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.

Vagrant

Core Member
  • Content count

    6,554
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Vagrant

  • Rank
    Core Member

Personality

  • MBTI
    INTJ
  • Enneagram
    sx5w4
  • Global 5/SLOAN
    Inquis/RCOEI
  • Astrology Sign
    Leo
  • Personal DNA
    Reserved Analyst
  • Brain Dominance
    Right

Converted

  • Homepage
    http://forums.xgenstudios.com
  • Biography
    Have BS in Biology, MA in Teaching.
  • Location
    University of Arizona
  • Occupation
    Educator
  • Interests
    Biology, firearms, racquetball, photography, games, and women.
  • Gender
    Male
  • Personal Text
    Bananaphone. Boop boop boo-doo-ba-doop!
  1. YOU. You're still on here? hehe

  2. Haven't seen you in a while. There is some discussion about multiple sources of early life in a evolution thread. Interested in giving your 2 cents?

  3. The article reads like somebody trying to confuse people's understandings of science and consensus rather than the actual science. Boring and it's been done a million times already. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change You'll notice most organizations or people who dissent or are non-committal tend to have a relationship to oil interests.
  4. Anal, really. Otherwise not too much of a difference. You just try to keep your eyes off of it, and focus on nipple-play/biting.
  5. It's not bad. She's not the prettiest girl in the world (who is?) but she's definitely attractive in my opinion. My only complaint about her appearance (besides the obvious genital thing) is her chin is not well-defined, but that runs in her family. Really, if you want a good estimate how a person will look trans, look at their parents (she looks like a younger, healthier version of her mom). Besides the sex, everything else is pretty much the same as dating a non-trans girl. She's fun, she likes to go out dancing, she's a typical ENFP female. Oh, @translate, do you need to continue taking hormones after surgery?
  6. Imagine for a moment you're trapped in a body that isn't yours. Say you're stuck in a robot suit. You find the robot suit ugly, limited (no genitals, limited movement, etc), and just all-around frustrating because it's not you. You look in the mirror and find yourself hideous. Everybody treats you in a way you don't like because of the robot suit. I hope that can illustrate the point. I'm not transgender myself, but the way my girlfriend (who is transgender) has described it is like that. It's not just that they're dissatisfied with their genitals. It's that they are dissatisfied with their body as a whole because it doesn't feel like it is their body.
  7. Have you done SRS? How well did it work? I'm curious because my girlfriend is a pre-op MTF.
  8. The original map was destroyed, so in case you want to do it again, answer to the INTJf map thread, please.

  9. I don't think so, unless there were some novel positive mutations that were visible (IE much faster cellular regeneration). Highly unlikely to be able to tell that he was from the future based on DNA alone. I know what you mean. A good researcher has a lot of patience and is capable of doing menial tasks repeatedly, as well as noting down those menial tasks. They should know what they are doing and why they're doing it (in the bigger picture of things). They should be aware of any confounding variables. Undergraduates and grad students typically get stuck with the more menial tasks of gathering data, whereas the Ph.D's get the "joy" of analyzing the data, drawing correlations, and writing for grants. Ph.D students have to both gather the data and analyze it (not an easy task), in addition to writing for grants. As for research experience, it's not that difficult. For about a half a year, I worked in a laboratory that was studying ants. I also worked at Biosphere 2 for two years. What graduate schools are looking for are glowing letters of recommendation from your boss or professor saying that you know what you're doing and you have a good attitude about it.
  10. I still don't think it's a good concept. Sure, there are some obvious genetic defects like Down's Syndrome and you could try to genotype everybody (a very expensive process). But eugenics as a concept is very risky because it involves purposely lowering genetic diversity.
  11. Evolutionary psychology is a tricky subject. Some behaviors can be proven to be genetic via repeated testing, but these are usually simple behaviors (for example, reflexes and instinctive behaviors such as babies crying). If a behavior is genetic, that suggests it had an evolutionary reason to exist. The tricky parts come when you get into more subtle aspects of human behavior. For example, people can become proficient at using a spear twice as fast (or faster) than they can become proficient at using any other simple melee weapon (IE swords, hammers, knives, etc). But is that genetic? Or is it that spear use is just easy in general? And separating those questions out is near impossible to do in any kind of clinical trial, especially since animals can't do most of the things we can do due to their physical limitations (can't give a dolphin a spear). And that's where the real issue with evolutionary psychology comes from -- it makes a lot of propositions without being able to test them. For it to truly be science, it must be testable and repeatable. No, they can't. The thing most people assume is that every generation is getting stupider. This is hardly the case. Additionally, people also assume that the genetics of a smart person are more valuable than the genetics of a dumb person. As I've pointed out in the past, this is the difference between genotypic variation and phenotypic variation. Gray wolves are not phenotypically diverse, but they are where all the genes for our different breeds of dogs come from. Gray wolves are genotypically diverse, not phenotypically diverse. A stupid person may actually have the genes necessary for a highly intelligent individual, and vice versa. They just happened to get a good or bad dice roll. This is why most geneticists refer to the idea of "regression to the mean." The average population intelligence will generally stay the same unless there is a strong evolutionary pressure one way or the other, and it'd be difficult to create an evolutionary pressure to make us stupid, as we suck in pretty much every other way besides our intelligence (weak, fragile, suck at running, no natural defenses, hairless, etc). This is where Eugenics as a concept truly fails -- it only looks at phenotypes and assumes that the genetics must be designed exactly for the phenotype. Eugenics ignores the potential of recombination. And yes, perfectly normal people can actually come from a mentally retarded couple (even with genetic aberrations such as trisomy). There's a lot of competing theories about why allergies are more common today, and the best I've heard hinges on the fact that women tend to have allergies more commonly, and also more strongly. The difference between men and women is that men are more frequently exposed to different allergens when they're young. Playing in the dirt actually seems to make the immune system better at handling those allergens (at least while you're still young). The allergies issue is most likely environmental in cause, not genetic. Thus an evolutionary psychologist wouldn't be able to touch it. The interesting thing about introns is sometimes they can be exons. This allows the same gene to be used in multiple different ways. Introns are also sometimes the result of a gene duplication event where they were switched off to form a new gene. I don't, however, see how that relates to evolutionary psychology at all. I agree in a lot of respects to what you say here. Evolutionary psychologists tend to make a lot of propositions about human behaviors that are not testable in any kind of controlled way. Evolutionary psychology can work with simpler animals who don't possess our sentience, as almost all of their behavior is governed by the environment or their genetics, and it is possible to remove almost all the environment for testing with animals. But you can't make that stretch to adult humans from animals -- many of our behaviors can be completely novel because we possess the ability to think in the abstract. You can do it with early childhood behaviors, however. Young toddlers demonstrate unlearned abilities and reflexes (babies cry when they need something, babies will bite down on anything placed into their mouth, babies understand some basic physics, and even simple math with numbers no greater than 3 [the research into this is cool], etc). If they know these skills without anyone teaching them, it suggests a genetic basis and therefore an evolutionary basis.
  12. thanks for the post, i find genetics fascinating regardless of my elementary understanding of the topic. My "intelligent design" theory was a shot in the dark, no evidence to support it.

  13. It really is astounding watching non-scientists attempt to discuss science. Protip guys: Standard deviations.
  14. Just pointing out that this thread title presumes both females and ESFPs are bad at math. Which is a tad bit prejudiced.