Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
What's a nice idea like yours doing in a place like this?

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



Public Urination campaign

  (+2, -3)
(+2, -3)
  [vote for,

There is a movement in England to urinate in showers. [link] We believe it doesn't go far enough and have developed a kind of giant urinary tract.

Not only should there be buttons and signs reading "I urinated in your shower" or "I urinated in your garden", but have you shown the local constable how you urinate in the park?

4and20, Oct 10 2014

This makes my eyes water http://www.bbc.com/...nd-norfolk-29552557
Yuri Gagarin urinated on a truck before he went into space. [4and20, Oct 10 2014]

Such a waste, sending it down the drain! In some poor countries, urophagists are starving! Or something... Urophagist_20Bar
[Grogster, Oct 11 2014]

UK Water Consumption http://www.theguard.../aug/20/water.food1
Guardian article (from 2008) on UK's water supply. The main point is that washing, drinking & flushing accounts for a miniscule proportion of our consumption. You need to look elsewhere to make significant savings. [DrBob, Oct 12 2014]

Civilization doing a u-turn as Max suggested? https://www.youtube...watch?v=icmRCixQrx8
[doctorremulac3, Oct 12 2014]

(?) Part two of that video link https://www.youtube...watch?v=U8rhIZJAdd0
I know I've posted this before, but it's timely. [doctorremulac3, Oct 12 2014]

Maimonides (Helenistic) Laws of Hygiene, Chapter 4 Law 2 http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/1204.htm
One shall not keep his perforations waiting. If one needs them, he must stand and use them immediately [pashute, Oct 12 2014]

What would we do without the UN https://www.youtube...F3uO5_EJs&t=1h6m44s
Lupo in accordance with the ancient Helenistic higiene rule [pashute, Oct 12 2014]

1908 IQ question http://en.wikipedia...om_1911_journal.png
Which of each two is prettiest? [4and20, Oct 13 2014]

http://www.counterp...scipline-in-the-uk/ [rcarty, Oct 20 2014]


       Urinating in the sink would save twice as much water.
FlyingToaster, Oct 10 2014

       But it IS a good idea! Bun for the original idea of saving water. People take so much for granted and there is nothing dirty or wrong with urinating in the shower as it gets washed away to the same place.
xandram, Oct 10 2014

       Think how much water we'd save if we didn't urinate at all...
RayfordSteele, Oct 10 2014

       (re: link) I don't know, taking a shower every time you have to pee seems like a big waste of water.   

       But seriously, saving 1 flush a day by peeing in the shower? How about if we save water by pissing on the shoes of social engineering types who want to tell us how to piss, eat, fuck, drive, speak and think?   

       Christ, a brother can't even take a whizz anymore without the PC police sticking their nose up your ass.   

       I'm all for a campaign to pee in the showers of the people behind the idea in the link. Bun for the social commentary btw. [+]
doctorremulac3, Oct 10 2014

       People already pee in the shower.   

       This is just like the scuba diving joke. There are two kinds of divers - those that pee in their wet suits, and those that lie about it.
normzone, Oct 10 2014

       I'd go on to say that there are another two types of people: those who pee in the shower and keep it to themselves and those who brag about it like they're some kind of hero.
doctorremulac3, Oct 10 2014

       Well, with all the hero worship these days, it only seems appropriate.
normzone, Oct 10 2014

       Why anyone would want to pee on their mushrooms is beyond me, but I suppose the shower would be the best place for it.   

       It could genuinely save water in a tower block or student halls of residence, where the outflow from one shower is routed to the sprinkler of the one on the floor beneath.   

       But I would suggest most people who switch to pissing in the shower will elongate their gushing nozzle
time, I mean they spend longer in the shower, because if you are really having a serious pee then you can't concentrate on anything else can you? So they are using a lot more water than they otherwise would, and [Dr]s jest may well turn out to be true.

       And another thing, serious water-savers don't shower. Don't shower, don't flush. Sorted.
pocmloc, Oct 10 2014

       the Romans used to use Pee to wash clothes maybe we should go back to that.   

