The current geopolitical realities have forced any ideas concerning disparity and individual limits down to the status of marginal, non-politically-correct and outdated absurdities.
We have to merely label an opinion racist or sexist or cynical or fascist or prejudiced to deny it, these days.

We find support in our struggles to exclude anything creating rifts in those who, like us, seek total inclusion and the shielding of their right to participation and belonging within the whole.

The need for inclusion, so as to achieve social harmony, demands that all should be offered the illusion of equality and unlimited personal potential.
Beauty, intelligence, strength, talent are all spun in ways which makes them irrelevant or ambiguous and accessible to all indiscriminately.

Often the terms are reinterpreted to become more accommodating and less demanding.

We lower our standards, when they cannot be wholly done away with or labeled prejudiced and outdated, so that more can measure up and not feel outcasts or inadequate.
Total discipline to the whole and complete devotion to it is accomplished by nurturing the myth of equal potential.
This process is called leveling.

For this reason any hypothesis concerning the connection between outward appearance and character or psychology are deemed counterproductive, prejudiced or primitive.
Psychologists are now taught, as gatekeepers of normalcy, to consider any hypothesis which creates social disharmony as diseased.
The healthy mind is now the one which wants to completely disappear and be assimilated within fold. It wants to be a carbon copy of an average ideal.

Even beauty is now considered skin-deep or a chance occurrence with no deeper implications or it is diluted in significance by making it a matter of taste and perspective, ignoring the evolutionary implications of physical symmetry and the part it plays in natural selection.
Perspectivism, in general, is often recruited as a method of making all opinions and judgments equal and insignificant.
The prevailing ‘truth’ is that we all have a right to our own truth.
What’s ‘truth’ when any truth will do?

The idea that things are more than they appear, a Kantian outgrowth, and that we can only perceive the world superficially leads us to the wrong conclusion that there is more there than meets the eye.
Wherever an unknown exists man places a deity there.
So it has been with the thing-in-itself. Its very inaccessibility makes it a perfect place to plant a comforting myth forever protected from our curiosity.

Yet, others have proposed the idea that there is nothing underneath appearances. Reality exhibits itself completely and uninhibited and it is only our lack of perception or our misinterpretations that cause the error which results in us comforting ourselves with the idea that there is more there hidden and inaccessible to the human mind.
Of course what is “hidden” is always given a positive hue.
Man escapes reality into hope.

I’m more inclined to support the second proposition where reality is there entirely and it hides nothing, that it is our emotions and human limitations that cause disparity in understanding it and that success is determined by how closely we’ve managed to interpret our limited perceptions of it.
We live in an approximation of something actual.

Thusly the concept that physique is indicative of character cannot, in my mind, be entirely dismissed.
One could confront many of the suppositions concerning some of the opinions of what each individual physical trait means but not that it participates in a pattern that exhibits something real.

If we take the opinion that the physical and the mental are different manifestations of the same thing in a different context then we are lead to the conclusion that physical traits, inherited from our past or mutated due to present conditions, say something directly and honestly about us.

Ernst Kretschmer separates the physical types into schizophrenes and pyknics with the analogous psychological types.
He, furthermore, subcategorizes these groups into schizophrene athletic, schizophrene asthenic types and circular types, and admits to a hazy delineating line between the types with many intermingling and exceptions.
He also proposes psychological predispositions corresponding to each physical type.

The accuracy of his interpretations and generalizations aside, he opens up a subject which makes many, raised with western social sensibilities, uncomfortable.
Racism, sexism raise their uninvited heads and we feel threatened by the implications.
But our discomforts alone are not arguments against the hypothesis and can only point to our own prejudices concerning certain possibilities.

Nevertheless if we can distinguish ourselves as belonging to the same species using physical markers then we cannot deny the specific implications of each physical marker.

In my opinion physical characteristics expose psychological dispositions, as we can intuitively recognize them even if we rationally deny them, and they do affect our judgment concerning individuals.

I believe that, for the most part, the idea of physical characteristics revealing psychological characteristics smacks of phrenology. I do believe, however, that physical characteristics can shape a good part of the psyche as a result of social reaction to those characteristics. A person who is not at least physically acceptable visually will be made to feel more like an outsider and may suffer from an inferiority complex. Or they may be made to feel somehow "special" and develop an overblown ego. This is often seen in people with Down's Syndrome who have no mental handicap but tend to behave standoffish as a result of most people assuming that they do and basically treating them like they're retarded. We can't say it's the Down's Syndrome that makes them standoffish, rather it's the reaction of people to the Down's Syndrome.

In the other direction, tall people are seen to be natural leaders. They receive job promotions more often than short or normal-sized people, and are more readily forgiven for not living up to expectations. We are programmed to believe that the biggest man in our tribe is the leader, and if he can't lead, well, it can't really be his fault. But if the short guy can't lead, the general reaction is one of "I told you so" or "I didn't think he could do it".

