[phenoms]

Was surfing You Tube and came across this video…

Look At My Muscles

My Deviant Art Page (old stuff):
phenoms.deviantart.com

My Booru Gallery (new stuff):
phenoms.booru.org

Also
www.thevalkyrie.com/picthumb/p/phenoms/index00.htm
www.thevalkyrie.com/picthumb/p/phenom_fett/index00.htm

[cpbell0033944]

She sounds Swedish; not that it makes any difference.  I'm inclined to agree with the mood of your post- it's a bit silly and does rather diminish women of intelligence. >:(

[phenoms]

She sounds Swedish; not that it makes any difference.  I'm inclined to agree with the mood of your post- it's a bit silly and does rather diminish women of intelligence. >:(

Does it? I think it's reasonable to say that the basic assumption is based upon the "male response" of the "shiny object" (women too). It almost strikes me more as a statement on our baser instincts. After all, even if she were dressed in an ultra conservative business suit, had no implants, and subtle makeup on, her facial beauty would still draw attention. Playing up sex appeal is not synonymous with diminishing intelligence. If that were the case, how would the very existence of this board or of our community reflect upon the women we are admiring were that the case?

Arguments could be launched in either direction; towards women (or men) playing up personal sex appeal as being unscrupulous, or towards their audience for reacting predictably.

I feel the issue here is that the objective is supposedly to teach and so that is where the emphasis should be minus the distractions of overt sexual suggestiveness. I was also thinking in the direction that such lessons would be of benefit to minors, yet are being presented in a manner that would be inappropriate for that age group; hence reducing the potential audience.

I see more gray areas here than I do black and white. It's why I felt this was interesting enough to post in the first place; I find myself pondering the boundaries of the gray.

phenoms

My Deviant Art Page (old stuff):
phenoms.deviantart.com

My Booru Gallery (new stuff):
phenoms.booru.org

Also
www.thevalkyrie.com/picthumb/p/phenoms/index00.htm
www.thevalkyrie.com/picthumb/p/phenom_fett/index00.htm

[cpbell0033944]

Does it? I think it's reasonable to say that the basic assumption is based upon the "male response" of the "shiny object" (women too). It almost strikes me more as a statement on our baser instincts. After all, even if she were dressed in an ultra conservative business suit, had no implants, and subtle makeup on, her facial beauty would still draw attention. Playing up sex appeal is not synonymous with diminishing intelligence. If that were the case, how would the very existence of this board or of our community reflect upon the women we are admiring were that the case?

Arguments could be launched in either direction; towards women (or men) playing up personal sex appeal as being unscrupulous, or towards their audience for reacting predictably.

I feel the issue here is that the objective is supposedly to teach and so that is where the emphasis should be minus the distractions of overt sexual suggestiveness. I was also thinking in the direction that such lessons would be of benefit to minors, yet are being presented in a manner that would be inappropriate for that age group; hence reducing the potential audience.

I see more gray areas here than I do black and white. It's why I felt this was interesting enough to post in the first place; I find myself pondering the boundaries of the gray.

phenoms

Actually, I was trying to say what you just said, but I was totally unsuccessful.  In addition, though, I do think that she is disrespecting her own intelligence by adopting classic, raunchy/slutty bimbo behaviour.  Her intelligence and attractiveness should be enough to attract the thinking guy, but she's going after the dunderheads with a raunchy image that seems to me to make the actual content of the videos into a secondary issue.

[Bo Inaka]

on the other hand, you could (and it is stretching I guess) say that she is using her appearance to get people to listen to her talk about words.  It is a sort of disney-fication of the subject, I guess, but then again she certainly has plenty of people's attention.  As they say, sex sells.

Or maybe she just didn't think it through too well and likes the attention.  Who knows.

Bo.

[phenoms]

Actually, I was trying to say what you just said, but I was totally unsuccessful.

It happens. As if the origins of words was not enough, then we have to worry about stringing them together to cohesively communicate our ideas and concepts? Unfortunately, the English language allows for far too much ambiguity.