       Also if social engineers want this to go over they need to create a Urination Super Hero that people can look to as a example.
vfrackis, Oct 10 2014

       //But I would suggest most people who switch to pissing in the shower will elongate their gushing nozzle time,//   

       Which gushing nozzle are you speaking of? But seriously ladies and germs, I smell science and logic here. Dangerous concepts in these times.   

       Ok, typical shower 2.1 gallons per minute, mandated maximum toilet flush volume in the U.S. post early 1990s: 1.6 gallons. (much much less for a urinal)   

       So the only way this works is if you a) turn the water off b) do something else while peeing or c) time yourself.   

       But as with most pc concepts, it's the thought that counts.   

       //Also if social engineers want this to go over they need to create a Urination Super Hero that people can look to as a example.//   

       I suggest Pman. He's got a big stopwatch on his chest and he pees sitting down because peeing standing up is sexist and not progressive. He also walks on all fours like his animal brothers because walking upright is arrogant and speciesist. And please don't call him ""he". Pman doesn't subscribe to your outdated labels.
doctorremulac3, Oct 10 2014

       So basically, a mouse?
pocmloc, Oct 10 2014

       Don't blow a gasket doc. I think most people can manage to wash their hair or do some other kind of multitasking while pissing, even without that much training.
RayfordSteele, Oct 10 2014

       Don't blow a gasket Ray, but only the lowliest of fucktards needs somebody to tell them how to pee.
doctorremulac3, Oct 10 2014

       You could crap in the shower too: save even more.   

       And, on a slightly related note, [19thly], if you're hovering around, did you ever do something with the old ceramic throne in the garden ?
FlyingToaster, Oct 10 2014

       //You could crap in the shower too: save even more.//   

       ...which is funny, until you think about it and realize how many people would actually take this seriously if you guilt tripped them enough. Saves toilet paper, therefore trees. Just stomp it down the drain and brag about how "green" you are.   

       Ew, that's a gross post even for me. My apologies.
doctorremulac3, Oct 10 2014

       Dorms have urinals, which use much less water than a shower.
FlyingToaster, Oct 10 2014

       Some people are getting unnecessarily pissed off about this idea. If an idea like this bothers you that much urine trouble.
normzone, Oct 10 2014

       Nobody's telling anybody how to do anything. It's a student-led idea, that's all. It's like recycling at home. No p.c. involved. If you don't want to do it, don't. But don't get all bent out of shape about it. The reason I' ve been riding your ass is because this place used to be a lot more pleasant and civil. Some of the best and brightest longtime former members got rather sick of the new belligerence and left.
RayfordSteele, Oct 10 2014

       //Dorms have urinals, which use much less water than a shower.//   

       I wouldn't think you'd get quite as clean though.
doctorremulac3, Oct 11 2014

       Sounds like Internet Powers to me. I wrote an idea called bee-hive - you-re - in-ism which was ultimately actually a pee pee joke about how a concept of anti-social is constructed and how a person uses multiple subjectivities to self-regulate. Even [rayfo] makes an attempt at this rationalization in his last anno. So the bee-hive- urine ism is reflected in [4and20]'s idea about how a campaign can make public urinations legitimate when the rationalization (a real word) corresponds to envronmentalist objectivity, rather than legal or health objectivity. Of course public urination is often forbidden by by-laws in public and private institutions, communities and organizations. Then of course there is public opinion. Overall, beehive-urine-ism, or public urination campaign will ultimately appeal to the new rationalization that finds public justification for such individual behavior in an environmental cause. Perfect. However the poster's reaction to the idea is somewhat tepid as a urine stream, and it is not an original idea, but making a preexisting idea more viral, which I'm not against even in a critical form such as this, so no m-f-d. And I make the young norfolks in the link honorary bee-hive-urine-ists.
rcarty, Oct 11 2014

       1) The BBC loves a sly joke.   

       2) England still seems to micro-manage people's lives to some extent.   

       3) There is an almost Germanic appeal to efficiency over taste.   

