foreground.
Last time I saw it posted I spent some time trying to figure out how to get it to go both ways and nothing I read worked. Maybe it's because I always tend to view stuff on forums in the same place in the same kind of light etc.
Printable View
foreground.
Last time I saw it posted I spent some time trying to figure out how to get it to go both ways and nothing I read worked. Maybe it's because I always tend to view stuff on forums in the same place in the same kind of light etc.
White and gold, and never saw anything else
ImSavy with no apostrophe and only one v... if that rotating silhouette frustrates you, this might help...
http://www.echalk.co.uk/amusements/O...ilhouette.html
This one is freaky...
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view4/201...illusion-o.gif
I did notice it wasn't a very clean gif, but I'm far too lazy to keep searching once I've found what I'm looking for.
The best part about all these illusions is that they hint there is no natural pressure for truly accurate perception. There's no reason you should be able to see the real world if some fantastical interpretation serves your genes best.
Considering that two people can look at the same picture and see two different things.
It doesn't even have to be a picture.
The amount of guesswork the brain has to go through to create a "world-view" is immense. The whole dress color thing is just an example of how we disregard information like pixel color because we assume there is a real, physical light source playing on the apparent colors of things.
Our brains use assumptions to make sense of a thing being actually a different color in different light, yet maintain object permanence. We know that if we see a white mug in green light, that the mug will appear green, but that the mug is white. Our brain basically overrides the "fact" that the mug appears green with the "fact" that this mug is the same one that appeared white a moment ago.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/...y_illusion.jpg
Here, the brain interprets the shading clues in the picture to say the lower surface is in shadow, and therefore it must actually be much lighter to appear to be the same as the upper surface.
The brain uses a shortcut about lighting here, but it echoes the sorts of shortcuts that underlie 19.99 pricing or at-a-glance racism.
It's stuff like this that I find really interesting. No matter how sured up your defenses are, your lazy brain can always be tricked. The tricks were born of utility, but still they exist and they pop up all over the place.
Hey ong, apparently it's 'shored up' but I thought it was 'sured up'. Maybe I don't even know how I pronounce sure.
I'm a little over-irritated that feminists love watching garbage like Girls yet can't be bothered to watch the most feminist movie ever made: Aliens
Snatched from Reddit. Don't read if you haven't watch Aliens (WHY THE FUCK HAVEN'T YOU WATCHED ALIENS YOU TWAT)
Quote:
It's also one of the best chick flicks of all time. It was such a good chick flick, you didn't even notice it was a chick flick. You thought it was an action movie, and you loved it.
Here's the plot of aliens, in terms of how events relate to the protagonist:
A single mother, Lt. Ellen Ripley, returns home from work to realize that her baby has died. (that is, lived her whole life and died of old age without any children of her own while Ripley was in cryosleep)
Having "lost" her "child", Ripley becomes clinically depressed, and lounges around in her underwear, not eating, not bathing, and smoking cigarettes, until Carter Burke offers her the opportunity to take revenge against the species that, in a roundabout sorta way, cost her her baby.
Ripley puts on her big-girl panties and decides to take him up on his offer, figuring it's the only way to shake off the depression.
On LV-426, Ripley encounters a recently orphaned girl, about the same age as Ripley's kid when Ripley originally shipped out on the Nostromo. Ripley attempts to bond with the girl, but finds her initial attempts rebuffed.
Bla bla bla a bunch of marines die figuring out that all the colonists are dead or cocooned and they have to get themselves, Ripley, and this girl, Newt-- the lone surviving colonist --the hell off of LV-426 because there are xenos everywhere.
During this, Ripley discovers there is another mother with whom she is in direct conflict: the hive queen.
During a xenomorph assault, Newt is caught or possibly killed, and Ripley decides to go after her. In the moment where she believes Newt dead, we see all of Ripley's repressed grief and pain come crashing to the surface, until she hears Newt scream. In saving Newt, she and Queenie share a moment, one mother to another. She stumbles in on the xenomorph queen laying eggs and using nothing but body language, Ripley seems to say "I just want to take my baby and get out of here. And I will kill your babies if I have to to do it." Queenie understands the message loud and clear, and orders her praetorians to stand down and let Ripley go. As a pair of facehuggers start to hatch, Ripley is reminded of what Queenie's children have already cost her: friends, colleagues and even her own daughter.
