Blogging

Talk about blogs, messageboards, and other social media like Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, and LiveJournal.
User avatar
RJDiogenes
Olympian
Olympian
Posts: 69170
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:24 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Re: Blogging

Post by RJDiogenes »

You could do a Blog on the guy who invented the Hero Sandwich. :lol:
Please visit My Store and My Gallery and My YouTube Page. :)

:grape:
User avatar
scottydog
Consul
Consul
Posts: 24132
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:55 pm
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Contact:

Re: Blogging

Post by scottydog »

Heroic food is very blog-worthy. As is heroic toilet paper.

The possibilities are endless.... :lol:
User avatar
Lupine
Imperator
Imperator
Posts: 40062
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: The State of Insanity

Re: Blogging

Post by Lupine »

Imagine a world without TP. :Ahhh:
User avatar
scottydog
Consul
Consul
Posts: 24132
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:55 pm
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Contact:

Re: Blogging

Post by scottydog »

Lupine wrote:Imagine a world without TP. :Ahhh:
That's it, I'm writing a TP-as-hero blog right now!

But if we're going to nominate a product as heroic, certainly our personal computers merit consideration. I've written a Steve Jobs piece, but surely there were early pioneers in this area that deserve recognition. Can any of you suggest some names?
User avatar
RJDiogenes
Olympian
Olympian
Posts: 69170
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:24 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Re: Blogging

Post by RJDiogenes »

We should idolize Al Gore for inventing the Internet. We wouldn't be here without him. :lol:

Other than that, I would nominate Charles Babbage.
Please visit My Store and My Gallery and My YouTube Page. :)

:grape:
User avatar
scottydog
Consul
Consul
Posts: 24132
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:55 pm
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Contact:

Re: Blogging

Post by scottydog »

RJDiogenes wrote: ...I would nominate Charles Babbage.
Wow! That's quite an extraordinary story! I'd love to visit that museum in London to see all his inventions up close.
User avatar
Madeliaette
Consul
Consul
Posts: 27777
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: Angmering, Sussex, England
Contact:

Re: Blogging

Post by Madeliaette »

you can learn about Babbage at the PHM in Sydney - they have an exhibition there on him in the computer area. (my son would probabaly be able to quote it word for word......)
User avatar
RJDiogenes
Olympian
Olympian
Posts: 69170
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:24 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Re: Blogging

Post by RJDiogenes »

He was quite a character. It also makes you wonder how the world might have been different if certain people had been paid attention to during their lifetimes.

It also reminds me that I need to read The Difference Engine.
Please visit My Store and My Gallery and My YouTube Page. :)

:grape:
User avatar
scottydog
Consul
Consul
Posts: 24132
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:55 pm
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Contact:

Re: Blogging

Post by scottydog »

RJDiogenes wrote: It also makes you wonder how the world might have been different if certain people had been paid attention to during their lifetimes.
This sounds like the premise for a good book!
User avatar
RJDiogenes
Olympian
Olympian
Posts: 69170
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:24 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Re: Blogging

Post by RJDiogenes »

It probably would be. As amazing as the acceleration of progress has been in the last two or three thousand years, when you look closely you can see that there was potential for it to be a lot faster.
Please visit My Store and My Gallery and My YouTube Page. :)

:grape:
User avatar
scottydog
Consul
Consul
Posts: 24132
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:55 pm
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Contact:

Re: Blogging

Post by scottydog »

Just posted a blog about possible gender differences in heroism & villainy. I hope feminists don't come after me! :shrug:
User avatar
RJDiogenes
Olympian
Olympian
Posts: 69170
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:24 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Re: Blogging

Post by RJDiogenes »

Uh oh. I haven't read it, but we may be in for some disagreement. :D
Please visit My Store and My Gallery and My YouTube Page. :)

:grape:
User avatar
scottydog
Consul
Consul
Posts: 24132
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:55 pm
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Contact:

