pretentious, chest-pounding, protecting the damsel-in-distress, woman-protecting, hero of Canton speeches
POSTED BY: leadb
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 22:34
VIEWED: 21233
PAGE 8 of 10
Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
[
I'm more or less fine in social and emotional situations (with the exception of those what takes sudden irrational dislike). My blind spot takes the form of a sort of myopia: When I'm concentrating on a specific object of investigation, the rest of the world could burn down around me. Single-minded, I call it; Rude, my wife calls it.
I know people better than they know themselves. It's written all over them. It's in the words they say and the words they don't say, and in between the lines...
So, ummm, chivalry, huh?
Non-Formulaically,
zoid
P.S.
Whichever so-called dictionary editor wrote that simplistic definition of chivalry in one of the posts above should be taken out and hanged. Here's a better one, and this is just the first one that popped up on Google and scanned for a half a minute... http://www.chronique.com/Library/Chivalry/code.htm
And then there is bushido, http://mcel.pacificu.edu/as/students/bushido/bindex.html developed half a world away, with a completely different worldview and spiritual association; and yet which matches Christian chivalry in more than just a passing way.
So perhaps, Constance, we should just pay a little respect for men being what men are. Not admiration, just awareness that there is some evidence that men are different from women in some fundamental ways.
(NB: I've still got my money on it all being down to the physiological effects of testosterone. Especially since it's a sucker bet...)
_________________________________________________
"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'
Your.. er.. superiority/arroganse is of the most charming kind zoid..
Im not really that conserned about the fundamental differences between man and woman. I would just like to see everyone treated the same way, with equal opportunities and with respect. Im imto treating people as people not gender. (Yes I am a feminist and leftwing at that) So Ill never (or try to never) excuse anyones behavior with "oh MEN!" or "thats just what women are like".. Its not fair... Its not right to reduse a person to a gender stereotype.. Just as its not fair to blame ones mistakes on ones gender...
Constance
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Constance:Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Besides, I don't think a lower IQ corresponds to a person being more 'normal'.
I think the normal here is where on the IQ scale most people are...
And having my IQ discussed here is kind of embarrasing *blushes*...
Anyways, normal is a difficult consept...
Where is the chest ponding btw?
Constance
When I said 'normal', I meant the norm, the median, the mean average; where the majority of people fall.
My IQ of 154 places me in the top 7% of the tested population.
Anyone can buy a Mensa membership, if they're only at the top of the norm (120-130). My wife took a quicky online IQ test and scored a 123. She is much smarter than me, in a practical way, which is the only way that really counts. She was deeply hurt that her IQ was lower than mine, despite my personal testimony along the lines of that presented above. I tell her, intelligence does not necessarily equate to smart, let alone wise; she is not mollified...
I would never be a member of Mensa. I adhere to Groucho Marx' admonition: "I would never belong to a club that would allow a person like me to be in it." (paraphrased).
Khyron added:
Quote:
...Maybe, but his "designed for normal people" made it sound like the all-round kind of normality...
That is correct. The world is not designed for the over- or under-endowed of any characteristic: Too tall, too short. Too pretty, not pretty enough. Too rich, too poor. (Although you've really got to work at it to get your head wrapped around those last two, immersed in our narcissistic, materialistic society: One can be too pretty and/or too rich for one's own good. Think of Marilyn Monroe, Howard Hughes and Princess Diana, for example. Their essential life experiences were just too warped to be satisfactory.)
Anyone who falls even marginally outside the median, the norm for the population, is going to struggle to fit in with the 'straights'...
Respectfully,
zoid
_________________________________________________
"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Can women be chivalrous? Would anyone call a woman chivalrous? And, just how many female knights were there "back in the day"?
I don't have a problem with the basic ideas of chivalry - my beef is with the implications of the word ("I am a good Sir Knight"). It's a word that in my experience is applied solely to men, when there are virtues in it that everyone should share.
Besides, in a way, it perpetuates the stereotype. We hold decent men up like we're surprised there are so many of them, like the rule is that "men are pigs" until proven otherwise. Is the rule "women are good" until proven otherwise? 'Cause that's not true, either.
On door-holding - I know this guy my age (high school) that flat out refuses to let me hold a door for him. I always have to leave a room or go down the stairs before him. I've tried to let him go first (because I want to be polite, too), but eventually I just get fed up with it and go. He's trying to be nice, but it's really irritating, because he treats me (and all the other girls he knows) differently than his male friends when he shouldn't.
---
"If I were a Nazi, someone would defend my constitutional right to hate Jews. If I were a Klansman, someone would defend my rights to hate blacks. It's a funny place, this world. Hate has rights. Love has none." - Jeff, Murphy's Boy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well now what a turn this conversation has taken, paracetamol and a few bottles of wine for the painkilling and I can rejoin it in a slightly inebry...pissed state.
