I just want there to be more of a reason behind the violence. In fact, one of the most important sections in the book is possibly its most violent, but its existence is crucial to understanding the evils of the world Kovacs lives in. I'm talking about the scene in which our protagonist is re-sleeved into the body of a woman on her period. During a heightened sensory experience for the character, Kovacs is mercilessly tortured. In a sadistic upending of our preconceived notions regarding the apparent benefits or desires of immortality, Morgan provides a disturbing example of how the utopian ideal of eternal life can be twisted and turned into a dark tool of dystopian destruction, imparting a misery far worse than death.
The Netflix series needs to focus more on these challenging and unique aspects of violence in "Altered Carbon" and less on the fight scenes, which offer nothing new and say very little. The problem with the book's sex scenes isn't that they're not particularly sexy, which isn't a great start. Their worst crime is that they often made me laugh. Maybe it's my British prudishness, but I kept smirking any moment things began to get a little steamy, with Morgan's awkward prose reminding me ever so slightly of Giles Coren's infamous " Zorro " performance.
Of course, sex is notoriously hard to get right in print and a part of me feels there's a certain amount of unfairness in my ribbing of Morgan on this. Many great writers have failed to capture the magic of love-making. He's in good company. But a fair warning to those who have yet to read the novel: There's probably more sex than you're expecting.
And it's very detailed. Perhaps it's the detail that throws me off. Descriptions like "elusive globes" for a woman's chest and "heated globes" for her buttocks just crack me up. And then there are the unexpected specifics, like this: "Bancroft nudged at it with her nose. While we're on the subject of sex, Kovacs' leering needs to go. Lines like these make him seem horribly creepy:. Exuberant breasts strained the fabric of the leotard. She stood facing me, flushed, breasts rising and falling distractingly. With each step Mrs Bancroft's breasts jiggled under the thin material of the leotard.
Why not just, "The girl"? I get that this plays into the noir-fiction homage, but I daresay that leering and objectification can be safely dropped in without sacrificing the core of Kovacs' character or the essential elements that make the noir motif so fun to begin with. Whether the series can live up to the book's greatest moments and play down its occasional failures, only time will tell. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, girls are still six times as likely as boys to drop off sports teams, with the steepest decline in participation coming during adolescence.
The Hidden Dangers in Your Phone Number
This is probably because girls suffer a larger decrease in self-esteem during that time than do boys. What a vicious circle: girls lose confidence, so they quit competing, thereby depriving themselves of one of the best ways to regain it. They leave school crammed full of interesting historical facts and elegant Spanish subjunctives, proud of their ability to study hard and get the best grades, and determined to please. The requirements for adult success are different, and their confidence takes a beating. Consider the following tale of two employees. Our friend often found herself shooting down his ideas, correcting his misperceptions, and sending him off for further research.
Rebecca still made appointments to speak with her and always prepared a list of issues for their discussions. She was mostly quiet in meetings with clients, focused as she was on taking careful notes. She never blurted out her ideas; she wrote them up with comprehensive analyses of pros and cons. She admired his willingness to be wrong and his ability to absorb criticism without being discouraged. Rebecca, by contrast, took negative feedback hard, sometimes responding with tears and a trip to her own office to collect herself before the conversation could continue. Which is why any discussion of this subject requires a major caveat.
Best Romance Novels Ever - Sexy Books to Read
The more a woman succeeds, the worse the vitriol seems to get. Back at the Yale School of Management, Victoria Brescoll has tested the thesis that the more senior a woman is, the more she makes a conscious effort to play down her volubility—the reverse of how most men handle power. In the first of two experiments, she asked participants, both men and women, to imagine themselves as either the most senior figure or the most junior figure in a meeting. The result: both sexes viewed this woman as significantly less competent and less suited to leadership than a male CEO who talked for the same amount of time.
When the female CEO was described as talking less than others, her perceived competency shot up. So confident women can find themselves in a catch For now, though, for Rebecca and for most women, coming across as too confident is not the problem. When we embarked on this quest two years ago, we had a slight conflict of interest. As journalists, we were exhilarated by the puzzle of why high-achieving women were so lacking in confidence, but as women, we grew gloomy. Delving into research and interviews, we more than once found ourselves wondering whether the entire female sex was doomed to feel less than self-assured.
