Me and a buddy of mine are going to DC Comics tomorrow to pitch an idea for a Batman graphic novel. I wrote the script, and my buddy’s doing artwork and lettering.
Are mortal men even allowed audience with anyone with authority who would listen?
It's annoying that I want the vast majority of 1999 Mode changes, but losing the navigation aid means I can't find my way to objectives. This wouldn't be as much of a problem in a real 1999 game, they were designed with good 2D maps or had game worlds with very distinct landmarks, levels were designed to be functional and navigable first and THEN pretty. Now with games designed around the idea that you can toss out all sense of proper level design in order to push forward on pretty and believable settings full of STUFF, that navigation aid is needed to just have an idea of what direction you're supposed to be going.
People who are old, stupid and gullible almost certainly were just as stupid and gullible when they were young, and they've been allowed to get away with it for long enough that they never grew out of it.
Actually, there was a study that the older someone gets, the more willing they are to trust complete strangers. Which is why older people are more susceptible to being conned. Doesn't have much to do with how they were when they were younger.
Actually, there was a study that the older someone gets, the more willing they are to trust complete strangers. Which is why older people are more susceptible to being conned. Doesn't have much to do with how they were when they were younger.
I don't see how such a study could be done properly without being required to test the same people as they got older.
People who are older now grew up in a different environment than we did when they were younger, so if one was to do a study on older vs. younger people, the test would be inaccurate due to differences in environment.
In other words, the test sounds flawed without a proper control to measure against variation.
I don't see how such a study could be done properly without being required to test the same people as they got older.
People who are older now grew up in a different environment than we did when they were younger, so if one was to do a study on older vs. younger people, the test would be inaccurate due to differences in environment.
In other words, the test sounds flawed without a proper control to measure against variation.
It got published in PNAS, which is one of the bigger journals in the science world. The secret is in sample size and the brain scans that they took at the same time as the study. They took a very large sample size of older people and a large sample size of younger people and showed them a series of images of people with trustworthy and untrustworthy qualities in appearance. Younger people had a higher amount of activity in the anterior insula within the cerebral cortex and also correctly identified more of the images than did older people, who had less activity in that region of the brain.
This part of the brain has been identified with "trust" and the "vibes" you get from people, which from this study, can be seen to be lacking in more older people than younger.
It got published in PNAS, which is one of the bigger journals in the science world. The secret is in sample size and the brain scans that they took at the same time as the study. They took a very large sample size of older people and a large sample size of younger people and showed them a series of images of people with trustworthy and untrustworthy qualities in appearance. Younger people had a higher amount of activity in the anterior insula within the cerebral cortex and also correctly identified more of the images than did older people, who had less activity in that region of the brain.
This part of the brain has been identified with "trust" and the "vibes" you get from people, which from this study, can be seen to be lacking in more older people than younger.
Chyron8472's got a point though. You can't accurately test trust, regardless of how generally accurate the method is, by testing people from different environments (and, since this is an age study, environment would mean time period as well).
Like Chyron said, there's no control (which would be testing the same person at different ages), and in order for a scientific study to be accurate there needs to be a proper control.
Most of your older generation grew up in a time where most people left their doors unlocked in the suburbs, which doesn't happen very often anymore. That alone ought to do a lot to skew trust issues.
I believe the images they used in the study were pictures of actual people from the forties, the principle "non-trustworthy" one being a famous used car salesman from that time period.
I don't think that tracking a single person over time would be a feasible line of study, simply because it takes too long and there's no guarantee that your subjects will survive until the end. Nobody would stake their career on that. Statistically speaking, with a large enough sample size, the trend should be the same, regardless of individual discrepancies.
That and I don't buy the rose-colored view of the past one bit. There have always been conmen and non-trustworthy people and older people are more likely to have had run ins with them, purely from living longer. My own grandma has told me stories of quick change artists that would come into their family diner and try to make off with most of the till and that diner was in one of those comfy southwest towns where everyone knows everyone. And even knowing that, she still almost ended up sending a few grand to some guy pretending to be my brother. He didn't even sound like my brother. To me, that's more than just generally being trusting because of how one grew up. And this is just one example. Loads of older people fall victim to similar cons and it can't just be a coincidence.