IQ is, to my mind, and seemingly most other people's here, a poor measure of, well, more or less everything. Mine is certainly above average, and yet I flunked school, screwed up my life, had a series of disasterous relationships and work in a minimum wage getting to clean up shit and get assaulted several times a day. However, only takes a little bit of constructive lying to yourself, and some carefully selective choices as to when to speak your mind, and you can get away without too many glazed expressions ^_~
Okay so all of that can safely be attributed to laziness, a lack of motivation, a habit of insulting the examiners (and everyone else I know) and generally poor interpersonal skills, but i don't see any reason to let it get me down xD
And while I get the 'psychic' moments, truth be told they're not terribly impressive, and mostly a result of knowing my patients, I get no edge over people with more experience. Yours sound rather more, well, less fun, but more creepifying ^^
Have I talked enough to end the post? Good.
Signing out for passing out, Odds.
Our criminal institutions are full of little creeps like you who do wrong things.
Many of them were driven to these things by a horrible force called Music.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm really confused... what test are you using? Mensa's cutoff point is 132 using the Stanford-Binet test, and that's for the top 2%. You getting 154 and being placed in just the top 7% seems kind of odd. Probably should be top 0.07% or something like that.
Originally posted by zoid:
My IQ of 154 places me in the top 7% of the tested population.
Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, you've all been busy while I was at work then dinner.
A few points...
As the demi-official host of the thread, I'd like to say that I consider River's posts to be -entirely- within scope of the thread topic purpose, and that not in the least has she hijacked the topic. To wit, she was expressing her opinion about "pretentious, chest-pounding, ... speeches", and I declare that to be "on topic."
I am willing to admit I really hoped she join us over here; and pleased she did.
Besides that, I'd like to thank you all for your calm, cool and collected responses and comments throught out, including River's.
Key point here; as far as I'm concerned we are here to talk about thoughts and feelings; and while I will express concern at some of the positions, I belive all have kept well to expressing them. It is not fair to say "What do your really think?" then bash someone for saying what they really think. Thoughts are messy. Emotions are messy.
Now, >I'm< probably going to have to duck for cover....
I believe that River's "position" might be entirely reasonable and necessary... for her. Frankly, I do not know what she's been through, and, perhaps, for whatever reason, she needed (or needs) to keep men at a safe distance; this distance being realtively great compared to what most folks think and feel.
I'm a firm believer you are accountable for your actions; however, thoughts and feelings are while... directionable?... are not quite the same issue. She -feels- that all men are worthy to be gutted; however, has she in fact acted upon it? If so, I sincerely hoping she's posting from inside a "controlled environment". If not, well, I can't say I'm -pleased- she feels that way, but it might "where she's" at.
I will point out she herself said her "position" is not based on logic, but instead experience and emotion. -That- is keen; it tells me that trying to reach her with logic is... well, obviously not the course to take. I believe she acknowledged her position is not "rational", ergo, why would you continue down that path?
I'd particularly like to thank Redhead for saying what I couldn't to River; not that it didn't occur to me, but that given River's "place", I cannot say it to her with credability; as I am that which is offensive to River and thus cannot be granted credence (at least, on this topic).
I accept that fact that River -may- hate me for no reason other than I'm a man; that is not personal. That is "where she's at." It does not please me, but neither does it hurt nor offend me. I admit, the "gutting" comment worries me a bit; I sincerely hope she is merely expressing her thought/feelings and that she will in fact not act on it.
Of course, that's just me. And I'll let that drop there...
So, shields are charged, hard cover is found, .... ducking!!!!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:Quote:I'm really confused... what test are you using? Mensa's cutoff point is 132 using the Stanford-Binet test, and that's for the top 2%. You getting 154 and being placed in just the top 7% seems kind of odd. Probably should be top 0.07% or something like that.
Originally posted by zoid:
My IQ of 154 places me in the top 7% of the tested population.
Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.
Statistics never lie; liars often use statistics.
Key phrase is "tested population"; in this case is likely a self selected set. So, given that people who are less bright are less likely to wish to have a low IQ confirmed are less likely to test, therefore not be in the "tested population." Mensa, on the other hand, probably is quoting a "general population" estimate.
I no longer remember my IQ; nor do I care to be reminded. I seem to be bright enough to get by, and not so bright as to find it a burden.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Can women be chivalrous? Would anyone call a woman chivalrous? And, just how many female knights were there "back in the day"?
...