But as our understanding of this elusive quality shifted, we began to see the outlines of a remedy. Confidence is not, as we once believed, just feeling good about yourself. Perhaps the clearest, and most useful, definition of confidence we came across was the one supplied by Richard Petty, a psychology professor at Ohio State University, who has spent decades focused on the subject. Anger, intelligence, creativity can play a role.
It is the factor that turns thoughts into judgments about what we are capable of, and that then transforms those judgments into action. The simplicity is compelling, and the notion that confidence and action are interrelated suggests a virtuous circle. So confidence accumulates—through hard work, through success, and even through failure. He was testing a couple of things—the idea that confidence can be manipulated and the idea that, in some areas, women have less of it than men. When Estes had the students solve a series of these spatial puzzles, the women scored measurably worse than the men did.
So he repeated the experiment, this time telling the students they had to at least try to solve all the puzzles. Yet also hopeful. Using a different test, Estes asked everyone to answer every question. Both the men and the women got 80 percent right, suggesting identical ability levels. He then tested the students again and asked them, after each question, to report their confidence in their answer. Just having to think about whether they felt certain of their answer changed their ability to do well.
Finally, Estes decided to attempt a direct confidence boost. He told some members of the group, completely at random, that they had done very well on the previous test. On the next test they took, those men and women improved their scores dramatically. It was a clear measure of how confidence can be self-perpetuating. These results could not be more relevant to understanding the confidence gap, and figuring out how to close it. They were as able as the men were. What held them back was the choice they made not to try.
The advice implicit in such findings is hardly unfamiliar: to become more confident, women need to stop thinking so much and just act. And yet, there is something very powerful about this prescription, aligning as it does with everything research tells us about the sources of female reticence. Almost daily, new evidence emerges of just how much our brains can change over the course of our lives, in response to shifting thought patterns and behavior.
If we keep at it, if we channel our talent for hard work, we can make our brains more confidence-prone. What the neuroscientists call plasticity , we call hope.
Giving out your number may seem fairly innocuous, but it can have big consequences. The commander in chief is impulsive, disdains expertise, and gets his intelligence briefings from Fox News. What does this mean for those on the front lines? For most of the past two decades, American troops have been deployed all over the world—to about countries. During that time, hundreds of thousands of young men and women have experienced combat, and a generation of officers have come of age dealing with the practical realities of war.
They possess a deep well of knowledge and experience. For the past three years, these highly trained professionals have been commanded by Donald Trump. To get a sense of what serving Trump has been like, I interviewed officers up and down the ranks, as well as several present and former civilian Pentagon employees. Among the officers I spoke with were four of the highest ranks—three or four stars—all recently retired.
All but one served Trump directly; the other left the service shortly before Trump was inaugurated. Last Thursday, Donald Trump said something that, on its face, seemed inexplicably self-defeating. Already under attack for having asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, he publicly asked China to do the same. The majority of Republican voters and politicians still oppose his impeachment. His China comments may even prove politically shrewd. Research into the psychology of secrecy and confidence helps explain why. The arguments build a steel hull around the president, attempting to keep the rising tide of probes from getting him wet by closing off every angle for investigation.
But like the similarly unsinkable Titanic, this legal edifice hit an iceberg on a trip to Manhattan. On a third-down play last season, the Washington Redskins quarterback Alex Smith stood in shotgun formation, five yards behind the line of scrimmage. As he called his signals, a Houston Texans cornerback, Kareem Jackson, suddenly sprinted forward from a position four yards behind the defensive line.
Geopolitics is a contest of bad ideas. The great virtue of Twitter is that it forces users to be concise. One downside is that when an extremely powerful crazy person —the president of the United States, say—uses it, he can sound a bit like the Abrahamic God in one of his more wrathful moments. The subject of this tweet, Turkey, had just hours before been the unconditional beneficiary of a sickening desertion by the United States. Late last night, the White House issued a statement confirming that the United States would stand by while Turkey asserted control over northern Syria—including territory controlled by the Kurds, who have been integral to the anti—Islamic State coalition.
