salary income".

If I could guarantee that I'd bring down people's energy bills by half, I'd win votes. Incentive.

I'm unsure how you would do that. By decree?

BP drill for oil. It's hard to be enthusiastic about a company that engagesz in such activity.

Which is pretty funny since if we stopped getting oil people would get on hands and knees begging for the companies to start up again since most lives would be virtually destroyed by no more oil.

When the government bail it out, they essentially buy shares, but whenever that happens, the government nearly always seek to sell their shares in the future. I dunno if that happened with BP, but it certainly did with the banking bailouts.

The 2008 crisis and related economic issues are a remarkable example of government intervention causing the problem(s).

[BananaStand]

Same for when I'm from (Alberta, Canada). Goddamn socialists don't even know how to let people milk the system.

My father immigrated to America from somewhere about 6 feet north of the border when he was about two days old. Somehow, that means that I have dual citizenship. If I ever need expensive medical care, I am coming up there and just raping the shit out of your system.

[wufwugy]

My father immigrated to America from somewhere about 6 feet north of the border when he was about two days old. Therefore, I have dual citizenship. If I ever need expensive medical care, I am coming up there and just raping the shit out of your system.

Individuals exploiting that system is very hard since the system is itself so dysfunctional that mass rationing is implemented. Econ 101 solves for this problem. But no, emotion is smarter than science.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I was working as a carpenter and someone used construction glue to cement my radio to my workbench. We pranked each other a lot, so that didn't really bother me.
Thing is that in order to move the radio, it had to be destroyed.

When I told the owner of the company that I'm fine with a prank, but this had destroyed my radio, and I want it replaced, preferably by the person who pranked me.

The owner started to lecture me about personal responsibility, and I cut him off and asked, "Isn't it the responsibility of the person whose prank caused destruction of my property?"

He got all red-faced and fired me for not letting him lecture me.

I collected unemployment for 6 months after that. What was his "cause" aside from, presumably, my belligerence (from his POV)?


IDK the exact laws, but I fail to see why that employer wouldn't fabricate any old story to blame me for the loss of my job.

[Poopadoop]

My father immigrated to America from somewhere about 6 feet north of the border when he was about two days old. Somehow, that means that I have dual citizenship. If I ever need expensive medical care, I am coming up there and just raping the shit out of your system.

Go ahead, I live in the UK now.

Also, Canada is so nice it won't bother them - sorry to disappoint you.

[BananaStand]

IDK the exact laws, but I fail to see why that employer wouldn't fabricate any old story to blame me for the loss of my job.

When you file for unemployment benefits, the gov't will send a letter informing your former employer that a claim has been made against his insurance (that's what unemployment is, it's an insurance program, not a tax. Important distinction).

He has the option to contest it, saying that you were fired for cause. He would only do this to prevent his insurance rates from going up, or if he wanted to be a dick to you.

The government is then caught in the middle of a he-said/monkey-said situation. So they have to investigate. They are going to ask for forms filled out, and statements, depositions, blah blah blah blah. And when you consider that actual $ impact of one layoff on insurance rates, it's FAR more expedient for your former employer to just let it go.

[MadMojoMonkey]

That's perfectly plausible. No critiques.

[Poopadoop]

I was working as a carpenter and someone used construction glue to cement my radio to my workbench. We pranked each other a lot, so that didn't really bother me.
Thing is that in order to move the radio, it had to be destroyed.

When I told the owner of the company that I'm fine with a prank, but this had destroyed my radio, and I want it replaced, preferably by the person who pranked me.

The owner started to lecture me about personal responsibility, and I cut him off and asked, "Isn't it the responsibility of the person whose prank caused destruction of my property?"

He got all red-faced and fired me for not letting him lecture me.

I collected unemployment for 6 months after that. What was his "cause" aside from, presumably, my belligerence (from his POV)?


IDK the exact laws, but I fail to see why that employer wouldn't fabricate any old story to blame me for the loss of my job.

First, never use logic with someone in authority. That's the wrong approach.

Second, did you ask prank-boy first to replace ur stereo? Because if you do and he says 'lol no way' then file that in your head and destroy something of his later so he gets the point that you're not to be fucked with.

Third, taking your petty shit to the boss doesn't deserve a firing. But, assuming you don't have time to take up with the labor authority, probably better to just let it go than seeking justice.

Edit: also, what banana said. An employer is generally not motivated to fight it out in these circumstances.

