Unpopular Opinions.

Sunnyisland · 13-07-2012 11:58AM

Grimebox wrote: »

How is that an opinion?

Its an opinion of 12 people and while I can accept there opinion of not guilty,There opinions seems very unpopular in Ireland atm.

Neeson · 13-07-2012 12:02PM

realies wrote: »

Grimebox wrote: »

How is that an opinion?

Its an opinion of 12 people and while I can accept there opinion of not guilty,There opinions seems very unpopular in Ireland atm.

But why convict them if they're not guilty? That's hardly popular either, just to imprison someone for the sake of it.

fasttalkerchat · 13-07-2012 12:08PM

Neeson wrote: »

But why convict them if they're not guilty? That's hardly popular either, just to imprison someone for the sake of it.

The third guy saw them going into the room and heard Michaela shout for help. He didn't help but was given immunity in exchange for giving evidence. There's not enough public info to convict them but surely the investigation should have all the necessary evidence and not just a forced confession?

Wibbs · 13-07-2012 12:10PM

Sea Filly wrote: »

Yeah, that was terrible. I mean, I'd feel sorry for a millionaire who remained a millionaire after being robbed (a la Adam Clayton), robbery is robbery after all, and trust being broken like that is awful. But I especially feel sorry for Cohen as, AFAIK, he was nearly completely cleaned out! :eek:

Yea like you I felt sorry for him at the time he was really fcuked over. Though he was a moany git beforehand.

steddyeddy · 13-07-2012 01:00PM

mikemac1 wrote: »

Not in my opinion

The end scence outside the opera house when they mute the sound cuts me up every time

That scene is a masterpiece.

ZeitgeistGlee · 13-07-2012 01:57PM

To lead on from the above, while not the best of the trilogy, GF3 is a lot better than it's generally given credit for being.

Rothko · 13-07-2012 08:25PM

ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »

To lead on from the above, while not the best of the trilogy, GF3 is a lot better than it's generally given credit for being.

I totally agree. It's been given such a bad reputation because it's constantly compared to the first two movies which it has no hope of living up to.

latenia · 13-07-2012 08:29PM

I love marzipan; I think it's fuppin' delicious.

Duggys Housemate · 13-07-2012 08:30PM

Tomatoes suck.

Nodin · 13-07-2012 08:32PM

latenia wrote: »

I love marzipan; I think it's fuppin' delicious.

Right....

I'll put you down on the perverts register with the tea haters.

Wibbs · 13-07-2012 09:17PM

Nodin wrote: »

Right....

I'll put you down on the perverts register with the tea haters.

I'll join your firing squad N.

Wacker The Attacker · 17-07-2012 04:21PM

I'd sleep with Amanda Brunker.

I think she's gorgeous.

Nodin · 17-07-2012 05:01PM

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

I'd sleep with Amanda Brunker.

I think she's gorgeous.

Fair enough, but you'll never get the tango tan out of the sheets.

steddyeddy · 17-07-2012 06:34PM

Another of my unpopular opinions: Too often on boards and in public life in general people have the view that science is only for a select few. My view is barring some sort of intellectual disability all you need to understand any part of science is an interest in it.

Too often I was told that it was a certain breed of bright child who could go on to science, medicine or law and its just bs. Science is for everyone and can be understood by anyone with an interest in it. I always wonder when people tell me such and such a child was very intelligent. Most children are very intelligent some are just given more encouragement than others.

Duggys Housemate · 17-07-2012 06:35PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Another of my unpopular opinions: Too often on boards and in public life in general people have the view that science is only for a select few. My view is barring some sort of intellectual disability all you need to understand any part of science is an interest in it.

Too often I was told that it was a certain breed of bright child who could go on to science, medicine or law and its just bs. Science is for everyone and can be understood by anyone with an interest in it. I always wonder when people tell me such and such a child was very intelligent. Most children are very intelligent some are just given more encouragement than others.

There are real differences in intelligence and ability.

steddyeddy · 17-07-2012 06:45PM

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

There are real differences in intelligence and ability.

I think those differences are not inate rather they are dictated by encouragement and exposure to education.

Duggys Housemate · 17-07-2012 06:46PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think those differences are not inate rather they are dictated by encouragement and exposure to education.

You are wrong, intelligence is innate and inheritable. Mathematics in particular.

Paddy Cow · 17-07-2012 06:52PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think those differences are not inate rather they are dictated by encouragement and exposure to education.