Turkey has consistently promised to strangle any Kurdish state before it becomes permanent. Apparently Trump assented to the Turkish position, and in a hurry to extricate America from northern Syria, abandoned the Kurds to the mercies of their most powerful enemy. Tired and frustrated, trust in each other all but gone, Britain and the European Union are on the brink of throwing away three years of painstaking work setting out the terms of their separation over a fundamental—and important—point of principle that both sides refuse to abandon: sovereignty.
Should a divorce deal not be reached, Prime Minister Boris Johnson would likely have to ask the EU for a further delay to Brexit, meaning the election would almost certainly take place before the split has happened. On the latest episode, the show departed from its dependence on guest stars to deliver a fresh, hilarious take on stereotypes. When the perpetrator of a gas-station robbery turned out to be white, the black anchors cheered.
The newscast then swiftly turned into a ferocious competition: With every crime, the foursome anticipated the race of the culprit. And with every reveal, the group found their expectations subverted. Starting with his debut in Batman No. While always sporting his signature clown makeup, he functioned first as a gangland spree killer in the s, and was then softened to more of a gimmicky nuisance in the s. User interface design in regards to advanced technology How does that pertain to sociology, or even psychology for that matter?
Like all things aesthetic, it's entirely subjective and prone to trend. Are saying that fashion is a science, too, now? Statistics alone a science doesn't make. Look up the word pareidolia. Dear coffeedude, Take your medication before hitting the "Submit" button. Love, The Internet. Skeptic Heretic. Hello, non sequitur. This doesn't make sense in any context. What were you getting at? His answer is a forgone conclusion. Regulation was not necessary.
It was a way for political entrepreneurs to control their competition. Now it's conspiracy theories? I've lost interest. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about and cannot attempt to continue this discussion without the crutch of Google. Come back when you've gotten a basic grasp of reconstruction to pre-cold war history, thanks. In the experience of this Mensa level IQ, most low IQ people think they are alot smarter than they are, and most higher IQ people realize that there is alot that they don't know. I suspect the author of this article is in the former category, and not the latter.
I left the board to do some work and look what the crazy hateful left put on the board. Anyone here who thinks this article and research was well done, is a hard wing leftist nut job with a very low IQ which no amount of facts can convince them otherwise. Leftists are like spoiled children, they think they are the center of the world and need to be told they are the center of the world, they have an innate desire to bully, they have to show how smart they are by using foul language. The major problem with the left is that they believe everyone one is like them, they think everyone is corrupt, lazy, and ignorant.
Conservatives want to be liked and they have a tendency to back down to bullies as they want to be liked. Generalization I know, but seeing the reaction on this board and in my life, very true. Stop feeding the troll. AI3, how about we say most smart people realize that there is a lot they dont know, and dumb people dont know how much they dont know. I am clapping for everyone who can pass tests and has designed all sorts of smart sounding stuff. I too have taken the magic potion that allows me to pass tests and use large words.
That being said a school system may call me smart, however I have done many stupid things. There are tons of things that other people who are "dumb" just know way more about than me. For instance you can tell by my posts I suck at writing. Everyone is interested in something and that is where most people's knowledge lies.
Some people are interested on what celebrity's ex is doing what. They aren't really "stupid". They just spent their time reading about gossip. I think space is awesome. I read about it a lot. We both did the same thing but because the topic I was interested in is considered "smart" so am I. And people I said it earlier but i'll say it again. They are all what you make of them. You may have a preference but it is just that. Feb 26, Well lets consider this. On a previous post, it was stated doctors engineers scientists etc. Confucius, Diagoras bc approx , so not new.
Most studied very hard for what they know and will never be exceptional as those listed. But there are those that stand out very notably from the crowd and all of them had one thing in common besides their brains. They all went against normal beliefs and gained notoriety in what they did. What on earth makes you think those people listed were atheist or agnostic? Frink Socialism and liberalism are almost exact opposites anarchy would be the exact opposite. This is not up for discussion, this is the very definition of the two ideologies.
While the socialist wants a totalitarian government that governs all organs of society the liberal wants the government to be almost nonexistent and to only cover law enforcement, judicial system and national defenses and according to the liberal everything else should be controlled by market demands in a completely capitalistic system. You're probably confusing liberalism with libertarianism or social liberalism. These are compromised forms of liberalism and are absolutely not to be counted as liberalism, because they fatally try to mix planned economy with market economy -- causing private entities to undermine governmental entities and vice versa -- back and forth, until the model breaks and one of the markets is finally dominant.