[Savy]

You never moan about things like that by talking, you do it in writing.

[wufwugy]

You never moan about things like that by talking, you do it in writing.

man that is so true.

[wufwugy]

Second, did you ask prank-boy first to replace ur stereo? Because if you do and he says 'lol no way' then file that in your head and destroy something of his later so he gets the point that you're not to be fucked with.

That can work but I see it usually blowing up. Somebody who would destroy a stereo on a prank and not offer to pay for it immediately is the kind of person who can dish it out but cant take it.

[BananaStand]

That can work but I see it usually blowing up. Somebody who would destroy a stereo on a prank and not offer to pay for it immediately is the kind of person who can dish it out but cant take it.

Somehow I think we're missing some elements to this story. Sounds like there were more bullies than pranksters working in this shop.

[Poopadoop]

That can work but I see it usually blowing up. Somebody who would destroy a stereo on a prank and not offer to pay for it immediately is the kind of person who can dish it out but cant take it.

Well if he's the type to escalate to lacing your lunch with ebola, you're probably right. In that case it becomes a bit more tricky.

In my experience pranking is done within boundaries that both parties respect. Bullying has only two outcomes: defy the bully or submit to more bullying.

[wufwugy]

Well if he's the type to escalate to lacing your lunch with ebola, you're probably right. In that case it becomes a bit more tricky.

In my experience pranking is done within boundaries that both parties respect. Bullying has only two outcomes: defy the bully or submit to more bullying.

I have been successful with a third option, but it's something I'm good at doing and I always dislike it when somebody says "here's what I would do" so I didn't want to do that. The third option is to change the frame with the bully. Befriend the bully, give him reason to like you and respect you, make him feel like you like him and respect him. Then you can impart on him that you don't want to be pranked like that. Unless his IQ is lower than you think BStand's is, he'd usually listen.

[Poopadoop]

I have been successful with a third option, but it's something I'm good at doing and I always dislike it when somebody says "here's what I would do" so I didn't want to do that. The third option is to change the frame with the bully. Befriend the bully, give him reason to like you and respect you, make him feel like you like him and respect him. Then you can impart on him that you don't want to be pranked like that. Unless his IQ is lower than you think BStand's is, he'd usually listen.

I agree more or less. The only caveat would be that the third option can be time-consuming and/or soul-destroying. But if you are dealing with a bully for whom standing up for yourself only gets you beat up , then yeah schmoozing them can be an optimal strategy. In my experience standing up generally has some meta-game advantage in that other bullies know not to play you the same way.

I would add that I don't think Banana has a low IQ; I think it is above average. But IQ is not everything, otherwise we would all just agree with MMM or Ong all the time. IOW, I don't think that IQ necessarily relates to the value of arguments.

The value of an argument should have nothing to do with who you are arguing with and what you think of their intellect. Even if Spoon or one of his alter egos came on here and argued MAGA HOLY FUCK and followed it with some reasoned analysis of why we should all be shouting MAGA Holy Fuck that had some appeal to reason, I hope that I would be open to entertaining it.

[BananaStand]

I would add that I don't think Banana has a low IQ; I think it is above average.

I scored 135 on the WAIS III

[Poopadoop]

I scored 135 on the WAIS III

And like I said, there's a distinction to be drawn between the IQ of the medium and the value of the argument.

[Savy]

I would add that I don't think Banana has a low IQ; I think it is above average. But IQ is not everything, otherwise we would all just agree with MMM or Ong all the time.

I'm confused as to why you picked those two for your example and not me? I've proved I'm the smartest person on ftr.

[Poopadoop]

I'm confused as to why you picked those two for your example and not me? I've proved I'm the smartest person on ftr.

Sorry I meant to include you as well but I thought two geniuses was enough to make the point.

[Savy]

Sorry I meant to include you as well but I thought two geniuses was enough to make the point.

MMM and Ong aren't geniuses though. I forgive you though.

[Poopadoop]

MMM and Ong aren't geniuses though.

We don't know that because they haven't told us their score on the WAIS III yet. Maybe they are or maybe they aren't. My rule of thumb is that intelligence generally correlates negatively with the willingness to state it as fact (unless of course you're a very stable genius).

[Savy]

We don't know that because they haven't told us their score on the WAIS III yet. Maybe they are or maybe they aren't. My rule of thumb is that intelligence generally correlates negatively with the willingness to state it as fact (unless of course you're a very stable genius).

I heard they've only done WAIS II.

