It does not. It's a very lame excuse. There were heavy protests in this country during the Vietnam war. Not any more, but that has nothing to do with the streets. Americans don't care. Period.
Neat, should be utilized more. Thought about something like that when working on a new version of my site, but I am not conversant enough with CSS to go for it at this point.
Since when M.D. stands for high IQ? Yes, doctors are often convinced of their superiority but that has little to do with intelligence. Their sense of superiority might actually be the reason why they are poor investors and not their high IQ because overall I doubt their IQ is so high.
I would like to see some research to support his thesis. I agree that the temperament is important, very much so, but at the same time I am afraid this might be misconstrued by some that a lower IQ somehow does not matter if you are an investor or trader. That's not what he says, but it seems to have been received that way by some on Facebook.
You can actually come across people (on trading forums) who believe that a lower IQ is beneficial for a trader. I don't believe this.
BTW, I am a day trader by occupation and my IQ is 131. I think my high IQ helps me in trading.
I am a fan of his, being a theoretical physicist by training and having read more than one book by him and about him, but to tell the truth nobody is perfect and Feynman's showmanship was at times considered cheap and annoying by some of his friends and collaborators.
Here is what Murray Gell-Mann has to say about this side of Feynman's personality:
They are just a part of the larger culture of German intellectual thievery: from German politicians who plagiarize their PhD dissertations to writers who plagiarize their books to business people plagiarizing the products of their competitors. It's amazing how little Germans seem to care about it.
>I've heard just the opposite from friends of mine that have moved to the west cost, i.e. that it's easy to make friends there but it's often not a long term thing.
I think these are just silly stereotypes. Some people make better friends and others don't. There are times when you make friends easily and then there times when you don't. The East/West coast thing is simply spurious.
I don't know how many have read this piece, but here is a scoop: "North Korean dictator and nuclear warmonger Kim Jong Un currently sits in ninth place, and Beyoncé is 11th."
>Psychology gave up its efforts to become a hard science when it gave up trying to explain behavior from its roots in the brain, and moved into the realm of observing behavior and reporting correlations.
Well, that's was astronomy was doing all the time before Newton. Does it mean it was not a hard science?
Psychology is doing the best it can do. It may simply never be a hard science. It is not now to most people, myself included. I think it is not a hard science because the human nature is too complex to be investigated in a simple manner. Psychologists are aware of it and they refuse to use simplistic models. Neuroscience is much simpler. It studies the brain, not the human personality that can have many layers.
In fact, the standard model of particle physics is hardly a complete unifying theory. Far from it. What's worse, the more all-encompassing theory of fundamental interactions, M-theory, seems to indicate that we may need to rely on several theories to describe the deeper reality, which is not unlike in psychology where we also don't have a unifying picture, but several pictures of human nature.
I say so as a physicist. It's easy to bash psychology, but it's important to be realistic about what you can really expect from it.
I don't consider psychology to be a particularly hard science at all, but I don't think it should be dismissed as a non-scientific field.
Yes, that's a bit of a stretch and I say so as a physicist. But he is referred to as a "mathematical physicist" which is as close as possible to being a physicist if you are really a mathematician and your work has been used in physics.
I don't think it does. I disagree with him, but in general one's tone and one's arguments are two different things. I think, though, that he is too dismissive of the positions he does not like and his counter-arguments are not necessarily better.
I am not concerned whether my comment was well received or not. I am not here to win a popularity contest. But what I am concerned about is your appalingly manipulative tactics that you used to respond to my commment by insinuating that I had some political agenda. That does not sit well with me at all and that's because I truly dislike manipulative people. Discrediting someone's point of view through insinuations (and, potentially, affecting his karma) does not make you right, but merely pandering to the crowd.
Incidentally, saying "your comments" instead of "your comment" (and a brief one at that) is yet another example of how you make things up to portray people more negatively than they deserve it, quite like a skilled political operative. I am not surprised that what Mr. Ryan said was merely a "gaffe" to you. You seem to thrive on "gaffes" like that in this thread.
I should probably note that I am a technical type by nature, training and occupation, and so to me as to many other technical types, "gaffes" like that are a sign of mental sloppinnes, at the very best, and that simply does not inspire confidence in people who make them and makes me wonder about their real motives. The technical fields are defined by high precision (or any precision at all) that simply does not exist in non-technical fields.
I have been using the Internet for over 20 years, so I happen to have some perspective on things, and must say, regretfully, that it is the rise of the manipulative crowd that I find the greatest threat to the Internet future usefulness, including the usefulness of HN. But I doubt you care about it, so let me finish right here.