Only leftist can say NO Style of Government is the best. Therefore we cant say Hitlers government was bad, Stalins government was bad, Maos government was bad. Who cares if their government killed hundreds of millions. The Dunning-Kruger Effect. What a load of crap! This "study" stinks of "research" that is insultingly biased and based on an insecure personal agenda. Take a breather everybody. These statistics show the case for the average person. If you are conservative and religious but are cruising physorg, you are probably smarter than the average person. This is not an attack on any one individual.
Feb 27, Wow, a whole six points difference. What's the margin of error on IQ tests again? More than six points? Well, I'll be damned. They are specific examples of governments that are indeed a specific type of government. Coming up with an example of a government of a certain type which did bad things does not make the type as a whole bad. Its not like the U. Immoral people can get into positions of power and do immoral things. Even a pure democracy could vote to slaughter some children for fun. So here it is again "They are all what you make of them. But it doesn't really matter what government was in place before it failed.
I don't imagine I will want to be in the US when it collapses under its evergrowing debt and trade deficit. Thanks JayK, that vid was great. After reading most of the comments I've come to the conclusion that humans in general have a low IQ with a few outliers that make up an exception to the rule. Interesting how you say this individual has no statistical references, proof, or foundation, yet you show no statistical references, proof, or foundation to show he is wrong and to make your case stronger.
I was raised in a Christian, conservative home, yet throughout middle school and high school I participated in accelerated programs and gained college credits before entering any University. If only I'd known. PhD in Cell and Molecular Biology. Uh, you're not gonna go into a staff meeting and shoot up a bunch of people are ya, 'cause I'd wanna call somebody then. Uh yeah, thats exactly what I planned on doing.
You called it. Where did such a stupid comment come from? And since I am also very freaking smart but also flawed like you , and thus can anticipate your answer, my only comment would be that many people have far more brains than they can handle, that is know how to use effectively, despite their innate terror of the future and their own inevitable decline and conclusion.
Grow up. Just because I believe in God means I need to grow up? I don't insult you for your beliefs or lack thereof. Whether or not God exists is not a question for me to answer-each individual must answer that. To me he does, do you he doesn't. The point of my comment was not to "spread my faith," but rather to show that even "Christian conservatives" can have high IQs and be just as intelligent as liberal atheists. Religion and political beliefs have nothing to do with it. Lets get back to the science-could genetics play an important role? I don't know. Crazy thought, huh? Data suggests Amy Bishop, PhD, who murdered three professors and killed her brother, was a socialist.
What intelligence! My apologies for the ignorance. All I can say is, good thing I'm not a socialist, whew! I think the matter involves more of thinking of what Economists call "externalities," the HIDDEN cost of something "lurking variables" by a Statistician's verbiage. Also, IQ cannot measure all types of intelligences it is based on culture, religion, sex, creed, etc. IQ tries to quantify the unquantifiable; there will be lurking variables. First let me say that its almost impossible for one group of people to be exactly equal to another group of people in anything.
One is going to be larger than the other. In this article, we aren't given much information on what the samples were or how they were taken, if there was I didn't see it.
Given that, an IQ test doesn't do a very good job of measuring all forms of intelligence, the can be easily seen in most of our greatest minds in history. Very few were without significant quirks. Each person has a fairly limited amount of neurons in their brain and limited time to reinforce their connections. Just because they don't devote their intelligence to something that would show up on an IQ test does not make them less intelligent. I score just below average on IQ tests, but score tremendously high on "visual IQ".
So a person watching me do a 3d puzzle may think I have a high IQ simply because I have a high ability to visualize 3d space. My views on God: On an infinite timeline I can only see two probably outcomes for humanity. We become extinct by a large astroid, our sun going super nova, or the collapse of the universe, it doesn't matter at which point if there is no god all our beliefs and decisions and morals will have had little if any influence on the universe and will eventually be completely forgotten.
We somehow manage to escape all catastrophes and continue to evolve over billions of billions of years to into beings that have near absolute knowledge and control of ourselves and our surroundings and thereby becoming god-like.