[MadMojoMonkey]

MMM and Ong aren't geniuses though. I forgive you though.

It's true, but I thought I was covering better than that.

EDIT: according to the WISC-R from about 25 years ago.
IQ is meant to be stable, though, so if it was correct then, it's probably still within a few points of that now.

[Savy]

It's true, but I thought I was covering better than that.

You do, you make Ong look a lot smarter than he is.

[Poopadoop]

I heard they've only done WAIS II.

Well I'm just waiting for the definitivee WAIS IV to come out. Also I've heard hereabouts that intelligence is a unitary concept and thus the level of one's IQ correlates directly with the validity of every single thing they say.

[BananaStand]

My rule of thumb is that intelligence generally correlates negatively with the willingness to state it as fact (unless of course you're a very stable genius).

My penis is enormous

[wufwugy]

I can't think of a regular here that I think has a lower IQ than me.

I never took a test but I estimate I'm probably around 110 at best.

Nowhere near Savy's proven genius level based on that one thing he solved that one time.

[Poopadoop]

I can't think of a regular here that I think has a lower IQ than me.

I never took a test but I estimate I'm probably around 110 at best.

Nowhere near Savy's proven genius level based on that one thing he solved that one time.

lolz, does anyone else remember how pissed he got when it was pointed out that one test doth not a genius maketh?

[Poopadoop]

MMM and Ong aren't geniuses though. I forgive you though.

I just assume MMM is a genius because he does real science and Ong is a genius because he has nothing else to do with his time.

[wufwugy]

My read is he was doing that British dry wit thing the whole time.

[Savy]

Nowhere near Savy's proven genius level based on that one thing he solved that one time.

That no one else could do.

lolz, does anyone else remember how pissed he got when it was pointed out that one test doth not a genius maketh?

I don't, can you please reference better in the future when making sweeping statements.

[wufwugy]

I've never seen Savy and Ed Witten in the same room. Just sayin'.

[Poopadoop]

I don't

Well there's a surprise. That argument went on for pages IIRC.

[Savy]

I've never seen Savy and Ed Witten in the same room. Just sayin'.

Accomplishing things is a bit too try hard imo. I imagine my IQ is only 107ish so even you're probably more intelligent than me.

[wufwugy]

Accomplishing things is a bit too try hard imo. I imagine my IQ is only 107ish so even you're probably more intelligent than me.

Well then I'm vastly underestimating what 110 means. There's no way I have a higher IQ than you. I don't even look at puzzles much less solve them. Only some of my talents excel when it comes to numbers and shapes and that other IQ stuff.

[Poopadoop]

I think everyone is missing the point that the validity of an argument is independent of the IQ of the person making it. If Einstein had looked outside on a rainy day and said 'it's sunny today', then accepting that statement would still be retarded, even though it came from Einstein.

[Savy]

Well then I'm vastly underestimating what 110 means. There's no way I have a higher IQ than you. I don't even look at puzzles much less solve them. Only some of my talents excel when it comes to numbers and shapes and that other IQ stuff.

the average person from hong kong and singapore apparently has an iq of 108 (according to some random website on google).

100 is the average in the uk
98 is the average in the us

lol

I think everyone is missing the point that the validity of an argument is independent of the IQ of the person making it. If Einstein had looked outside on a rainy day and said 'it's sunny today', then accepting that statement would still be retarded, even though it came from Einstein.

No one is missing the point, and especially aren't disagreeing with you, we're just deciding to chat shit about a similar but different topic.

[wufwugy]

The areas of intelligence I possess are humor, language, social, creativity. Mostly all divergent thought. I can tackle a problem with lots of possible answers very well, but I do not have a good time of tackling a problem with only one possible answer that well.

[Savy]

The areas of intelligence I possess are humor, language, social, creativity. Mostly all divergent thought. I can tackle a problem with lots of possible answers very well, but I do not have a good time of tackling a problem with only one possible answer that well.

All stupid people think that they can do those things well.

[Poopadoop]

the average person from hong kong and singapore apparently has an iq of 108 (according to some random website on google).

100 is the average in the uk
98 is the average in the us

Change that to the average in London or New York and I'm guessing the numbers are much more comparable with Singapore. Smart people go to the cities, less smart ones stay on the farm.

[Poopadoop]

All stupid people think that they can do those things well.

How would you know? This isn't about finding a pattern in some shapes.

[wufwugy]

the average person from hong kong and singapore apparently has an iq of 108 (according to some random website on google).

That's interesting and I wonder if it's related to how the education focuses on like test-taking skill so much.

Because over there, especially in Hong Kong, all the youth does is study for tests. It's not even studying to learn or to problem-solve but to get answers correct on tests.

[wufwugy]

All stupid people think that they can do those things well.

Indeed.

Difference is I know.

[Savy]

How would you know? This isn't about finding a pattern in some shapes.

If people aren't shapes then why are you so obtuse?

#mathsburns

[wufwugy]

How would you know? This isn't about finding a pattern in some shapes.

Actually wait I challenge the premise. I have known (do know) some stupid people. They don't believe they do any of those well.

[Savy]

That's interesting and I wonder if it's related to how the education focuses on like test-taking skill so much.

Because over there, especially in Hong Kong, all the youth does is study for tests. It's not even studying to learn or to problem-solve but to get answers correct on tests.

I doubt that's the case.

The website that I was on (which I don't imagine is a good source) was saying how the study was done by some chaps and they concluded that this is why some countries develop really well and others don't (lots of shitty countries do awfully, some in the 60s). What poop said about smaller concentrated areas of smart people probably has some effect.

What you talk about is true to some extent about other nationalised tests. For example some asian countries do a good job of excluding the lower end of possible applicants to take the test and taking the tests is seen as a great honour that you work hard towards. In other countries, like the UK, they are seen as a complete pain in the arse and the kids hate it.

There is still a lot that can be taken from those type of international tests though you just have to get the context right. A lot of Maths scores for example show some asian countries doing really well and they have things you can learn from but the culture difference makes it quite hard to just copy and paste practises whereas other similar countries do better than others yet are very similar in culture so it's easier to compare what is/isn't working at that time.

[Poopadoop]

The areas of intelligence I possess are humor,

Yes.

language,

Volume of words does not equate to mastery in using them, but I can say the same thing about myself.

social,

I will gladly give you that, with the caveat that you're being evaluated relative to other conservatives who post here, of which you're clearly the least pig-headed and unobjectionable.

creativity.

I think you're very good at coming up with your own ideas in general, so yes.

I do not have a good time of tackling a problem with only one possible answer that well.

A neuropsychologist would define you as 'right brained'. Apart from a slight streak of stubborness and know-it-all-ness, I think this is accurate. I have the same mind as you in that way.

[Poopadoop]

If people aren't shapes then why are you so obtuse?

#mathsburns

If you assume one thing you're good at can be applied to everything, then you're mistaken about the concept of intelligence.

People aren't shapes. If you can't tell the difference then that explains the diff. between yours and a more rounded intellect.

[wufwugy]

Volume of words does not equate to mastery in using them, but I can say the same thing about myself.

I give you guys my worst.

The classes I did the best in (by a lot) were the ones where we dissected and explained literature and created our own literature.

[Savy]

If you assume one thing you're good at can be applied to everything, then you're mistaken about the concept of intelligence.

People aren't shapes. If you can't tell the difference then that explains the diff. between yours and a more rounded intellect.

I don't know why you feel so intimidated by me that you keep trying to slag off my intelligence in some way, shape (pun, see linguistic intelligence) or form. I'm sure you would have solved the puzzle too given a bit more time.

I give you guys my worst.

The classes I did the best in (by a lot) were the ones where we dissected and explained literature and created our own literature.

I'm fairly good at dissecting and analysing literature but my vocab is very basic compared to other well educated people. I should work on it but probably never will.

[wufwugy]

In a group of about fifty, I found a specific hidden theme in a very obscure Chinese film that nobody else did that the prof was looking for.

I'm good at that type of pattern recognition, but not numbers and shapes pattern recognition.

[wufwugy]

I'm fairly good at dissecting and analysing literature but my vocab is very basic compared to other well educated people. I should work on it but probably never will.

Do you read, write, or talk less than normal?

[Savy]

Do you read, write, or talk less than normal?

I'm lazy when it comes to writing, especially when I was at school, so I'd just use simple basic language which can be both a good and a bad thing.

I think I've read about 5 books in the past 10 years, that's probably the biggest issue.

My writing in general though is fine, I've had to write 'masters level' uni essays this year and I've not written anything since GCSE and they've all been fine even though they're fairly last minute one draft wonders. I have a fairly basic writing style and use the same types of phrasing for things too much (as you can probably tell off reading my FTR posts).

[Poopadoop]

I give you guys my worst.

