Annoying Questions I'd Like Answered...

erik · Post by **erik** » Mon Nov 25, 2013 2:12 pm

That's not necessarily a bottle neck. Just because we share a common ancestor doesn't mean there weren't a lot of other ancestors, even a lot of fecund ones. Just that one in particular had an unbroken line of female descendents.

And it isn't that a fossil was found. It was just a bit of mtDNA that every female has which means we share the same ancestor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Now M-Eve goes around 140-200kya, and I'm assuming Lago was asking about in more recent pre-history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

There's a theory (above) where bottleneck may have been down to around 15k or so people planetwide. And that would be lots of smaller bottlenecks spread out over the planet some of which would rejoin.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:22 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Exactly how bad was the human genetic bottleneck tens of thousands of years ago? I'm pretty sure we're not cheetah-level bad, but it's still pretty bad. So I hear.

Low thousands, possibly. And there is some evidence for multiple bottlenecks over a period of tens of thousands of years.

Regarding the elevator thing;

I got over sex a long time ago and would much rather solicit for casual cuddles, but I do understand that starting a conversation like that in a metal box can be seen as confrontational.

The thing is, men are idiots when it comes to dealing with women, by and large.

I wouldn't even say that's "rape culture" because the idea completely misses the point. It isn't about rape. It's about not having the socialization necessary to deal with that stuff in a mature and comfortable manner.

One thing that they do not teach you in public school is how to talk to women you're attracted to without coming off like a douchbag. If you can accomplish that it's either due to luck or natural talent.

The fact is that a lot of guys don't know how to talk to women so they fumble at it and they say stupid shit. This isn't a skill you're born with. It's one that has to be developed. And it's one our culture doesn't develop.

Movies don't help with that. When the heck is there ever a realistic relationship in a movie?

There are other places where most men are lacking, too. Like the ability to observe people and deduce how they'd respond to such a proposition. Because, really, observing people and actually drawing accurate conclusions based on their actions and body language is a learned skill.

I'd say that the world would be better off if there were how to date classes in high school.

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:37 pm

At one point we were down to just Noah, his wife, and his sons.

Meikle641 · Post by **Meikle641** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:58 pm

sabs wrote:At one point we were down to just Noah, his wife, and his sons.

Oh, you.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:11 pm

Got accused that my white guilt was showing, from a guy who frequently complains about how liberals just shout "that's racist" as a way to end conversations. I'm trying to think of a proper retort/response.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:28 pm

Um. Laughter seems appropriate.

radthemad4 · Post by **radthemad4** » Sun Dec 08, 2013 8:54 pm

hyzmarca wrote:The thing is, men are idiots when it comes to dealing with women, by and large.

I wouldn't even say that's "rape culture" because the idea completely misses the point. It isn't about rape. It's about not having the socialization necessary to deal with that stuff in a mature and comfortable manner.

One thing that they do not teach you in public school is how to talk to women you're attracted to without coming off like a douchbag. If you can accomplish that it's either due to luck or natural talent.

The fact is that a lot of guys don't know how to talk to women so they fumble at it and they say stupid shit. This isn't a skill you're born with. It's one that has to be developed. And it's one our culture doesn't develop.

Movies don't help with that. When the heck is there ever a realistic relationship in a movie?

There are other places where most men are lacking, too. Like the ability to observe people and deduce how they'd respond to such a proposition. Because, really, observing people and actually drawing accurate conclusions based on their actions and body language is a learned skill.

I'd say that the world would be better off if there were how to date classes in high school.

5 ways modern men are trained to hate women. The article's pretty good until number 1, when it gets kinda crazy. Still, I enjoyed the rest of it.

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 4:45 am

I really don't like that article. It's a lot of annoyingly antagonistic conjecture, using links to look legit while maintaining something in the range of 0-5% citations.

I'd read it for entertainment, but that stuff is about as logically consistent as Freudian psychology.

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:23 am

Does game theory or any other form of research or studies show the statistics on number of people who might "game" a system compared to the number who won't.

What if the gaming of the system is viewed as wrong or lazy but it is also more easily doable? Do the such factors change the number of people who game the system versus who don't.

TLDR reason for this is I've been baited into a facebook conversation about people gaming the American welfare system and they gave this radio interview (Mrconservative.com,radio caller record) as evidence why it (welfare) shouldn't exist.

The easy and the obvious rebuttal is that this is just one person taking advantage of the system and not at all an indictment of how welfare is horribly. I did start wondering if people had written anything using gaming theory or (really anything else) on my original question in this post.

If a game (welfare/government/whatever) exists and there are many ways to easily get easier results. A moral code also exists independent of the game/etc... that applies to a large percent of people that taking advantage of these easier results isn't really ethical. So, according to game theory, is there anything on how people would react?

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:41 am

Game theory can't tell you anything so specific as whole will game any particular system, or the numbers who will, because game theory will tell you that it is different depending on what the different people think they get out of it, and think their other options are.

Statistics and studies specifically related to welfare can give you actual fucking numbers that are relevant much more easily.

The answer is, probably not a fucking lot. The bottom line, game theory is premised on the idea that people pick between options. So right off the bat, anyone who couldn't get a job isn't going to choose welfare, because jobs pay way more money than welfare, and welfare is fucking harder to get than a job if you can get one. So you would have to be a weird ass kind of lazy asshole who is willing to do more work now in order to do less work later and get payed less.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:06 am

I don't think game theory tells you anything about what people will do, just what it is optimal for people to do.

erik · Post by **erik** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:10 am

http://benirwin.wordpress.com/2013/12/0 ... every-day/

Above is something to smack people who make shitty arguments about mistreating the poor or people on welfare.

