In the News

Discussion of science, technology, politics, and other topics that aren't strictly philosophical.
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Post by Jason »

[DELETED]
Sorry avidaloca. Decided I don't want to get into this discussion now.
Last edited by Jason on Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Post by avidaloca »

I would argue that the vast majority of people don't believe they are capable of achieving anything they want.
I feel that people are built certain ways and they go in those directions partly with and partly without will. People who, not having the innate ability, have to strive for something, never achieve a great deal. If it comes fairly easily, there's something in that, and those people will often succeed to a high level. You never hear of creative people saying they strived for days to achieve something - it came quickly and naturally.

Of course people like Edison had a lot of so-called failed experiments before he came up with the electric light but each of those experiments itself was a success because he learnt something from it and even the activity of experimenting showed a gravitation to and skill with that creative pursuit.
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by Jamesh »

Looks like yet another avenue for masculine expression is on the way out.

CEOs will be more team players: study

The cult of the chief executive is on the way out over the next decade with the focus on the team rather than the individual, according to a new report.

The Boston Consulting Group's report - 2020 Vision, The Manager of the 21st Century - said senior executives will also see it as a personal challenge to bring women through the management ranks and retain them.

The study was carried out for Innovation and Business Skills Australia (IBSA) which believes it will have a strong influence on setting the agenda for future executives.

The report identifies major changes in the business environment up to 2020 including the likely globalisation of the services economy, a likely long-term structural labour shortage leading to much more flexible working environments and the end of the obsession with short-term shareholder value.

It also believes the age of the generalist manager will end with a new emphasis on leaders with a deep knowledge of their industry.

"Executives will need to become more team focused," the report said.

"The cult of the CEO, a world wide phenomenon of the last decade, is likely to decline, with greater focus on the team rather than the individual."

IBSA chairman John Vines said the study noted that the past decade had produced little progress in the status of women in the executive workplace.

"Over the next decade or so, successful executives will take on the personal challenge of bringing talented women into management ranks and keeping them there," Mr Vines said.

"Executives and companies will be increasingly measured on their success in retaining and promoting women."
hsandman
Posts: 520
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 6:25 pm

Post by hsandman »

DHodges wrote:Apparently al Qaeda does take responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, and is promising more to come :

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/ ... index.html
See what you make of this:

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/
It's just a ride.
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by Jamesh »

I would have never suspected such a high figure. 87%. geez the world is changing fast.


Virtual sex please, we're Canadians
February 14, 2006 - 11:01AM

Call it a sexual revolution of the virtual kind - young Canadians are practicing a new style of safe sex and the only touching required involves a keyboard.

Of more than 2500 university and college students polled across Canada, 87 per cent of them are having sex over instant messenger, webcams or the telephone, according to results of a national survey released on Monday.

"We were very surprised," Noah Gurza, a founder of Toronto-based CampusKiss.com, an online dating community for students, which commissioned the first annual Canadian CampusKiss & Tell Survey.

"We did realize that new technologies are always embraced by younger individuals, but we didn't think it would've reached such a high number."

Gurza said most post-secondary school students grew up using computer technology, and their lives currently revolve around technology, so it makes sense that it would extend to their sex lives.

"It's now extended within their sexual world, whether it be as a social lubricant as a means to then engage in something that's more real, in more real time, or if it's just a means in itself of pleasuring here and there," he said.

Some 2684 students from more than 150 university and college campuses across Canada took part in the survey. Fifty-one percent of the participates were female and 49 per cent were male.

Of those surveyed, 53 per cent of students enjoyed sex over instant messenger, while 44 per cent did the deed using a webcam and over the phone.

When it comes to having actual sex, 87 per cent of those polled claimed to be sober at the time. Ninety per cent of students who responded said their campus promotes and supports safe-sex practices.
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by Jamesh »

For those who don't vist TPG - this article is rather fascinating.
Certainly points to the need to minimise emotional reactions.


Emory Study Lights Up The Political Brain
When it comes to forming opinions and making judgments on hot political issues, partisans of both parties don't let facts get in the way of their decision-making, according to a new Emory University study. The research sheds light on why staunch Democrats and Republicans can hear the same information, but walk away with opposite conclusions.

The investigators used functional neuroimaging (fMRI) to study a sample of committed Democrats and Republicans during the three months prior to the U.S. Presidential election of 2004. The Democrats and Republicans were given a reasoning task in which they had to evaluate threatening information about their own candidate. During the task, the subjects underwent fMRI to see what parts of their brain were active. What the researchers found was striking.

"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," says Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory who led the study. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts." Westen and his colleagues will present their findings at the Annual Conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Jan. 28.

Once partisans had come to completely biased conclusions -- essentially finding ways to ignore information that could not be rationally discounted -- not only did circuits that mediate negative emotions like sadness and disgust turn off, but subjects got a blast of activation in circuits involved in reward -- similar to what addicts receive when they get their fix, Westen explains.

"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," says Westen. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones."

During the study, the partisans were given 18 sets of stimuli, six each regarding President George W. Bush, his challenger, Senator John Kerry, and politically neutral male control figures such as actor Tom Hanks. For each set of stimuli, partisans first read a statement from the target (Bush or Kerry). The first statement was followed by a second statement that documented a clear contradiction between the target's words and deeds, generally suggesting that the candidate was dishonest or pandering.

Next, partisans were asked to consider the discrepancy, and then to rate the extent to which the person's words and deeds were contradictory. Finally, they were presented with an exculpatory statement that might explain away the apparent contradiction, and asked to reconsider and again rate the extent to which the target's words and deeds were contradictory.

Behavioral data showed a pattern of emotionally biased reasoning: partisans denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate that they had no difficulty detecting in the opposing candidate. Importantly, in both their behavioral and neural responses, Republicans and Democrats did not differ in the way they responded to contradictions for the neutral control targets, such as Hanks, but Democrats responded to Kerry as Republicans responded to Bush.

While reasoning about apparent contradictions for their own candidate, partisans showed activations throughout the orbital frontal cortex, indicating emotional processing and presumably emotion regulation strategies. There also were activations in areas of the brain associated with the experience of unpleasant emotions, the processing of emotion and conflict, and judgments of forgiveness and moral accountability.

Notably absent were any increases in activation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with reasoning (as well as conscious efforts to suppress emotion). The finding suggests that the emotion-driven processes that lead to biased judgments likely occur outside of awareness, and are distinct from normal reasoning processes when emotion is not so heavily engaged, says Westen.

The investigators hypothesize that emotionally biased reasoning leads to the "stamping in" or reinforcement of a defensive belief, associating the participant's "revisionist" account of the data with positive emotion or relief and elimination of distress. "The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data," Westen says.

The study has potentially wide implications, from politics to business, and demonstrates that emotional bias can play a strong role in decision-making, Westen says. "Everyone from executives and judges to scientists and politicians may reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested interest in how to interpret 'the facts,' " Westen says.

Coauthors of the study include Pavel Blagov and Stephan Hamann of the Emory Department of Psychology, and Keith Harenski and Clint Kilts of the Emory Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 092225.htm
Lennyrizzo
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:35 am

Post by Lennyrizzo »

There are no surprises here for wise people.
They could have saved a shit-load of time and money simply by asking one.
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by Jamesh »

I just like seeing science support, down the track, what certain philosophers may have already said.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

I wonder if distractions or relaxations help in limiting the emotional confusion around a decision? Or this way I'd understand the following article, translating the term 'gut feeling' with a moment of not being completely occupied with superficial issues and suddenly the 'greater reason faculties' work for a brief moment, even if for egoistic goals.

'Follow your gut,' study advises on big decisions
Scientists have some remarkable new advice for anyone who is struggling to make a difficult decision: Stop thinking about it.

In a series of studies with shoppers and students, researchers found that people who face a decision with many considerations, such as what house to buy, often do not choose wisely if they spend a lot of time consciously weighing the pros and cons. Instead, the scientists conclude, the best strategy is to gather all of the relevant information -- such as the price, the number of bathrooms, the age of the roof -- and then put the decision out of mind for a while.

Then, when the time comes to decide, go with what feels right. ''It is much better to follow your gut," said Ap Dijksterhuis, a professor of psychology at the University of Amsterdam, who led the research.

For relatively simple decisions, he said, it is better to use the rational approach. But the conscious mind can consider only a few facts at a time. And so with complex decisions, he said, the unconscious appears to do a better job of weighing the factors and arriving at a sound conclusion.

The finding, published today in the journal Science, would have practical implications if borne out by further research.

This is because the new research challenges the conventional approach to making everyday choices that shape so much of life.

But the work is also important, scientists said, because it provides more evidence for a profound reconsideration of the nature of the human psyche.

After Freudian psychology, with its focus on repressed desires, fell out of favor, psychological research largely dismissed the idea that the unconscious played an important role in mental processes. More recently, though, in research popularized in Malcolm Gladwell's bestseller ''Blink," scientists have been finding evidence that the unconscious is not just relevant, but that it is smart.

''There is a bit of a revolution going on in psychology the way that we look at the unconscious," said Timothy Wilson, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia. ''It is a very different unconscious than Freud imagined."

''Blink" largely focused on snap judgments, such as deciding whether a couple was likely to divorce by watching them for a few moments.

But the Science article looked at what the researchers described as the ''deliberation-without-attention effect."

This was described as the power of the unconscious mind to process information and to mull through possibilities without the person being aware of it.

In one experiment, students were asked to pick one of four cars based on a list of positive and negative attributes. A description of each car's attributes was flashed on a computer screen for eight seconds, according to the paper.

First, the experimenters provided a simple choice, where each car had a list of just four attributes, some positive (''has good mileage") and some negative (''has poor leg room").

Half of the students were asked to think about their choice for four minutes. The other half were asked to do challenging, distracting puzzles for four minutes, preventing them from consciously considering the car options.

In this experiment, the conscious thinkers did a better job than the distracted students of selecting the best car, which was the only one with three positive characteristics; other cars in the experiment had fewer.

Next, the researchers did a similar experiment, but with a much more complicated choice: Each car was described with a list of 12 attributes rather than the four in the prior test.

This time the students who were not allowed to think consciously about the decision did a better job of selecting the car with the most positive attributes.

The results, Dijksterhuis said, underscored flaws in conscious decision-making. A person can pay attention to only a limited amount of information at once, which can lead people to focus on just a few factors and lose the bigger picture. The unconscious is better, he said, at integrating large amounts of information.

Another flaw, he said, is what he called a ''weighing problem." The conscious mind can weigh some factors too heavily, and discount others that are important.

For example, when people buy a house, they tend to put too much emphasis on its size, and not enough on their commute every day, he said. When working through a decision consciously, the mind has a tendency to focus on factors that are easy to articulate -- like the number of square feet -- at the expense of other factors that are hard to put into words.

To see whether what they had found in a lab applied in a more realistic setting, the researchers questioned shoppers. Via surveys, the team determined that people consider more factors when purchasing furniture than when purchasing kitchen accessories.

So they interviewed shoppers leaving a furniture store and a store that sells kitchen accessories. The shoppers were asked how much time they had thought about the product between seeing it and buying it. Later, the researchers contacted all the shoppers to ask how happy they were.

For shoppers who had bought kitchen accessories -- typically a simple choice -- those who had thought about their selection longer were found to be happier. But for the furniture -- a complicated choice -- those who had spent less time consciously considering their selection were said to be happier.

The implication is that for complex choices, once you have done a certain amount of thinking to gather relevant information, further thinking is counterproductive. Instead, busy yourself with other tasks, and let your unconscious work on the problem. (The study did not include data on people who shopped on impulse, spending little or no time gathering information on an item.)

Still, more work will need to be done to rule out other potential explanations for the data, scientists said. For example, it may be that shoppers who spend more time thinking about expensive purchases like furniture could be more critical people, and more apt to perceive problems with their purchases.

Luc Wathieu, an associate professor at the Harvard Business School, said that he is critical of the boom in research that questions the value of rational deliberation, and that he thinks there will turn out to be other explanations for the finding.

Wilson agreed that the research would be controversial, and predicted that it would spark a lot more work in the area. ''Like any great paper," he said, ''it raises more questions than it answers."

By Gareth Cook, Boston Globe Staff | February 17, 2006
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

Press Release

Dateline

How the US has learned to love the bomb (again)...
PREPARING FOR ARMAGEDDON –
AMERICA’S NEW NUCLEAR ERA


The United States is currently fighting hard to prevent weapons of mass destruction being obtained by countries such as Iran and North Korea. Despite this the United States has quietly begun a research program to completely redesign and rebuild its entire nuclear weapons stockpile.

On SBS DATELINE on Wednesday, March 1 at 8.30pm reporter Thom Cookes reports on the next stage in the arming of America – a program so secret that many American politicians remain ignorant of the details. Using recently declassified archival documents and film Thom Cookes reveals what will be involved in rearming America.

The Reliable Replacement Warhead project aims to completely replace the existing Cold War nuclear stockpile. The new generation of weapons are supposed to be cheaper to maintain, safer and more reliable. Hans Kristenson, a researcher from the Federation of American Scientists comments:

“(The) concept is not one warhead, it is a replacement of potentially all the warhead types in the stockpile…they are in the process of essentially gearing up to redo the nuclear era… they are designing a new nuclear era.”

In American nuclear research laboratories work has taken place on some extraordinary prototypes – weapons their developers believe could be used in a limited nuclear exchange, short of all-out war. After Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994 approval was given for weapons such as “the bunker buster’ and for “mini-nukes”.

The “bunker-buster” bomb was developed as a weapon capable of knocking out an enemy’s underground weapons’ laboratory or facility. General Eugene Habiger, the former head of US Strategic Command claims, “You are still going to get a massive plume of radioactive material that will kill tens of thousands or maybe millions of people, depending on where it I used.”

The “bunker buster” is stalled for now but determined lobbying from the Pentagon continues for its use and a move to replace the nuclear arsenal with smaller, more “user-friendly” weapons that could be used to fight the “War on Terror.” According to Habiger, “This is a mistake because what we are doing is developing a weapon that becomes more viable to use and nuclear weapons are so horrific that this does not make sense.”

The program includes remarkable footage including a nuclear weapon being fired from a recoilless rifle mounted on a jeep and the only nuclear weapon to be fired from a land-based cannon. It also shows navy special forces frogmen positioning mini-nuclear weapons on the seabed.
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by Jamesh »

Calif. Woman Spanked at Work Sues for $1.2M
Apr 26 7:43 PM US/Eastern

Lawyers for a woman who was spanked in front of her co-workers as part of what her employer said was a camaraderie-building exercise asked a jury Wednesday for at least $1.2 million for the humiliation she claimed to have suffered.

Janet Orlando, 53, quit her job at the home security company Alarm One Inc. and sued, alleging discrimination, assault, battery and infliction of emotional distress.

Employees were paddled with rival companies' yard signs as part of a contest that pitted sales teams against each other, according to court documents. The winners poked fun at the losers, throwing pies at them, feeding them baby food, making them wear diapers and swatting their buttocks.

"No reasonable middle-aged woman would want to be put up there before a group of young men, turned around to show her buttocks, get spanked and called abusive names, and told it was to increase sales and motivate employees," her lawyer, Nicholas "Butch" Wagner, said in his closing argument.

Lawyers for Alarm One, an Anaheim-based, 300-employee company, said the spankings were part of a voluntary program to build camaraderie and were not discriminatory because they were given to both male and female workers.

"This is being done for one reason and one reason only _ money," said K. Poncho Baker, the company's lawyer.

Alarm One officials ceased the practice in 2004, the year Orlando sued, after another employee complained of being injured, according to court records.
=================================

The pathetic New World Order. While I don't give a damn about the woman sueing, she is just after retirement money, the actual exercises were designed to maximise herdiness and competition, and it appears everyone went along with it, all for the sake of money for themselves and the company.

Talk about business making animals out of people! - and this is just the start as global competition from large developing countries really starts to ramp up - but where will it end?
sschaula
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:16 am
Location: USA

Post by sschaula »

Who cares? "THAT IS HERDINESS!" Point your finger at yourself for coming to this board and condemning "herdiness". This has nothing to do with herdiness. Herdiness is when people come together because they lack a sense of self, or because they have an overwhelming false sense of self. This is just a company's game to make more money by motivating small groups. If you think these people are "herdier" than yourself, think again. You have no idea who they are beyond that woman who is sueing, and you hardly know her. Hell, if she went along with the games, she is pretty herdy and shouldn't even be considered for a case (in a rational world).

Instead of ranting about herdiness you should've been ranting about how the judicial system is retarded.
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by Jamesh »

This has nothing to do with herdiness

Having a bad day are we?

Of course it has to do with herdiness. Would an individual submit to such actions - No. Point the finger at your own herdiness - you were the one who went and joined the army or something weren't you. The army uses similar tactics as the above to develop a sense of group cohession and Us against Them mindsets.

My interest in individualism has to do with evolution. The more organised we become the more I think we'll end up like big ants. Ants are a near perfect representation of the ultimate that evolution can achieve - success to the point of reaching evolutionary stability. If we all conform to what business wants then we'll end up the same -specialised units that can only do what they are programmed to do - serve the queen.
sschaula
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:16 am
Location: USA

Post by sschaula »

Lets look at this logically.

I joined the Army.
The Army uses group cohesion tactics.
Therefore, I am herdy?

You say we will become like ants. I have no idea where you're going with that.
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by Jamesh »

Lets look at this logically.
I joined the Army.
The Army uses group cohesion tactics.
Therefore, I am herdy?


Yeah, I knew the logic was a bit warped, but such activity does indicate a stronger probability of herdiness. On the other hand, I do have a feeling that you joined the army mostly to make yourself more masculine, which is fine, though you were a strongish supporter of the war at that time.

You say we will become like ants. I have no idea where you're going with that.

I think that, if we survive our technology and greed, that we could become the human equivalent of ants, yes I do. It would take hours for me to explain of the reasoning behind this, and I'm not going to bother doing that.

Some starter ideas are.

More organisation requires more conformity.

More conformity requires conformity to average common denominators.

More organisation requires more specialisation.

The volitility of masculinity no longer being accepted by women and business - currently being ground into nothingness

Men and women are moving apart sexually (over the last year or so I've read/heard about 3-4 women say that they are thinking of trying lesbian relationships.

Both sexes becoming sexually mentally androgenous.

Destruction of family groups due to more opportunity for greed to be exercised

More freedom generally which will have the effect of heavy Big Brother type policing. Traditional masculine activities attacked relentlessly.

Women beating men for positions of control due to better conformity to globalised company profit desires, better communication skills, multitasking skills - eventually cutting men out of these positions.

Women getting political control and pushing policing ever further.

Women in leadership positions fighting for total matriachical control amongst each other.

Some woman eventually getting world control - via the peace train and backstabbing.

Womens dominance becoming hardened over time. Queendom reigns. Mental feminity becomes the norm.
sschaula
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:16 am
Location: USA

Post by sschaula »

You should have some faith in God.
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by Jamesh »

Scientific Success: What’s Love Got to Do With It?

