Tuesday, December 12, 2006
No surprises here:
|Crackpot - INTJ|
33% Extraversion, 73% Intuition, 73% Thinking, 53% Judging
People hate you.
Paris Hilton hates Nicole Richie. Lex Luther hates Superman. Garfield hates Mondays.
But none these even rates against the insurmountable hate, people have for you.
I mean, you're pretty damn clever and you know it. You love to flaunt your potential. Heard the word "arrogant" lately? How about "jerk?" Or perhaps they only say that behind your back.
That's right. I know I can say this cause you're not going to cry. You're not exactly the most emotional person. You'd rather spend time with your theoretical questions and abstract theories than with other people.
Ever been kissed? Ever even been on a date? Trust me, your inflated ego is a complete turnoff with the opposite sex and I am telling you, you're not that great with relationships as it is. You're never going to be a dude or chick magnet, purely because you're more concerned with yourself than others. Meh. They all hate you already anyway.
How about this- "stubborn?" Hrm? Heard that lately? All those facts which don't fit your theories must just be wrong, right? I mean, really, the vast amounts of time you spend with your head in the clouds...you're just plain strange.
If you want to learn more about your personality type in a slightly less negative way, check out this.
|Link: The Brutally Honest Personality Test written by UltimateMaster on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the The Dating Persona Test|
Posted by dogscratcher at 12:43 PM
Monday, December 11, 2006
Times-News: Magicvalley.com, Twin Falls, ID
Boise is now looking at putting in a whitewater park. Maybe I should get on this bandwagon. Where I live (Tri-Cities WA), would be a great place to do a park: Long hot summers, abundant water supply (Columbia River), a lot of people with more dollars than sense (Pacific Northwest National Lab), and a two hour drive to the nearest whitewater (unless you count "Beer Falls").
Apparently the park in Reno brings in something on the order of four million dollars annually to the local economy: that is the kind of thing that would get the attention of the local political lackeys.
This warrants more investigation.
Posted by dogscratcher at 9:26 AM
Friday, December 08, 2006
White Water Rafting Blog
Wisconsin is jumping on the bandwagon. So apparently is Rockford Illinois. Are whitewater parks becoming the future of the sport? I guess you could even put one someplace relatively flat as long as you have a good water supply.
On the plus side for me, the more boaters who go to these parks instead of rivers, the fewer people I have to deal with in the wild.
But that brings up the negative: if fewer people are actually boating rivers, there is less of a rationale for protecting them from dams and other development. Sometimes, more traffic means better protection.
Posted by dogscratcher at 3:58 PM
Vandalized gate led family astray
So a guy died trying to save his family in southern Oregon after getting stuck in the snow. That by itself sucks. But it turns out that some putz had opened the gate across the road where they got stuck by cutting the lock off. So normally, the road where they ended up is physically closed this time of year.
This reminds me of stories in my youth of idiots stealing "Stop" signs, which resulted in the death of a motorist failing to yield. If they catch the guy, in my opinion, he should be charged with manslaughter or negligent homicide and reckless endangerment.
But will they catch him? Probably not. This was a jerk who for whatever reason just wanted the gate open: what kind of evidence does cutting a padlock leave? Unless some "buddy" turns him in (I assume it was a male), he will likely get away with killing someone else through sheer stupidity.
Posted by dogscratcher at 3:46 PM
Friday, December 01, 2006
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 'Maverick' risk to science debate
Unfortunately, in our complex world, no one person has perfect expertise in every subject. So even the smartest, most well-informed person has to at times rely on authorities and authority opinion to make decisions.
The classic example of this is deferring to medical experts for treating our various infirmities. We willingly submit to doctor's expert opinions regarding treatment and recuperative strategies. And generally we should, even with the caveat of getting multiple medical opinions.
The problem is there are seemingly qualified people who can be found to support even the most outlandish propositions.
So how do you distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate authorities?
One reasonably effective method for determining whether to rely on an expert's opinion is to follow these guidelines:
* Is this a matter which I can decide without appeal to expert opinion? If the answer is "yes", then do so. If "no", go to the next question:
* Is this a matter upon which expert opinion is available? If not, then your opinion will be as good as anyone else's. If so, proceed to the next question:
* Is the authority an expert on the matter? If not, then why listen? If so, go on:
* Is the authority biased towards one side? If so, the authority may be untrustworthy. At the very least, before accepting the authority's word seek a second, unbiased opinion. That is, go to the last question:
* Is the authority's opinion representative of expert opinion? If not, then find out what the expert consensus is and rely on that. If so, then you may rationally rely upon the authority's opinion.
(Shamelessly plagiarized from Gary N. Curtis' Fallacy Files: my favored authority on all things fallacious)
In the BBC story, Lord Rees notes this problem:
Lord Rees said that there was a current tendency for minority "strident" views to get exaggerated, leading to an unbalanced debate.This isn't generally a problem for the scientific academy: the scientific method is self-correcting over time, so if even a current "fringe" view is in fact correct, as more and more observations are made and evidence is collected, the correct view will win out.
The problem for scientists come from the policy decisions that are made by non-scientists based on the appearance of controversy derived from inappropriate authority.
The media don't typically follow the guidelines for determining whether to report an "expert's" view, and so often unwittingly commit the fallacy of "Inappropriate Authority" creating the appearance of controversy amongst scientists where there is little or none.
Without following these guidelines, we all increase our risk of putting stock in ill-conceived ideas, but when policymakers don't follow them, they risk us all.
Posted by dogscratcher at 5:13 AM