The classes I did the best in (by a lot) were the ones where we dissected and explained literature and created our own literature.

Sometimes I start writing and i just love writing so much that I write a big 'ole bunch of words only to realize later that I have gone off on umpteen different tangents and lost the plot along the way.

I attribute this to the fact that in face-to-face conversation I can barely hold my own with a houseplant. It bugs me, but it just is how it is, which is why writing is my preferred medium.

[Poopadoop]

I'm fairly good at dissecting and analysing literature but my vocab is very basic compared to other well educated people. I should work on it but probably never will.

The thing about language is that anyone can master it to the extent they want to master it. I'm known in my field as a good writer, but if people realized that I almost daily consult a dictionary or thesaurus, or fret over every word when I'm writing something I want to be taken seriously they might reconsider their opinion and just think I'm OCD instead.

There's such a clear distinction between language skills which are rewarded by hard work and maths skills which are mainly innate (in my experience) that thinking of IQ as a measure of mental ability in general is silly. Math you're either good at or not, language is a battle.

[wufwugy]

The thing about language is that anyone can master it to the extent they want to master it. I'm known in my field as a good writer, but if people realized that I almost daily consult a dictionary or thesaurus, or fret over every word when I'm writing something I want to be taken seriously they might reconsider their opinion and just think I'm OCD instead.

There's such a clear distinction between language skills which are rewarded by hard work and maths skills which are mainly innate (in my experience) that thinking of IQ as a measure of mental ability in general is silly. Math you're either good at or not, language is a battle.

How does that change when it's on the fly, in the moment?

For example, Sam Harris. He might be the most articulate off the cuff speaker I know of. I'm a great speaker, but that dude is on another level. I may be a better conversationalist than him though, so there is that. Which makes me wonder how those skills differ, articulate speaking and conversation. Maybe like the difference between an interviewer and interviewee. The interviewee has to be good at articulating a thought in the most interesting way, but the interviewer as to be good at playing off the thought in the most interesting way.


Harris' mechanical, active speech is hilarious. It's what I do. I'm trying to go more visual (like what Trump does), but it's tough. I think in terms of movement more than picture, but picture is more effective at communicating to somebody that isn't already your choir.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If people aren't shapes then why are you so obtuse?

[MadMojoMonkey]

thinking of IQ as a measure of mental ability in general is silly

I agree 100%.

IQ tests are only testing a limited number of expressions of intelligence.
If social acumen was part of the tests, I'd be borderline retarded.

Math you're either good at or not, language is a battle.

Fake news... except for a minority of people who have an actual mental disorder.

You're allowed to not like math, but the assertion that you're bad at it for any reason aside from practice is not true for most people. I agree that some people need less practice than others. I can't agree with a cop-out being used by intelligent people to avoid learning.

[spoonitnow]

Bernie Sanders is a fucking cuck

[Poopadoop]

How does that change when it's on the fly, in the moment?

I think there is a notable distinction between language that comes easily in conversation and language that is deliberate. It's interesting, because I have colleagues who can win every argument face-to-face but ask others for help in putting the same argument in writing.

It seems a paradox because language is language but the way in which you use language differs between spoken convo and written discourse. There is no editing allowed in spoken language, but there is in written language. Maybe this is only a point of mine because the difference to me in the quality of my discourse is so stark. But generally I feel having the option of thinking first and talking second makes a huge difference in the quality of an argument. Maybe it should. Or maybe it's a failing unique to myself.

[spoonitnow]

Fake news... except for a minority of people who have an actual mental disorder.

Women are more than half of the human race.

[Savy]

You're allowed to not like math, but the assertion that you're bad at it for any reason aside from practice is not true for most people. I agree that some people need less practice than others. I can't agree with a cop-out being used by intelligent people to avoid learning.

No maths is special!

Bernie Sanders is a fucking cuck

He cleans up the liberal pootang on basically every college campus in the US. He'd only be a cuck if he won got power then did everything he says he wanted to do.

[spoonitnow]

He cleans up the liberal pootang on basically every college campus in the US. He'd only be a cuck if he won got power then did everything he says he wanted to do.

He's beta as fuck, no girls want to fuck him, they just want his food stamps

And Bernie Sanders has never won a fucking thing in his life

[Savy]

He's beta as fuck, no girls want to fuck him, they just want his food stamps

He's just taken the issues with your "provider" archetype and applied it to such a huge scale without having to actually ever provide. When you start appreciating the deeper levels of his game you'll understand.