As I am a lowly unilingual,  I am given to wonder if any spoken language even exists which is not subject to misinterpretation?

In addition, though, I do think that she is disrespecting her own intelligence by adopting classic, raunchy/slutty bimbo behaviour.

I have speculated that her approach is in itself a loose experiment. If it were, it would be more of a psychological/behavioral/anthropological one than a linguistic one, but then intellectually, multi-field interest is likely, and it would likely stem from personal curiousity and not necessarily require a stringent approach.

The obvious problem with such a line of reasoning is that her implants would be an awfully long way to go for such a thing. They are far more indicative of personal vanity.

Her intelligence and attractiveness should be enough to attract the thinking guy, but she's going after the dunderheads with a raunchy image that seems to me to make the actual content of the videos into a secondary issue.

I cannot help but to wonder if it is part of a larger viewpoint of hers concerning the male gender. Maybe she just thinks all men are "dunderheads"? Also, you are assuming she is intelligent. She could simply be what I would callously classify as a "regurgitating sheep". Sheep because she is good at conforming to outward expectations (and can subsequently score high grades in school while never truly grasping topics at the level which is otherwise suggested by her grades), and regurgitator because that is the only function she is really performing not just in her videos, but likely in a great many facets of her life.

In other words, perhaps she appears to be shallow and lacking intelligence because that is an accurate reflection of who she is and of her personal limitations (at least by the shared standard that we are holding her to).

phenoms

My Deviant Art Page (old stuff):
phenoms.deviantart.com

My Booru Gallery (new stuff):
phenoms.booru.org

Also
www.thevalkyrie.com/picthumb/p/phenoms/index00.htm
www.thevalkyrie.com/picthumb/p/phenom_fett/index00.htm

[cpbell0033944]

It happens. As if the origins of words was not enough, then we have to worry about stringing them together to cohesively communicate our ideas and concepts? Unfortunately, the English language allows for far too much ambiguity.

All too true.

As I am a lowly unilingual,  I am given to wonder if any spoken language even exists which is not subject to misinterpretation?

Wel, I studied French, and used to be able to call myself bilingual (possibly for a year I could have pushed to trilingual?  Anyway, English has so many more words than French – I think it's something in the order of 130,000 compared to around 70-80,000; allied to that, most French words mean one thing, whereas English is full of multiple meanings.  These factors woud, I think, lead to misinterpretation being a problem.

I have speculated that her approach is in itself a loose experiment. If it were, it would be more of a psychological/behavioral/anthropological one than a linguistic one, but then intellectually, multi-field interest is likely, and it would likely stem from personal curiousity and not necessarily require a stringent approach.

I'm sorry, you've lost me slightly there.

The obvious problem with such a line of reasoning is that her implants would be an awfully long way to go for such a thing. They are far more indicative of personal vanity.

Agreed.  She's pretty, no doubt about it, and she knows it – perhaps a little too well.

I cannot help but to wonder if it is part of a larger viewpoint of hers concerning the male gender. Maybe she just thinks all men are "dunderheads"? Also, you are assuming she is intelligent. She could simply be what I would callously classify as a "regurgitating sheep". Sheep because she is good at conforming to outward expectations (and can subsequently score high grades in school while never truly grasping topics at the level which is otherwise suggested by her grades), and regurgitator because that is the only function she is really performing not just in her videos, but likely in a great many facets of her life.

In other words, perhaps she appears to be shallow and lacking intelligence because that is an accurate reflection of who she is and of her personal limitations (at least by the shared standard that we are holding her to).

phenoms

I doubt that she thinks all men are dunderheads; what I suspect she's playing on is our collective tendency to think with an area of our anatomy somewhat distant from our brain.  As for the sheep theory, I think you may be dead right.  In my time as a student, I've known many for whom exams come easy as they have photographic memories, but coursework, which requires a demonstration of understanding, is a weakness.  There is indeed a gulf between rote-learning ad comprehension.

