On 19.8.2021. 19:31, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 8:53:39 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 19.8.2021. 1:11, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 8:34:55 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 18.8.2021. 13:43, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 10:56:20 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> Mario isn't even playing the game, because he didn't know that it was an
>>>>>> analogy question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I should have also spelled it out for him: "ocean is to littoral as river is to __________"
>>>>> But I mistakenly assumed that the notation was familiar to him.
>>>>>
>>>>> I did not make that kind of mistake when I told him about the Unique Factorization Theorem
>>>>> of integers. I very carefully removed all possible ambiguity from it, and wrote "whole number"
>>>>> instead of "integer".
>>>>>
>>>>> But hey, if you had really wanted to help him, you should have told him it was an
>>>>> analogy question instead spoiling the riddle for him.
>>>
>>>> Oh, nothing would help me. I have "brain fog", or something, I am not
>>>> in the mood for solving that kind of riddles, actually, I even didn't
>>>> think that this is some kind of a game,
>>>
>>> I didn't mean it as a game, I meant it as an illustrative example
>>> of how tests for intelligence are not well set up for measuring
>>> intelligence. It does take a bit of intelligence to grasp that
>>> "littoral" means "having to do with the shore of a sea or ocean"
>>> [and if you don't know that, you can look up the word in a good dictionary]
>>> and to then realize that when "river" is substituted for "ocean", you need to
>>> find a word that means "having to do with a bank of the river."
>>>
>>> Then it becomes a vocabulary test of an especially difficult sort.
>>> The usual vocabulary test might ask you to define "riparian,"
>>> but this one starts with the definition and makes you hunt for the word.
>>> Short of going through a dictionary with at least 100,000 words,
>>> it just boils down to the luck of being familiar with the word "riparian" .
>>>
>>> So we have a question that is under-1% an intelligence test and over-99% a vocabulary test.
>>>
>>>> I just answered anything to
>>>> continue with conversation. Yes, John was right, I wasn't actually
>>>> playing, I didn't, actually, understand, nor did I make an effort to
>>>> understand, and, after all, I don't think that I would understand it in
>>>> the first place. Word riddles aren't quite suitable for non-English
>>>> speakers. Since my line of thinking was too simple, I thought that this
>>>> is just some kind of example,
>>>
>>> Yes, an example to illustrate a point I was making.
>>>
>>> There is a very serious side to this. Back in the early 1970's was a furor when a professor
>>> named Shockley published a paper that said Blacks in the USA were less intelligent
>>> on average than Whites. He was branded a racist and his public appearances
>>> were accompanied by riots. I witnessed one when a like-minded professor named Banfield
>>> came to the University of Chicago and tried to give a speech; it was completely
>>> disrupted by radicals.
>>>
>>> All this trouble could have been avoided if these people had been made
>>> to see that IQ tests are unfair for making such allegations, because
>>> of the different experiences an average Black has than the average White has.
>
>> In tune with my view on intelligence, I am looking at it from the
>> Evolution point of view. Just like physical abilities, I am claiming
>> that different races have different mental abilities, depending on the
>> conditions they evolved in. Of course, a lot of those mental abilities
>> aren't measurable at all.
>
> Quite true. Why not try posting this on sci.anthropology.paleo?
> It looks to be even more on-topic there than here.

I, very probably, did, sometime in the past. I have enough of posting
always the same things. I posted it here because we are discussing this.

>>>> and juts wanted to show that I know two
>>>> words for small river, lol.
>>>> Your mathematical question I did consider a riddle, but, for sure I
>>>> cannot get into this. I don't know, maybe it has something to do with
>>>> Covid, maybe its the old age,
>>>
>>> Old age? I seem to recall that you are more than a decade younger
>>> than I am. If you are in as good health when I was your age, you have a lot of great years ahead of you.
>>>
>>> One of my favorite sayings after I became 60 is "The sixties are the youth of old age."
>>> When I turned 60 I still could have run a kilometer in 4.5 minutes; now, 15 years older, I think
>>> I'll be lucky to do it in 5.5.
>
>> I'll turn 60 in two months. Of course, a lot depends on your physical
>> abilities. I don't move out of my room *at all* (I am retired, :) ),
>> during my whole life I was sitting whole day long (being a train driver,
>> but I did hike a lot for one period on my life),
>
> It's no too late to return to that state. Work up to it a little bit at a time.
> I haven't run a kilometer in over a decade, but I've been slowly increasing
> my stamina these last three months with daily walks and 4 shorter runs some mornings that add
> up to over a kilometer and are interspersed with 2-minute walks.
>
> When the cooler weather arrives, I expect to be routinely doing 1-kilometer runs.
> For you, it might take a year to get up to that level, but it will be worth it.
> When I got a nuclear stress test last month, all my arteries showed
> completely normal. I don't know whether that would have been the case if I had had it before regular workouts.