People bringing up the rare and odd offenders of welfare are likely either a prisoner to, or exploiting the very human reaction to spite themselves in order to condemn objectionable behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequity_a ... ame_theory

I don't know if that's the game theory you're lookin for Cynic.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:11 am

I got a better response for you: It's bullshit. Some conservatard called up the radio station and made up a story so she could alert people to the evil people gaming the system.

You can listen to the rest of the story here (the broadcast is from October 30, Hour 1, at 8:30).

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:44 am

Yeah, it's important to know that most of the anecdotes about people abusing the social safety net that conservatives throw around are not only not "statistically significant," they are not true. It's just bullshit urban legends all the way down. If they actually knew about any of these supposed welfare queens cashing checks for fake children to pay for real cadilacs, they could just report them to the authorities. Because fraud is actually illegal and owing money to Uncle Sam is something the feds take seriously enough to put Al Capone in prison and force Nicholas Cage to make Season of the Witch.

So when conservatives rant about the "growing number" of people abusing child benefits, unemployment insurance, worker's comp, voter registration, medicaid, or whatever they have a bug up their ass about today, the correct answer is not to get bogged down in the nitty gritty. The correct choice is [citation needed]. The truth is, they have no idea what the number was "before" nor do they know what the number is now. And it's entirely possible that the number of people doing whatever the fuck they are complaining about today is literally zero. And it's almost certain that if it's actually higher than zero it is still within a rounding error of nothing.

-Username17

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:22 am

Medical-ish question for Frank:

When I get a cold/flu/etc (generally sinus/respiratory stuff, I guess), my scalp becomes really tender. Is there any particular reason for this?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:57 am

Prak_Anima wrote:Medical-ish question for Frank:

When I get a cold/flu/etc (generally sinus/respiratory stuff, I guess), my scalp becomes really tender. Is there any particular reason for this?

Generally speaking, sensitive skin, aching muscles, painful joints, and runny nose are non-specific symptoms of viral infections. A cold or flu could generate any or all of those symptoms without it really meaning anything - just the general discomfort that comes with the body's anti-virus system running.

If it's specifically your scalp or a patch on your scalp, it could mean that you have a low level chronic infection with something like a fungus or staph bacteria that flares up when your immune system is otherwise occupied. Or it could just mean that you regularly get sensitive skin with viral infections and your hair/hat/glasses are exacerbating the problem in the scalp area by rubbing (or your lack of hair/hat is exacerbating the problem by allowing sun exposure to sensitized skin with little melanin content).

Does the tender scalp come with redness, swelling, flaking, cracking, liquid discharge, foul odor, bleeding, scabbing, acne, pustules, or other visible or tactile features?

-Username17

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:06 pm

Maj: Thanks for the bullshit alert.

Everyone else: Thanks for teaching me about game theory and my own misconceptions about it.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:48 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:Does the tender scalp come with redness, swelling, flaking, cracking, liquid discharge, foul odor, bleeding, scabbing, acne, pustules, or other visible or tactile features?

-Username17

Not that I've noticed. I think it's always happened to me, through short and long hair.

Thanks Frank, was just curious about that.

Stahlseele · Post by **Stahlseele** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:45 pm

Other people get sick and run higher temperature because they get a fever . .
I get sick and my temperature drops below 36° Celsius for some reason . .
Yet, at the same time i feel uncomfortably hot and i am sweating like a pig x.x

I am guessing that ain't really normal, what's the probability of that becoming something of a problem for me?
This has been happening to me for several years by now, so probably nothing immediate i guess . .

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:48 pm

Stahlseele wrote:Other people get sick and run higher temperature because they get a fever . .
I get sick and my temperature drops below 36° Celsius for some reason . .
Yet, at the same time i feel uncomfortably hot and i am sweating like a pig x.x

I am guessing that ain't really normal, what's the probability of that becoming something of a problem for me?
This has been happening to me for several years by now, so probably nothing immediate i guess . .

Your personal feeling of heat and cold is your internal thermostat. During a cyclical fever, you will "feel cold" when your body is attempting to raise your temperature and "feel hot" when your body is attempting to lower your temperature. Thus, since your body is presumably capable of raising and lowering your temperature, you will "feel cold" when you objectively have a higher than normal temperature and "feel hot" when you objectively have a lower temperature.

-Username17

Stahlseele · Post by **Stahlseele** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:00 pm

hmm makes sense . .

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:58 pm

While we're on medical things, this isn't something that worries me, I just want to know what it is: the little lumps that occasionally form under the skin, they feel kind of hard and rubbery, and are probably a couple of mm across. I used to have one on a toe and it just went away, and I have one on my shoulder, which I think started back when I wore a heavy backpack and the straps rubbed and irritated the area. It doesn't cause pain, it doesn't stick out - I just feel it when washing my shoulders and it's simply "there".

As I said, I'm not worried that it's cancer or that it's a pearl and I'm turning into an oyster, I'm just curious as to what that most likely is.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:07 am

Alien tracking device.
Or possibly Australian fauna.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Tue Dec 10, 2013 5:39 am

You are slowly turning into a Shellder.Cloyster

reason for edit: I'm dumb.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Tue Dec 10, 2013 11:46 am

Obviously it's a tumor.

Of course, while people think "cancer" when the word "tumor" comes up, actually tumor just refers to any growth. So by definition, your tactile lump is a tumor. The vast majority of tumors are not cancer. In this case, we're talking about a small elevation of the skin that does not appear to be pus filled, so it would be a "papule."

It sounds like you're talking about either a growth of skin (in which case we're talking about a callous or wart) or fat tissue (in which case we're talking about a herniation of fat into the dermis). But it could be something more exciting like fibromatosis.

-Username17