Perhaps I haven't done the best at elucidating the study, but believe me when I tell you, this thing has been peer-reviewed by some of the best people in the field and has physiological evidence to back it up.
I should also add that the link between judgement and the anterior insula of the cerebral cortex has already been defined. This study showed that it had less activity in older subjects. And not just some of the older subjects. Pretty much all of them.
It's annoying that I want the vast majority of 1999 Mode changes, but losing the navigation aid means I can't find my way to objectives. This wouldn't be as much of a problem in a real 1999 game, they were designed with good 2D maps or had game worlds with very distinct landmarks, levels were designed to be functional and navigable first and THEN pretty. Now with games designed around the idea that you can toss out all sense of proper level design in order to push forward on pretty and believable settings full of STUFF, that navigation aid is needed to just have an idea of what direction you're supposed to be going.
The level of casual anti science people utilize as 'facts' is interesting. Personal observation, while forming a basis for hypothesis, doesn't replace scientific experimentation in terms of establishing fact.
For instance, I believe in God, and I'll tell other people why (to a degree, like in open conversation that remains friendly and not pushy). But I don't expect to present him as fact since he's not verifiable from a third party objective stance. Personal observation leads to people thinking global warming isn't happening just because it's cold this season in Milwaukee.
And I'd wager that people actually locking their doors doesn't hurt in lowering crime rates either.
It just goes to show that most older people were more trusting in some ways even when they were young, than most of today's young people.
Like how my mom would spout off some stuff she'd heard on the news that was obviously littered with opinions and half-truths, and when I told her that you can't always believe what you hear, she'd say that when she was growing up, everything on the news was fact (and she was actually quite surprised to hear that television news has been biased for as long as television has been around).
Luckily, my mom's not one of those people who are dead-set in her ways (she's open to things like Snopes). My mom's boyfriend on the other hand... everything he hears on Fox News is indisputable fact, and he won't listen to any evidence against it (his answer to anything that goes against what he hears is "I don't know, but it still doesn't change the fact"). That would be a subject for a completely different study though.
Well Futurama is being cancelled... yet again. My day has officially been ruined.
They blame declining ratings. you know what doesn't help ratings? Airing halves of seasons at random times of the year with no advertising until the week before the first episode.
Well Futurama is being cancelled... yet again. My day has officially been ruined.
They blame declining ratings. you know what doesn't help ratings? Airing halves of seasons at random times of the year with no advertising until the week before the first episode.
So yay for me! I get free Fire Emblem next month. Thanks Nintendo! I wuv you guys!
(Already have MH3 and Luigi's Mansion 2, so when Mystery Dungeon turns up next month for my little bro, I get to register it and get Fire Emblem for free! )
Comments
Are mortal men even allowed audience with anyone with authority who would listen?
Actually, there was a study that the older someone gets, the more willing they are to trust complete strangers. Which is why older people are more susceptible to being conned. Doesn't have much to do with how they were when they were younger.
People who are older now grew up in a different environment than we did when they were younger, so if one was to do a study on older vs. younger people, the test would be inaccurate due to differences in environment.
In other words, the test sounds flawed without a proper control to measure against variation.
It got published in PNAS, which is one of the bigger journals in the science world. The secret is in sample size and the brain scans that they took at the same time as the study. They took a very large sample size of older people and a large sample size of younger people and showed them a series of images of people with trustworthy and untrustworthy qualities in appearance. Younger people had a higher amount of activity in the anterior insula within the cerebral cortex and also correctly identified more of the images than did older people, who had less activity in that region of the brain.
This part of the brain has been identified with "trust" and the "vibes" you get from people, which from this study, can be seen to be lacking in more older people than younger.
No it isn't. For real men it has to be a Steam account with 1000+ games.:o
Pretty sure there wasn't arm cutting in that.