My goal in life is to accommodate my needs, my feeling. I don't feel
like running around, I feel like sitting in front of computer.
You are suggesting me that I should run, so that I feel better when
sitting in front of computer, and so that I can live longer, so that I
can longer sit in front of computer?
Good idea, but I never go after some imaginary goals, I always
accommodate my current needs, ;) .

> > and things like that.
>> After making a short walk, I am so tired that I usually fell to sleep, lol.
>> I like it that way never the less. My idea is that people aren't made
>> for physical endeavor. I am claiming that we ate shellfish, shellfish
>> give you protein, but not energy.
>
> It wasn't exclusively shellfish, I'm sure. Even Inuit (formerly called Eskimos)
> ate vegetable material when they could get it.
>
> And even if you are right, they probably ate everything in the shellfish,
> and didn't clean it out with multiple rinses like they do before
> you are served shellfish in a restaurant, or even before you buy
> them in a grocery store. Otherwise, I believe they would have gotten
> any number of vitamin deficiency "diseases" like scurvy, or beriberi, or pellagra.

Thanks, excellent suggestion.
Yes, they were eating normal primate food, fruits and such, probably
also eggs, plus they were eating shellfish.
We have thick enamel because shellfish (unrinsed) is full with sand.

>> So, we probably did what we are doing
>> on our vacation, laying down on the sun for whole day, :) .
>
> And sitting ducks for predators? No thanks.

Actually, no.
At first we were living on seaside cliffs. There, we were safe from
predators. Take a look at those two videos. See, scientists don't
understand what is going on. What is happening is that terrestrial
predators aren't made to hunt in water:
https://youtu.be/jSGikymKFlc?t=124
https://youtu.be/vnClAxxL1j0?t=173
Later we started to use fire. Cats need ambush, with fire you can burn
low vegetation, so cats cannot hide, and they will not attack.
Cowboys in pampas had problems with jaguars, jaguars were attacking
their cattle. Then they figured out how to solve the problem. It is
enough to move your cattle 200 meters away from jungle, and jaguars will
not attack.

>>>> maybe I am just too full, or maybe I am
>>>> more concerned about the imminent global political reshuffling (which
>>>> should greatly affect my region, Balkans, actually, this should be the
>>>> most important thing of my life).
>>>
>>> All true, but since you have little way of predicting how it will turn out,
>>> and less of being to change it, you might as well take time to have
>>> some fun, and only think hard about it from time to time.
>> Oh, not at all. Actually, I am really good at that. And I am doing it
>> naturally, it looks like (since I grew up in this messy situation on
>> Balkans). I grew up in the capitol of my country, in a, kind of, richer
>> neighborhood (comparable to Berkeley Hills, but me being poor), going to
>> school with kids from some prominent families. Later I was politically
>> active (after the fall of communism) in my neighborhood, volunteer in
>> war, in my youth I was hanging out with some intelligent people (one of
>> my closest friends is now the main editor of 8 book history of Croatia,
>> a major work; I learned some things from him, 30 years ago, when we were
>> close). So, I was involved in some things, seen a lot with my own eyes,
>> I know a lot of people, daughter of one Croatian president was my
>> classmate, father of another classmate was the first director of
>> national TV network, later, another classmate became that director (of
>> national TV network, lol). And I was discussing the politics with
>> everybody around me, and on the internet, whole the time.
>> I can easily predict a lot of things. When West started with
>> Globalization, I knew how this will end up.
>
> Globalization is, IMO, an extension of imperialism, when the UK and the USA
> and later the Soviet Union carried it out under various labels: "The White Man's Burden"
> for the UK's British Empire; "Manifest Destiny" in the USA's expansionism, first
> against Native American tribes east of the Mississippi and in buying part of
> the French Empire from Emperor Napoleon, then in meddling in Latin America
> including the conquest of half of Mexico; then in unsuccessful attempts to extend the USA
> to include Cuba and other Central American countries.
>
> Finally, I don't even need to tell you about the imperialism that Soviet Russia inherited
> from the Russian Empire, first by reconquering the Caucasus countries [Stalin made very
> sure that his native Georgia was included] and then reconquering the Baltic countries
> [except for the unsuccessful attempt to re-annex Finland] and Bessarabia, then including
> Poland, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Albania, and East Germany under its imperialist rule.
> You have Tito to thank for Yugoslavia being at least nominally outside it.
>
> The mindset which justified all this imperialism is alive and well in globalism.