Re: Blogging

Post by scottydog »

RJDiogenes wrote:Uh oh. I haven't read it, but we may be in for some disagreement. :D
I can handle disagreement, no worries!! :)
User avatar
Lupine
Imperator
Imperator
Posts: 40062
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: The State of Insanity

Re: Blogging

Post by Lupine »

Great article, Scotty! And so far no flame wars over it. :lol:
User avatar
scottydog
Consul
Consul
Posts: 24132
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:55 pm
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Contact:

Re: Blogging

Post by scottydog »

Lupine wrote:Great article, Scotty! And so far no flame wars over it. :lol:
Thanks, Lupy! I'm a bit surprised I haven't been seared yet. Certainly Baumeister is not without his critics.
User avatar
RJDiogenes
Olympian
Olympian
Posts: 69170
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:24 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Re: Blogging

Post by RJDiogenes »

Well, I responded. A bit long winded, but this is one of my pet peeves. :lol:

And I see you used that page of cartoons that I found. I love those. :thumbsup:
Please visit My Store and My Gallery and My YouTube Page. :)

:grape:
User avatar
scottydog
Consul
Consul
Posts: 24132
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:55 pm
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Contact:

Re: Blogging

Post by scottydog »

^I don't see your comment on the blog, RJ. I hope it didn't disappear in cyberspace somewhere!
User avatar
RJDiogenes
Olympian
Olympian
Posts: 69170
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:24 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Re: Blogging

Post by RJDiogenes »

It did disappear! :unsure:

Fortunately, I did save a backup-- I'd be very upset if I had to do that much work all over again. :lol:

Re-posting now....
Please visit My Store and My Gallery and My YouTube Page. :)

:grape:
User avatar
scottydog
Consul
Consul
Posts: 24132
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:55 pm
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Contact:

Re: Blogging

Post by scottydog »

Ah, there it is! Thank you. A very thoughtful response. One of Baumeister's key claims is based on DNA evidence showing that we're descended from twice as many women as men -- i.e., about 80% of all women who have ever lived have reproduced but only 40% of men. Baumeister says that it would be shocking if these vastly different odds of reproductive success didn't produce personality differences. From reading your comment, I'm assuming you disagree and that you believe that men's and women's personalities and motivations are essentially the same.

I definitely lean toward Baumeister on this point. It's not a matter of better or worse, just slightly different. I would also argue that anyone (man or woman) who prefers to "nest" and raise children is just as heroic, if not more heroic, as someone who takes risks by boldly exploring and creating.

By the way, Baumeister is also the psychologist who, beginning in the late 90s, began to challenge the conventional assumption that low self-esteem is the cause of so much of the anti-social behavior in our world. His research supported the opposite notion, namely, that overly inflated self-esteem (especially unstable self-esteem or unjustified self-esteem) is at the root of so much human aggression.
User avatar
Madeliaette
Consul
Consul
Posts: 27777
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: Angmering, Sussex, England
Contact:

Re: Blogging

Post by Madeliaette »

I would have to say that to be one
who prefers to "nest" and raise children
in the current era is becoming somewhat heroic - with all the flack against moms who do not work outside the home....
User avatar
RJDiogenes
Olympian
Olympian
Posts: 69170
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:24 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Re: Blogging

Post by RJDiogenes »

