U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 06-07-2009, 11:41 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
2,236 posts, read 6,854,049 times
Reputation: 856

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve View Post
In what? Log throwing?

That's about as valid as me saying that the Irish were the most advanced and smartest people in the world until they discovered beer and my source is the Simpsons.
Wasn't that from the Family Guy, not the Simpsons?
Rate this post positively

 
Old 06-07-2009, 11:47 PM
 
Location: southern california
61,293 posts, read 81,553,019 times
Reputation: 55458
jewish hands down.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 06-08-2009, 12:16 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
2,236 posts, read 6,854,049 times
Reputation: 856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948 View Post
jewish hands down.
The European Jews are neither an ethnicity to themselves, a nation, nor a race. Perhaps we should start saying: Isaac Newton's or Albert Einsteins lineage is the smartest?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 06-08-2009, 12:57 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
2,236 posts, read 6,854,049 times
Reputation: 856
Quote:
Originally Posted by NihonKitty View Post
You can also see the agricultural revolution which lead to the technological revolution in europe was also taken from china.
So the Europeans stole the agricultural principles from the Chinese which led the Europeans into the technological revolution? Well, whatever happened to the Chinese technological revolution? I haven't read about it in any history book. Perhaps the Western world stole the inventions of Industry, cars, airplanes, computers, phones, light bulbs, electronics, etc. from this suppressed Chinese technological revolution. I mean come on, crediting the Chinese with Europe's technological and medical brilliance because the Europeans stole certain agricultural principles is absurd...crediting China only works if the Chinese had developed a similar technological revolution.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 06-08-2009, 01:14 AM
 
895 posts, read 2,246,242 times
Reputation: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by ainulinale View Post
So the Europeans stole the agricultural principles from the Chinese which led the Europeans into the technological revolution? Well, whatever happened to the Chinese technological revolution? I haven't read about it in any history book. Perhaps the Western world stole the inventions of Industry, cars, airplanes, computers, phones, light bulbs, electronics, etc. from this suppressed Chinese technological revolution. I mean come on, crediting the Chinese with Europe's technological and medical brilliance because the Europeans stole certain agricultural principles is absurd...crediting China only works if the Chinese had developed a similar technological revolution.
Did you not read anything? The chinese invented the first compass,fire arms, printing, aviation and agricultural techniques which lead to factories and mass producing in europe. Give credit where its due. Where did i say chinese had a modern technological revolution? I never said it so why are you making it seem like i did? And of course western books don't teach anything about ancient china. Most westerners dont really know anything about the world except what the west did.

Europeans took chinese military and agricultural technology and rapidly developed it. Incase you dont know history european countries were constantly at war during this period, and how do you win wars? Having the better technology. After the 1500s china was relatively isolated and peaceful which halted increases in military technology while europeans were always trying to make the better gun, or more food to sell. The europeans then used chinese compass and even paddleboats and invaded half of the world and stole their riches and made slaves of the africans while increasing their societies wealth etc. During that time china was taken over by a foreign manchu dynasty, which stifled all development (basically compare it to the catholic church), and then by this time the brits came with improved chinese technology (watch the video), better guns and better rowboats and wrecked havoc on china. And then theres the whole deal with the opium wars and being colonized and raped/pillaged by japan and then the communists. So does that answer your question?

Ancient china was the most technologically advanced civiliation until after the european rennaisance. Chinese were already extracting gas from the ground with machines a thousand years before europeans.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 06-08-2009, 01:20 AM
 
895 posts, read 2,246,242 times
Reputation: 366
Quote:
Perhaps the Western world stole the inventions of Industry, cars, airplanes, computers, phones, light bulbs, electronics, etc
Industry yes. Engine..yes. Airplanes...yes these things you mentioned were all developed thru ancient chinese inventions or did you once again..not read or watch anything i put? Chinese didn't invent them themselves (except industry and pre-cursor to engine) but they laid the foundations for it.

I even saw on ancient inventions on the history channel last night that the blast furnace and hydraulics allowed chinese to have the first factories to mass produce about 500+ years before europeans ever did.

You should take a look at this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_inventions

I bet you didnt learn a single one of those in school. Like how chinese were harnessing water power (which europeans didnt really do until the 1600/1700s), gas etc hundreds of years before europeans. Or that the first gun was invented in china. Or that ancient chinese had multi sage rockets. Or that they had a seismometer more than a thousand years before europeans, and moveable type printing before gutenburg etc etc.

Honestly it's like a slap in the face to say gutenburg invented printing when the chinese had the same moveable type printing hudreds of years before.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 06-08-2009, 01:25 AM
 
2,385 posts, read 4,100,805 times
Reputation: 2399
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCN View Post
I have read some about the brain, intelligence, etc. It seems that most of us do not us our brains to their full potential. If you have a really high I. Q. but do not use it, it really does not help a lot. Most of us could do better than we do.
NO.

snopes.com: Ten Percent of our Brains

Quote:
The Ten-Percent Myth Claim: We use only ten percent of our brains.
Status: False.
Origins: Someone has taken most of your brain away and you probably didn't even know it. Well, not taken your brain away, exactly, but decided that you don't use it. It's the old myth heard time and again about how people use only ten percent of their brains. While for the people who repeat that myth, it's probably true, the rest of us happily use all of our brains.

The Myth and the Media

That tired Ten-Percent claim pops up all the time. In 1998, national magazine ads for U.S. Satellite Broadcasting showed a drawing of a brain. Under it was the caption, "You only use 11 percent of its potential." Well, they're a little closer than the ten-percent figure, but still off by about 89 percent. In July 1998, ABC television ran promotional spots for The Secret Lives of Men, one of their offerings for the fall season's lineup. The spot featured a full-screen blurb that read, "Men only use ten percent of their brains."

One reason this myth has endured is that it has been adopted by psychics and other paranormal pushers to explain psychic powers. On more than one occasion I've heard psychics tell their audiences, "We only use ten percent of our minds. If scientists don't know what we do with the other ninety percent, it must be used for psychic powers!" In Reason To Believe: A Practical Guide to Psychic Phenomena, author Michael Clark mentions a man named Craig Karges. Karges charges a lot of money for his "Intuitive Edge" program, designed to develop natural psychic abilities. Clark quotes Karges as saying: "We normally use only 10 to 20 percent of our minds. Think how different your life would be if you could utilize that other 80 to 90 percent known as the subconscious mind."

This was also the reason that Caroline Myss gave for her alleged intuitive powers on a segment of Eye to Eye with Bryant Gumbel, which aired in July of 1998. Myss, who has written books on unleashing "intuitive powers," said that everyone has intuitive gifts, and lamented that we use so little of the mind's potential. To make matters worse, just the week before, on the very same program, correct information was presented about the myth. In a bumper spot between the program and commercials, a quick quiz flashed onscreen: What percentage of the brain is used? The multiple-choice answers ranged from 10 percent to 100 percent. The correct answer appeared, which I was glad to see. But if the producers knew that what one of their interviewees said is clearly and demonstrably inaccurate, why did they let it air? Does the right brain not know what the left brain is doing? Perhaps the Myss interview was a repeat, in which case the producers presumably checked her facts after it aired and felt some responsibility to correct the error in the following week's broadcast. Or possibly the broadcasts aired in sequence and the producers simply did not care and broadcast Myss and her misinformation anyway.

Even Uri Geller, who has made a career out of trying to convince people he can bend metal with his mind, trots out this little gem. This claim appears in his book Uri Geller's Mind-Power Book in the introduction: "Our minds are capable of remarkable, incredible feats, yet we don't use them to their full capacity. In fact, most of us only use about 10 per cent of our brains, if that. The other 90 per cent is full of untapped potential and undiscovered abilities, which means our minds are only operating in a very limited way instead of at full stretch. I believe that we once had full power over our minds. We had to, in order to survive, but as our world has become more sophisticated and complex we have forgotten many of the abilities we once had" (italicized phrases emphasized in original).

Evidence Against the Ten-Percent Myth

The argument that psychic powers come from the unused majority of the brain is based on the logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance. In this fallacy, lack of proof for a position (or simply lack of information) is used to try to support a particular claim. Even if it were true that the vast majority of the human mind is unused (which it clearly is not), that fact in no way implies that any extra capacity could somehow give people paranormal powers. This fallacy pops up all the time in paranormal claims, and is especially prevalent among UFO proponents. For example: Two people see a strange light in the sky. The first, a UFO believer, says, "See there! Can you explain that?" The skeptic replies that no, he can't. The UFO believer is gleeful. "Ha! You don't know what it is, so it must be aliens!" he says, arguing from ignorance.

What follows are two of the reasons that the Ten-Percent story is suspect. (For a much more thorough and detailed analysis of the subject, see Barry Beyerstein's chapter in the 1999 book Mind Myths: Exploring Everyday Mysteries of the Mind.)

1) Brain imaging research techniques such as PET scans (positron emission tomography) and fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) clearly show that the vast majority of the brain does not lie fallow. Indeed, although certain minor functions may use only a small part of the brain at one time, any sufficiently complex set of activities or thought patterns will indeed use many parts of the brain. Just as people don't use all of their muscle groups at one time, they also don't use all of their brain at once. For any given activity, such as eating, watching television, making love, or reading, you may use a few specific parts of your brain. Over the course of a whole day, however, just about all of the brain is used at one time or another.

2) The myth presupposes an extreme localization of functions in the brain. If the "used" or "necessary" parts of the brain were scattered all around the organ, that would imply that much of the brain is in fact necessary. But the myth implies that the "used" part of the brain is a discrete area, and the "unused" part is like an appendix or tonsil, taking up space but essentially unnecessary. But if all those parts of the brain are unused, removal or damage to the "unused" part of the which aired in July of 1998. Myss, who has written books on unleashing "intuitive powers," said that everyone has intuitive gifts, and lamented that we use so little of the mind's potential. To make matters worse, just the week before, on the very same program, correct information was presented about the myth. In a bumper spot between the program and commercials, a quick quiz flashed onscreen: What percentage of the brain is used? The multiple-choice answers ranged from 10 percent to 100 percent. The correct answer appeared, which I was glad to see. But if the producers knew that what one of their interviewees said is clearly and demonstrably inaccurate, why did they let it air? Does the right brain not know what the left brain is doing? Perhaps the Myss interview was a repeat, in which case the producers presumably checked her facts after it aired and felt some responsibility to correct the error in the following week's broadcast. Or possibly the broadcasts aired in sequence and the producers simply did not care and broadcast Myss and her misinformation anyway.

Even Uri Geller, who has made a career out of trying to convince people he can bend metal with his mind, trots out this little gem. This claim appears in his book Uri Geller's Mind-Power Book in the introduction: "Our minds are capable of remarkable, incredible feats, yet we don't use them to their full capacity. In fact, most of us only use about 10 per cent of our brains, if that. The other 90 per cent is full of untapped potential and undiscovered abilities, which means our minds are only operating in a very limited way instead of at full stretch. I believe that we once had full power over our minds. We had to, in order to survive, but as our world has become more sophisticated and complex we have forgotten many of the abilities we once had".

Variants of the Ten-Percent Myth

The myth is not simply a static, misunderstood factoid. It has several forms, and this adaptability gives it a shelf life longer than lacquered Spam. In the basic form, the myth claims that years ago a scientist discovered that we indeed did use only ten percent of our brains. Another variant is that only ten percent of the brain had been mapped, and this in turn became misunderstood as ten percent used. A third variant was described earlier by Craig Karges. This view is that the brain is somehow divided neatly into two parts: the conscious mind which is used ten to twenty percent of the time (presumably at capacity); and the subconscious mind, where the remaining eighty to ninety percent of the brain is unused. This description betrays a profound misunderstanding of brain function research.

Part of the reason for the long life of the myth is that if one variant can be proven incorrect, the person who held the belief can simply shift the reason for his belief to another basis, while the belief itself stays intact. So, for example, if a person is shown that PET scans depict activity throughout the entire brain, he can still claim that, well, the ninety percent figure really referred to the subconscious mind, and therefore the Ten-Percent figure is still basically correct.

Regardless of the exact version heard, the myth is spread and repeated, by both the well-meaning and the deliberately deceptive. The belief that remains, then, is what Robert J. Samuelson termed a "psycho-fact, [a] belief that, though not supported by hard evidence, is taken as real because its constant repetition changes the way we experience life." People who don't know any better will repeat it over and over, until, like the admonition against swimming right after you eat, the claim is widely believed. ("Triumph of the Psycho-Fact," Newsweek, 9 May 1994.)

The origins of the myth are not at all clear. Beyerstein, of the Brain Behaviour Laboratory at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, has traced it back to at least the early part of the century. A 1998 column in New Scientist magazine also suggested various roots, including Albert Einstein and Dale Carnegie ("Brain Drain"). It likely has a number of sources, principally misunderstood or misinterpreted legitimate scientific findings as well as self-help gurus. brain should be minor or unnoticed. Yet people who have suffered head trauma, a stroke, or other brain injury are frequently severely impaired. Have you ever heard a doctor say, ". . . But luckily when that bullet entered his skull, it only damaged the 90 percent of his brain he didn't use"? Of course not.

The most powerful lure of the myth is probably the idea that we might develop psychic abilities, or at least gain a leg up on the competition by improving our memory or concentration. All this is available for the asking, the ads say, if we just tapped into our most incredible of organs, the brain. It is past time to put this myth to rest, although if it has survived at least a century so far, it will surely live on into the new millennium. Perhaps the best way to combat this chestnut is to reply to the speaker, when the myth is mentioned, "Oh? What part don't you use?"
Rate this post positively
 
Old 06-08-2009, 01:30 AM
 
2,385 posts, read 4,100,805 times
Reputation: 2399
Quote:
Originally Posted by NihonKitty View Post
Honestly it's like a slap in the face to say gutenburg invented printing when the chinese had the same moveable type printing hudreds of years before.
Ironic that the bulk of what they create now are crappy products for Walmart.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 06-08-2009, 02:30 AM
 
33 posts, read 70,497 times
Reputation: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by NihonKitty
Honestly it's like a slap in the face to say gutenburg invented printing when the chinese had the same moveable type printing hudreds of years before.
I believe the expression goes: "history is written by the winners."

I would suggest that all of the technological fruits of a society are meaningless if they can not be defended. The Chinese made technological advances. The Europeans made war. The Europeans made war on the Chinese. The Europeans gained technological advances. The Chinese lost freedom, and thus technology was meaningless, and they still could not make war.

Smartest people in the world? What does smart mean? Does it mean inventing the first gun? Does it mean inventing the gun that robs the guy that invented the first gun? Does it mean living deep in the Amazon rainforest undiscovered by the "smartest people" and knowing nothing about guns? Does it mean a union of all living things where divisions like "smartest" are viewed as figments of the imagination?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 06-08-2009, 11:33 AM
 
895 posts, read 2,246,242 times
Reputation: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Violett View Post
Ironic that the bulk of what they create now are crappy products for Walmart.
Yes thats what happens when you are beggining to free yourself from failed communism. In 20 years they will have a budget bigger than the US. China is doing alot better when it comes to technology than eastern europe is doing. And 1000x better than cuba and North Korea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by constantly gardening View Post
I believe the expression goes: "history is written by the winners."

I would suggest that all of the technological fruits of a society are meaningless if they can not be defended. The Chinese made technological advances. The Europeans made war. The Europeans made war on the Chinese. The Europeans gained technological advances. The Chinese lost freedom, and thus technology was meaningless, and they still could not make war.
That doesnt really make sense. The chinese invented it first before any war so it should go in the history book as a chinese invention instead of a german one. China never had a war vs germany or gutenburg. It's just the world is very western centric so most people only learn about western history. Heck im japanese and i didnt even know how many things the chinese did first until i looked it up myself.
Rate this post positively
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top