That's like saying that height isn't inate and is dictated by diet and exposure to proper nutrition.

Intelligence is a touchy subject for many people but the truth is, some are simply blessed with more than others. Common sense is a different matter though and isn't linked to intelligence. Someone with a first class honours degree can still be clueless in the real world but so can someone who doesn't have a degree.

steddyeddy · 17-07-2012 06:56PM

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

You are wrong, intelligence is innate and inheritable. Mathematics in particular.

You are misinformed, intelligence is inate and inheritable but the organisims surroundings (encouragement, school ect) dictate the development of that intelligenge. Epigentics (the study of enviromental stressors and the effects it has on DNA) is showing that early life will lay down patterns in the brain that affect us for the rest of our lives. As a species I dont see how inate intelligence would vary hugely.

Duggys Housemate · 17-07-2012 07:03PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

You are misinformed, intelligence is inate and inheritable but the organisims surroundings (encouragement, school ect) dictate the development of that intelligenge. Epigentics (the study of enviromental stressors and the effects it has on DNA) is showing that early life will lay down patterns in the brain that affect us for the rest of our lives. As a species I dont see how inate intelligence would vary hugely.

So what advantages did Einstein have that you did not have?

we all pretty much - except for a privately educated elite - get the same schooling. The best mathematician I knew, a guy who aced maths at leaving cert, and got into Oxford, and became a professor of mathematics was the son of a farmer. He got no help at home because he couldnt have gotten any help. They couldn't do the maths.

Twins studies prove this - in fact twin studies prove very little is affected by environment including political opinion. A very bad environment can have an effect, just as a very bad nutirtion can stop people getting to their potential height. The rest is genetics.

steddyeddy · 17-07-2012 07:13PM

Paddy Cow wrote: »

That's like saying that height isn't inate and is dictated by diet and exposure to proper nutrition.

Intelligence is a touchy subject for many people but the truth is, some are simply blessed with more than others. Common sense is a different matter though and isn't linked to intelligence. Someone with a first class honours degree can still be clueless in the real world but so can someone who doesn't have a degree.

The average height of the Japanese has rose in accordance with a change in nutrition. I have no doubt that adults have largely different abilities in adulthood but I believe this is an epigentic factor and not a genetic one.

Duggys Housemate · 17-07-2012 07:15PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

The average height of the Japanese has rose in accordance with a change in nutrition. I have no doubt that adults have largely different abilities in adulthood but I believe this is an epigentic factor and not a genetic one.

Once you get enough nutrition you reach your potential. However that potential is limited by genes. You cant feed a short ass to make him tall. The scientific literature on this is clear. Read Pinker's The Blank Slate.

So to be clear, you are not as smart as Einstein not because of markably better schooling for Einstein but because he was smarter than you, or me.

steddyeddy · 17-07-2012 07:21PM

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

So what advantages did Einstein have that you did not have?

we all pretty much - except for a privately educated elite - get the same schooling. The best mathematician I knew, a guy who aced maths at leaving cert, and got into Oxford, and became a professor of mathematics was the son of a farmer. He got no help at home because he couldnt have gotten any help. They couldn't do the maths.

Twins studies prove this - in fact twin studies prove very little is affected by environment including political opinion. A very bad environment can have an effect, just as a very bad nutirtion can stop people getting to their potential height. The rest is genetics.

The twin studies were famously flawed. Further more studies on epigentics have supported the effects the enviroment can have on genetics and phenotype (intelligence).

As I said intelligence is needed but what Einstein had was an interest in physics which most dont have. I also think he was the exception that proved the rule. Some people are born gifted but largely imo intelligence doesnt vary to an extent that only a few can practice science.

Duggys Housemate · 17-07-2012 07:28PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

The twin studies were famously flawed. Further more studies on epigentics have supported the effects the enviroment can have on genetics and phenotype (intelligence).

First I heard about it - Pinker's book is mere two years old. epigentics doesnt seem to mean what you think it does either - I think you just googled it.

As I said intelligence is needed but what Einstein had was an interest in physics which most dont have.

He had in interest it in it because he had an ability in it. Which was innate.

I also think he was the exception that proved the rule. Some people are born gifted but largely imo intelligence doesnt vary to an extent that only a few can practice science.

There are no exceptions which prove rules in science. Exceptions disprove the rule.