Height doesn't seem to matter as much for women. Women are judged largely on physical beauty (the standards for which change from time to time) and proportion. Short Fat Fanny isn't going to get anywhere except with a very small, select crowd, but Legs O'Hara has the world at her feet. Even though Fanny may be a scientist who has discovered the cures for cancer, AIDS, etc, she will still be mariginalized as "the short, fat chick", but MAN Did you see Legs walk to the water fountain? As a result, Fanny will tend to be more of a loner (unless she overcomes her own prejudices to her appearance, enforced by society's reactions) while Legs will be the life of the party.

Of course, this isn't true for 100% of the people 100% of the time, but it's probably a pretty decent assesment.

The current geopolitical realities have forced any ideas concerning disparity and individual limits down to the status of marginal, non-politically-correct and outdated absurdities.
We have to merely label an opinion racist or sexist or cynical or fascist or prejudiced to deny it, these days.

We find support in our struggles to exclude anything creating rifts in those who, like us, seek total inclusion and the shielding of their right to participation and belonging within the whole.

The need for inclusion, so as to achieve social harmony, demands that all should be offered the illusion of equality and unlimited personal potential.
Beauty, intelligence, strength, talent are all spun in ways which makes them irrelevant or ambiguous and accessible to all indiscriminately.

Often the terms are reinterpreted to become more accommodating and less demanding.

We lower our standards, when they cannot be wholly done away with or labeled prejudiced and outdated, so that more can measure up and not feel outcasts or inadequate.
Total discipline to the whole and complete devotion to it is accomplished by nurturing the myth of equal potential.
This process is called leveling.

For this reason any hypothesis concerning the connection between outward appearance and character or psychology are deemed counterproductive, prejudiced or primitive.
Psychologists are now taught, as gatekeepers of normalcy, to consider any hypothesis which creates social disharmony as diseased.
The healthy mind is now the one which wants to completely disappear and be assimilated within fold. It wants to be a carbon copy of an average ideal.

Even beauty is now considered skin-deep or a chance occurrence with no deeper implications or it is diluted in significance by making it a matter of taste and perspective, ignoring the evolutionary implications of physical symmetry and the part it plays in natural selection.
Perspectivism, in general, is often recruited as a method of making all opinions and judgments equal and insignificant.
The prevailing ‘truth’ is that we all have a right to our own truth.
What’s ‘truth’ when any truth will do?

The idea that things are more than they appear, a Kantian outgrowth, and that we can only perceive the world superficially leads us to the wrong conclusion that there is more there than meets the eye.
Wherever an unknown exists man places a deity there.
So it has been with the thing-in-itself. Its very inaccessibility makes it a perfect place to plant a comforting myth forever protected from our curiosity.

Yet, others have proposed the idea that there is nothing underneath appearances. Reality exhibits itself completely and uninhibited and it is only our lack of perception or our misinterpretations that cause the error which results in us comforting ourselves with the idea that there is more there hidden and inaccessible to the human mind.
Of course what is “hidden” is always given a positive hue.
Man escapes reality into hope.

I’m more inclined to support the second proposition where reality is there entirely and it hides nothing, that it is our emotions and human limitations that cause disparity in understanding it and that success is determined by how closely we’ve managed to interpret our limited perceptions of it.
We live in an approximation of something actual.

Thusly the concept that physique is indicative of character cannot, in my mind, be entirely dismissed.
One could confront many of the suppositions concerning some of the opinions of what each individual physical trait means but not that it participates in a pattern that exhibits something real.

If we take the opinion that the physical and the mental are different manifestations of the same thing in a different context then we are lead to the conclusion that physical traits, inherited from our past or mutated due to present conditions, say something directly and honestly about us.

Ernst Kretschmer separates the physical types into schizophrenes and pyknics with the analogous psychological types.
He, furthermore, subcategorizes these groups into schizophrene athletic, schizophrene asthenic types and circular types, and admits to a hazy delineating line between the types with many intermingling and exceptions.
He also proposes psychological predispositions corresponding to each physical type.

The accuracy of his interpretations and generalizations aside, he opens up a subject which makes many, raised with western social sensibilities, uncomfortable.
Racism, sexism raise their uninvited heads and we feel threatened by the implications.
But our discomforts alone are not arguments against the hypothesis and can only point to our own prejudices concerning certain possibilities.

Nevertheless if we can distinguish ourselves as belonging to the same species using physical markers then we cannot deny the specific implications of each physical marker.

In my opinion physical characteristics expose psychological dispositions, as we can intuitively recognize them even if we rationally deny them, and they do affect our judgment concerning individuals.
I've been up for about 28 hours, but you're saying that you can tell what kind of personality someone has just by looking at them? I completely agree, I do it all the time, and I'm right a lot. Something else that I do seemingly automatic when I meet somebody is compare the picture I have of them to myself.