scottydog wrote:Ah, there it is! Thank you. A very thoughtful response. One of Baumeister's key claims is based on DNA evidence showing that we're descended from twice as many women as men -- i.e., about 80% of all women who have ever lived have reproduced but only 40% of men. Baumeister says that it would be shocking if these vastly different odds of reproductive success didn't produce personality differences. From reading your comment, I'm assuming you disagree and that you believe that men's and women's personalities and motivations are essentially the same.
I'm not sure where he gets his statistics, or over what time frame they're supposed to represent-- it's been pretty clearly demonstrated that all modern Humans are descended from one mitochondrial Eve-- but he doesn't appear to understand genetics. Men and women are not separate species evolving in either competition or isolation. If there really were separate sets of male and female genes and twice as many women as men were reproductively successful, that would distribute those genes throughout the population, which consists equally of men and women-- producing exactly the opposite effect than what he proposes. But, in fact, men and women are virtually identical genetically, except for the Y Chromosome, the sole function of which is to trigger male sexual development.
I definitely lean toward Baumeister on this point. It's not a matter of better or worse, just slightly different. I would also argue that anyone (man or woman) who prefers to "nest" and raise children is just as heroic, if not more heroic, as someone who takes risks by boldly exploring and creating.
Well, I don't know if I'd say that answering the call of the wild is heroic, it being the default behavior. :D In fact, in a disastrously overpopulated era, I'd say that resisting the urge to reproduce is more heroic. But, out of curiosity, what do you think are the psychological differences between men and women and how can we use that information to create gender-specific laws, employment policies, college admission policies et cetera? What is the best way to design a separate-but-equal society?
By the way, Baumeister is also the psychologist who, beginning in the late 90s, began to challenge the conventional assumption that low self-esteem is the cause of so much of the anti-social behavior in our world. His research supported the opposite notion, namely, that overly inflated self-esteem (especially unstable self-esteem or unjustified self-esteem) is at the root of so much human aggression.
So he believes that high self-esteem causes anti-social behavior, while hedging his bets by qualifying the definition of high self-esteem to really mean low self-esteem (inflated, unstable, unjustified). And he proposes a scientific basis for chauvinism. I'm guessing there's a political agenda at work here.
Please visit My Store and My Gallery and My YouTube Page. :)

:grape:
User avatar
scottydog
Consul
Consul
Posts: 24132
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:55 pm
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Contact:

Re: Blogging

Post by scottydog »

RJDiogenes wrote:
scottydog wrote:One of Baumeister's key claims is based on DNA evidence showing that we're descended from twice as many women as men -- i.e., about 80% of all women who have ever lived have reproduced but only 40% of men.
I'm not sure where he gets his statistics, or over what time frame they're supposed to represent...
Here's a link to the research showing we're descended from more women than men --> http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200408 ... _sys.shtml
scottydog wrote:I definitely lean toward Baumeister on this point. It's not a matter of better or worse, just slightly different. I would also argue that anyone (man or woman) who prefers to "nest" and raise children is just as heroic, if not more heroic, as someone who takes risks by boldly exploring and creating.
RJDiogenes wrote:But, out of curiosity, what do you think are the psychological differences between men and women and how can we use that information to create gender-specific laws, employment policies, college admission policies et cetera? What is the best way to design a separate-but-equal society?
Here I may share your concern that focusing on slight differences between groups of people -- whether we're talking gender differences or racial differences -- can be dangerous. Obviously men and women are more alike than they are different, and Baumeister (and I) may be doing everyone a disservice if our message is taken in any way to say that women can't (or shouldn't) become scientists or men can't (or shouldn't) be stay-at-home parents. This reminds me of that book published in the 90s called The Bell Curve which played up possible racial differences in intelligence, which may exist to a teeny tiny degree but which may give license to racist beliefs and policies. The last thing we should want to do is make an already divisive society even more divisive.
scottydog wrote:By the way, Baumeister is also the psychologist who, beginning in the late 90s, began to challenge the conventional assumption that low self-esteem is the cause of so much of the anti-social behavior in our world. His research supported the opposite notion, namely, that overly inflated self-esteem (especially unstable self-esteem or unjustified self-esteem) is at the root of so much human aggression.
RJDiogenes wrote:So he believes that high self-esteem causes anti-social behavior, while hedging his bets by qualifying the definition of high self-esteem to really mean low self-esteem (inflated, unstable, unjustified). And he proposes a scientific basis for chauvinism. I'm guessing there's a political agenda at work here.
He certainly doesn't mind taking a politically incorrect position. Actually, I really oversimplified his statement on self-esteem. Here's a link that captures some of the complexity of his message on the topic --> http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jan/25 ... umeister25
User avatar
RJDiogenes
Olympian
Olympian
Posts: 69170
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:24 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Re: Blogging