She Comes First: The Thinking Man's Guide to Pleasuring Women
Were this to happen it would indicate a fairly high probability of another being doing the same thing. Summery: Morals are pointless or the existence of a "god" is probable. Regardless I hope for the latter. Embriette, The point of my comment was not to "spread my faith," but rather to show that even "Christian conservatives" can have high IQs and be just as intelligent as liberal atheists. So you're studying for a PhD? I hope somewhere along the line your department forces you to take basic statistics, whereupon you will learn the distinction between individual sample vs. The study under discussion talked about average scores.
Nowhere in the article did they claim that all samples within either population religious or atheist had identical values. According to that study, in statistical parlance, you're an outlier. Whooptie doo. Some flaws in your analysis: 1 Regardless of your two scenarios, your individual life is finite and will soon be over.
To you as an individual, and even to your offspring, it doesn't matter what happens on an infinite timeline. To your actual life in the here and now, morals are very much important, because they help keep you alive and well amid a society of other humans. Any infinite-timeline projections from such ignorance would be premature and pointless.
Shadfurman: Just pointing out, as well; a highly-developed, ridiculously intelligent, near-omnipotent being could end up being benign, but it could also end up being, basically, Cthulhu. I don't argue that that would happen, mind, I'm just pointing out that your thought experiment has alternate, and far less pleasant, interpretations. Putting IQ in terms of a computer, what does it measure? Processing speed? Mostly algorithms, and to some extent processing speed. IQ measures pattern recognition, logical thinking, cognitive inertia, and creativity.
It can be argued that the things IQ does measure, play important roles in virtually any facet of human activity. But IQ is not by any means a complete assessment of a person's cognitive repertoire. I am a nonreligious liberal, But I would be the last person to gloat over an ultrareligious congress about the Logistics of Noahs Ark, while interrupting their keynote speaker with an annoying "told you so".
Who would have thought that?? Pink Elephant As a matter of fact, my program is "forcing" me to take a statistics course, and I have taken a statistic course in my undergrad. First of all, I never said I was anything other than an outlier. I never said I wasn't-but I also never said that Christians, in general, were more intelligent than non-Christians. I was just using myself as an example of the "other side"-simply because many people reading this article seem to take it out of context and use it as an absolute to justify their religious or political beliefs.
Second of all, if you want to talk statistics and the statistical basis of this article, can you tell me if the sample size was large enough and varied enough to be applied to the general population in any dependable way? How many people were sampled? Of what race were they? What parts of the world were they from? What types of societies were they from? Unless you sample peoples of every kind, nation, and background, the statistics mean nothing. Sounds more like the title of a blog than a scientific study. If true, you are the first I have heard to admit to this. I guess I'm speaking more of people who do research.
Why would they continue to do research if they know it all? At the same time, I'm reminded of Dr. Phil Jones and computer models you can feed junk data into and get hockey sticks Works for me. So every entity is religious. Embriette, First of all, I never said I was anything other than an outlier. Your tone, if not your exact words, suggested you were using yourself as an example to dispute the findings -- as if that were a valid argument.
Unless you sample peoples of every kind, nation, and background, the statistics mean nothing You forgot every planet, and every galaxy. Feb 28, I don't understand this article, What about me? I have an IQ of and I recognize the possible existence of God. I wish to add to the article; -the tendency to recognize the extra-phenomenal concept of God depends on cultural influence. This is a study. It computes averages and variances i. You cannot use statistics to firmly predict what should happen in a singular case. One case that does not conform to the averages does not invalidate a study I guess this is what the anti-global warming guys don't understand when they say "but outside my door it was cold this morning - so global warming must be a hoax".
Marjon "How do you make a socialist government system moral? It is systemically immoral. If the government is responsible for healthcare, everyone gets it. So remind me again how it is immoral for everyone to have access to the same service, protection, and status? I just don't see it. And If you bring up another communist dictator that did his job poorly that is not proof that socialism is immoral. Sweden is a democracy but it has socialized health care. Everyone in that country has it.
Sounds fair to me. Go ahead complpain about how the healthcare would suck. Still everyone is treated equally therefore morally. Get this, I have private health insurance here in the states. I made an appointment with my doctor for Monday. I made this appointment Wednesday. In Sweden you are required to be seen by a primary care physician in 3 days. My appointment would be Saturday. Marjon "Socialist governments have the philosophy that the government grants rights to its victims. The only opportunity they have to 'make of them' is to try and survive. I don't get what you are saying.
Certain hypothesis; such as: cultural environment effect perception of god, is stronger if you focus on small group of people. For example; Galileo's free-fall experiment is not statistical, it use one special case to invalidate all Aristorelian statistical perceptions. If someone lives in cultural environment where religious dogma is used to rationalize irrational behaviour, then no wonder people disbelieve god. The author must also check places where religious moral is in synchronicity with rational behaviour. I believe in global-warming, you're commiting a logical fallacy by associating me with other fallacious logics.
I was just pointing out that you were making the same mistake as the anti-global-warming-crowd, not that you were one of them. Statistics are not ironhard predictions for every case. Outliers are possible and not all distributions are normal ones. All you could do is perform a census and show that your results deviate from the one presented AND that your census has a greater statistical power or show some bias was present in the original study that isn't in yours. On the other hand, antialias: your claim that IQ does not equate with intelligence undermines this case study, which does indeed equate IQ and intelligence.
Though I do agree that the IQ of a person has surprising little to do with their intelligence. My concern with this study is the margin of error. Depending on their sample size, that could be well within the error. Also, what backgrounds are people coming from? Oh I'm not saying that IQ isn't somehow related to intelligence. It just doesn't mean that high IQ people will always make logical statements or understand what they talk about on any given subject.
It all comes down how you do the tests and sometimes even to what cultural background you administer the test. Pink Elephant You said my tone implied that I was using myself as an example. Isn't that exactly what I went on to say I was doing? Thanks for pointing that out for me again.
You seem to keep missing the fact that I wasn't using myself as proof that the article is wrong, just as an example of the 'other side. As for your link to the statistics, remind me again why I was looking at that? All I found was info on adolescent whites and blacks in America. Certainly not a representation of the whole world. And it would be hard to sample beings from other galaxies, when we don't even know if they exist, and even if they did, we haven't figured out how to communicate with them yet.
Wasn't this a study of humans anyway? Maybe we should have God take an IQ test, and see how He comes out?
'Altered Carbon' on Netflix: Can it improve on the book?
Maybe, just maybe, the more intelligent people are liberal because more intelligent people go to college, and colleges are overwhelmingly liberal. Even if you're conservative it's difficult to get out of school without being converted.
Even in highschool it becomes obvious that the teachers are almost all liberal and the pressure on a student to identify with the teachers is enormous. Ditto with atheism. I say this as an athiest with liberal values on equality and human rights but who hates the "liberal party" because it's full of loud mouthed individuals that try to shove thier ideals down your throat The bloggers are entirely correct.
AGW has become a religion. Marjon "The US Constitution is designed to provide equal treatment under the law and equal opportunity. It is unconstitutional that they are treated differently, yet the vast majority of states do so. This flaw does not make democracy inherently bad. Will the state force people to become doctors? Sweden is a democracy with socialized medicine. If there were not enough doctors they would HIRE more. Lets just imagine though that Sweden was communist. There are many ways that a communist state could get the amount of doctors that they need some more desirable for people than others.
Many of these systems could be designed fairly though, meaning that everyone goes through the same process. It could possibly be done similar to the US military where aptitude tests are taken and one must qualify for a job. It can be done morally even if you can't imagine it.
Marjon This is exactly where I was waiting for you to go. In fact the best system would still encourage it somehow. This is the part that all of the greedy Americans miss. It is entirely possible that everyone gets paid the same yet the majority still tries to do their job well.
You may be right that in a population the size of a major country it would be tough. However there are income sharing communities inside the US and elsewhere that cooperatively grow their own food, build their own houses, and live together. It works there. You say there is no incentive to work hard. What about making your country or community great and functional. That is a noble goal. Dollar signs are the most important thing in the US.
That doesn't mean they have to be. That is just our culture. Marjon It doesn't really matter how the government decides who can get married. If some people can and others can't thats immoral. Saying that homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex is like saying that all men in the untied states have the right to get a pap smear. Heterosexual marriage is useless to homosexuals. Pointing to this is more of a slap in the face than an expression of equality. We are getting away from the argument that socialism can be moral.