[phenoms]

[quote author=phenoms link=topic=6952.msg64330#msg64330 date=1203685263]
I have speculated that her approach is in itself a loose experiment. If it were, it would be more of a psychological/behavioral/anthropological one than a linguistic one, but then intellectually, multi-field interest is likely, and it would likely stem from personal curiosity and not necessarily require a stringent approach.

I'm sorry, you've lost me slightly there.[/quote]

I was suggesting that if she is an actual scientist and a cerebral/intellectual type of person that her interests are likely to be broad and varied. Then, presuming that to be the case, that she may be doing this not as part of any formal research science (which would require a stringent approach), but as a project to satisfy some personal curiosity.

As for the sheep theory, I think you may be dead right.  In my time as a student, I've known many for whom exams come easy as they have photographic memories, but coursework, which requires a demonstration of understanding, is a weakness.  There is indeed a gulf between rote-learning ad comprehension.

Not quite what I meant.

I  was suggesting that a "sheep" can give the outward appearance of understanding. Well enough to fool most professors and score high grade. The distinction is that a "sheep" will have only a minimal understanding and most of their talent is in telling the professor what they want to hear mostly by rewording (regurgitating) things. A person with a true and deep understanding will not only be able to explain a subject, not only be able to elaborate on a subject; they will be able to innovate upon the subject. It is the ability to add new information to a subject which distinguishes true deep understanding from mere regurgitation.

Ironically, as students, regurgitating sheep are more likely to score higher grades than those with superior intellect. The reason being that the sheep is focused on outward appearances such as high grades while the higher intellect is too preoccupied with exploring the ideas, concepts, and potentials of a subject to be bothered by something so trivial as what other people think (such as grades).

Naturally, I am speaking in an exaggerated fashion to better illustrate my points. Hopefully I have done a better job this time.

many for whom exams come easy as they have photographic memories

I doubt this very much. "Photographic memory" (or "Eidetic memory") is thrown about far too casually. In actuality, it is a very rare ability. It is common in educational systems to place an over emphasis on memorization… part of how the sheep learn to become regurgitators in the first place. Most people have similar memory capacities. For most people, how much they can remember is mostly determined by how much they apply themselves first to acquire the memory and later how they apply themselves to retain that memory, and by what techniques they may have learned to employ such as using mnemonics or "Method of loci". Memory can be mapped to a bell curve like many things. Most people have average memories, and then in the minority, you have varying degrees of the weakest and of the most exceptional memories. Among the exceptional memories, those who could be classified as having actual photographic memories would rank as few even among only the exceptional group.

The sheep can appear to know more than they do, or to have better memories than they do by being extremely selective in what they commit to memory. Again, their focus is on only what  they need to appear to have learned a subject.

Think of a sheep as that underwear model who gets implants for their pecs and butt. Outwardly, they photograph well, but don't ask their help to move that grand piano.

Also, I should point out that we have not yet even acknowledged the considerations of long term versus short term memory. I don't recommend we try delving quite that deep into the subject.

phenoms

My Deviant Art Page (old stuff):
phenoms.deviantart.com

My Booru Gallery (new stuff):
phenoms.booru.org

Also
www.thevalkyrie.com/picthumb/p/phenoms/index00.htm
www.thevalkyrie.com/picthumb/p/phenom_fett/index00.htm

[cpbell0033944]

I'm sorry, you've lost me slightly there.

I was suggesting that if she is an actual scientist and a cerebral/intellectual type of person that her interests are likely to be broad and varied. Then, presuming that to be the case, that she may be doing this not as part of any formal research science (which would require a stringent approach), but as a project to satisfy some personal curiosity.

Not quite what I meant.

I  was suggesting that a "sheep" can give the outward appearance of understanding. Well enough to fool most professors and score high grade. The distinction is that a "sheep" will have only a minimal understanding and most of their talent is in telling the professor what they want to hear mostly by rewording (regurgitating) things. A person with a true and deep understanding will not only be able to explain a subject, not only be able to elaborate on a subject; they will be able to innovate upon the subject. It is the ability to add new information to a subject which distinguishes true deep understanding from mere regurgitation.