Actually, Globalism is more sophisticated. What you mentioned is good
ole Imperialism. In modern times we don't need resources, successful
countries make production. I like to tell this story, to explain this:
- a Bosnian sells 1 ton of scrap iron to a German, for 100 $
- a German makes a Mercedes out of this, he sells Mercedes to Bosnian
for 100,000 $
- in a 10 years time Bosnian makes 1 ton of scrap iron out of this
Mercedes, sells it to German for 100 $
See, Bosnian will be glad to sell all his resources for products made
in the West. This is how Russia lives today. The West has the most
valuable resource, and it is knowledge. Out of 50 best Universities in
the world, 34 are in the USA.
But, now there is new problem, the West is so advanced that it loses
connection to the rest of the world. For example, you cannot sell
Mercedes to a country that has no roads, you cannot sell a tire to a
country that rides only horses. You would be able to sell then
horseshoes, but, you don't make horseshoes anymore, since you are not
riding horses. See, the gap is too big. So, the West actually wanted to
enrich poor nations, to make them capable to buy products that West is
selling. They would enrich them by including them in the production
chain. China is excellent example. The problem, now, is that money
earned that way China is investing in weapons which it would use to
attack West. So, West is thinking, I am earning money by using China in
production, but, on the other hand, I have to invest money into my
defense from China. So, the economic gain isn't there, only I made
another big enemy. So, Globalization is now off.
Regarding Tito, you are right. Tito figured out that Stalin wants to
kill him, so Tito made alliance with the West.

>> When you follow politics
>> closely, things just add one onto another, if you've sorted your basics
>> right, and I am good at sorting basics right, being objective, not
>> greedy and subjective.
>> Of course, politics is very dynamic, and even politicians cannot
>> predict a lot of things, but, it is easy for me to see in which
>> direction things are going,
>
> I bet the opening of the Hungarian border in 1989 and the consequent
> fall of all the satellites I named, came as a surprise to you and almost
> everyone else except the Hungarians and Gorbachev, who secretly
> signaled that he would not stop it.

Oh, not at all. I was following all this, and expected this to happen.
Remember Solidarity in Poland? Everybody knew that USSR will collapse,
it was just a matter of time. It was big crisis, people were waiting in
lines for two hours, just to buy bread.
I was in London, in 1987. and I was discussing this with some
Slovenians (we were in the same camp). Everybody knew everything.
Slovenians knew that Slovenia will escape the real war, I knew the
extent of war that will happen in Croatia, Bosnians knew that it will be
a bloodshed in Bosnia. We all knew everything. Germans knew that the
Berlin wall will fall.

> By the way, did you suspect the re-balkanization of Yugoslavia would
> happen after the death of Tito?

I don't know exactly what you mean. If you mean, the things that are
happening in the last 30 years in Croatia (after the war), no, I didn't
expect Croats to be so stupid. I expected that we will civilize,
something like Slovenia, even better. I knew that socialism will
collapse, and that it will be war, but I didn't expect that we will go
backwards after war, instead of forward. Yet, since I was involved in
everything, I noticed during the war that things aren't alright.

>> the dynamics of how things will unroll isn't
>> that much important, actually.
>
> You remind me of the wise donkey Benjamin in _Animal_Farm_.
> No matter what happened, he predicted that things would go on just as always--that is, badly.
> But the forms they took involved drastic changes in many things.
>
>> In my view, after Nord Stream 2 is finished (next month), there will
>> be some major reshuffling going on, at least in Europe (I already see
>> preparations going on, for it). I am still not quite sure how West will
>> handle Iran, but, we'll see.
>>>> I even don't follow paleoanthropology, lately.
>>>
>>> I can relate to that. When Trump was impeached, I was really bothered by the wildly conflicting narratives
>>> that the majority of Republicans and practically all the Democrats in Congress were sticking to.
>>> When it turned out that first the House and then the Senate hardly had anyone addressing the
>>> allegations of the other side, and almost no witnesses were called, I knew the USA was in for a lot of trouble.
>>>
>>> Both the impeachment by the House and the trial in the Senate were mere formalities,
>>> and both rushed to a vote that was almost all along party lines.
>>>
>>> I didn't return to talk.origins or sci.bio.paleontology for over two months, because I wanted
>>> to get a good feel for how people with a wide range of outlooks thought of these
>>> events and of many other issues. The pandemic was a major source of conflicting
>>> narratives. There were some really toxic, pseudoscientific stories about what the mRNA vaccines
>>> could do to you, and I persisted until I found out the truth about them. As a result,
>>> I gladly took the Pfizer vaccine: first dose February 1, second February 22.
>
>> Thanks, Peter, for the encouraging words. I am strongly against
>> vaccination, for sure I will never do it, :) .
>
> I'm not 100% sure you are wrong, but I do hope you are not avoiding it for the wrong reasons.

The reason is exactly the same why you are running. You are running
not to atrophy. If vaccination is fighting viruses, our defense
mechanism will atrophy. Our defense mechanism is the only thing that
keeps us alive.
Of course, it doesn't matter in my case, because I am old, I will not
have descendants. But never the less, I want to give a support to anyone
who wants to keep our defense mechanism in shape.
A lot of people say that jab saves lives. It is true, without jab 50 %
of people would die. With jab, 100 % of people will die, but not
tomorrow, maybe in 500 years, maybe in 1,000 years, maybe in 2,000
years, but *for sure* we all will die.
Of course, science doesn't see this, science looks only in front of
its nose, 2,000 years from now is too far for science to see what will
happen.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com