T Nation

Obscure Quotes That Made You Think

[quote]DJHT wrote:
And get off my lawn![/quote]

=D

“Why do you they call you cock?” -Coach Wally

“People should think more.”

This one really got me.

This reminds me of the current book I am reading, Atlas Shrugged in a section about money.
This topic reminds me of the smartest guy in the room but with no common sense in the real world or not having any people skills.
This topic has many offshoots.

[quote]LarryDavid wrote:

Also: Overall improvements in tech will only make the average person more educated, if anything. If somebody said something like critical thinking and the ability to interpret things is getting worse, I could see where they were coming from. However, knowledge on its own is more available than ever now. Which means people on average KNOW more than ever before. They may not be smarter, though.[/quote]

I doubt that. They may be educated differently, but not necessarily more.

Consider someone like my dad- He started into electronics in the late '40’s with vacuum tube circuitry and worked through to the early '90’s, finishing with integrated circuits (ic chips and modern computing). He was vastly more educated than any new graduates, but the majority of what he had learned was not contemporary knowledge.

Also, after having recently gone back to school I can tell you this- Technological advancement and availability be damned, kids now are just as dumb as when I was their age. They just have new ways of doing it.

Since its a bodybuilding website, I’ll mention one by Bill Pearl that I like:

“As long as there’s movement, there’s hope.”

I think the origin was a guy he knew who wanted to get in shape, but had a lot of physical issues. So Pearl had to figure out how to train him while avoiding the issues, using just the movements that the guy could make.

[quote]postholedigger wrote:
I go past the possible (the impossible?) Beyond that, to where the possible and impossible meet to become…the possimpible.[/quote]

FUCKING LOOOOL.

Great thread guys. Very interesting stuff.

[quote]DJHT wrote:
And now the youth of today would rather text in obscure language than actually converse. Will that degrade or skew the bell curve of intelligence?[/quote]

Eh, I go with idea that a population (as if comparing to a sample) usually fits a normal distribution.

I think it’s a terrible (like Charles) fad/trend/event to see all these people sending 140 character messages instead of learning how to verbally communicate and write prose and letters instead. Just looking at the so called average soldier during various wars writing back to his family/friends/wife, the guy probably couldn’t pass a 3rd grade spelling test, but they sure could write.

What’s even worse on the text messaging, is the connection between people is being lost. Not some random strangers either, but family members and long lasting friends. The relationship just disappears and turns into a 140 character conversation. I simply refuse to text people at all or at the most one text message a day. I have explained to several folks that if it’s important enough that it’ll require more than one message, probably good idea to call me.

Anecdote, about two weeks ago I was invited to a wedding. Now, I knew when and where the wedding was happening before they sent out the invitations. And, I expected a nice hand written invitation in the mail. I’m sure you can guess what form the actual invitation I got. I gave my buddy a call and told him, unless he sent a real invitation he’d not be seeing me at the wedding.

Just thinking about the mundaneness that text messaging puts on life and specially important events. You really are going to announce your engagement through a text message? You’re going to announce you are going to have a child with your wife through a text message? What happened to showing fucking reverence? Hell, a simple phone call would have been better than waking up to a message in the middle of the day saying, “Yo, me and so-and-so are pregnant, dawg! Wanna be the godfather?”

[quote]DJHT wrote:
^ Well man as a guy that has interviewed many, many young people to work for me I could debate this argument. Now that could be a regional thing so not going to pull my small sample size as the word of God. But I will say it is something to consider.[/quote]

Well you can count half the Midwest, Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Georgia because most of my buddies (and other assorted folks) from there speak as if they learned to talk not to long ago. Rare instances do you see a person (leaning more heavily toward the male gender on this observation) who talks, as Irish said, eloquently.

“Always talk to God, never listen to the cops.” - most profound philosopher in the world…

The actual quote that made me think the most is this one:

“The enemy is like a woman, weak in face of opposition, but correspondingly strong when not opposed. In a quarrel with a man, it is natural for a woman to lose heart and run away when he faces up to her; on the other hand, if the man begins to be afraid and to give ground, her rage, vindictiveness and fury overflow and know no limit.” - Ignatius

Chauvinism 'til death do us part.

“Talent is useless without training, thank God.” -Mark Twain

“In discipline lies freedom” -if I remember correctly, this is an ancient Japanese proverb

“When you point a finger at someone, three are pointed back at yourself” -Chad Waterbury

“The loudest one in the room is the weakest one in the room” -Frank Lucas, American Gangster

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]DJHT wrote:
And now the youth of today would rather text in obscure language than actually converse. Will that degrade or skew the bell curve of intelligence?[/quote]

Eh, I go with idea that a population (as if comparing to a sample) usually fits a normal distribution.

