Why does the fact that it may start later in school make it necessarily less math-intensive than physics? Physics is simply a number of main formulas, and then formulas that are derived from those base formulas for specific situations.

Maybe you think it's complicated. Of all the bio classes I've seen, it all seems like trivial concepts made up of needlessly complicated latin names. I have yet to see any logic being used - and you have yet to provide an example of it.

Trust me, theres some very stupid people in college. Just because they're in college, doesn't really mean they're learning anything. Now if it had been college graduates, then you could probably use it against him. Even then though, I know some pretty dumb graduates.

There are stupid liberals, deal with it. Just look at all the liberals in hollywood who have to do the popular thing of speaking out against Bush.

Is it really that hard to grasp that both sides have very stupid and also very intelligent people?... Stupid people just always get the limelight.

*sigh*

So how many bio classes have you been in. Not seen, been in.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. Did you mean that chemistry starts later than physics? In the system I was in it was the same year. In any case, high school courses only cover the basics of any field, so it's not really relevant.

And that my friends proves the depth of Flexor's knowledge. As deep as Mount Everest apparently.

Unless you take AP classes.

I don't see how that's relevant, but anyways: 3 HS-level (one general bio/human biology, one on genetics, one on microbiology and plants), 1 college-level (it mainly covered cells, organites, unicellular organisms and aspects of microbiology), 6 uni-level (the respiratory system from an anatomic POV, the respiratory system from a microbiology and chemistry POV, then the same type of courses for the cardiovascular system, reproductive system, some covered general reproduction concepts and concepts of neurology were often interwined).

My comment was in response to your statement that chemistry doesn't get math-intensive until the third or fourth year. Thinking about it now, that puts it right at before graduation. I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but any reputable school won't put off the higher-level courses until the last year of education.

Unless, by "uni," you mean high school and not "university," at which point...wtf?

Well it gets complicated because our system is structured differently than yours, and I haven't studied in your system, so I'm not sure when it's covered. Here we do 11 years with high school, which is an equivalence of the american/western canadian 12-year system, then we have to go to college before uni (while in the american system, as I understand it, you can go directly to uni). We can do a 3-year technical program, or if we want to go to uni we have to do a 2-year pre-universitary program, which is the equivalent of the first two years of university in the U.S. system + 1 semester or so of general education (english, french, etcetera.)

So comparing the two systems gets confusing in the end. Just ignore what I said then.

THEY TOOK OUR JOBS!

DEY TOOK UR JURBS!!!

DURK UR DUHR

<3 El Parque de el Sur

It seems to me that the real problem here is that both sides are stupid. When you think about it, 50% of the population is going to be of below average intelligence. A very large percentage of people on either side are going to be utterly ignorant about pretty much everything, and simply believe whatever they think sounds good. They listen to smart people talk about things, and then get a distorted version of that in their head, and believe it no matter what. They're not smart enough to realise that they could be wrong.

Compounding that is the fact that genuinely smart people tend to talk less and listen more, and rely on logic and reasoning rather than volume and emotion. Therefore, the dumb people in any group are generally going to drown out the smart people in any group.

This means that if you're opposed to a certain group, you're not going to listen to what they say very much, and when you do, all you're going to hear is the shouts of the ignorant portion. Since you're already inclined that way, you'll quickly come to the conclusion that everyone on the opposite side is stupid. And since smart people don't generally hang out with stupid people very much, all the people you hang out with on your side are going to be relatively smart.

As for the Mainstream Media: there may be a liberal or conservative bias depending on the network, but primarily the media is biased toward neither side -- they're biased toward sensationalism. They only care about ratings and making money, and since half the population is of below average intelligence, they cater to the lowest common denominator. This means they're less concerned about the truth, and more concerned about what kind of sensational facts they can dig up to wow their audience, and never mind the boring stuff. Case in point(s): all this Runaway Bride garbage, and Michael Jackson's trial.

Bah. Stupid people. Always ruining everything.

Most liberals are ****ing morons that do it just 'cause it's fashionable. I am pretty ****ing left wing, but I also understand that a lot of the conservatives want the same thing as liberals (the only difference is the can, like Coke and Pepsi). I think it is really not in anyone's best interest to divide the people like that. I know it's easy, but it won't last.

No doubt, as there are seven (I believe) different types of intelligence. I was just clarifying, not trying to make a point.

Right wing, left wing...It doesn't make any difference. I've found that most people who call others unintelligent are usually just trying to justify their own opinions.

Or compensate for their own lack of intelligence. :p

Who's the man? I'm thinking he is a certain Viking by the name of Krig. Excellent post. Obvious details, but are sadly lost of many.

..If you can't justify your opinion rationally, you shouldn't be having it in the first place.

A substantial *inverse* correlation has been found between intelligence and conservatism.

Others (also inverse correlation)

Alcoholism
Authoritarianism
Crime and deliquency
Dogmatism (!!!!!!!!)
Hysteria
Infant mortality
Psychoticism
Racial prejudice

Late edit: I'm just posting some others because some of those aren't entirely unrelated to conservatism.