       4) The article states that "internet research" told the students that it's hygenic. As with the idea of drinking recycled sewer water, I'd like to know how thoroughly the known microbes have been catalogued. To take an obvious example, Ebola is said to result from bodily fluids, but no one is quite certain how the Spanish nurse was infected. Similarly, there is a world of gut flora, viruses, etc. which is little known and less understood. Not that the BBC would be privy to all the science, but what, no caveats to the Wally and Ermine golden shower show?
4and20, Oct 11 2014

       Right, you're hitting on some rationalization with the efficiency point. Although I don't think there is anything necessarily innate about efficiency to Germans, although Nietzsche as an irrationalist might argue that, it has more to do with removing agency in the sense that irrationalists refer, and replacing it with calculated actions that exist within a legal context that criminalizes, an education context that evaluates intelligence, a health context that determines functionality and fitness etc. As Germans from Westphalia to East Anglia have long had such institutions we can sloppily conclude that the stereotypical German efficiency comes from a rationalism, rather than an innateness, as positivism would suggest. In fact it has more to the with the rationalization referred to by Weber in the first sociological reference to 'iron cage'. In fact I would examine environmentalism using Weber given my own inability to think my own thoughts. However, I find environmentalism to be ambivalent, if something not someone can be, about modernity, but it certainly does constrain human behavior in the maintenance of modernity. However, I like the public urination campaign because it transcends the individual regulation of behavior by rational others, and justifies a certain freedom of action by saving water, but at the same time I'll use as much damn water as I feel, will, and desire. This is in contrast to a society where water use is actually limited by scarcity, which is not a rational constraint, but could imply some. As for the health aspects, in the same strand of thought, health rationalists are the worst of all (those who try to take away your agency through appeal to health), so I'd rather stand in a little urine than have them tell me I cant.
rcarty, Oct 11 2014

       Paragraph breaks are also being conserved.
normzone, Oct 11 2014

       Sometimes I wonder if humanity, having travelled along the road to civilisation for two or three thousand years, has suddenly decided to go back because it forgot something.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 11 2014

       //hygenic// I read where urine is clean, bacteriologically.
FlyingToaster, Oct 11 2014

       //Sometimes I wonder if humanity, having travelled along the road to civilisation for two or three thousand years, has suddenly decided to go back because it forgot something.//   

       Are you referring to un-dis-non-environmental anti- pro-uni-conservational civilization or pro-un-uni- environmental dis-anti-non-conservational civilization?   

       If I may flatulently point out, the difference between the two is sublimely subliminal, a sort of sophist sublimation of subluxation if you will.
doctorremulac3, Oct 11 2014

       Urophagists the world over are crying their eyes out. <link>
Grogster, Oct 11 2014

       Not even Google Translate understands what [rcarty] says.
RayfordSteele, Oct 11 2014

       //civilisation for two or three thousand years, has suddenly decided to go back//   

       That's a fairly simplified view of history. Even looking at Africa, and the Ebola crisis, if the people were not so resistant to the Imperialist the disease would be more easily controlled. But the resistance takes the form of suspicion, and superstition etc. The people are not inferiors they just haven't adopted modern ways of being, which largely accounts for an evident discrepancy between races. Even many southern US blacks in the former land of cotton deny legal objective rationality, creating an ongoing what some consider a dialectical conflict. Of course, society doesn't have to be mediated in such a way, but of course it has pragmatic truth-power. It becomes evident that most global conflict actually is about the spreading of civilization, and the 'irrationalist' drive for a kind of liberty. However, accusation against the imperialist are not always valid because they come from another imperialist, usually connected to another expansionist religion. So the world is a mess. Although the combination of disease and modern civilization can be just as bad as those that resist, because disease is transmitted via airplane, motor vehicle, modern love, blood transfusion, urban density etc.
rcarty, Oct 12 2014

       Wee on the garden if you have one or or put the wee in a bottle and drop it on your favorite plants if not. It adds nitrogen, phosphates and a little je ne sais quoi withthe end effect of beautifying the environment. It also helps to reduce global warming since by increasing biomass it locks down and temporarily sequesters carbon dioxide. This helps to address rcarty's concerns.
bhumphrys, Oct 12 2014

       //Think how much water we'd save if we didn't urinate at all...//

//the only way this works is if you a) turn the water off b) do something else while peeing or c) time yourself.//

...or d) do all your weekly urinating at one time. Colostomy bags for all!
DrBob, Oct 12 2014

       //Sometimes I wonder if humanity, having travelled along the road to civilisation for two or three thousand years, has suddenly decided to go back because it forgot something.//   

       I know you're being a little tongue-in-cheek, but we already know evolution isn't a one way path biologically, why not socially? Whales have vestigial feet from when they said "Screw this walking stuff, we're going back into the water." So in a technologically advanced, automated world made increasingly safe for everybody, no matter how smart or dumb they are, there's not as much of a need to be smart to survive any more. Stupidity flourishes for the first time in history. Maybe even more than intelligence.   