I think it’s a terrible (like Charles) fad/trend/event to see all these people sending 140 character messages instead of learning how to verbally communicate and write prose and letters instead. Just looking at the so called average soldier during various wars writing back to his family/friends/wife, the guy probably couldn’t pass a 3rd grade spelling test, but they sure could write.

What’s even worse on the text messaging, is the connection between people is being lost. Not some random strangers either, but family members and long lasting friends. The relationship just disappears and turns into a 140 character conversation. I simply refuse to text people at all or at the most one text message a day. I have explained to several folks that if it’s important enough that it’ll require more than one message, probably good idea to call me.

Anecdote, about two weeks ago I was invited to a wedding. Now, I knew when and where the wedding was happening before they sent out the invitations. And, I expected a nice hand written invitation in the mail. I’m sure you can guess what form the actual invitation I got. I gave my buddy a call and told him, unless he sent a real invitation he’d not be seeing me at the wedding.

Just thinking about the mundaneness that text messaging puts on life and specially important events. You really are going to announce your engagement through a text message? You’re going to announce you are going to have a child with your wife through a text message? What happened to showing fucking reverence? Hell, a simple phone call would have been better than waking up to a message in the middle of the day saying, “Yo, me and so-and-so are pregnant, dawg! Wanna be the godfather?”[/quote]

I disagree. Communication technology is a medium that enhances your predisposition. (am I thesaurausing?!) What I mean to say is: Naturally socially averse people will use texting and the like as an escape from face to face interaction. Socially skilled people will use it as a means of constant interaction and easy planning.

I work in an indstry that rewards popularity (the bar scene) and most of my friends have over 100 BBM contacts, hundreds more people in their phones and 1500+ friends on facebook. We have more relationships as of result of this reality rather than fewer. Technology is just a tool to serve your aims. This technological determinism is just the irrationality of Luddites like yourself who fear some power influence lurking in their cell phones.

As for the argument that these technologies make people more ignorant… People have always been ignorant; but once upon a time they’d actually have to write a letter and find that person they wanted to annoy. Now they can click a couple buttons and shout their silly notions to the world. Technology doesn’t make people dumber, it makes it easier for them to prove just how stupid they really are.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And actually, Einstein’s political writings and what not were pretty simple to understand.

You want to read someone you can’t understand, read Descartes or Kant or Hagel. You know that they’re not being pretentious because they clearly understand what they’re saying, but they’re just so far off into the next world that average people will have an intensely difficult time understanding it. [/quote]

I had to read all three - and more - during university - I struggled big time. All the students struggled. Some of my professors struggled, but I think that had to do with them being apathetic rather than not understanding their specialism.

I think saying that technology lowers the standards of communications is wrong as well. I also think we should make a distinction here of speaking well and writing well. Often they go hand in hand, but knowing the right words and delivering them effectively are two very different things. Speaking skills are not the same as writing skills.
I think the technology lets people share their opinions and ideas easily with a much more peripheral group of people. Previously, someone you met at a work party or something like that wouldn’t have any access to most of your thoughts. You saw them at the work party, maybe you got their number and will schedule another time to see them. Now you meet them once and can access a running tally of all their activities and opinions on facebook.

If you want to go on terms of intelligence, that’s hard to say exactly.
http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml
Basically it says that IQ testing scores have been increasing over time. Personally I don’t think that we’re necessarily getting smarter in general, but I do think that the knowledge is more readily available, and that there is a wider base knowledge, that has shifted from what it originally was.

In terms of functionality of this knowledge, intelligence testing has always been pretty culture bound hasn’t it? A retiree probably has less functionality of computer knowledge while a college student may find it extremely pertinent. Someone living in the rainforest would need to know about what plants and animals it was okay to eat or mess with, how to navigate, what the uses for various plants are. All knowledge that would probably be useless in say, new york.

[quote]MementoMori wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]DJHT wrote:
And now the youth of today would rather text in obscure language than actually converse. Will that degrade or skew the bell curve of intelligence?[/quote]

Eh, I go with idea that a population (as if comparing to a sample) usually fits a normal distribution.

I think it’s a terrible (like Charles) fad/trend/event to see all these people sending 140 character messages instead of learning how to verbally communicate and write prose and letters instead. Just looking at the so called average soldier during various wars writing back to his family/friends/wife, the guy probably couldn’t pass a 3rd grade spelling test, but they sure could write.

