Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

lor6

Moderators
  • Content count

    9,557
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by lor6

  1. A recent article discusses a study done on 81 valedictorians and their later professional trajectory. Unsurprisingly, most of them have decent professional careers. But the question that initiated the study was how many of them go on to make a significant impact on the world, and the answer seems to be pretty much none. A few excerpts from the article: My proposed theme of speculation is what is the purpose of grades. If it is indeed only to reward conscientiousness and create decent workers, then they would appear to be working well. But what does it mean then that institutions of learning are not the path to greatness, not even for those who excel in them? Is there a problem to look into here, or should we just accept that formal education has limitations?
  2. Reading this thread is making "nice guys" and guys who criticize them in a 'I am MAN, hear me ROAR" fashion sound like two sides of the same equally undesirable coin.
  3. 4-5/10 objectively. Would rate myself much higher subjectively. I think I have some opposite form of BDD.
  4. Dude, chill. This is a garbage thread attacking a strawman. The OP meant it as a joke, but I can see why you're confused: it's not very funny. They never are.
  5. Maybe it depends on the environment? Most people I've known in the last few years are doing pretty well.
  6. They don't. Your model friend probably gets attention because she has a beautiful face. The 'healthy weight' women you know are probably not that beautiful, regardless of their weight. You sound a little judgemental, so my guess is the model friend is thin but not extremely so, and the normal weight women you're thinking of are overweight.
  7. Generally, neither have sufficient insight into the others' perspective. I, however, have more than enough insight into both and should therefore be elected ruler post-haste.
  8. Yes and no. In theory, yes. In practice, reality rarely lives up to their expectations so they happily settle for less because they don't tolerate the uncertainty well.
  9. I attended a similar event for 8th grade graduation, before highschool. We were 14 at the time. First and last prom I ever attended. It was not a bring-a-date type of event. I did not buy an outfit special for this event, I just wore something I already had. It was ok, but no, I don't think anyone is missing out on much by missing the event itself. It's only fun if you have a group of friends to hang out with, but that would be fun anywhere else too. What I do regret missing out on in college was all the socialization that happened around it. People spent a lot of time discussing it before the event, then sharing pictures afterwards. It was a bit sad at the time to feel left out of.
  10. Yes, I have. I'm not disputing that ASD people gravitate towards STEM, I'm saying that doesn't mean that STEM is primarily populated by people on the spectrum or even to a significant degree. Even if your theory is true, it would only account for a small percentage of the gender disparity.
  11. Ouch. The vast majority of people in STEM are not on the spectrum. From my experience, most are not even socially awkward.
  12. In this case, there is a normative where it seems biologists and sociologists have agreed upon. You seem to be the only one so far who's stuck with century old definitions, so I'm going to say you're the one with the problem.
  13. The posted is a biological text where the term "sex" is used using my definition, not yours. If we substitute in your 100 year old definition, it renders the text illegible.
  14. What are you talking about? He asked you a simple question. By substituting your definition of sex in a biological text, does it make sense or not: ???
  15. Yes, but it's difficult even then to say which thing came naturally just to you and which came naturally because of your gender. It's difficult to determine the two sets of differences and in some cases all we have is intuition. There is such a thing as reasoning.
  16. Definitely not. I'm not capable of lying to myself about my flaws, nor is there much evidence from those around that I would be. So it seems like my feeling coincides with reality.
  17. Language changes. Even the agreed upon scientific theories change. And that's beside the point anyway. There are two different concepts here, regardless of what you call them.
  18. Yes, clearly those people are the vicious ones who can't stand having their beliefs challenged:
  19. Yes, that's the definition of the term. "Sex" includes the biological differences, and "gender" denotes the socially constructed differences. For example, the fact that men tend to be taller than women is a biological difference, while the fact that men wear pants and women wear skirts is a socially constructed difference. Your confusion comes from the fact that you are using the terms interchangeably, which is fine in contexts where the difference is not essential, but definitely a problem in a context such as a sociological discussion where behavior is studied. Now the bigger point of disagreement is which differences are biological and which are social, but that's a very long discussion.
  20. I act like I resent it because I think it's polite, but I actually like it.
  21. I haven't found this to be true in my experience. I would say the majority of women I've encountered in tech were there because they heard the pay is decent or they like the prestige of the field or even to prove that girls can do it. The good ones almost always have a love and knack for it, but that goes for both men and women. I don't think it's relevant to compare the performance of a small group of women to a much larger group of men. Overall, I've never heard a good answer to the question of why we should have more women in technology or science. I believe initiatives with this purpose not only bring the competence of women workers under question, but also risk undermining the field by potentially letting less qualified people in, and in a more subtle way by subverting many of the traits that make a good technologist: initiative, autonomy, curiosity, self-learning.
  22. I wish. At least where I'm from, they almost never come from the shop floor. Their main job responsibility seems to be forwarding emails to the technical people, waiting for them to solve the problem, then emailing back that the problem has been solved. Reminds me of a PM joke:
  23. Eh, I don't think this would make much of a difference. The main factor would remain someone's interest in the topic being communicated. If people aren't interested in a certain field in the first place, they're probably not going to find the jokes funny anyway. Not to mention these days the bar for conferences seems to be very low. There's one for every field under the sun and it's not difficult to set up.
  24. Just the one.