I think it's complete BS. Physical appearance tells you very little about the individual psyche. All it tell's you is what their parents may have looked like. Physical beauty to me is almost completely worthless outside of the bedroom. The fact that we still go on job interviews where they judge you on the clothes you wear and on how smart you look moreso than how much you actually know, should tell you something about how primitive people actually are. We are acting like monkeys in suits who judge each other like a monkey or ape would, which monkey is the biggest? Which monkey has the biggest penis? And then when we decide, we all get in line to worship it like we don't care what mind the monkey has.

I've been up for about 28 hoursYeah, it took me a long time to read that post too. :)

I think it's complete BS. Physical appearance tells you very little about the individual psyche. All it tell's you is what their parents may have looked like.

Like father like son?

Absane yes, but thats in personality not always or usually in appearance. If the father was a jerk there is a chance the son will be a jerk, even if they both were good looking jerks.

I think he means like when you look at someone, and you can Judge if they would beat you in a fight. Not racism, maybe I'm wrong though. Why is the J capital? ...Too lazy to fix it.

I think it's complete BS. Physical appearance tells you very little about the individual psyche. All it tell's you is what their parents may have looked like. Physical beauty to me is almost completely worthless outside of the bedroom. The fact that we still go on job interviews where they judge you on the clothes you wear and on how smart you look moreso than how much you actually know, should tell you something about how primitive people actually are. We are acting like monkeys in suits who judge each other like a monkey or ape would, which monkey is the biggest? Which monkey has the biggest penis? And then when we decide, we all get in line to worship it like we don't care what mind the monkey has.And isn't character inherited along with looks?

Does not “what the parents looked like” express their lineage and historical background, as the sum of how environmental conditions have affected and been ingrained in the family trees which combined to create an individual?

Do you believe physical characteristics are accidental and that nature mistakenly uses physical markers to differentiate and expose quality or are you simply trying to escape the personal implications?

If looks mean nothing then why does it play such a dominate part in natural selection and procreation?
Why do peacocks grow such elaborate feathers?
Why do we find physical symmetry attractive and why is beauty so powerfully affecting?

How do species differentiate themselves from one another if everything is the same, rooted in the same universe and only superficially different?

Why do we even see color if it means nothing?
How do we separate friend from foe if we do not discriminate?

Absane yes, but thats in personality not always or usually in appearance. If the father was a jerk there is a chance the son will be a jerk, even if they both were good looking jerks.Why do you automatically presume that good looks mean a friendly disposition?

I never attempted to interpret what each physical characteristic means but only that it points to a psychological predisposition.

Outer appearances are expressions of psychosomatic effects – some inherited and passed down from generation to generation (character and psychological traits are passed down along with physical traits) and some mutated due to immediate environmental effects which accentuate or minimize the inherited traits.

Why do midgets or those suffering from Down Syndrome have distinctly similar outer appearances, looking almost as if they are related, if physical and mental development does not result in corresponding physical mutations.


perplexity
Are you therefore a racist? :rolleyes:
Ooooh, the dreaded 'R' word.

Here is where social conditioning kicks in to establish a defensive posture against a possible threat.
The herd arranges itself in a circle.
The weak and young must be protected from the big bad world.

The “Are YOU…” casting a distancing inquisition creating a chasm of us and you or us and them.

I don’t know, what do you think?
Am I a racist? :confused:

What about you, are you an imbecile?

I would not know how to intuitively recognize a racist, from his physical characteristics.

Does that make me an imbecile, or would I have to look like one?

-- Ron.Why sir, don’t sell your self short….you do look like one.
You don’t have to do anything.
Just be yourself.

Velvet socialists, don't like Darwinism. And ironically velvet socialists seem to have infiltrated every nook and cranny of the western world--according to figures that have just come in (snigger).

Interestingly, they are virile little tinkers who have been rampantly screwing us for fourty years or so. Their ejaculate is a jism of memes. Plausible yet, for those of us with rare-sense, counter-intuitive packets of socialist ideas neatly tied up in a layer of defence nemes seemingly garnered from the studying the Spanish Inquisition.

Nemes are a bit like tongue studs, a cool fashion item that you've just gotta be seen with, though you don't really know why. And here's the thing, you don't actually see them until, of course, a person opens their mouth. But you sort of know, by the persons demeanour, that the chances are high of a lump of metal being inserted somewhere in the tongue, or somewhere else not so cool :D.

Oh, and the term racist is also a meme since (when used in the context Mr Ron used it, which is most often when it's used--to stiffle debate) it serves less to describe a person, but rather as a device to humiliate, undermine and marginalise them. Huh, further irony. Ad Hominem alert indeedy.

I don't know what my physique could possibly tell you about my character, aside from perhaps suggesting that I make an effort to be in good physical and cardiovascular health...

:)

Does not “what the parents looked like” express their lineage and historical background, as the sum of how environmental conditions have affected and been ingrained in the family trees which combined to create an individual?