So Ripley sets fire to the entire nest, and shoots Queenie right in the babymaker with grenades, not only killing all of her current brood, but permanently sterilizing her and denying her any and all future babies.
Queenie, enraged, chases Ripley down but is unable to prevent her escape. Back on the Sulaco, Queenie, who had stowed away, eliminates the last crewman, Bishop, and once again threatens to kill Newt.
After donning a power loader, Ripley and Queenie engage in the best Lifetime Network chick-flick catfight in cinematic history, culminating in Queenie being blown out the airlock, left to die in the hard vacuum of space, childless and alone.
Having proved her loyalty as a surrogate mother and sheer unkillability, Newt rewards grieving mom Ripley with the only thing Ripley has really been wanting since the beginning of the movie: she throws her arms around Ripley and, still delirious from the pants-shitting terror of almost getting killed by a 20 foot tall xenomorph queen and then blown out of an airlock, she calls Ripley "mommy".
And Ellen Ripley learns that, as much as she believed she wanted revenge, her broken heart could really only start to heal by the love of a child.
ROLL CREDITS.
Ripley is a dude with tits, is why.
Watch Out of Africa. They don't want to see strong women blowing up alien faces, they want to feel the strength of a woman.
I think that's mostly stereotype. The further our culture has gotten at assuming women are normal people too, the more we see them like the same sort of stuff men do.Quote:
Watch Out of Africa. They don't want to see strong women blowing up alien faces, they want to feel the strength of a woman.
I LOVE romance films. I mean, I love love love them. Am I somehow capable as a guy to love romances but women are not capable as women to like actions? I think the whole thing is just pigeonholing women and treating them like second-class humans. Femininity involves a great deal of the kind of strength Ripley has. But women are demanded to not be strong, told that they can't be strong, so then they all end up believing anything with strong women is just masculine projection.
Aliens isn't even about blowing up aliens. The first thing it is is a fantastic movie by all elements. The second thing is something where a main conflict is science fiction.
If you want to "feel the strength" of something, there's little better way to get it in film than the final half hour of Aliens. Arguably the most intense half hour of any movie
One of my favorite things about Downton Abbey is how pampered the women are because they "lack the constitution" to not be pampered. Like when a man dies, the women are expected to mourn forever because they're so much weaker than men.
It's all summed up right here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYkxCzBszOQ
The wrongness isn't in women being strong but in the people who assume that strong women are acting like men
Nothing happens in Out of Africa and bitches love it. Awesome shit happens in Aliens and bitches can't step.
I have no idea what you mean then
Right, it's hard to understand as a man. But where you want to see strength, a woman wants to feel strength. Ripley doesn't do that for them.
Bo Burnham had a music video where he mocked pop music for repeating the same lovey-bullshit refrains to every girl.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt9c0UeYhFc
Of course, the parallel would be mocking porn for being the same chicks, scenes, and positions every time.
But just like porn still works for us, these feelings bullshit songs/movies work for chicks.
Ripley/Aliens doesn't try to play that game, it plays awesome tense battles which is not up the wheelhouse for the fairer sex.
Sorry I don't buy it.
Women and men are pretty much exactly the same except very specific exceptions. Most non-sex gender differences are cultural too. The strength people find in Ripley is all feeling. I'm lost as to what sort of strength Meryl Streep exudes in a movie where "nothing happens". Ripley's strengths has nothing to do with killing aliens. The single most intense scene of the entire movie is when she decides to go down the elevator to save a little child. If women don't "feel" that then they're bullshitting.
Besides, the idea that women are more into feelings than men is hogwash
Virtually without exception, every time we treat women like they're normal, we find that stereotypes about how men and women are inherently different are no longer true. Women used to be bad at math and hate video games and not like sports. Turns out that was only true when society demanded it
Hey, I'm, not selling it. Just calling it like I see it.
Sexual preference is one of the only ways it can be demonstrated that men and women are legitimately different
Also sexual organs, skeletal-muscle structure, brain structure, hormonal composition, chromosomal composition...
