[cpbell0033944]

I lost an uncle in that building. 🙁

What a way to go! ;D

[cpbell0033944]

You are welcome. It was deserved. And this has allowed me to ponder this curious project by hotforwords.

"Science background" while not technically incorrect strikes me as an overstatement (English can be nuanced). I at one time aimed for a science doctorate (I will leave you to wonder in what) but my life had some unplanned detours. Originally I intended to return to my originally planned course when circumstances allowed, but I have since had a change in priorities and no longer see that as a direction to be pursued.

My background is that I have held a lifelong interest, and studied as an undergraduate. Intellectually I am capable of discussing many topics conceptually. But I lack adequate training. To provide an example, it is like being able to grasp many of the concepts of quantum physics without being able to do the math the way a physicist does. It becomes more a philosophic endeavor than a scientific one at that point.

Well, if you were an undergrad in a science subject, then, to me anyway, you have a science background 😉  I also wonder whether you are being a little modest in your assertion that you lack adequate training.

I am always actively studying and researching things. When I state facts, I am careful to back them up with research, be it past research, or looking it up first before making a factual statement in a post. I am literate enough, intelligent enough, and versed enough to unintentionally mislead people into believing that I possess a background, or credentials that I do not. I am careful to correct them when such false impressions arise. I am perfectly content to stand upon my own lorals.

I've long thought that people who try to improve themselves by researching something or teaching themselves in a field in which they have little prior knowledge are those who have genuine understanding and are keen to learn a subject for its own sake and on its own merits.

Einstein was friends with psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung. Jung had theories of personality and Archetypes which he talked about in his book "Psychological Types". There exists a present day "offspring" of Jung's work known as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator or MBTI for short. While I have definite misgivings towards the MBTI which I will not get into here, it is well suited to potentially explaining what you are suggesting as Asperger's (which I consider an extreme classification in regard to Einstein). Among enthusiasts and experts in MBTI, Einstein is widely held to be of the "INTP" type (as is Jung). While I also have misgivings in suggesting type for historical figures who have never taken the MBTI and never had the opportunity to "self report" their "best fit type". (See Interactive Feedback of Your MBTI® Results and the bottom paragraph of MBTI® Instrument Comparison with Other Psychological Tests), for Einstein, I believe it to be an accurate identification of type.

Among the INTP community, the most widely held opinion of which INTP description is the best is the one by Paul James. It can be read on the INTP web site. Be forewarned, it is looooong (14 pages when printed). Also, disregard various commentary such as that pertaining to music. This is the link…

http://www.intp.org/intprofile.html

There is a separate thread also in the Free For All section about the Myers-Briggs started by boinaka. I should point out that in that thread I identified myself as INTP. I talk a bit further on the subject there.

phenoms

I must admit, that's a subject in which I have minimal knowledge.  On looking-back at the Myers-Briggs thread, I see that I was categorised by my answers as "ESTJ" – sadly, I don't know what exactly that suggests about me.  I've actually rather seen myself as being a little bit anally retentive and not perhaps as socially adept as others, but whether that correlates, I don't know.

[cpbell0033944]

You know CP,

The link that I posted to Beth Horn kind of clearly states that she is in American Gladiators.

True… ::) :-[

[cpbell0033944]

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.

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.

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

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.  😀

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".

*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

Thanks for the compliment, phenoms! 8)  I too like breaking-down a lengthy post, but was concerned that I might misplace "quote" markers and end-up in a muddle. ;D

I should perhaps explain that my background is in biology, and that my current course is in biomedical research, so I'm not a medical student, but rather a biologist who has moved slightly off-target.  I'm interested that you have a science background and can only say that I'm intrigued about your experiences in the light of this. 
I too have read theories on Einstein, and my view is that he may have had an autistic spectrum/Asperger's personality, as he was known to be akward in company yet had the ability to take his mind into realms inaccessible to the rest of us.

[cpbell0033944]

I prefer the altered version as it's more flattering to the female form.  I think it emphasises the hips and waist better. 8)

[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.

[cpbell0033944]

There is this other celebrity site that has pics of her from earlier this month:

http://justjared.buzznet.com/2008/02/08/sienna-miller-brooch-babe/

Geez, after all she's done (can't remember much) she's now famous for being in G.I.Joe.  :-[

No discernable muscle there… ::)

[cpbell0033944]

There's not much to judge on. But the Baroness is supposed to wear a full-body black costume. It wouldn't reveal anything except a general idea of her mass.

OK, I just thought it was relevant and hoped that, with warmer weather coming, we might see a buff Miller wearing a bit less.

[cpbell0033944]

No more responses?

Can I just link to this forum:

http://forums.jpfitness.com/new-rules-lifting-women/29634-hollywood-image-strong-woman.html

and seek your views?

[cpbell0033944]

I'm not.

I just think that chick's hot enough to play Cammy.

That and Cammy's my fave SF character.  🙂

She's defintely a hottie – did you know that she's one of the new American Galdiators?

[Author]

Posts