[Poopadoop]

You're allowed to not like math, but the assertion that you're bad at it for any reason aside from practice is not true for most people. I agree that some people need less practice than others. I can't agree with a cop-out being used by intelligent people to avoid learning.

This is different from my own admittedly small sample conclusion, and I suspect may reflect the fact that if you can't do math you are not going to try physics. In psychology, I have encountered many people who can do logic, language, and analytical thinking but no matter how you try to explain it cannot do math much further than 2+2=4. The problem i feel in my field is such people aren't being weeded out because the math we do is sufficiently complicated that it is rare for any of them to be evaluated by anyone who is capable of understanding why what they are doing is wrong.

A simple example might illustrate my point: i recently reviewed a paper in which the authors analysed their data in a silly way. When I pointed that out, their counter was that they agreed with me but that someone had recently published a paper using the same silly analysis, so therefore it was ok. I don't even know what to say at this point....
.

[spoonitnow]

He's just taken the issues with your "provider" archetype and applied it to such a huge scale without having to actually ever provide. When you start appreciating the deeper levels of his game you'll understand.

Aren't you supposed to be hitting on dykes who like math or some shit

[wufwugy]

But generally I feel having the option of thinking first and talking second makes a huge difference in the quality of an argument. Maybe it should. Or maybe it's a failing unique to myself.

I feel the same way, which is why I enjoy text conversations so much. However, I do have a very strong ability to verbalize on my feet, so that suggests to me that the "think first; say it better" nature of text conversation is true regardless of skill on your feet.

[wufwugy]

Women are more than half of the human race.

cant joke i lold

[wufwugy]

Women are more than half of the human race.

and all the people who would get mad at this? only women and wannabe male women (cucks). everybody else gets it.

[Savy]

A simple example might illustrate my point: i recently reviewed a paper in which the authors analysed their data in a silly way. When I pointed that out, their counter was that they agreed with me but that someone had recently published a paper using the same silly analysis, so therefore it was ok. I don't even know what to say at this point....

Rather than being a dick I mean this quite genuinely even though I'm sure you'll take offence to it. Maybe try thinking about what you should say or do that makes a difference to this happening. That isn't stupidity it's laziness & bad practise. None of which are signs of not being able to do Math. Now I'm sure these people probably don't understand the maths well enough to have a real concept of what it is they are doing wrong and why it's so bad but this is never going to be the case especially when applying stats to non-mathematical fields.

If you want to change this (which you have said you do) then you kind of need to take responsibility for this. Correcting people is a really shit way of fixing their habits, especially when there are thousands of people doing the same thing.

[wufwugy]

He's just taken the issues with your "provider" archetype and applied it to such a huge scale without having to actually ever provide. When you start appreciating the deeper levels of his game you'll understand.

That's a very interesting take. On the surface I don't agree, but I haven't thought much about it so that's meaningless.

[spoonitnow]

and all the people who would get mad at this? only women and wannabe male women (cucks). everybody else gets it.

IT'S BECAUSE WOMEN LIVE LONGER

[spoonitnow]

That's a very interesting take. On the surface I don't agree, but I haven't thought much about it so that's meaningless.

tldr: Women don't fuck for provisions until they've already received them in some way, shape or form, and then it's only just enough to keep the provisions coming (which can get down to no sex if they think they'll continue being provided for in whatever way), but they will fuck out for genetics (ie: out of arousal) without provisions.

[wufwugy]

I always thought the Bernie appeal was

(1) He talks forcefully (like Trump omg)

(2) He says things people want to hear.

(3) He has a comedic element about him that people find endearing, exemplified in how Larry David could impersonate him even though LD is least impersonating person of all time.

[wufwugy]

This is different from my own admittedly small sample conclusion, and I suspect may reflect the fact that if you can't do math you are not going to try physics. In psychology, I have encountered many people who can do logic, language, and analytical thinking but no matter how you try to explain it cannot do math much further than 2+2=4. The problem i feel in my field is such people aren't being weeded out because the math we do is sufficiently complicated that it is rare for any of them to be evaluated by anyone who is capable of understanding why what they are doing is wrong.

A simple example might illustrate my point: i recently reviewed a paper in which the authors analysed their data in a silly way. When I pointed that out, their counter was that they agreed with me but that someone had recently published a paper using the same silly analysis, so therefore it was ok. I don't even know what to say at this point....
.

Paging Nassim Taleb.