Sometimes appearances and character do not match. There are a lot more genes involved in character than in appearance. The brain is the most complicated organ in the body. Yes you can figure out a persons character by their genetic profile if you had a deep understand of what every gene did, but we are far far away from a time where you can scan a person and predict behavior. What we can do is scan a person's brainwaves and know if they are a threat or not, and we can scan a persons genes to know some clues. The point is, you cannot judge genetics with your eyes anymore can you can smell a person and tell me their genes, or taste a person, or hear their voice. It's not that simple.

All my comments have already been made, but I have to say that Satyr's original post is perhaps the finest piece of writing I've yet seen on this forum.
Its the only post I've ever printed...out of thousands.

Scales and spectrums are always created from the top down.

Allow me to bask in the glory.
All my comments have already been made, but I have to say that Satyr's original post is perhaps the finest piece of writing I've yet seen on this forum.
Its the only post I've ever printed...out of thousands.

Scales and spectrums are always created from the top down.You sir, have an eye for talent and the humility to show it.

And I have the over inflated, ego to accept flattery and ginore insult....so we make a good team...is what I'm saying. :bugeye:

Nevertheless, my original intent in all my writings is to reveal how many of our modern thoughts and opinions and scientific insights and beliefs we take for granted, especially the ones dealing with human value and diversity and equality, are really political in nature.

Science, is no less affected by culture and social necessity than any other discipline.


Not only is race, gender and physicality relevant but nature has endowed us with the means to differentiate and use the information our senses provide to us.

Things are different or alike for a reason.

And isn't character inherited along with looks?

Does not “what the parents looked like” express their lineage and historical background, as the sum of how environmental conditions have affected and been ingrained in the family trees which combined to create an individual?

When it comes to the various skin colors/features associated with a certain race, you can absolutely use physical characteristics to determine a person's character. But what about just looking purely at symmetry or dynamics of the body, are we supposed to read into that as indicative of their mental capacity?

Do you believe physical characteristics are accidental and that nature mistakenly uses physical markers to differentiate and expose quality or are you simply trying to escape the personal implications?

There are a lot of stupid beautiful people. You are saying that physical and mental quality have a definite positive correlation?

When it comes to the various skin colors/features associated with a certain race, you can absolutely use physical characteristics to determine a person's character. But what about just looking purely at symmetry or dynamics of the body, are we supposed to read into that as indicative of their mental capacity?



There are a lot of stupid beautiful people. You are saying that physical and mental quality have a definite positive correlation?I never specified what each characteristic might mean.
I only said that it points to a psychological disposition.

I never said beautiful people are smart.
I said symmetry points to genetic fitness.

If anything the mind is that which can compensate or overcome nature.

I never specified what each characteristic might mean.
I only said that it points to a psychological disposition.


And isn't character inherited along with looks?

Does not “what the parents looked like” express their lineage and historical background, as the sum of how environmental conditions have affected and been ingrained in the family trees which combined to create an individual?


There is a psychological disposition resulting from the cultural background. Of course. We relate certain physical features with certain cultures. Of course. But you are implying that we should infer deeper mental disparities from race to race. Genetic, and not ingrained, differences.

What are your reasons for this?

Each of us have a clump of genetic information, which under the right circumstances can develop into a beautiful, healthy person, or a diseased and ugly bastard. The real difference here is habit energies... Some of which are taught and some inherited, but mostly cultural in origin.

Fat, ugly people tend to come from fat, ugly families and fat, ugly nations. They are the product of mind, not minor genetic variation.

http://www.unm.edu/~hebs/pubs/ProkoschYeoMiller_2005_IntelligenceSymmetry.pdf#se arch=%22intelligence%20%22body%20symmetry%22%20iq% 22

This might be relevant.

There is a psychological disposition resulting from the cultural background. Of course. We relate certain physical features with certain cultures. Of course. But you are implying that we should infer deeper mental disparities from race to race. Genetic, and not ingrained, differences.

What are your reasons for this?
There's a lot more to physical appearance than race. Are you saying that all Germans look the same? Or all Kenyans? You can look at somebody and know how they would react to different situations, just by looking at them. From that, you can just think of a few different situations, and you can infer their personality from the imagined premises.

There's a lot more to physical appearance than race. Are you saying that all Germans look the same? Or all Kenyans?

...No. I was simply addressing his reference to racial differences and the fact that we can and do most distinctly differentiate culture by taking a person's race into account.

You can look at somebody and know how they would react to different situations, just by looking at them.
From that, you can just think of a few different situations, and you can infer their personality from the imagined premises.

Hah. You must be pretty fucking intuitive. And I think you are including body language into your little calculation.

It's fairly easy to gain some incite about a person if you observe the way they carry themselves, but not quite so much if you are only looking at their physical features.

Or do you know something we don't? You know, guy with the big schnoz, obviously passive-aggressive? That kind of thing?

Yea, I guess I was including body language. I was just going off the fact then usually when I meet people, I kno what kind of person they are after maybe 20 seconds.

FallingSkyward
What are your reasons for this?Basic reasons:
Nothing is accidental or superfluous.
Everything that exists displays its past.
Nature is efficient.