Does marriage sink a scientific career or send it soaring?

Several years ago, Satoshi Kanazawa, then a psychologist at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand, analyzed a biographical database of 280 great scientists--mathematicians, physicists, chemists, and biologists. When he calculated the age of each scientist at the peak of his career--the sample was predominantly male--Kanazawa noted an interesting trend. After a crest during the third decade of life, scientific productivity--as evidenced by major discoveries and publications--fell off dramatically with age. When he looked at the marital history of the sample, he found that the decline in productivity was less severe among men who had never been married. As a group, unmarried scientists continued to achieve well into their late 50s, and their rates of decline were slower.

"The productivity of male scientists tends to drop right after marriage," says Kanazawa in an e-mail interview from his current office at the London School of Economics and Political Science in the United Kingdom. "Scientists tend to 'desist' from scientific research upon marriage, just like criminals desist from crime upon marriage."

Kanazawa's perhaps controversial perspective is that of an evolutionary psychologist. "Men conduct scientific research (or do anything else) in order to attract women and get married (albeit unconsciously)," he says. "What’s the point of doing science (or anything else) if one is already married? Marriage (or, more accurately reproductive success, which men can usually attain only through marriage) is the goal; science or anything else men do is but a means. From my perspective, scientists are no different than anybody else; evolutionary psychology applies to all humans equally," he adds.

According to a recent article in the German newspaper Die Zeit, it’s not only finding a partner but also starting a family that is made more difficult by a scientific career. The article reported on a study of scientists ranging from doctoral students to assistant professors. It found that a whopping 73% of 37- to 42-year-olds had no children. Explaining the phenomenon, the article noted that it is so difficult for scientists to find a permanent position in Germany that those below the age of 40 are often forced to take short-term employment without any financial or residential stability.



The Simpsons as philosophy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4995624.stm

The Simpsons is more than a funny cartoon - it reveals truths about human nature that rival the observations of great philosophers from Plato to Kant... while Homer sets his house on fire, says philosopher Julian Baggini.
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by Jamesh »

Iran Awakening: A Memoir of Revolution and Hope

http://www.powells.com/review/2006_06_01

Quite an interesting article about Iran (after the first 5-6 paras anyway). Some good facts I wasn't aware of.
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by Jamesh »

An particularly good optical illusion

http://www.johnsadowski.com/big_spanish_castle.html
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Post by Jason »

Another great optical illusion(believe it or not they are NOT really moving):

Rotating Snakes
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

Jamesh wrote:An particularly good optical illusion

http://www.johnsadowski.com/big_spanish_castle.html
That didn't work for me at all. The sky looked slightly blue and that's all.

<yawn>
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

Jason wrote:Another great optical illusion(believe it or not they are NOT really moving):

Rotating Snakes
They didn't move for me at all. What are you supposed to do?
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Post by Jason »

drowden wrote:
Jason wrote:Another great optical illusion(believe it or not they are NOT really moving):

Rotating Snakes
They didn't move for me at all. What are you supposed to do?
That's weird everyone else I have shown can see it. All you have to do is look at the picture and the circles appear to rotate. Scanning your eyes across the image a bit can help, maybe try this alternate version:

Rotating Snakes2

Try this it's kind of similar, but this appears to move horizontally instead of rotating, you just look at it, scan your eyes across it a bit:

donguriko
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by Jamesh »

That didn't work for me at all. The sky looked slightly blue and that's all.

<yawn>


Fuck you are a boring old cyclops. It worked for me, not that the colours were strong, they were a bit like a faded old photo.

What does not bore you I wonder? I can't think of anything - what "truth" you may know becomes boring once you know it.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

What can I say, insipid shit bores me. Small things; small minds, as they say. That second snake thing did actually work, but not to an extent that made it interesting.

The "dondunko" thing didn't work for me either. Don't you have anything that involves naked breasts? You know, something actually interesting....


Dan Rowden
Locked