So, as alcoholism, authoritarianism, crime, deliquency, dogmatism, hysteria, infant mortality, psychoticism, and racial prejudice decrease, conservativism increases?

That doesn't sound right. But, then, a directly proportional relation doesn't sound right, either. Do you have any reliable statistics of a representative sample to support your claim, whatever it may be?

I'd also like to challenge the "50% of people are below average intelligence." That's running under the assumption that intelligence is distributed on a normal curve.

No, not at all. I just posted something of relevance (inverse relationship between IQ and conservatism) and some less relevant (inverse relationship between IQ and alcoholism, etc....)

I just added some of these in because they were floating around in my head. I'm saying some of these are at least to some extent related to conservatism (Adorno proved the relationship between religion and authoritarianism, so I think at least indirectly there's a link between conservatism and authoritarianism as well).

Conservatism apparently is a pretty good (admittedly not an excellent) predictor of racial prejudice.



I'm pretty sure it is. Average 100, standarddeviation 15.

Yep. Can't remember where I saw this but they had stats on IQ curves, and the chances of someone having an IQ of 150-ish is 1 in (a very very large number). Of course, everyone's gonna take stupid internet IQ tests and claim they have that much.

Mathematics work on logical reasoning, which is the basis of intelligence. Of course, you can follow a math class and just memorize all the formulae, but if you don't understand what you assimilate, you won't get far. My point was that biology is a science that only requires alot of knowledge, not logical reasoning.

Why would biology be less-based in logic? If organ y secretes compound x, then effect z will happen. To simply dismiss it as "you have to know a lot of stuff" is rather ignorant. Physics can be broken down to memorizing the formulas and applying them to the appropriate situation.

Oh, the liberal left likes to think that conservatives are stupid because:

1.) We know that not every war is about economics

2.) We know that if we don't strike first, we'll get a knife in our backs

3.) We think tofu tastes like crap and it isn't all that healthy (especially for males)

4.) We understand thermodynamics. Forget the environment, if we all drove electric cars and recycled we'd all be dead by now.

5.) We know that nuclear power is the cleanest, most practical energy source.

6.) We'd rather see a more moderate, well-thought-out solution to a problem than have to deal with the aftermath of some idiotic "measure once cut twice" dreck.

7.) We know we aren't the ones burning all of the oil. Most women vote liberal. Who's driving the SUVs/Urban Battleships again?

8.) We embrace corruption and lie cons... oh wait, conservatives believe in strong family and religious values.

9.) We think people should be free to spend money on themselves, rather than toss in to a collection plate and hope it's their turn for a spending spree this year.

That's right. We're stupid, and radical leftists like the Canadian Communist Par... erm, I mean, Liberal Party are surely the best solution to all political problems. Nothing like federally-funded organized crime to quell the masses.

It's funny. Once upon a time, liberalism stood for libertarianism - civil freedoms. Now neoconservativism stands for libertarianism while modern liberalism is all about protecting yourself from yourself. What the hell?

Well said.

Jon'C, a lot of those points are part of the reason why I don't consider myself either a liberal or a conservative. However, I am wondering about #4, the thermodynamics one. After sleeping through 1st year physical chemistry, I'm not entirely sure I understand your meaning there. Or are you just basically saying that the energy has to come from somewhere, and solar power (wind power, etc.) could never provide enough?

Second Law of Thermodynamics says you can't get something from nothing basically. I think this is what he's referring.

Okay, that's what I figured. Just though I'd make sure.

This one was about imperialism.



Evidence?



Didn't understand this one.



I agree.



I'd rather see a well-thought-out solution as well.



Didn't know if you were kidding or not so :/



WTF? How are liberals opposed to marriage? Sorry dude, red state divorce rates are higher than blue states divorce rates. Religious divorce rates are higher than atheist divorce rates.

Religious values? You seem to think enforcing fundamentalism is a good thing. You mean the values that push for a ban of Shakespeare and other homosexual authors bacause 'that's not the message that we want to send our children'? The values that allow children to skip biology classes because their 'parents don't agree with it'? The values that motivate people to empeach a president because he got a blowjob, and gets people cheering because the next president wages an immoral, unwarranted war?

You can lay a lot of **** on me, but never again that your government is an ethical one.

omg deth to t3h amerikkan empire lmao



Actually, I've seen this myself too now that I think of it. I see a lot of "soccer moms" with Expeditions and Excursions and they voted for Kerry? O_o

wtf is wrong with you? Of course imperialism.

American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.




Seriously? Like so many jeeps, of course ALL driven by liberals, women, soccer-moms, that it makes a difference to the global environment? No seriously, are you kidding or not.

Definition.

No, it's not imperialism. The U.S. isn't expanding any empire by fighting in Afghanistan or Iraq.

im·pe·ri·al·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pîr--lzm)
n.
The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

Remind me - what territories have we acquired?

Technically we did take over Iraq and Afghanistan, although we are handing more and more power back to them, and they pretty much run their own country now. But we never have abused our power as much as say England or France has done in the past.