...No. I was simply addressing his reference to racial differences and the fact that we can and do most distinctly differentiate culture by taking a person's race into account.We take his overall appearance into account.
If his appearance contains similarities with a general group we can call a race then this exposes a common ancestry and therefore a common genetic pool.
Potential is established here.

I have the potential to have a certain skin pigmentation or reaction to my environment within certain parameters as it is established by my genetic history. Where, specifically, I fall within this potential is dictated by my personal, experiential history.

If this is true about skin then why should it not be for every other human trait, including talent or intelligence or temperament?

Hah. You must be pretty fucking intuitive. And I think you are including body language into your little calculation. We all pass judgments intuitively, especially the least rational of us.
Intuition is a broad generalization and conclusion based on information which doesn’t completely register on our consciousness.
Reason attempts to explain why we feel a certain way.

We psychoanalyze people daily in this way.

Or do you know something we don't? You know, guy with the big schnoz, obviously passive-aggressive? That kind of thing?Each physical characteristic cannot be taken independently, like you’ve done.
It is a small detail within a whole.

Oniw17
There's a lot more to physical appearance than race. Are you saying that all Germans look the same? Or all Kenyans? You can look at somebody and know how they would react to different situations, just by looking at them. From that, you can just think of a few different situations, and you can infer their personality from the imagined premises.Each individual displays his particular historical and experiential background and predisposition and any common traits point to common historical and experiential backgrounds, while any mutation or divergence points to a different reaction to them.

Yea, I guess I was including body language. I was just going off the fact then usually when I meet people, I kno what kind of person they are after maybe 20 seconds.I do the same thing.
I’ve actually guestimated my accuracy, at first sight, to be around 70%. It increases as new elements are integrated into my analysis, such as movement, usage of language, opinions, until I have a fairly good idea about whom I’m dealing with.

Of course, like with everything human, it is an approximation of reality.
The accuracy of the approximation is mostly determined by the mind’s ability to perceive, analyze and integrate detailed information into coherent abstract general models.
For this reason not everyone’s opinion is the same or similarly precise.

The Italian film director Tinto Brass used to say that you could tell everything about a women by looking at her ass...far more so than her face.

I find I can tell which women in a crowd are from eastern Europe...its a totality of facial expression, dress, and how they carry themselves. Not something anyone could define on paper, but I know it when I see it.

See, now we are getting somewhere.

I started a thread that is related. http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=57194

There are specific questions, anyone want to answer them?

Each of us have a clump of genetic information, which under the right circumstances can develop into a beautiful, healthy person, or a diseased and ugly bastard. The real difference here is habit energies... Some of which are taught and some inherited, but mostly cultural in origin.

Fat, ugly people tend to come from fat, ugly families and fat, ugly nations. They are the product of mind, not minor genetic variation.


So you judge ugliness based on appearance? This means a fat ugly person is ugly inside too? I've seen that be wrong many times.

The error of interpreting physical symmetry (beauty) as representing some positive psychology is a natural one, but both the notion of positive/negative and the interpretation, itself, is in error.

I, for one, have not said what each physical characteristic might refer to or that a general appealing exterior would necessarily translate into a psychology I would find appealing.

Phsyical appearance is just electrical impulses in your brain, it's light transformed into electricity. People are energy beings, and you cannot see energy through only your eyes.

The best way to describe what you look like is, you are what you do.

So you judge ugliness based on appearance? This means a fat ugly person is ugly inside too? I've seen that be wrong many times.

Yes.

I'll use two examples:

1. Children.
Most kids have a glowing beauty, healthy, unclogged minds and relaxed faces. As they grow older, they are influenced by parents and society into certain behaviours (habits) which will shape everything from appearance to IQ. As they age, many become unhealthy. Arteries clogged, addicted to video games and having a narrow world view. The ones who don't fall to this lifestyle will develop a confidence in themselves, remaining beautiful for the rest of their lives.

2. The Japanese.
These are the most beautiful, intelligent, hardworking people on Earth. Coincidence? Nope. The Japanese diet is very clean, and they take nothing for granted. Even seeing them travel in our national parks gives me a greater appreciation for the natural beauty we are so happy to destroy. They ain't perfect, but they're pretty damn close.

First comes a healthy* body, then a healthy mind.

*healthy can be slightly overweight, skinny wrinkled. Not necessarily an athletes' body.

Yes.

I'll use two examples:

1. Children.
Most kids have a glowing beauty, healthy, unclogged minds and relaxed faces. As they grow older, they are influenced by parents and society into certain behaviours (habits) which will shape everything from appearance to IQ. As they age, many become unhealthy. Arteries clogged, addicted to video games and having a narrow world view. The ones who don't fall to this lifestyle will develop a confidence in themselves, remaining beautiful for the rest of their lives.

2. The Japanese.
These are the most beautiful, intelligent, hardworking people on Earth. Coincidence? Nope. The Japanese diet is very clean, and they take nothing for granted. Even seeing them travel in our national parks gives me a greater appreciation for the natural beauty we are so happy to destroy. They ain't perfect, but they're pretty damn close.