Did you by any chance read the link I appended above? Here it is again... http://www.chronique.com/Library/Chivalry/code.htm ...and it barely scratches the surface, but it's a fair enough representation. If you read it, it certainly applies to anyone regardless the variables of their physical bodies.
No, there were no female knights back in the day (with the exception of perhaps Jean D'Arc, and the Church looked harshly upon her transvestism).
It was a different world. Hell, it was a different world less than a century ago. The real Women's Rights movement began with the end of WWII. Okay, there were suffragettes in the early 1900's, et cetera; but the real sea change occurred when 'Rosie the Riveter' refused to return en masse to the kitchen when all the GIs came home. These were not a handful of outspoken idealists, they were 'real' women -- normal housewives and mothers -- who for the first time knew for a fact that they could do 'Man's Work' as well as any man.
That realization changed the world. Everything else has followed; the good and the bad, because Change is a double-edged sword...
Women still have a few more impediments to their total equality to hurdle. They still have a few potential self-inflicted pitfalls to avoid, too, lest they become as power-drunk as some men are...
But, I'm pulling for us all to come out of it peers, and with our basic humanity intact.
Respectfully,
zoid
_________________________________________________
"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:Quote:I'm really confused... what test are you using? Mensa's cutoff point is 132 using the Stanford-Binet test, and that's for the top 2%. You getting 154 and being placed in just the top 7% seems kind of odd. Probably should be top 0.07% or something like that.
Originally posted by zoid:
My IQ of 154 places me in the top 7% of the tested population.
Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.
Statistics never lie; liars often use statistics.
Key phrase is "tested population"; in this case is likely a self selected set. So, given that people who are less bright are less likely to wish to have a low IQ confirmed are less likely to test, therefore not be in the "tested population." Mensa, on the other hand, probably is quoting a "general population" estimate.
I no longer remember my IQ; nor do I care to be reminded. I seem to be bright enough to get by, and not so bright as to find it a burden.
From http://www.extremeintellect.com/ei2007/IQ/faqIQ.html :
Quote:
FAQ IQ
What is the IQ of the average person?
The average IQ score for the normal person is supposed to be 100 (the mean) with a standard deviation of 15 (which means you can add or subtract 15 from 100). Different IQ tests give you different scores, so defining someone strictly by score is not the best idea.
How high does your IQ have to be to be considered a genius?
It varies. An IQ score of 140+ or 145+ is the minimum to be considered a genius.
Who held the highest IQ in history?
Who had the highest IQ in history is up for debate. Some people believe that Marilyn vos Savant (228) had the highest IQ in history. Others believe it to be William James Sidis whose was roughly estimated at (250-300).
NOTE: When evaluating who had or has the higher IQ, take into account that the early IQ tests differed greatly from the IQ tests of today. So you won't really get an accurate picture of IQ simply by looking at a number. Also, many of the early "geniuses" never took an actual IQ test. Many of the IQ's noted in biographies may be estimates of the person's IQ.
To quote myself, which I avoid more strenuously than discussing my IQ:
Quote:
...Longtime eNTP. A real fan of MBTI, since I find it more useful than IQ (154). Intelligence is more of a hindrance than a help, in my experience. It only tends to alienate. Knowing your transactional type gives the individual something to work with when trying to improve oneself (a perpetual goal to which I am motivated)...
...I have since stated in every possible way I know how -- and given prime examples, mind you -- that 'IQ' is worthless in and of itself. First, it only measures potential, not actualization. Second, if you've got a 'high IQ', it's more likely to turn you into a pariah or skid row alcoholic than a prince/ss of the universe.
So, to recap:
'IQ' = worthless
Myers-Briggs type = very useful tool in gaining knowledge of yourself = wisdom (hopefully)
Wisdom = only game worth playing (a.k.a., "The Meaning of Life")
Respectfully,
zoid
P.S.
The server is, methinks, going down the proverbial sh*tter... *crosses fingers and clicks 'Post My Response'*
__________________________________________________
"People who boast about their IQ are losers," -Stephen Hawking
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
Did you by any chance read the link I appended above?
Yes. And it talks about knights. Hence the questions.
I also object to some of the specifics, but I suspect I'm in the minority with regards to ideas such as loyalty, justice and patriotism, so I'll leave it at that.
I'll ask it again, because I don't think you really answered it: would you call a woman chivalrous if she acted according to that code? Because I don't think the word chivalry applies for women, not really, given its historical roots (which I admit I may be overly-focused on).
---
"If I were a Nazi, someone would defend my constitutional right to hate Jews. If I were a Klansman, someone would defend my rights to hate blacks. It's a funny place, this world. Hate has rights. Love has none." - Jeff, Murphy's Boy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME