1a2bcio8

I think we have to specify what we mean by intelligence. Western man, in terms of conceptual intelligence relating to activities such as science, mathematics, etc. is way ahead of anywhere else. At the same time, western man lacks self awareness in a non-conceptual sense (lacks intuition) and this allows him to act stupidly. Conceptual intelligence is only a small portion of the humans entirity in terms of how he can orientate himself in the world. I suppose we can call this intuition a type of intelligence but at the same time it still needs to be differentiated from conceptual intelligence. Consequently, when we talk of intelligence we need to specify what type of intelligence we are refering to. As opposed to saying that one type of intelligence represents intelligence as a whole we need to say instead that good intuitive intelligence only means good intuitive intelligence. Somebody can still be conceptually intelligent whilst being intuitively stupid. I think I'd prefer to say that western man is mentally ill with his exclusion of intuitive awareness which would actually allow him to properly intergrate himself into the world rather than destroying it for such superficial gains such as cars, money, status, etc. We're all acting against one of our strongest drives (survival) for such short lived gains. This is true of everyone of you that reads this and it's true of me.

I like the way you've considered your future ability to reproduce regarding a certain style of bike part.

I'd agree that that the less conecptually developed people wouldn't be able to make a conscious decision to avoid development however I would suggest that people may make a conscious decision not to spend time engaged in behaviours neccesary to develop. In other words, if your culture really emphasises your connection with the environment, then you're probably going to spend more time connecting with it, perhaps via spritual means or non-conecptual contemplation, than you are going to spend time thinking and conecptualizing about it. That's where the conscious choice lies. It's between the different activities, although there lacks an awareness of what exactly one is missing out on, in terms of conceptualization and technology by not spending more time thinking and conecptualizing. Not pursuing thought to the degree we do may even suggest a deeper level of contentment. Perhaps.

If you know what she's about and you aren't into the drama of that, then avoid the drama by avoiding her. That includes ideas of payback, which is just more drama. I know it's not easy with ex's and feelings don't disappear quickly, if at all, but it's probably best to pay attention to any objective assessments you have of her, such as you amusingly described.

What could actually explain the differences in conceptual intelligence between races or groups of people is whether they formed civilizations or not. The difference this makes in allowing for a development of conceptual intelligence is that it often frees up groups of people so that, rather than spending their time hunting, gathering, farming, etc. they can spend their time thinking and developing ideas. Although of course this does depend on technology (and thus intelligence) as well in order for a larger wealth of basic neccesities to be produced for individuals beyond those that produce them. I think though that an important question might be, "what differences between races allows for the choice between large groups of people with significant hierarchical differences (civilization) or smaller groups with insignificant hierarchical differences, that best free individuals for the practice of intelligence?". Also, "Is the cause related, not to a genetic cause but rather something more random in relation to the environment or thinking?". Perhaps though the basis of civilization is substantially genetic?

I think that the type of intelligence displayed in developed countries is more advanced. This is in the sense where intelligent practice is the practice of concepts (ideas). Quite simply, the ideas we have are greatly more complex, broad and detailed than the ideas you'll find in "primitive" countries. That doesn't outrules the potential of these "primitive" people actually achieving a same understanding that we do it's just that their education doesn't allow for a practice of complexity to the same degree. So it is a difference of intelligence but it's most likely founded on a difference of education. Am I saying the same as you here or something different? I'm not entirely sure to be honest. An interesting point about individuals who have to hunt, gather, etc. is that instead of a high intelligence in the sense that we possess (conceptual), they often have a higher level of awareness with regards to their environment and intuition. Both of which we are pretty shit with these days as we're all trapped behind the vail of our ideas. You might actually surmize this as a type of stupidy I guess.

Yeah fair point. I guess if a virus infected the whole of the human race and within 20 days caused the death of all those whose immune system, in reference to ther genes, were not upto resisting such a virus then that genetic trait would obviously become the dominant one in a gene pool. I guess my mind had turned toward a trait such as giraffes and their necks which would have been, I expect, a much longer process of change. But maybe not?

You're not one for breaking things gently I think though that Danny is right and there's somewhat of a misunderstanding occuring here. In the first instance, evolutionary change is a process that doesn't really occur over only a handful of generations. It's a lot slower than that. In the second instance, I don't think the desirability of the prefered mates means a reproductive exclusion to less prefered mates. In fact, the type of individuals who you are refering to as more desirable (the "higher" classes) I think have a history of producing less children and have always been a minority group in civilized society. I don't think there's really an increased likelihood for the survival of certain genes over other genes based on intelligence over the last aproximately 1-2000 years, at least. Although no doubt, intelligence prior to civilization would probably have played a more significant role in survival and resulting increase of that trait in a gene pool. It's clearly a difficult task to distinguish between what plays the larger role in defining the level of intelligence somebody has. It was mentioned that people often take on the characteristics of their parents. Unfortunately, although we are a varying reflection of our parents genetics, we also spend a great deal of our time with them. So it really it can be quite dificult knowing which one has more substantially contributed. Studies on separated monozygotic (genetically the same) twins are where we can probably best consider the role of genetics but unfortunately it's still quite problematic. Intelligence, although it clearly has a biological basis, also requires a supportive environment to achieve fulfilment. My view is that intelligence is like a balloon, whereby our genetics or our biology defines the rubber part and the environment contributes the air that fills it. The condition of one or the other will naturally place a limit on the potential of the other. I suspect the type of intellectual differences of acheivment between the western world and the rest of the world are really mostly dependent on the cultural emphasis we have taken over the last few centuries rather than any biological cause. This relates to the process of "time-binding" whereby each generation picks up where the last left off with reference to nurtured learning of concepts (ideas). This results in a rapid intellectual development within large bodies of connected people. When we consider that evolution is a long and slow process and also that the more significant achievements of intelligence actually began only a few thousand years ago and not in the west, but in the east with, I think, the bronze age (correct me if I'm wrong?) then the two don't really add up. Differeing races of the world aren't that far divided by time (I think?) but they are more divided by what they've chosen to do with their time at certain points. At present, we're simply more conceptually practiced than more biologically adept, in terms of intelligence. That's what I currently think anyhow.

Yeah, fair point. Drug dealings are probably a mixed bag of nuts depending on where you are. Personally though, I've never had to deal with any hard drug users (heroin, crack, etc.) in order to get a drug like ecstacy. From my position those drugs have always been in another realm of activity that I've never really been exposed to. That's probably quite fortunate given my experimental nature. My experience of Bristol says all drug dealers are hippies with dreads

Yeh my bitch loves it when I tell her to leave me the f**k alone.

somewhat of an exageration I'd be careful about the whole attachment which isn't really love but more a thing in its own right. Not a particularly healthy thing either. But at the same time it's pretty much what happens to everyone to a greater or lesser extent.

Yeah, people have become incredibly reactionary on the discussion of race and consequently, are being stupid. I don't use the word "stupid" in a derogatory sense, just as a means of indicating that people aren't really thinking about things to do with race, just reacting dogmatically like a dog automatically chases a cat. The fact is, you CAN make generalisations about groups of people otherwise so much of the science of humans would not be possible. People have their individual attributes but then they also have general attributes that they share with a group. Thus, we can say of females that they are more likely to be "blah 1" and "blah 2" and of males, that they are more likely to be "blah 3" and "blah 4". We readily recognise this with physical attributes which are pretty much undeniable (boobs and genitals) but with the less 'tangible' abstractions we say of people, such as their intelligence, emotions, behaviour and so on, we are totally in denial. That is, despite the fact that we all tend to think that it's our physical condition that gives rise to the qualities of intelligence, etc. Obviously the environment plays a role, but it is all in reference and limited in its influence by the physical framework that somebody possesses. That people are reactionary is somewhat understandable given our savage history of group prejudice but that doesn't mean we should become "stupid" because we're only moving from one end of the stupid pole to the other. What we need to do is get off the stupid pole completely.

In the absence of racist intent, a discussion on race is not racist. If you get banned for critically considering a documentary on race, then people are being overly sensitive and a little bit confused. I may watch it later so I can be racist too.

LIES!

Yeh sorry, shutter speed was what i meant. Momentarily thought frame rate meant shutter speed

The blur you're describing sounds like the frame rate of your camera is set too low. Although that depends on where you're experiencing the blur. Is it always blurry despite where you play back the footage - i.e. the camera, an editing suite, a media player, etc.? If all of these are blurry, then you need to up the frame rate on the camera. If the blur is confined to the editing suite, then you may have chosen the wrong settings for your footage. An adjustment of the frame rate for the camera might not be in those terms. It may be "shutter speed" or some other term that I can't think of. Any chance you could upload some footage so that we can look at it?