Intelligence does vary to an extent that only a few can practice science. Otherwise there would be far more people with science degrees. For mathematical science, in particular, there is the barrier of the maths. At the very least you would need honours maths ability.

The differences in ability in science, or other intellectual pursuits are as clear as sports. Some people are talented footballers, very few can make a career out of it; a lot, if not most - people have two left feet. Having better training from primary school will bring out the innate talent in those that have it - those that haven't wont be helped.

steddyeddy · 17-07-2012 07:30PM

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Once you get enough nutrition you reach your potential. However that potential is limited by genes. You cant feed a short ass to make him tall. The scientific literature on this is clear. Read Pinker's The Blank Slate.

So to be clear, you are not as smart as Einstein not because of markably better schooling for Einstein but because he was smarter than you, or me.

Thats a pyschology book It doesn't deal with epigentic neurology. I also think barring strong epigentic modifications from climatic conditions that height in first world countries is as fixed as one might think.

I also have to take issue with the term smart. Do you mean an increased funtion in all cognitave processing or just in relation to a particular subject one might be interested in eg physics?

Duggys Housemate · 17-07-2012 07:34PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Thats a pyschology book It doesn't deal with epigentic neurology. I also think barring strong epigentic modifications from climatic conditions that height in first world countries is as fixed as one might think.

epigentic modifications from climatic conditions sounds like pseudo science you half googled. Pinker's book deals with everything. He is a neuro-scientist not a psychologist. The book is an overview on the modern versions of science of heritability in humans.

I also have to take issue with the term smart. Do you mean an increased funtion in all cognitave processing or just in relation to a particular subject one might be interested in eg physics?

This 'interested in" is a deflection. We started off with science. So lets be clear. Most people cant do mathematical science, in particular, because they are not intelligent enough to handle the maths. If we move onto other forms of intelligence, like Beckham's ability to kick a ball, we will be here all day. Were we to talk common sense, it would be another issue

. You said everybody can do science. Thats not true.

steddyeddy · 17-07-2012 07:35PM

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

First I heard about it - Pinker's book is mere two years old. epigentics doesnt seem to mean what you think it does either - I think you just googled it.

He had in interest it in it because he had an ability in it. Which was innate.

There are no exceptions which prove rules in science. Exceptions disprove the rule.

Intelligence does vary to an extent that only a few can practice science. Otherwise there would be far more people with science degrees. For mathematical science, in particular, there is the barrier of the maths. At the very least you would need honours maths ability.

The differences in ability in science, or other intellectual pursuits are as clear as sports. Some people are talented footballers, very few can make a career out of it; a lot, if not most - people have two left feet. Having better training from primary school will bring out the innate talent in those that have it - those that haven't wont be helped.

Ill be back to deal with your post properly when Im back from my weekly shop but just to clarify. Im a biochemist researching epigenetic controls (Methylation of Dna, modifcation of histones ect). Epigenetics is an umbrella term for many areas of biology including developmental biology. When I use the term epigentics I include its usage to mean "its an explantion for" rather than it means. Eg epigentics is an explantion for certain populations susceptibility to certain diseases based on common past events rather than increase in height because of nutrition is called epigentics.

*Should have read: Epigentics is a term for a series of phenomenons within biology.

pickarooney · 17-07-2012 07:38PM

I think the majority of children are woefully under-stimulated and become lazy very early. With some minor exceptions I believe all children, if encouraged, and if they want to, are more than capable of grasping the most advanced scientific theories.

Duggys Housemate · 17-07-2012 07:40PM

pickarooney wrote: »

I think the majority of children are woefully under-stimulated and become lazy very early. With some minor exceptions I believe all children, if encouraged, and if they want to, are more than capable of grasping the most advanced scientific theories.

So basically we've had 100 years of public education and nobody has managed to work out how to stimulate kids. To me this is like saying:

s I believe all children, if encouraged, and if they want to, are more than capable of playing international football.

EDIT: this is going way off topic for this thread. If the mods take this out to a seperate thread, here or in aother forum, I will continue the debate.

woof im a dog · 17-07-2012 07:44PM

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

So basically we've had 100 years of public education and nobody has managed to work out how to stimulate kids. To me this is like saying:

s I believe all children, if encouraged, and if they want to, are more than capable of playing international football.

paul mcshane has almost 30 caps for ireland so ya never know

Unpopular Opinions.

Comments