I was just pointing out that there are immoral expressions in democracies too. Again this specific case of immorality doesnt mean that democracy is immoral just like it wouldnt mean socialism was. They apparently hired them somewhere, because Sweden does have doctors, and ranks highly in many health categories. Marjon You are absolutley right "The military recruits doctors just like any hospital or clinic. The military doesn't give aptitude tests and force a new recruit to medical school for 8 years.
Believe it or not some people choose to be doctors for reasons other than money. Some people genuinely like to help others. Being a doctor is a great way to do this. Many doctors in ERs could make more money in a private practice yet stay in hospitals. Because money isn't why they became a doctor. People can be motivated by other things than money.
Doctors in a socialist country would be people who wanted to help and also academically qualify.
- Her work showed a consistent interest in issues of sexuality, family life and social change.
- Navigation menu.
- Music, the Arts, and Ideas: Patterns and Predictions in Twentieth-Century Culture (Centennial Publications of the University of Chicago).
- Sons And Lovers.
- Reflections of Fire?
- THE THREE LITTLE PIGS - REVOLUTION.
- A Novel of Sex and Secrecy.
In a well set up system they would get recognition and honor for their effort, while recieving the same pay as everyone else. Recognition and honor are useless in the US culture where money drives most things. Marjon "I prefer rewards based upon merit. So socialism isn't your preference. I do remember saying this, "And people I said it earlier but i'll say it again. I'll even grant that it is easier to have a moral democracy than a moral socialist country.
Still doesn't mean either is impossible. Anyone else shocked when they loaded this article and saw how long the trolling comments go on for? I'm gonna leave my mark too : "All thinking men are atheists. Marjon "What kind of recognition and honor? Government medals? Special titles? Three letters after their name like PhD? In your mind if it isn't beneficial to only yourself it is worthless. But again thats your preference.
I get it, you don't want to live in a socialist country. Some people do. Mar 01, RJB26 "socialism is the preferred form of gov't for leaches who cant or wont fend for themselves and power hungry leftist douchebags who want to control the leaches who cant or wont fend for themselves. You have added a lot of class legitimacy to our discussion. Marjon Doctors in a socialist country would be people who wanted to help and also academically qualify.
Hate to burst your bubble, but a large percentage of physicians in socialized medicine nations leave for places like the US where they can make a buck instead of working for mechanics wages. Also, socialized medicine can't be all that good given how many come to the US from Europe and especially Canada for treatment. Hospitals in Detroit, including Henry Ford Hospital, have so many of them they've opened entire clinics just to treat them. Seems if you're over 50 or have a disease that's expensive to treat esp.
Don't say it doesn't happen I spent 30 years in health care and saw it all too often once Canada instituted their system. First you say that intelligent people like "novel" ideologies and then you say their ideology is "liberal" -- currently the most pervasive in the United States. Which is it? Even a dummy like me can see polemic disguised as science!! Intelligent people can make rare-association better than average people, in other word, they're creative this doesn't mean they're more logical.
This is because; general intelligence is physically related to number of neurons and interconnections , but, generally, higher IQ adolescent loss more neurons than average people [forgot] hence their intelligence could based upon more interconnection. I found this comment box to be too claustrophobic. Very confusing My point was; the dis-agreeable nature of intelligent people is caused by creative mind .
Because imo rare association were often made to explain one's experience rather than using the obvious "god did it" reasoning. Ethinicity wasn't factored so the results are skewed. With that said, I personally suspect strongly the correlations are correct. All they had to do was change one aspect of this study for it to have merit.
Remove the politics. If they said smarter people tend to innovate within society and personal activities I think we'd all agree. I think that physorg was just down on its comment flame war traffic lately and decided to write such a poorly constructed article. DocM "Hate to burst your bubble, but a large percentage of physicians in socialized medicine nations leave for places like the US where they can make a buck instead of working for mechanics wage" You didn't burst my bubble at all.
I don't care where anyone wants to practice medicine or what kind of government they want to have. All I'm saying is that Socialism can be moral. Obviously Sweden would not be the ideal money making place for a doctor, you are right.