Ironically, as students, regurgitating sheep are more likely to score higher grades than those with superior intellect. The reason being that the sheep is focused on outward appearances such as high grades while the higher intellect is too preoccupied with exploring the ideas, concepts, and potentials of a subject to be bothered by something so trivial as what other people think (such as grades).

Naturally, I am speaking in an exaggerated fashion to better illustrate my points. Hopefully I have done a better job this time.

I doubt this very much. "Photographic memory" (or "Eidetic memory") is thrown about far too casually. In actuality, it is a very rare ability. It is common in educational systems to place an over emphasis on memorization… part of how the sheep learn to become regurgitators in the first place. Most people have similar memory capacities. For most people, how much they can remember is mostly determined by how much they apply themselves first to acquire the memory and later how they apply themselves to retain that memory, and by what techniques they may have learned to employ such as using mnemonics or "Method of loci". Memory can be mapped to a bell curve like many things. Most people have average memories, and then in the minority, you have varying degrees of the weakest and of the most exceptional memories. Among the exceptional memories, those who could be classified as having actual photographic memories would rank as few even among only the exceptional group.

The sheep can appear to know more than they do, or to have better memories than they do by being extremely selective in what they commit to memory. Again, their focus is on only what  they need to appear to have learned a subject.

Think of a sheep as that underwear model who gets implants for their pecs and butt. Outwardly, they photograph well, but don't ask their help to move that grand piano.

Also, I should point out that we have not yet even acknowledged the considerations of long term versus short term memory. I don't recommend we try delving quite that deep into the subject.

phenoms

Rather than trying to answer each of your points separately, which will only create a blizzard of "quote" symbols, I'll write a response here to all your points.

1.  I now see what you're saying abot "Hot for Words".  The impression I get is that she may be interested in researching the etymology of various words, but that her main motivating factor is showing her knowledge and putting her "assets" in the YouTube spotlight.  I might be doing her a disservice, but, if she were entirely serious about the intellectual challenge, why wear the revealing clothes and why the gimmicky poses and cleavage shots?

2.  I actually did get what you meant about "sheep" – i evidently didn't explain myself properly.  I'd be interested to know what you field of study was, because your comments about the person with true and deep understanding being the one who philosophises and exploring ideas suggest that your background is in the arts or humanities.  As a postgrad student in medical research, I can say that there is less scope for this in the sciences, as we tend to deal in a currency of evidence and theories rather than ideas and concepts which can be explored by the "non-sheep".  It's probably therefore harder for lecturors to differentiate between sheep and non-sheep.  In science, the sheep tend to be those who have remembered key facts about, say, cell division or the molecular basis of cancer, but who are unable to link different mechanisms or theories which, in the real world, are intertwined and all part of a jigsaw.  Lateral thinking and problem-solving are key skills for scientists, but are often absent in "sheep".

3.  I would tend to feel that, in my area of specialist knowledge, there is less of a tendency for students to fail to pay attention to grades than ideas; again, I suspect that this may be more prevailent in subjects such as English, Art History, Classics or Philiosophy.

4.  I certainly knew that photographic memory was rare, although I'm grateful for the links and info as you are clearly more knowledgeable on this than I.  What I menat is really that, in my experience, some people need to take significantly less time rvising for exams than others in order to acheive the same results.  I've always thought of it as being a case of some people being natural learners and others (such as myself) having to work harder.  I don't know whether I had a deeper, broader understanding of the subject matter than they did, but I know that I feel that I was better at linking different theories and areas of scientific knowledge than they were, though I couldn't recall the exacting detail of one subject to the same level that they could attain.

[phenoms]

Let me begin by saying that this was nothing less than a superb reply. You have even gone so far as to exceed my own efforts to expound on certain points. This pleases me to no end.