I miss when we were talking about interesting stuff like brain-born biases.
And the differences end there
Seriously, start with the wiring of the amygdala. It's the heart of quick judgement calls on possible emotionally painful scenarios. http://www.livescience.com/4085-emot...men-women.html
I read Daniel Goleman's Emotional Intelligence for my understanding, but I know you're not about books so I just googled up the first link I could find.
This tells us nothing about behavior differences. It just gives suggestions for more research avenues. Morphology, especially with the brain, can't be extrapolated that far.
I shouldn't have asked for differences in brain, but differences in mind, fwiw.
The most reliable information we have about innate intelligence, behavioral, and emotional differences between men and women is that none of them have been proven right and most have been proven wrong (except for obvious hormonal ones). That said, some differences probably exist, but we'll likely never find them since cultural differences are abounding and masking.
It gives you something. One whisper of a hint that things might be different. You said none of the evidence bares out any differences and now something challenges that. Are you going to brush it aside, or follow it to see what's up?
I've read a lot of shit about the brain. I even own some expensive books by my boy Santiago Ramon y Cajal, and I would never suggest I know how the brain carries forward the mind carries out behavior, but I think it is a huge mistake to brush aside wiring differences, hormonal differences, and obvious behavioral differences in the name and hope for gender equality.
Holy shit, I never knew rilla was smart. Jokes aside, would that former book (Goleman) be good for a brain noob to read about the differences between men and women, brain-wise?
Also, flattery will get you everywhere with me.
That's very nice, ImSavy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathi...emizing_theoryQuote:
According to Baron-Cohen, females on average score higher on measures of empathy and males on average score higher on measures of systemizing. This has been found using the child and adolescent versions of the Empathy Quotient (EQ) and the Systemizing Quotient (SQ), which are completed by parents about their child/adolescent,[6] and on the self-report version of the EQ and SQ in adults.[7]Similar sex differences on average have been found using performance tests of empathy such as facial emotion recognition tasks[8] and on performance tests of systemizing such as measures of mechanical reasoning or 'intuitive physics'.[9]
The internet must be filled with seemingly contradictory links. Who ever could make heads or tails of them?
I'm obviously not saying what I posted is correct it's just something I came across the other day. I actually think it's more likely to be bullshit than true, although it seems a very testable hypothesis. From what I read of your last post though none of that contradicts what was said in that article.
Well, all I'm saying is that in engineering it's mostly dudes and a couple of ladies, and in nursing, I'm told it's the exact opposite. In a world with perfectly equal opportunities for both genders, I expect that to still hold.
http://www.cw.ua.edu/article/2013/03...minated-majors
And I'm betting gender differences, including those of the brain, have something to do with it.
I think there is some confusion here. Psychology and behavior studies are nearly worlds apart from other biological studies. Sometimes not, sometimes so.
It has to be taken for what it is. Behavior-oriented research is very difficult since so much of this other type of stuff can never be extrapolated onto it.Quote:
It gives you something. One whisper of a hint that things might be different. You said none of the evidence bares out any differences and now something challenges that. Are you going to brush it aside, or follow it to see what's up?
What scientists know today is that cultural differences between the genders are sometimes huge, and we have very little evidence showing biological causality for the differences. Additionally, we know that many prejudices about differences are washed away when the cultural pressure is neutralized.
It was once absolutely true that girls were dumb. They were bad at book stuff, bad at academics. They were bad at sports. They were emotionally weak. You couldn't shake a stick at all the things that we used to believe about females based on their biology that today we know is purely cultural.
Today we are seeing a hefty surge in women becoming more like regular people than we once thought. The success of all sorts of things that are thought to not be things women are supposed to like (*cough* Avengers *cough*) is so high because women like them. I find it specious to claim that women aren't into things like Aliens when loads of women are into The Walking Dead.
A long time ago my mom was watching Aliens because it just happened to be on and she didn't know what it was. She was glued. Ripley was an enticing character to her. But then I told her she was watching Aliens and she realized she "doesn't like that sort of thing", so she stopped watching it. She hadn't seen any aliens yet or any action. It was mere cultural conditioning that provoked her to be the girly person she has always been told she has to be.