Like Chyron said, there's no control (which would be testing the same person at different ages), and in order for a scientific study to be accurate there needs to be a proper control.
Most of your older generation grew up in a time where most people left their doors unlocked in the suburbs, which doesn't happen very often anymore. That alone ought to do a lot to skew trust issues.
I don't think that tracking a single person over time would be a feasible line of study, simply because it takes too long and there's no guarantee that your subjects will survive until the end. Nobody would stake their career on that. Statistically speaking, with a large enough sample size, the trend should be the same, regardless of individual discrepancies.
That and I don't buy the rose-colored view of the past one bit. There have always been conmen and non-trustworthy people and older people are more likely to have had run ins with them, purely from living longer. My own grandma has told me stories of quick change artists that would come into their family diner and try to make off with most of the till and that diner was in one of those comfy southwest towns where everyone knows everyone. And even knowing that, she still almost ended up sending a few grand to some guy pretending to be my brother. He didn't even sound like my brother. To me, that's more than just generally being trusting because of how one grew up. And this is just one example. Loads of older people fall victim to similar cons and it can't just be a coincidence.
Perhaps I haven't done the best at elucidating the study, but believe me when I tell you, this thing has been peer-reviewed by some of the best people in the field and has physiological evidence to back it up.
Here's a link to the abstract.
I should also add that the link between judgement and the anterior insula of the cerebral cortex has already been defined. This study showed that it had less activity in older subjects. And not just some of the older subjects. Pretty much all of them.
You used the Konami Code, didn't you?
Of course.
For instance, I believe in God, and I'll tell other people why (to a degree, like in open conversation that remains friendly and not pushy). But I don't expect to present him as fact since he's not verifiable from a third party objective stance. Personal observation leads to people thinking global warming isn't happening just because it's cold this season in Milwaukee.
Anybody know where I can get a better transparency for the MI2 Special Edition logo?
Also, how's:
EDIT:
Swapped out logos.
Scooby Doo: Mystery Incorporated is now the best Scooby Doo show. No contest.
If anyone knows anything about another TWD series. Please message me.
Wait. Scooby Doo was in Twin Peaks?
And I'd wager that people actually locking their doors doesn't hurt in lowering crime rates either.
It just goes to show that most older people were more trusting in some ways even when they were young, than most of today's young people.
Like how my mom would spout off some stuff she'd heard on the news that was obviously littered with opinions and half-truths, and when I told her that you can't always believe what you hear, she'd say that when she was growing up, everything on the news was fact (and she was actually quite surprised to hear that television news has been biased for as long as television has been around).
Luckily, my mom's not one of those people who are dead-set in her ways (she's open to things like Snopes). My mom's boyfriend on the other hand... everything he hears on Fox News is indisputable fact, and he won't listen to any evidence against it (his answer to anything that goes against what he hears is "I don't know, but it still doesn't change the fact"). That would be a subject for a completely different study though.
They blame declining ratings. you know what doesn't help ratings? Airing halves of seasons at random times of the year with no advertising until the week before the first episode.
Would you rather it became the current Simpsons?
The quality wasn't declining.
Well I don't know about that, because I don't watch it, but really, if something has 7 seasons, it's time to prepare for it to go to shit.
Shame that it's being cancelled if it showed no signs of going to shit, though.
Fuck.
http://www.nintendo.co.uk/Misc-/Nintendo-3DS-So-Many-Games-Promotion/Overview/Overview-750393.html
So yay for me! I get free Fire Emblem next month. Thanks Nintendo! I wuv you guys!
(Already have MH3 and Luigi's Mansion 2, so when Mystery Dungeon turns up next month for my little bro, I get to register it and get Fire Emblem for free!
I was scrolling through this page with "Chariots of the Dogs" just completed, and read this as
That makes me a soda popper. :eek:
https://soundcloud.com/mpgk/sets/might-of-ancient-remnants
.....whaaaaaaaaaaaaaatttt?
That just makes no dern sense. Like none. 0_o
(What wouiod they even do with it?)
A shitty game. Or a kinda fun Borderlands 2 DLC.