Rather than trying to answer each of your points separately, which will only create a blizzard of "quote" symbols, I'll write a response here to all your points.

I picked up breaking quotes down to respond in immediate context way back on usenet. Sorry if it bugs you but while clearly not an issue for you, in entering into any level of depth in a discussion, I have found that too many other people would get confused when a response was all packed together. It resulted in more time and energy being spent in realigning people's misunderstandings, then being able to focus on expanding on a topic.

1.  I now see what you're saying abot "Hot for Words".  The impression I get is that she may be interested in researching the etymology of various words, but that her main motivating factor is showing her knowledge and putting her "assets" in the YouTube spotlight.  I might be doing her a disservice, but, if she were entirely serious about the intellectual challenge, why wear the revealing clothes and why the gimmicky poses and cleavage shots?

I am less so "saying" in opinion than I am speculating. This whole thing began because she piqued my interest as a "curiosity".

2.  I actually did get what you meant about "sheep" – i evidently didn't explain myself properly.  I'd be interested to know what you field of study was, because your comments about the person with true and deep understanding being the one who philosophises and exploring ideas suggest that your background is in the arts or humanities.  As a postgrad student in medical research, I can say that there is less scope for this in the sciences, as we tend to deal in a currency of evidence and theories rather than ideas and concepts which can be explored by the "non-sheep".  It's probably therefore harder for lecturors to differentiate between sheep and non-sheep.  In science, the sheep tend to be those who have remembered key facts about, say, cell division or the molecular basis of cancer, but who are unable to link different mechanisms or theories which, in the real world, are intertwined and all part of a jigsaw.  Lateral thinking and problem-solving are key skills for scientists, but are often absent in "sheep".

Well I am among those here who prefers not to delve beyond a certain amount of personal disclosure. I will say I have a varied background which includes both humanities and science. My sciences were more research oriented than practical as medical sciences are. By no means am I going to claim expertise where none exist though. At this stage of my life, I am far departed from many of the subjects I once pursued. While I will back up my facts within reason, I mostly elect to stick with observations, opinion, and speculation.

My example was actually based in part on Albert Einstein who no  one is likely to question as being possessed of a "higher intellect", yet is known to have done poorly in school. (It has been suggested that Einstein was "learning disabled", but even if true, I am of the belief that his grades were a reflection of both the learning disabilities and of his cerebral nature.)

Again, as I stated above, you explained yourself superbly.  😀

3.  I would tend to feel that, in my area of specialist knowledge, there is less of a tendency for students to fail to pay attention to grades than ideas; again, I suspect that this may be more prevailent in subjects such as English, Art History, Classics or Philiosophy.

I see it as more a difference of cerebral emphasis. So maybe the cerebrally geared  directions of philosophy and research science contrasted against your practically geared medical sciences. But I have little background in medicine, so I may be out on a limb with my classifying it as being "practically geared".

4.  I certainly knew that photographic memory was rare, although I'm grateful for the links and info as you are clearly more knowledgeable on this than I.  What I menat is really that, in my experience, some people need to take significantly less time rvising for exams than others in order to acheive the same results.  I've always thought of it as being a case of some people being natural learners and others (such as myself) having to work harder.  I don't know whether I had a deeper, broader understanding of the subject matter than they did, but I know that I feel that I was better at linking different theories and areas of scientific knowledge than they were, though I couldn't recall the exacting detail of one subject to the same level that they could attain.

*blink*

*nod*

Yeah, ummm, I don't actually have anything I feel that I can respond to here. They are your personal experiences, and you are the best judge.

Sooo…. thanks for sharing?  ;D ::)

phenoms

My Deviant Art Page (old stuff):
phenoms.deviantart.com

My Booru Gallery (new stuff):
phenoms.booru.org

Also
www.thevalkyrie.com/picthumb/p/phenoms/index00.htm
www.thevalkyrie.com/picthumb/p/phenom_fett/index00.htm

[Author]

Posts