First comes a healthy* body, then a healthy mind.

*healthy can be slightly overweight, skinny wrinkled. Not necessarily an athletes' body.


I call bullshit. The Japanese are the most intelligent hard working people are on earth? You must be Japanese. The Japanese have invented what? We work harder in America than people in Japan work. We are the most creative nation on earth.

Japan the most attractive? HELL no. There is almost no biodiversity in Japan, and too many Japanese people have the same look as a result. Japan is your dreamland only, honestly if the Japanese are so smart, why are people in Japan building robots? Japan has the highest suicide rates, why?

As far as healthy bodies, the Japanese are healthy, it has nothing to do with genetics, it's simple, they care more about clean food and water. At the same time, they are replacing themselves with robots, so I'm not a fan of Japan like I once was. At one point I wanted to live in Japan, or at least visit, but seriously, just because some of the culture is beautiful does not mean the future is bright for Japan.

The stuff you posted about children did not make much sense at all. I don't think all children have good character and I certainly don't think the Japanese have some sorta monopoly on character. Why do you think Japanese children are the best? I don't think it matters how old they are or where they are from, it's an internal thing. My experience is, physical beauty and health have absolutely nothing to do with character at all, in fact most of the beautiful people are crazy.

I call bullshit. The Japanese are the most intelligent hard working people are on earth? You must be Japanese. The Japanese have invented what? We work harder in America than people in Japan work. We are the most creative nation on earth.
The Japanese are innovators, why should they invent when they can make other inventions better? Maybe people in America work harder than people than in Japan, but the jist of what you're saying sounds like bullshit. If Americans are such hard workers, why are we so obese and ignorant? That shows such a great work ethic.


Japan the most attractive? HELL no. There is almost no biodiversity in Japan, and too many Japanese people have the same look as a result. Japan is your dreamland only, honestly if the Japanese are so smart, why are people in Japan building robots? Japan has the highest suicide rates, why?
Ok, I agree that Japanese aren't the most attractive. Mongolians are, of course that's a matter of opinion, and has a lot to who you were raised around. A friend of mine likes girls with curly hair, his mom is 100% Greek, that whole half of his family is Greek. They all have curly hair. Maybe it's just a coincidence, but I think there's some relationship there. Do you know how stupid that sounds? "If the Japanese are so smart why are they making robots?" Maybe it's because they're smart enough to make robots? This isn't the Matrix, robots aren't self-aware. They're not going to burn down you house and take over your city while you're sleeping. I'm not sure how suicide relates to intelligence.

As far as healthy bodies, the Japanese are healthy, it has nothing to do with genetics, it's simple, they care more about clean food and water. At the same time, they are replacing themselves with robots, so I'm not a fan of Japan like I once was. At one point I wanted to live in Japan, or at least visit, but seriously, just because some of the culture is beautiful does not mean the future is bright for Japan.
Are you talking about their economy? I hope so. But, I think they're just behind the U.S. and the European Union, so you don't have much of a point. Robots, from what I can tell aren't having a major impact on their economy. You do understand that that cleaner food and water, generation after generation, fuels evolution? Again, I disagree, the future seems very bright for the great innovators of our time. You know, Rome was considered more of an innovative empire that an inventive one. That didn't seem to hurt them.

The stuff you posted about children did not make much sense at all. I don't think all children have good character and I certainly don't think the Japanese have some sorta monopoly on character. Why do you think Japanese children are the best? I don't think it matters how old they are or where they are from, it's an internal thing. My experience is, physical beauty and health have absolutely nothing to do with character at all, in fact most of the beautiful people are crazy.
I agree with everything except that most beautiful people are crazy. That's non-sense, you can't make assumptions based on a relative value.

The Japanese are innovators, why should they invent when they can make other inventions better? Maybe people in America work harder than people than in Japan, but the jist of what you're saying sounds like bullshit. If Americans are such hard workers, why are we so obese and ignorant? That shows such a great work ethic.

Name one great invention by the Japanese. China invented gunpower, Africans invented music and built pyramids, Europeans invented modern warfare and space travel, Americans invented the internet. Japan has invented what? I am asking what big paradigm shifting inventions they have made.

Ok, I agree that Japanese aren't the most attractive. Mongolians are, of course that's a matter of opinion, and has a lot to who you were raised around. A friend of mine likes girls with curly hair, his mom is 100% Greek, that whole half of his family is Greek. They all have curly hair. Maybe it's just a coincidence, but I think there's some relationship there. Do you know how stupid that sounds? "If the Japanese are so smart why are they making robots?" Maybe it's because they're smart enough to make robots? This isn't the Matrix, robots aren't self-aware. They're not going to burn down you house and take over your city while you're sleeping. I'm not sure how suicide relates to intelligence.