I think the point is with big bonuses is that they exist whilst simultaneously people are living below the poverty line. These "big bonuses" don't greatly enrich the lives of those that recieve them but would greatly do so to those that cannot afford the basic neccesities of life. Often these great responsibilities you talk of are in reference to share holders rather than society in a broader sense, so how meaningful is that responsiblility? We certainly wouldn't talk of the rewards that should follow for a tyrant with great responsibility. What about our responsibility to other human beings? I would prefer a societal structure where wealth was more equally distributed. I'm not saying exactly the same wealth per person, but certainly a shortening of the current gap between the richest and the poorest. The current state of things, for me, unfortunately symbolises greed, selfishness and an evaluation of human worth defined by how good somebody is at making money. I would prefer compassion, love and an evaluation of human worth defined by the fact somebody is human. According to the latter approach, one would not want very rich people when there are very poor people.

to the aesthetics.

I haven't actually seen the question time, in question. I was talking with reference to the impressions that others were giving of that particular show. Might be worth a watch if I want to comment further if you're suggesting that aspect of situation was different. However, I did read the bbc report and it quoted various individuals involved in the protest who were suggesting that the BNP shouldn't be given any kind of platform because it validates them. I still maintain by point in reference to that. Last I heard though, the BNP were growing in popularity. Support for such parties seems to relate to broader events such as the recession and its effects. People seem to turn to the BNP when they are looking for a direction to channel their anger - my experience certainly confirms that anyhow. If I remember correctly and according to a study by Erich Fromm, Nazi Germany was founded, to a good extent on the harsh economic sanctions imposed on Germany following the first world war. Or at least, those sanctions substantially promoted support for Nazi attitudes. What I'm trying to say is that potentially certain socio-economic factors could allow, at least in theory for the BNP to come to power. It just depends on how unhappy people are. Hopefully the BNP will never come to power though but if they do, it will also say something unfortunate about the social climate.

Very cool and very super 8. Definitely the right music for the image. It made me feel like I was a surfer living in a camper van. Good job Rowan.

When we don't allow for voices to be heard, regardless of how unpleasant we find them, it's a dangerous game. It lays a foundation to repeat the process but to other people who might actually be trying to say something that does relate to the health of people. We really really do not want a culture where the person who we've predecided is wrong, ammoral, etc. isn't listened to because all surface impressions, especially when we live in a media culture of spin, could easily be wrong. Just imagine if the Tories managed to demonise anyone who said anything against global warming as fear mongerers or idiotic and as a consequence nobody was offered a platform to speak on the matter. Or if they were offered a platform, it was not one where they could actually get a proper point across. Unfortunately, this sort of thing, in other but similar ways, happens to people trying to indicate the insidious motivations involved in foreign politics. I do respect the protesting, as I don't like the BNP, but only in so much as it doesn't attempt to remove the general right we give for free speech. Probably the only time where I question free speech is when somebody is publilcy calling for the murder of others. That's what politicians are all about. Creating images, with use of rhetoric, which aren't true of themselves and their real motivations. Formal politics is still such a childish activity.

1.30 sounds about right for me. Craig, you fancy meeting us at castle park area for 1.30pm seeing as you're at Temple Meads for 1pm? Ah, you finish at 1.30. Just give us a ringading then if you're coming out. 1.30 at castle park though?

The imagery below is what amused me.

It's not as though these people are lightly thinking, "Hmmm, yeah. I reckon I'd slightly prefer to have the body of the opposite gender. Sounds like a laugh". More likely they experience an array of thoughts and feelings that shout at them, so to speak, that their current physical form isn't correct. Regardless of the reasons of things like sexual and gender orientation(nature/nurture/blah), and in so much as we still don't know how to change them if somebody so desired, adjusting ones situation to suit such feelings would appear the best means of happiness for those individuals. Would you seriously want to deny these people what actually made them happy and doesn't actually harm you apart from when you choose to adopt a position of fear? In the program, at least some of the parents had actively tried to stop behaviours of their children which were more typical of the other gender. It was only after a realisation that living the opposite gender role meant happiness for their child that they seemed to accept it. I respect the understanding and care they were willing to extend to their child, especially given the obvious stigma and fear that anything slightly different inspires in people. You also seem homophobic.