Post by RJDiogenes »

scottydog wrote:Here's a link to the research showing we're descended from more women than men --> http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200408 ... _sys.shtml
That's an interesting theory to explain the apparent variance between the genetic drift of the Y Chromosome versus Mitochondrial DNA, and there may be some truth to it (though it seems at odds with the usual realities of mating among primates and other mammals), but the authors make no claims as to any implications in gender-differentiated behavior. As I said, men and women are a single species-- even if women are twice as successful reproductively as men, there are still equal amounts of girls and boys born, so any successful genes are spread equally throughout the population. This does not argue in favor of psychological differences, but against them.
This reminds me of that book published in the 90s called The Bell Curve which played up possible racial differences in intelligence, which may exist to a teeny tiny degree but which may give license to racist beliefs and policies.

The racial allegations of The Bell Curve were debunked by Stephen Jay Gould, among others. He once wrote something along the lines that even if all people on Earth died with the exception of a remote tribe in New Zealand, the Human race would still retain 99% of its genetic diversity; the differences we see among people are incredibly superficial in the overall scheme of things.
He certainly doesn't mind taking a politically incorrect position. Actually, I really oversimplified his statement on self-esteem. Here's a link that captures some of the complexity of his message on the topic --> http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jan/25 ... umeister25
This pretty much convinces me that he has a political or ideological agenda. His proposals here are too sloppy and his terminology too contradictory to be taken seriously. The most obvious example is his use of humility as the opposite of high self-esteem. Low self-esteem is the opposite of high self-esteem; pretension is the opposite of humility. The truth is that those with high self-esteem are more likely to be humble, because they have nothing to prove. Esteem is a resource and it obeys the same rules as any other. If you have more than enough food, you're more likely to share. If you have just enough, you keep what you've got. If you don't have enough, you go looking for more-- and if it gets bad enough, you steal from somebody. And if somebody who has more than enough shares with you, you don't have to steal.

Basically, he makes the amateur mistake (or deliberate error) of accepting reported self-esteem as real self-esteem. Then he seeks to redefine high self-esteem by substituting examples of narcissism. And his off-side remarks in the second and last paragraphs also indicate that he has ulterior motives. He may not be at the level of a Creationist, but he certainly seems to be one of those people who believes that a woman's place is in the kitchen and that men should shut up, keep their eyes down and do their work.
Please visit My Store and My Gallery and My YouTube Page. :)

:grape:
User avatar
Renie
Our Founder
Our Founder
Posts: 977
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 2:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Blogging

Post by Renie »

Oo, interesting debate going on here. :veryhappy:

I've got a new blog post up (finally!). It's another piece on storycraft, but really you could use it with any kind of artful writing. The genesis is that sometimes I hear other writers discussing whether or not using imagery is necessary to a story, or if it counts as 'over-writing.' In my opinion, imagery is not about description per se, but emotion, and emotion is integral to a story (the reader has to care).

Good Imagery Deepens the Emotion of a Story

Like usual, I would love your feedback and comments. Cheers :book: :dance:
:canadian: :james: :wiggle:
User avatar
RJDiogenes
Olympian
Olympian
Posts: 69170
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:24 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Re: Blogging

Post by RJDiogenes »

Seriously? There are writers who think that imagery is "over-writing?" Even Hemingway used imagery of a sort. Anyway, I commented.
Renie wrote:Oo, interesting debate going on here. :veryhappy:
I think I scared off scotty with my single-mindedness. I did say this was one of my pet peeves. :D
Please visit My Store and My Gallery and My YouTube Page. :)

:grape:
Locked