Loading
INTP, I think that' s what I ended up with last time too. Spoiler Architects need not be thought of as only interested in drawing blueprints for buildings or roads or bridges. They are the master designers of all kinds of theoretical systems, including school curricula, corporate strategies, and new technologies. For Architects, the world exists primarily to be analyzed, understood, explained - and re-designed. External reality in itself is unimportant, little more than raw material to be organized into structural models. What is important for Architects is that they grasp fundamental principles and natural laws, and that their designs are elegant, that is, efficient and coherent. Architects are rare - maybe one percent of the population - and show the greatest precision in thought and speech of all the types. They tend to see distinctions and inconsistencies instantaneously, and can detect contradictions no matter when or where they were made. It is difficult for an Architect to listen to nonsense, even in a casual conversation, without pointing out the speaker's error. And in any serious discussion or debate Architects are devastating, their skill in framing arguments giving them an enormous advantage. Architects regard all discussions as a search for understanding, and believe their function is to eliminate inconsistencies, which can make communication with them an uncomfortable experience for many. Ruthless pragmatists about ideas, and insatiably curious, Architects are driven to find the most efficient means to their ends, and they will learn in any manner and degree they can. They will listen to amateurs if their ideas are useful, and will ignore the experts if theirs are not. Authority derived from office, credential, or celebrity does not impress them. Architects are interested only in what make sense, and thus only statements that are consistent and coherent carry any weight with them. Architects often seem difficult to know. They are inclined to be shy except with close friends, and their reserve is difficult to penetrate. Able to concentrate better than any other type, they prefer to work quietly at their computers or drafting tables, and often alone. Architects also become obsessed with analysis, and this can seem to shut others out. Once caught up in a thought process, Architects close off and persevere until they comprehend the issue in all its complexity. Architects prize intelligence, and with their grand desire to grasp the structure of the universe, they can seem arrogant and may show impatience with others who have less ability, or who are less driven.
I' ve managed to wish my way out of a few nightmares when I was a kid because I was able to see the nightmares for what they were, a mere dream, there are practical ways to distinguish dreams from reality. Lucid dreaming is proof enough for me that our own brains are the creators and rulers of our dreams. I' m the God of my dreams, chances are you' re the God of yours. I' ve tried wishing my way out of reality, needless to say it didn' t work. Scientists are well aware of cognitive dissonance, the N rays debacle evidenced the possibility of unconscious bias quite clearly. Thankfully we can devise experimental protocols that rule it out. Reminds me of that conversation : Spoiler
Frankly I barely bother with it. I do entertain the notion every now and then, but just as a form of mental masturbation : unless I actually find a way out of Plato' s cave then hypothesizing about what could be out of the cave is just unverifiable speculation, it has zero practical usefulness. Ultimate truth is a red herring. In my day to day life, the occasional reverie aside, I' d rather think about what' s practically true than waste my time (or my sanity) chasing ultimate truth windmills.
I didn' t, it' s just something I often hear (well, that they' d be less happy, not that they wouldn' t be happy at all). What stfruit said reminded me of it. Sure, solving a mystery makes it less interesting, but what I was trying to say was that there' s no shortage of mysteries to solve and of things to be amazed and exited about. Find out an answer and two more questions will sprout.
Wait, you mean there are kids that are old enough to read yet still believe in Santa ? Well anyway, I' m pretty sure dictionaries existed long before the internet. Besides, having information a mere click away is irrelevant if you have no intellectual tools to assert their reliability, which kids usually lack. Apparently some atheists parents use Santa precisely to give such tools to their kids : when they finally get wind of Santa at school instead of telling them that he doesn' t exist they just ask them whether they believe in it or not and why, then lightly challenge their reasoning. Also, why life would be less happy for kids if they didn' t believe in Santa is beyond me. Christmas didn' t stop being a happy time for me in the slightest when I figured out he didn' t exist. It' s the same for God or the afterlife, apparently contemplating the mere possibility that they might not exist is unbearable for some people, that' s something I never understood and probably never will. Whether they exist or not has zero impact on my day to day life, I don' t believe in either but that doesn' t diminish my imagination nor my capacity to be marveled by nature and life.
My guess would be that it' s a mix of nature and nurture, they probably chose it as much as they chose their accent or their handedness. Our culture enforces right handedness as forcefully as gender behaviors, yet there are still many lefties around. I sometimes have finger mannerism. Although I can repress it if I choose to if it hadn' t been brought to my attention I wouldn' t even have noticed. If they' re like me it' s not something they chose, it' s something they can' t or chose not to repress.
From Greek mythology I' d pick Pegasus, I know how to ride horses and I' d love to fly around. I was born in Bretagne, which has a pretty rich lore (Merlin, Excalibur etc ...), I have a fondness for Korrigans.
I' m confused as to what you said period. You just made the huge assumption that God placed animals here to reproduce which, even if that' s true (good luck proving that), so ****ing what ? What does it have to do with gay marriage ?
Although I do believe there needs to be an equilibrium I think your main problem right now is that, as you said it yourself, your government has practically married itself to big businesses. Money does pollute politics in my country too (hell, where doesn' t it ?) but not to such an extent.
It stunned me too. My father is super busy but he usually finishes the few games he plays. But then he doesn' t sleep much ... It' s probably the part of the game that made the most most people give up. ^^
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-17/...t-software-association-avid-gamers?_s=PM:TECH
In Switzerland they keep track of who bought which guns (or was given one in the army), and cops confiscate them all and red flag you as soon as you' re caught acting violently. Throw in a bar fight and you' re done. Apparently it works, they have very few gun victims considering their high guns per capita. On the plus side, it doesn' t look like Minority Report' s precrime. Wut ? His point was that just because something is fun doesn' t mean it should be legal. He just used meth as an example to illustrate that point, he wasn' t comparing guns to meth if that' s how you read it.
Don't make her angry. You wouldn't like her when she' s angry.
Nope. Well our brains are trained to look for patterns, even where there isn' t any. That' s what they do, show them a cloud or any other kind of Rorschach picture and they' ll see a bat or something. Your argument is called the anthropic principle, it' s rejected by scientists because there' s a number of problems with it : http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe If you' re interested here' s a quite comprehensive list of intelligent design arguments, with a short explanation as to why they' re fallacious : http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CI
http://nukethefridge.com/2013/01/24/big-news-j-j-abrams-set-to-direct-star-wars-episode-vii/ Well I like the guy but ... heh, could go both ways I guess. Just, no lens flare please.
For all we know none of this will make it into the actual game. Hell, it might be canceled. The news is the video itself, what few words I added is just what popped into my mind when I saw it. I thought my tone and the thread title I chose made it fairly obvious. Apparently not. I heard what' s in the chatbox is indeed chat, I don' t speak a word of Japanese so I can' t say if that' s true.
There' s a chat box and the characters are labeled Player 1, Player 2 and Player 3. Make of that what you will.
...
If you' re speaking about this it doesn' t look very practical for now, not to mention even that is still hypothetical. ^^ You either haven' t studied evolution yet or had a lousy teacher. 99 point something of all the species that ever existed on Earth are extinct (I think it' s 99.9 % but I' m not sure). A lot of genetic mutations turn out to be lethal, which drastically reduces the odds for such a mutation to be passed on, humans just happen to be amongst the (0,1 % ?) of species that survived because we fit enough with our environment (for now). When you play poker the odds for you to not even get a pair or to get a royal flush are exactly the same. If Earth or the universe as a whole was dealt the "not even a pair" hand then we just wouldn' t be there to talk about it. We' re not particularly improbable, we' re just (subjectively) damn lucky.