Have to agree with Wufs posts about a lot of the culture over nature.
This shit ruined football. Before the NFL tried to court the lady viewer, no one cared if some wideout beat his wife or a QB had brain damage. Now that it needs to be a safe sport, a family sport, Adrian Peterson gets sidelined for spanking his kid and you can rough passer from 7 yards out.
The Patrioits never win if football was still a MANs game!
But seriously, I don't have anything to add about culture. All I know is that girls and boys are different in body, mind, and all that follows imo. There are ranges and shit, bells curves, but standard man vrs standard women.. they're different.
This is a debate I don't want to have. I'll just state for the record that I think the differences in engineering and nursing for the sexes is 100% cultural.
Here's my n=1: the primary difference I see between the women I know schooling in engineering and those who aren't is that the ones doing engineering were raised to believe that they can and should do it if they like it. Funny that a hefty number of them were homeschooled.
Hell I was reading an article the other day about why Asians do so much better in math competition than other races even in the US. It pretty much boils down to the prejudice that Asians are naturally better at math, so many qualified talent from other races don't even apply.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTOFXLl7eh4#t=22m30s
1 day old girls look at faces, 1 day old boys look at mechanical objects.
100% culture that.
I didn't read much of the debate but I hate this post. 100%? Seriously? ONE HUNDRED PERCENT? Why do you go to the extremes with your argument? You're leaving no room for counter-arguments which makes arguing against you shitty.
Women just have nurturing in their fucking biological make-up. Women in computer science classes are bored as fuck in their classes and, quite honestly, usually suck ass at coding. Fuck it, I said it. They have no interest in it. It's not because they can't. It's because they're bored.
But hell, every coding bootcamp in the world is giving them a free pass to learn anyway. Still waiting for my free pass as a male to get into secretary school. Yup, that part was sexist. Fuck it.
That video took me forever to find. I was starting to think I had never seen it.
Assuming this is true, it still can't be used as causality for something like engineering vs nursing. Take the world of genetics for example. Today scientists believe that even when some genes may point in the direction of certain types of behaviors for certain people, the environment is still the decider.
Even if there are innate differences where women gravitate towards nursing and men towards engineering, environmental factors are so powerful that it is entirely plausible that some environments would select for men to gravitate towards nursing and women towards engineering.
Even in the realm of sexual preferences, where there appear to be strong biological differences, we know that isn't exactly the case. Polyandry kinda blows it out of the water. Or look at how much the West likes tits. Biologists don't use evolutionary determinism, and what we know of all different types of sexual preferences in different cultures suggests that the appreciation of tits is cultural.
And what the fuck is with more than one gender showing up on applications and forms now? Seriously? EVEN CHOOSING BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE OFFENDS PEOPLE!?!?!?!?!? Since when are people offended about EVERYTHING?!?!?!?!
Because it works. People will modify their behavior to not offend you because they're civil and want to be a part of the group. Stupid assholes abuse that to the point where:
http://i.imgur.com/3MdC2vA.jpg
You caught my colloquial style seeping. "100%" technically can't be true since we can't even quantify any of this. So yeah.
As for women getting babied in coding, they probably get it because they're thought to be less good and in need of babying. They should have to get by on their merits just like anybody else. Ofc if we get into gender issues, this isn't just an example of women being treated poorly but men as well.
I say it's entirely cultural because culture is the deciding factor. Even if one gender is naturally better at something intellectually, education levels and intellectual skill levels are learned. I think the modern world is so complex and artificial that "innate" talents are pretty much totally overridden. The amount of quantitative analysis women have to do is far greater than any man did 10k years ago. Furthermore, we don't even know what real differences there are between different kinds of intelligences. Like we don't actually know if there is any fundamental difference between the smarts it takes to do law and the smarts it takes to do math.
Y'all should watch Transparent on Amazon. Don't go into it looking for a comedy though. It's not that funny. It's still good TV though.
So I'm dating. Also, I enjoy Brooklyn as a borough. Add those two together and: I've gotten into initial conversations where I was screened out because I "believed in gender." Am I that much of a brute to not understand WHAT THE FUCK that meant? Meh, fuck it. She was genderless anyway. Sex would've gotten weird.
Why did you skip over this wuf? This is a very apt critique of your debate style. I only thing BooG got the last sentence wrong. Your hyperbole makes your argument weak, because all that needs to be shown is that a fraction of a percent of the time it isn't cultural. It really doesn't even need to be shown, it can just be assumed since your supporting evidence is pretty much vapid drivel for how strong of a claim you're making.
All arguments are empty, there is only evidence.
Both of my parents are engineers btw and my mother is female, so it's not like I haven't experienced a woman's ability at a seemingly male calling before.
I didn't glaze over it. I addressed it specifically. I said that my saying "100%" is technically wrong, and then I explained the logic for why it can still be contextually appropriate, which is that if nurture is the deciding factor
It's my bad for saying "100%" because it is confusing.
Well, evidence has to be interpreted.
I'm a little surprised at all the disagreement this generated because the contemporary interpretation of the evidence by specialists is that it appears that the reason women don't gravitate towards math type stuff is cultural.
I mean, okay, I'm a guy, and I am much worse at math on an inherent level than several women I know. If it is true that the male gender is better at math than the female gender, then it strongly suggests that my situation is not possible or at least is unlikely.
There are not that many women who are stronger than men because the morphology differences are real enough. But there are tons of women who are smarter than men. You'd think that if men were inherently smarter than women, the discrepancy between the genders intellectually would look like it does with physical morphology. But it doesn't. The way it looks now is the way it would look if there isn't an inherent difference but instead an environmental one.
lol man when i register for classes i have to pick between like 14 different gender preferences. there isn't even a "male" option, but a "masculine" option.
Please. All these studies are being funded by the 2015 pussies that will never allow for any inequality amongst anyone to surface. I can't fathom having all these hormonal differences with women and being physiologically the same. I don't want to use the word impossible but...
Meh, using your shitty math brain as a sample means nothing and shouldn't even be mentioned in this discussion.
Did someone suggest men are inherently smarter? Where? That would be dumb. What IS true is that men and women have differences in intelligence and expertise.
Ha, I just made that quote up. But seriously, I do bunny ears. I'm so bad at tying my shoe.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
There are a lot of interpretations of the same data set, a lot of ways to connect the dots. I like to start with 'I don't know' and try to latch onto the few torch-bearing bits I can find.
When I see that 1 day old boys prefer mechanical system, and 10000 day old boys tend to be technical over empathetic in their career and the opposite is true of women, I build from there.
1 day old helps block out the culture and cut down on the complexity loads.
Ugh, I remember in Korea this fucking feminist girl (who actually didn't care enough to keep up with any news from Ferguson but was on top of all the feminist bullshit; who cares about the blacks, right?) gave me shit because I said the phrase "Man up." MAN UP. I can't say "man up," any more because that means being brave and courageous and shit? Can't we all just admit we're getting too fucking touchy?
Not saying the same. All sorts of really different people like similar things for different reasons. This started with the claim that women should like Aliens then the counterclaim that it's not their style. I think the fact that women like The Walking Dead put that to rest.
looooolllllllQuote:
Meh, using your shitty math brain as a sample means nothing and shouldn't even be mentioned in this discussion.
Seriously, I think it means everything. It is an example, which fits for everybody, of the enormous differences in talents based purely on nurture. Nature is lost in it. If nature is the deciding factor for psychology or intellect, we would see stark contrasts like with physical morphology. Which we don't.
Well, if it's expertise then it's nurture. If it's intelligence, I'd like to see how.Quote:
Did someone suggest men are inherently smarter? Where? That would be dumb. What IS true is that men and women have differences in intelligence and expertise.
Put ten men in a room. Then pick a different room and put ten women. Then learn everything there is to learn about the people in the rooms. Then find that the differences between each of the individual men or each of the individual women are vastly greater than the differences between the men as a group compared to the women as a group.Quote:
Ha, I just made that quote up. But seriously, I do bunny ears. I'm so bad at tying my shoe.
We could hardly even evaluate psychological gender differences if we wanted to. They're small blips unseen because they're coupled with huge spikes of other non-innate factors.
I don't get why it makes you so angry that people might want to identify as something different to you.