What’s even worse on the text messaging, is the connection between people is being lost. Not some random strangers either, but family members and long lasting friends. The relationship just disappears and turns into a 140 character conversation. I simply refuse to text people at all or at the most one text message a day. I have explained to several folks that if it’s important enough that it’ll require more than one message, probably good idea to call me.

Anecdote, about two weeks ago I was invited to a wedding. Now, I knew when and where the wedding was happening before they sent out the invitations. And, I expected a nice hand written invitation in the mail. I’m sure you can guess what form the actual invitation I got. I gave my buddy a call and told him, unless he sent a real invitation he’d not be seeing me at the wedding.

Just thinking about the mundaneness that text messaging puts on life and specially important events. You really are going to announce your engagement through a text message? You’re going to announce you are going to have a child with your wife through a text message? What happened to showing fucking reverence? Hell, a simple phone call would have been better than waking up to a message in the middle of the day saying, “Yo, me and so-and-so are pregnant, dawg! Wanna be the godfather?”[/quote]

I disagree. Communication technology is a medium that enhances your predisposition. (am I thesaurausing?!) What I mean to say is: Naturally socially averse people will use texting and the like as an escape from face to face interaction. Socially skilled people will use it as a means of constant interaction and easy planning.

I work in an indstry that rewards popularity (the bar scene) and most of my friends have over 100 BBM contacts, hundreds more people in their phones and 1500+ friends on facebook. We have more relationships as of result of this reality rather than fewer. Technology is just a tool to serve your aims. This technological determinism is just the irrationality of Luddites like yourself who fear some power influence lurking in their cell phones.

As for the argument that these technologies make people more ignorant… People have always been ignorant; but once upon a time they’d actually have to write a letter and find that person they wanted to annoy. Now they can click a couple buttons and shout their silly notions to the world. Technology doesn’t make people dumber, it makes it easier for them to prove just how stupid they really are.

[/quote]

Not really a Luddite, I just don’t multi-task so the idea of breaking concentration multiple times a day to answer one question at a time is not something I’ll entertain. I call people all throughout the day, and do text, but that is usually announcements, not full blown conversations.

As for your friends and yourself. I am working on a business degree and am an officer in several social and fraternal organizations (who host events weekly). It may not be to the same degree, but I still remain popular sans-texting all day. I still keep everything to phone calls and e-mail/facebook.

[quote]jre67t wrote:
This reminds me of the current book I am reading, Atlas Shrugged in a section about money.
This topic reminds me of the smartest guy in the room but with no common sense in the real world or not having any people skills.
This topic has many offshoots.[/quote]

When Fransisco is at the party and gives his speech about money?

That is one of my favorite parts.

It has always bothered my when people say “it’s only money” . It’s also always said with a tone that implies it’s noble to not place much value on money.

I’ve been meaning to read myself some Ayn Rand, but I’ve always seen money as simply a means to an end. Its not really important, I kind of just see it as: you use it to get something you want or need, money will come in and you will spend it. Same as I see curse words. They’re just words. You use them.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And actually, Einstein’s political writings and what not were pretty simple to understand.

You want to read someone you can’t understand, read Descartes or Kant or Hagel. You know that they’re not being pretentious because they clearly understand what they’re saying, but they’re just so far off into the next world that average people will have an intensely difficult time understanding it. [/quote]

No, Hegel was pretentious and if you actually understand what he is trying to say it is often horseshit.

Same is true for Keynes, who at least was occasionally entgertaining.

I like this one in particular:

“The practice which the writers of these books employ is not more false than it is absurd. They state some trifling case of the person they call Jesus Christ, and then cut out a sentence from some passage of the Old Testament and call it a prophecy of that case. But when the words thus cut out are restored to the place they are taken from, and read with the words before and after them, they give the lie to the New Testament. A short instance or two of this will suffice for the whole.” - Thomas Paine

I like this one a lot too :slight_smile:

“Now, if this were a fact, it is consistent with that attribute of God called his goodness, that no time should be lost in letting poor unfortunate man know it; and as that goodness was united to Almighty power, and that power to Almighty wisdom, all the means existed in the hand of the Creator to make it known immediately over the whole earth, in a manner suitable to the Almightiness of his divine nature, and with evidence that would not leave man in doubt; for it is always incumbent upon us, in all cases, to believe that the Almighty always acts, not by imperfect means as imperfect man acts, but consistently with his Almightiness. It is this only that can become the infallible criterion by which we can possibly distinguish the works of God from the works of man.” - Thomas Paine