I'm into variety, so when it comes to appearance, unique is good. As far as inventing robots being intelligent, if we built robots to take care of the elderly, why do we need so many people? Don't invent your replacement because it only reduces the value of your life. Seems stupid to me, thats why America still has a service industry and Japan at this rate won't have one and the suicide rate will climb even higher.

Are you talking about their economy? I hope so. But, I think they're just behind the U.S. and the European Union, so you don't have much of a point. Robots, from what I can tell aren't having a major impact on their economy. You do understand that that cleaner food and water, generation after generation, fuels evolution? Again, I disagree, the future seems very bright for the great innovators of our time. You know, Rome was considered more of an innovative empire that an inventive one. That didn't seem to hurt them.

Robots are terrible for the economy. Robots steal jobs that humans could be doing. Sure robots speed up the economy in certain ways, but most of the jobs that robots do, are the jobs humans should be doing, like taking car of the elderly, and teaching, and helping the sick. Do we really want to reduce the value of human life by building robots? I think the future is not bright at all for Japan. China's economy has surpassed Japan already and is second only to America in terms of overall economic size and military strength. Japan is in serious trouble, what will Japan do to compete with China and 1 billion Chinese? Invent a robot economy? I think it's a bad strategy unless Japanese people plan on all being artists, but once again who will buy the art if there are fewer humans to buy it? When you build a lot of robots you reduce the value of human life. If you let robots take care of the elderly, thats about the worst thing in the world you can do for the youth because the youth's main job in any economy is to take care of the elderly, by being caretakers, doctors, delivery, whatever, the elderly have all the money and power because Japan is a traditional society much like America. If in America we decided to build robots and have robots teach in schools, take care of the elderly, run hospitals, and do all the service jobs, it would destroy the middle class and thats the end right there.
I agree with everything except that most beautiful people are crazy. That's non-sense, you can't make assumptions based on a relative value.

It's based on my experience, most beautiful people are high maintnance. You can marry Paris Hilton if you want to, I'm sure she tries to be a good person, and who knows maybe she is, but if she is like all those hollywood bimbo's then shes just a dumb blonde chick who makes a living out of being a pretty body. It's just not my type.. as I do not value beauty of that sort to the same degree as you do.

Asian people have large brains and high IQs. This has troubled scientists researching intelligence. They have the highest g out of all races, yet white caucasoids have made the most intellectual achievements.

It's been suggested that the reason for this is because Asian societies tend to be very conformist. And so there's not as much outside the box kind of thinking. But I think they've been learning from whites, and all of that's really changing.

People in the west are more isolated from one other and so they aren't as concerned with the group mind as East Asian cultures. Therefore more independent mutations happen. And when there's a good mutation in the way things are done, Americans are very quick to adopt them and use them for their own ends in their lives. I think that's why Americans are so innovative.

I call bullshit. The Japanese are the most intelligent hard working people are on earth? You must be Japanese. The Japanese have invented what? We work harder in America than people in Japan work. We are the most creative nation on earth.

Japan the most attractive? HELL no. There is almost no biodiversity in Japan, and too many Japanese people have the same look as a result. Japan is your dreamland only, honestly if the Japanese are so smart, why are people in Japan building robots? Japan has the highest suicide rates, why?

As far as healthy bodies, the Japanese are healthy, it has nothing to do with genetics, it's simple, they care more about clean food and water. At the same time, they are replacing themselves with robots, so I'm not a fan of Japan like I once was. At one point I wanted to live in Japan, or at least visit, but seriously, just because some of the culture is beautiful does not mean the future is bright for Japan.

The stuff you posted about children did not make much sense at all. I don't think all children have good character and I certainly don't think the Japanese have some sorta monopoly on character. Why do you think Japanese children are the best? I don't think it matters how old they are or where they are from, it's an internal thing. My experience is, physical beauty and health have absolutely nothing to do with character at all, in fact most of the beautiful people are crazy.

You take a lot of what I say out of context.

First of all, it was never implied that the Japanese are beautiful solely as a result of genetics. I pointed out that their diet is very clean (one of the hallmarks of advanced civilization,) and this is one of the reasons for their health. Anyone can milk the bloom and glow of perfect health out of their genes simply by eating healthy and working hard.

Myself, I'm not even Asian. Doesn't mean I can't admire the Japanese.

Now, if Americans are so hard working and creative, why does America suck so much? Why are most of your cities souless, corporate slums? America was great only when women couldn't vote and a standing army was considered useless. Kinda like... umm Japan. 'Cept women can vote over there.

-Japan doesn't have the highest suicide rate. That is a myth.

Onto children: They're physically healthy, mentally uncorrupted.. the seedling is there. But most will grow crooked.

You take a lot of what I say out of context.

You don't have much experience with TimeTraveler, eh?

You take a lot of what I say out of context.

First of all, it was never implied that the Japanese are beautiful solely as a result of genetics. I pointed out that their diet is very clean (one of the hallmarks of advanced civilization,) and this is one of the reasons for their health. Anyone can milk the bloom and glow of perfect health out of their genes simply by eating healthy and working hard.

Myself, I'm not even Asian. Doesn't mean I can't admire the Japanese.

Now, if Americans are so hard working and creative, why does America suck so much? Why are most of your cities souless, corporate slums? America was great only when women couldn't vote and a standing army was considered useless. Kinda like... umm Japan. 'Cept women can vote over there.

-Japan doesn't have the highest suicide rate. That is a myth.

Onto children: They're physically healthy, mentally uncorrupted.. the seedling is there. But most will grow crooked.

What kind of American says America sucks? If America sucks why don't you go live in Japan.

Name one great invention by the Japanese. China invented gunpower, Africans invented music and built pyramids, Europeans invented modern warfare and space travel, Americans invented the internet. Japan has invented what? I am asking what big paradigm shifting inventions they have made.
Americans made the internet, the Japanese made the internet better, both with video game consels that helped to improve the graphics available on computers, and in the programming aspect aswell, hence innovation.
Robots are terrible for the economy. Robots steal jobs that humans could be doing. Sure robots speed up the economy in certain ways, but most of the jobs that robots do, are the jobs humans should be doing, like taking car of the elderly, and teaching, and helping the sick. Do we really want to reduce the value of human life by building robots? I think the future is not bright at all for Japan. China's economy has surpassed Japan already and is second only to America in terms of overall economic size and military strength. Japan is in serious trouble, what will Japan do to compete with China and 1 billion Chinese? Invent a robot economy? I think it's a bad strategy unless Japanese people plan on all being artists, but once again who will buy the art if there are fewer humans to buy it? When you build a lot of robots you reduce the value of human life. If you let robots take care of the elderly, thats about the worst thing in the world you can do for the youth because the youth's main job in any economy is to take care of the elderly, by being caretakers, doctors, delivery, whatever, the elderly have all the money and power because Japan is a traditional society much like America. If in America we decided to build robots and have robots teach in schools, take care of the elderly, run hospitals, and do all the service jobs, it would destroy the middle class and thats the end right there.
I wasn't aware that China had surpassed Japan economically. China is planning to control the steel industry pretty soon though, which is more of a problem for America than Japan.
It's based on my experience, most beautiful people are high maintnance. You can marry Paris Hilton if you want to, I'm sure she tries to be a good person, and who knows maybe she is, but if she is like all those hollywood bimbo's then shes just a dumb blonde chick who makes a living out of being a pretty body. It's just not my type.. as I do not value beauty of that sort to the same degree as you do.
Actually the Hilton sisters have quite a few bussinesses between them.

What kind of American says America sucks? If America sucks why don't you go live in Japan.Typical retard response.

God bless America...ns

What kind of American says America sucks? If America sucks why don't you go live in Japan.
Since he said most of "your" cities, I'm guessing he's not American.

What kind of American says America sucks? If America sucks why don't you go live in Japan.

If you look at my profile, you'll see that I live in a city of about one million, just north of the American border.

My world-travelled Urban Studies professor describes Calgary as 'ok' probably because he has too much tact to state the obvious. But then, Calgary actually kinda sucks. It's pretty boring here. Too low density. Increasing homelessness

Good citizens, TimeTraveler, are at least a little self-critical of their country.

Americans made the internet, the Japanese made the internet better, both with video game consels that helped to improve the graphics available on computers, and in the programming aspect aswell, hence innovation.



There's a reason not much innovation happens in America. If you innovate, you'll get sued. Example:

A virtual reality system described by the source as 'amazing, revoluationary,' was demonstrated to corporate execs. They thought so too, but during the testing process one of them fell over a couch and hurt their arm. It was dropped right then, as the risk was too great.

This doesn't happen in places like Japan because the country supports innovation, the legal system is more just, and there are fewer idiots. Anything invented or innovated in America happens despite the system. The days of free thinking are over.

This doesn't happen in places like Japan because the country supports innovation, the legal system is more just, and there are fewer idiots. Anything invented or innovated in America happens despite the system. The days of free thinking are over.

That's right; they released the virtual gameboy, which ended up giving thousands of people seizures.

But then, the Japs are completely subservient to the Company. They don't innovate (unlike Americans) because of their group think.

This came after the vboy. And it supposedly fixed the major flaws.

Loyalty is not the same as subservience, and it does not imply lack of creativity either.

Yeah, come on Roman.

Didn't Japan bring us Super Mario Brothers--the game with two Italian brothers in fashionable suspenders dividing their time between spitting fireballs out of their nostrils at little gumpa things and jumping into green pipes into different dimensions?

And what of Bubble Bobble? The game where a cute, tiny dinosaur encapsulates ghosts and other horrific abominations with bubbles and then pops them, killing them in the process. The Japs aren't creative? Pfft. You're not creative.

Or Katamari Damaci, the closest thing possible to a legal shroom trip.

Ok, I admit, Japan innovates with things that don't exist. Or go vrrroooom!