Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Its actually quite easy to discover competency with a little knowledge of your own. Statistical sampling is one such measure. Think of it as the attackers advantage on a defensive parameter. All one needs to do is drill a hole in one section. If someone were to know 80% of the subject matter I just need a good sampling of 20 questions to generally verify it. I would expect a doctor to be able to tell me what a gram test does.
That's exactly the point. It's quite easy and becoming moreso every day. Some may be able to fool themselves, but it's not selling as well else where. That's just how it is and no amount of stomping feet is going to change it.
Quote:
However yes, type A personalities are notorious for doing something themselves even though they know they do it badly.
I don't believe this is the case, which is a part of the problem...not that I really care if folk walk themselves in circles, especially if they're bigots.
Excellent insight. I'd rep you, but it requires I spread the love some more first.
Actually, it wasn't any kind of insight, because it assumes knowing my ex-husband and me personally, and that is not the case.
Which is another issue with this thread. Lots of presumption going on. By a few sentences, suddenly a stranger feels he knows seven years worth of relationship and history, two personalities (one he hasn't even had the chance to interact with on a forum), two upbringings, and what went on, and feels entitled to make a judgment.
"I suspect that being a good loyal feminist may have sapped his will. Any man that follows around his woman is often lost." Oh, please. I can assure you and Gwynned that neither of you know anything about my ex-husband, never mind the completely ridiculous statement implying that he followed me around.
That's why it's so amusing to me: People here are talking out their arses about things they know very, very little about.
But that's what happens when people generalize.
Thanks for proving my point. Same goes for the person who made the "mouthful" comment.
Don't take yourselves and your opinions so seriously. You'll live longer.
Don't take yourselves and your opinions so seriously. You'll live longer.
Same goes to you as well. I have no problem in my view that myself, as a male, should take charge. And do not think for a second I am saying a man should lead just because of the reproductive organ he was born with; he must prove he can be a leader. If that makes me, in your view, a misogynist, then go on and feel that way. I have seen way to many examples, of relationships, where the women is calling on the shots, and the man is basically there is to pay bills and shut-up. You can read by the way she talks to him, that he better follow orders, or he is in for a severe punishment. I have noticed things are different when a man of honor runs his house. My father ran our house, and was not afraid to put his foot down when he disagreed with things. Many men, today, are so complacent they will take anything. Gender roles have changed so much many men are women are confused as to how to conduct themselves in relationships.
I come from a much different culture from you, I bet, which is why I feel the way I do.
Same goes to you as well. I have no problem in my view that myself, as a male, should take charge. And do not think for a second I am saying a man shoould lead just because of the reproductive organ he was born with; he must prove he can be a leader. If that makes me, in your view, a misogynist, then go on and feel that way. I have seen way to many examples, of relationships, where the women is calling on the shots, and the man is basically there is to pay bills and shut-up. You can read by the way she talks to him, that he better follow orders, or he is in for a severe punishment. Gender roles have changed so much many men are women are confused as to how to conduct themselves in relationships.
I come from a much different culture from you, I bet, which is why I feel the way I do.
I don't believe in leaders and followers in my personal relationships. I would hope that they are never that rigid, one-dimensional, and flat.
Actually, it wasn't any kind of insight, because it assumes knowing my ex-husband and me personally, and that is not the case.
Which is another issue with this thread. Lots of presumption going on. By a few sentences, suddenly a stranger feels he knows seven years worth of relationship and history, two personalities (one he hasn't even had the chance to interact with on a forum), two upbringings, and what went on, and feels entitled to make a judgment.
"I suspect that being a good loyal feminist may have sapped his will. Any man that follows around his woman is often lost." Oh, please. I can assure you and Gwynned that neither of you know anything about my ex-husband, never mind the completely ridiculous statement implying that he followed me around.
That's why it's so amusing to me: People here are talking out their arses about things they know very, very little about.
But that's what happens when people generalize.
Thanks for proving my point. Same goes for the person who made the "mouthful" comment.
Don't take yourselves and your opinions so seriously. You'll live longer.
Avienne,
That's why it's so amusing to me: People here are talking out their arses about things they know very, very little about.
But that's what happens when people generalize.
Hello are you there? When you say people generalize too much, it is a generalization. That is amusing.
What part of "suspect" and "may have" don't you understand? You stated a basic profile that is consistent with other profiles I have witnessed. It means you don't know what a generalization is and you just blew the compliment about anecdotes. When did I say I knew anything about your husband? Though I know enough about you that I would want to get lost.
If some one owns a rain coat, I suspect it may be that they spend more time outside than many other people. Its a speculation based on casual evidence. It does not mean I have asserted a fact. That what words like "may" and "suspect" mean.
Consider the anecdote compliment withdrawn since you now just asserted your anecdote to disprove my speculation about a basic profile you offered.
I suspect your last sentence was a projection.
BTW, this constant use of generalization in the pejorative context is ignorant. It means a general principle or relation. It can only be seen in the negative context when general principles are applied to individual cases with correlation coefficients being less than 1. Thus, it is you who is generally speaking out of ignorance.
/ˌdʒɛnərələˈzeɪʃən/ Show Spelled[jen-er-uh-luh-zey-shuhn] Show IPA
–noun1.the act or process of generalizing.
2.a result of this process; a general statement, idea, or principle.
3.Logic. a.a proposition asserting something to be true either of all members of a certain class or of an indefinite part of that class.
b.the process of obtaining such propositions.
4.Psychology. a.Also called stimulus generalization. the act or process of responding to a stimulus similar to but distinct from the conditioned stimulus.
b.Also called response generalization. the act or process of making a different but similar response to the same stimulus.
c.Also called mediated generalization. the act or process of responding to a stimulus not physically similar to the conditioned stimulus and not previously encountered in conditioning.
d.the act or process of perceiving similarity or relation between different stimuli, as between words, colors, sounds, lights, concepts or feelings; the formation of a general notion.
I don't believe in leaders and followers in my personal relationships. I would hope that they are never that, rigid, one-dimensional, and flat.
That's also how I feel. I believe that the main reason that so many women feel they must accept a certain role in a relationship and the man feels he must be the leader is due to the influence of religion. We see that particularly in Christianity and Islam. Because religious beliefs are held by such a large number of people and has shaped the nature of many societies it really doesn't surprise me. It's gradually losing it's appeal and power in many western nations but still is very influential in America.
Personally I see it as being backwards and having caused a great deal of misery for countless millions of women for centuries which continues to this very day.
Hello are you there? When you say people generalize too much, it is a generalization. That is amusing.
It shouldn't be. Considering I have all the facts about my marriage and you are guessing at it based on a few sentences that I've supplied and your own generalizations about men and women, it should be enlightening when I tell you that you've guessed incorrectly.
That's also how I feel. I believe that the main reason that so many women feel they must accept a certain role in a relationship and the man feels he must be the leader is due to the influence of religion. We see that particularly in Christianity and Islam. Because religious beliefs are held by such a large number of people and has shaped the nature of many societies it really doesn't surprise me. It's gradually losing it's appeal and power in many western nations but still is very influential in America.
Personally I see it as being backwards and having caused a great deal of misery for countless millions of women for centuries which continues to this very day.
It shouldn't be. Considering I have all the facts about my marriage and you are guessing at it based on a few sentences that I've supplied and your own generalizations about men and women, it should be enlightening when I tell you that you've guessed incorrectly.
No, because you are using a biased anecdote to prove my principle wrong. So not only do you not have "all the facts", you just violated a principle of anecdotal evidence. A wrong guess, does not disprove the principle unless I am asserting a perfect correlation.
You just made your own assumptions that I condescended to know your individual situation based upon my few sentences, which is again, very odd since I said "may have" and "suspect." You didn't even suspect, you asserted. Your whole position is untenable. You are telling me I am wrong which, unfortunately, is colored by another problem in research called called bias.
If I could interview 10 people at random who knew the both of you, then that would give me a credible source. I have a speculation and you have a biased opinion. Neither of them are credible, but then I never formed an assertion. If you knew how to implement research in social sciences like I have, you would know this.
No, because you are using a biased anecdote to prove my principle wrong. So not only do you not have "all the facts"
Actually, I do have the facts about my own marriage, and because of that, I can disqualify your thoughts on the matter as ignorant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ər