       Not a new theory by any means, and one that's been refuted by some, but de-evolution is certainly one possible path for humanity. (See link for the pro- "we're getting dumber" argument.)
doctorremulac3, Oct 12 2014

       //not as much of a need to be smart to survive any more. Stupidity flourishes for the first time in history.//   

       I disagree. Despite some evidence to the contrary, I firmly believe that humans are smarter now than they ever have been.   

       Ignore, if you like, the "Flynn effect" (the rapid increase in measured IQ since the 1800s, in most developed nations). Insofar as it means anything (and I think it does), it probably reflects better health and nutrition and more mental stimulation in early childhood.   

       Just look at the "geniuses" of a few centuries ago - anyone from Galen to Plutarch. Their pearls of wisdom were, when not actually wrong, statements of the bleeding obvious. These guys were (and I mean no disrespect here) bloody idiots.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 12 2014

       I personally don't know, I've read about the Flynn effect which supposedly shows I.Q.s going up but there's research showing the opposite as well.   

       If I were to guess, I'd say a split is coming. Some will go one way, some will go the other. Nature usually hedges its bets that way.   

       The pro smart argument is that you have to be smart to get off the cradle planet of Earth and expand life to the stars, but nature could make the argument that stupid people aren't in danger of starting a nuclear war or creating a life destroying self replicating nanobots so why not play it safe like nature does and branch in both directions?   

       It does kind of make sense.
doctorremulac3, Oct 12 2014

       //there's research showing the opposite as well//   

       Not much. It's generally agreed that measured IQ has risen swiftly, smoothly and continuously in developed countries, though it may now be levelling off. The arguments are largely over the mechanism, and what IQ tests actually measure.   

       //nature could make the argument that...// Nature doesn't make arguments. If it keeps you alive long enough to screw someone today, that's good enough.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 12 2014

       Nature doesn't make arguments, it just renders the final decision, but it does seem to be doing something right. Yesterday's mud is today's astronaut walking on the Moon.   

       I'm anthropomorphizing nature to make it more palatable for the sake of discussion. Putting a little ring of flowers on the head of a humanoid mother nature wearing a hippy dress and sandals and asking her to explain here actions.   

       //The arguments are largely over the mechanism, and what IQ tests actually measure.//   

       Yea, that should probably be established first. If I walk onto the field with a football and you walk on with a baseball and glove, the referees might have a hard time scoring the game. In other words the rules should be clear before the study will be worth anything.
doctorremulac3, Oct 12 2014

       IQ measures the object of intelligence which underlies communications and basically the way the world, meaning social word, is ordered. So I'd assume even the comprehension of communication would have a functional reproduction effect. Of course the being to which we refer also exists in personal experience and may in fact reject the kind of intelligent thinking over another possible self. Who knows, maybe even a person devaluated in a systematic way may legitimately resist highly commodified ways of thinking. Other elements of rationalization are oriented towards regulation of family such as child abuse, nutrition, and not just bureaucracies, but those that act in a rationalizing way.
rcarty, Oct 12 2014

       //So I'd assume even the comprehension of communication would have a functional reproduction effect.//   

       You mean chicks dig guys who say things like "functional reproduction effect"? Yea, sounds plausible, although I seem to hear women raving about George Clooney more than... who's a famous smart person? Hmm. Can somebody finish my post for me? I've got a lot of stuff to do today and I'm sitting on my butt here.
doctorremulac3, Oct 12 2014

       // In other words the rules should be clear before the study will be worth anything.//   

       Smarter people than I (perhaps even than you) know that, and have spent a lot of time agonising over it. Qualitatively (as in - types of questions), IQ tests were standardized quite early on. However, the difficulty of the questions (and the scoring thresholds) have had to be raised regularly to keep the average score at 100.   

       To put it another way, if you administer an IQ test from 1914 to today's population (matched for age, educational level, whatever), the average score is very significantly greater than it was in 1914.   

       So, if nothing else, we can say that people today score higher on the same test than they did in 1914. On average, very much higher.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 12 2014

       That's only part of what that meant, it means it reproduces 'the logic' of construction in the deconstruction of meaning of the sighs, words, not subtle correction on barely incorrect spellings. Sort of how 'evolution' is a sort of protestantism when really the underlying logic of adaptation and fitness and reproduction or death corresponds to classical economics. Reproduction needn't objectify any external variables providing an epic narrative but an incidentalism deriving from a chaos, that competition exists in, but is destroyed by randomness of other variables. Antitrust lawsuits demonstrate that the theory does not correspond universally, suggesting limited application.
rcarty, Oct 12 2014

       Perhaps over the years, the 1914 tests have degraded a bit, so the hard questions have decayed to easy questions? You should check for enpty spaces where the easy questions have degraded into blank lines.
pocmloc, Oct 12 2014

       I can't put forth a decided view on this since I haven't seen the tests or the data and I have to take into consideration one of my favorite scientist's observations once I do so. Ernst Mach pointed out that the point of observation has to be taken into consideration when you evaluate data. In other words, who did this IQ study? Do they have an agenda one way or another? How do I know that? Does that mean their data is wrong? No, just that I need to see the whole picture before I can even render an opinion. I just heard that identical tests were given to groups many decades apart. Who was the old group? Who was the new group? Were farmers from a hundred years ago asked math questions that they may have never been taught about? Were the two groups from similar socioeconomic groups?   

       I don't know if we're getting smarter or stupider yet, all I know is that it's an interesting thing to look at.
doctorremulac3, Oct 12 2014

       Somewhere (archive.org?) I saw an admissions test to Harvard from the 19th century, before IQ tests I think. It was mildly frightening, because it was a test of real knowledge in mathematics, languages, etc.   

       By the time I started school, it seems as if IQ was tested every year. That's a lot of practice, for tests which typically required the most or least obvious answer to questions designed to have no practicability. Time was the key factor, although any answers were multiple choice anyway, unlike the Harvard test.   

       Studies show that telling teachers that certain students are superior, at random, induces those results in those students. Teaching to the test did give me confidence, in spades.   

       Still, I'd be wary of taking a new IQ test cold, after all these years, although it's probably people my age creating the tests.
4and20, Oct 12 2014

       I know one scary thing about tests, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed this. Many times you can figure out the right answer to a question on a subject you know nothing about by using a little detective work and noticing a pattern in the test writer's style.   

       I'll give a silly and useless example before I drop off:   

       An object weighing 15 newtons is lifted from the ground to a height of 0.22 meter. The increase in the object’s gravitational potential energy is approximately   

       1. 310 J   

       2. 32 J   

       3. 3.3 J   

       4. A dog biscuit   

       You Are Correct!   

       By the way I guessed 3 and got it right so I cut and pasted the whole thing and added 4. Ok, horrible example but you test takers out there know what I'm talking about. To some extent, with very little knowledge about a subject you can bullshit your way through a test and pass. My experience was accidentally talking the SAT two years before I was old enough to do so and getting, I was told, in the 98th percentile before they realized I was just 16. I just plowed through it, guessing much of the time. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's figured this out.
doctorremulac3, Oct 12 2014

       //who did this IQ study? Do they have an agenda one way or another? How do I know that? Does that mean their data is wrong? No, just that I need to see the whole picture before I can even render an opinion. I just heard that identical tests were given to groups many decades apart. Who was the old group? Who was the new group? Were farmers from a hundred years ago asked math questions that they may have never been taught about? Were the two groups from similar socioeconomic groups?//   

       The IQ tests weren't administered as part of some great scheme. IQ tests are administered in many contexts, on many different groups. The difficulty of the questions, and the scoring metric, has to be upped every few years to maintain the population average at 100.   

       But regardless of possible differences in application or subject groups, the fact remains that people today score (on average) well, well, well over 100 on the IQ tests of 100 years ago, which the people of that time scored (by definition) an average of 100 on.   

       Very few people doubt the Flynn effect - the argument is over what it means. The most common belief is that better nutrition and freedom from most childhood diseases allows (on average) better brain development. In the same way, average lifespan and average height have increased in developed countries over the last 100 years - no great mystery.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 12 2014

       How many years did kids go to school 100 years ago? What was the quality of the education?   

       Not arguing, just asking. I don't know. But if they didn't go to school as long and the teachers themselves didn't go to school as long, that might have an outcome.   

       Do you have a link to the actual test Max? I'd be curious to see what the questions were if you had one available.
doctorremulac3, Oct 12 2014

       Education is certainly a factor - but the tests are meant to test reasoning rather than learning. However, education (and mental exercise in general) probably has a significant role.   

       I couldn't find any links that give historical IQ tests, which is surprising - I thought they'd be easier to find.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 12 2014

       Are you sure that's Helenistic something or other, and not a Two and a Half Men version of Falling Down? Of course its also a portrayal of the naif, but I don't subscribe to that definition, because it is not useful. Unless you want to say the first religion is like childhood. But I rather say the naif is the person who doesn't get the movie. Who doesn't get the burka magic trick, and does not disbelieve. Who doesn't get perhaps the utilitarian satire and becomes paranoid. The lattermost is fun, but it's better to just take the signifiers out and make a sociology, so then the utilitarians don't persecute you based on the logic that their system found 'one', a nonfascist. Ayn Rands satire is for the fundamentally irrational person as well, the schizophrenic, to become the ultimate revolutionary or persecuted person. She is not persecuting anyone, just as Orwell is not. Just as he is not inventing utilitarianism as an *original idea*.   

       Perhaps this Hellenistic Greek segue is useful in expounding my previous statements. There is this question of positivism that is found in the work of Comte which played a role in civilization building. Of course he founded sociology which comes from two Greek words, one we can discard and the other logia, the root of logician, or someone who reasons, as well as alogia, a schizophrenic. Of course positivism still characterizes sociology as a scientific study of social structures etc. However in contrast to the positivist nonhistoricism, an interpretive sociology that [pashute] has indicated he knows well about, has taken the fore and in the very recent manifestation of deconstruction. If we consider historical logia, that of Jesus' scriptures, and contemporary logia, of modernish society, we could speculate how logia has progressed that reasoning and the functions of the human brain has progressed with it. So while an increase in intelligence can be accounted for by material improvements such as nutrition and advanced helmets, advancements in logia, even beyond the christian apex 2000 or so years ago, continually challenges the human brain by advancing reasoning that is embedded in everyday communication. This corresponds to comtean positivism of his historical progression of logia from religion to positivism. Weber an antipositivist denies this progression and instead detect an immanence of religion within supposedly advanced logia.   

       That's one form of sociology that gets boring because it ultimately doesn't advocate or rather predict any kind of violent overthrow. A more Marxian analysis would say that intelligence is a form of capital, and IQ tests are the way of indexing the value of commodities, or the individual accumulation of useful capital (intelligence). So quite pleasantly, [maxbuchs] can look at his stock ticker readouts and rest comfortably knowing the investments of blood, toilets, sweat and tears, of empire, have largely paid off, despite some viral positivist memes that may have gotten out of control, somewhere along the line. However, since we are living in a mostly secular but ironically post-positivist world, I've lost my train of thought to alogia.
rcarty, Oct 12 2014

       //IQ tests weren't administered as part of any great scheme//   

       Has your credit ever been pre-approved ?
FlyingToaster, Oct 13 2014

       Flynn wrote a book where he seems to have argued that it is not nutrition but greater abstract thinking which accounts for large increases in raw scores. In older IQ tests, Russian farmers always objected to logic questions which got the colour of the cows wrong.   

       I did have a question about how such large increases over the mean would be normalized, but haven't looked at the statistics.   

       Guessing and finding patterns in the test maker choices seems to be inbuilt into the scoring. Is it all one big abstract game?   

       I would agree with Doc, that, partly for reasons of scale, policy makers who act on abstract thinking and treat that process as ideal thinking, have made the world dumber.   

       Rcarty's last comment reminds me of a discussion about schizophrenics and language. It's said there is a kind of poetry to schizophrenic speech. At the same time, one professor who's studied the question says that schizophrenic speech is in fact very concrete. Some scientists say that schizophrenics have trouble with metaphor. It would be interesting if schizophrenics are trying to warn us about abstract thinking, but don't know how to express it.
4and20, Oct 13 2014

       Well there's a few traits in particular that are important. Introversion, paranoia, solipsism, existential crisis, persecution complex, for depressives cynicism etc Some of these things that are rather hard to cultivate through philosophical discipline (askesis) come naturally to the schizophrenic. For example introversion is ideal for sociological observation. Paranoia and persecution complex relate to social and political regimes. Solipsism is common in god complexes and ego loss. As irrational, the schizophrenic is difficult to discipline and control using behaviorism or persuasion, or intersubjective normalization. So the schizophrenic, the paranoiac actually oppose certain social elements in a fundamental way,which sets them up for persecution or revolution. The issue is that the sociological elements cross over into a political domain, namely conflicts between libertarian patients and communitarian health rationalists; practical health doctrines with radical ideation; powerlessness vs lego-medico jurisdiction; neoliberalism vs persecution complex; god complex vs god worshipper; lack of desire vs desire; the tribal cultural adoption of schizophrenic practices (self mutilation, superstition) vs rationalization; suicide vs prolife; etc I can make a huge list, and I spare the halfbakery massive text columns.
rcarty, Oct 13 2014

       Re: 4's post, "Which is prettier?",   

       Ok, now this is getting interesting. I have no idea what the other questions on these tests are, but this particular one looks like it was written for a very young child, 3 or 4 years old. Now I know you can get information from that, if somebody 100 years ago couldn't figure that out they're probably pretty stupid. Still, makes me wonder about other aspects of this test just because the question is so weird.   

       Here's my questions about the "us vs our stupid last century predecessors" test.   

       Was the age group the same?   

       Were the years/hours of education the same?   

       What were the differences in the curriculum and method of teaching between the groups?   

       Was the number of tests taken of any kind up to the time of the IQ test the same? For instance did one group have more experience in general with tests such as math, English, logic, geometry etc? A great disparity in that alone could really have an outcome on the score of one group vs the other. If you've never taken a test and you're going against somebody who's been taking tests since they were 3 years old you're at a big disadvantage.   

       Was the socioeconomic status the same for both groups?   

       Was the same group tested both times? That is, the same country, city and area? If so, is the population in that area doing the same thing or was it a situation like we have here in Silicon Valley where it was peach farmers 100 years ago and the Google, Apple, Yahoo, Ebay, NASA offices today?   

       I'm sure there are other questions that need to be answered about this test before its validity can be accepted. Again, I'm not saying it's wrong, but I can't say one way or another until these details are addressed. In other words, I've seen nothing qualifying the quality of this test method other than "everybody agrees". Well, I've been wildly un-impressed by that metric before.   

       Just sayin'.   

       And Rcarty, can I ask you a delicate question now that 4and20's breached the subject? I ask because I cap on your posts and bust your balls because I've assumed you've just got a quirky posting style that comes off a bit hoity-toity and invites silly comments from the cheap seats, but if you're on medication or dealing with some issue like 4and20 alluded to it would be cruel and wildly inappropriate for me to be poking fun at you. If so let me know so I (and everybody else) can temper the responses to your posts accordingly. If you've just got a quirky style, that's great and I apologize for asking.   

       Ok buddy?
doctorremulac3, Oct 13 2014

       [doc], your best option if you're interested is to Google the Flynn Effect and take it from there.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 13 2014

       As you know, I disguise my laziness with challenges so people will do the work for me. Unfortunately I think you've figured that out.   

       I'll look into it and see what I can find.
doctorremulac3, Oct 13 2014

       Any particular thing I said you want clarification on?
rcarty, Oct 13 2014

       Mmm. No, that's ok my friend. Never mind.
doctorremulac3, Oct 13 2014

       // HB'ers are pretty cursed with a change vector mentality with no change actually required or indeed unpatented. //   

       May I ask what that means? There seem to be several interpretations. Is that intentional?   

       It sounds to e like it means that we like to whine a lot.
RayfordSteele, Oct 14 2014


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle