The Gun Counter

I know the caveats between animal and human behavior, but the Behavioral Sink results were thought provoking (my emphases):

Many [female rats] were unable to carry pregnancy to full term or to survive delivery of their litters if they did. An even greater number, after successfully giving birth, fell short in their maternal functions. Among the males the behavior disturbances ranged from sexual deviation to cannibalism and from frenetic overactivity to a pathological withdrawal from which individuals would emerge to eat, drink and move about only when other members of the community were asleep. The social organization of the animals showed equal disruption.

Substitute "abortion" for carrying pregnancy to term and "killin' each other over the weekend" for cannibalism, and you have a good description of Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, NYC, etc. Probably could include Seattle, Portland, and areas of LA, too.

Rich wrote:

HTRN wrote:

randy wrote:As a result of my time in the military and living all over the place, I determined that the average IQ of an area was inversely proportional to population density and proximity to sea water.

Manhattan is an island on the New York bay, with the highest population density in the US - just under 67 thousand people per square mile. By your reasoning, it should be entirely populated with the likes of Forrest Gump.

HTRN, doesn't your sig kinda prove the point?

I have a inability to abide by social norms. Not brain damage.

randy wrote:As a result of my time in the military and living all over the place, I determined that the average IQ of an area was inversely proportional to population density and proximity to sea water. Having lived in Hawaii, Baltimore, and spending significant time in the LA and SF areas have done nothing to dissuade me from this formulation.

That doesn't account for Austin, San Antonio, or Sacramento. Or Chicago, if you want to get technical about it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.

Langenator wrote:

randy wrote:As a result of my time in the military and living all over the place, I determined that the average IQ of an area was inversely proportional to population density and proximity to sea water. Having lived in Hawaii, Baltimore, and spending significant time in the LA and SF areas have done nothing to dissuade me from this formulation.

That doesn't account for Austin, San Antonio, or Sacramento. Or Chicago, if you want to get technical about it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.

Well it's all relative, and this wasn't meant to be a scientific predictive formula, simply a statement of observed trends.

For instance having lived in San Antonio and Sacramento, I consider them MUCH more livable than any of the coastal cities I mentioned. San Antonio and Austin are both in Texas, which gives them a boost because if nothing else that it's easy to get away from them to saner areas than other places. (I PCSed from Mather in Sacramento to Kelly in Texas, by way of Goodbuddy Airplane Patch in San Angelo. It was a vast improvement! In food and shooting opportunities if nothing else). Honolulu? 5 freaking' hours minimum in a Greyhound with wings to end up in...LA.

I consider Chicago an interesting place to visit with friends that live in the area. (and growing up in Iowa in the 70's, listening to WLS, later watching WGN, and having half my dorm floor in college from Chicago Land, at least the place names are familiar). Live there myself? NFW!!!

If I never see the land of Aloha, La La land or Baltimore Hon! again it'll be too damned soon.

Also keep in mind that it's been 20-30 years since I've been in some of those places, so there may have been a convergence. YMMV yadda yadda yadda

HTRN wrote:I have a inability to abide by social norms.

I have that, too. It irritates my wife and horrifies my kids.

Weetabix wrote:

HTRN wrote:I have a inability to abide by social norms.

I have that, too. It irritates my wife and horrifies my kids.

Having met you.... that's not exactly how I would describe you.

You're seemingly just excellent with, well, most norms. Presumably the ones you consider to serve some useful purpose.

I have to assume it's the other ones, the ones that you judge to be either totally useless or just temporarily not relevant (:lol:) that you reject/ignore. And it's situational.

Because I'm the exact same way.

Reminds me of a guy I knew in college. In style he was full on punk, spiky blue mohawk, leather, spikes, boots, etc. If he thought you were abusing his friends in any way, he'd fight you in an instant with a casual disregard for his own safety. In every other way, he was the sweetest, most polite, even gentlest person you'd ever meet. Very consciously selective in what rules and conventions he let bind him. Decent to people, everything else was 'fuck that fake bullshit'.

Extreme example, and IMO he was a little too tightly wrapped for his own good, but conventions and norms are meant to serve us, not the other way around.

Greg wrote: .... but conventions and norms are meant to serve us, not the other way around.

Of course, but just because one cannot decipher what purpose a norm or convention serves, does not mean it does not serve one. This is the point of Chesterton's fence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Che ... .27s_fence

Vonz90 wrote:

Greg wrote: .... but conventions and norms are meant to serve us, not the other way around.

Of course, but just because one cannot decipher what purpose a norm or convention serves, does not mean it does not serve one. This is the point of Chesterton's fence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Che ... .27s_fence

I'm aware.

I also, as a free man, get to decide for myself if I understand something well enough to choose to do away with it.

You assume a great deal when your automatic standard reaction is, 'if he's choosing to do away with something, the only reason must be that he doesn't understand it'.

Greg wrote:

Vonz90 wrote:

Greg wrote: .... but conventions and norms are meant to serve us, not the other way around.

Of course, but just because one cannot decipher what purpose a norm or convention serves, does not mean it does not serve one. This is the point of Chesterton's fence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Che ... .27s_fence

I'm aware.

I also, as a free man, get to decide for myself if I understand something well enough to choose to do away with it.

You assume a great deal when your automatic standard reaction is, 'if he's choosing to do away with something, the only reason must be that he doesn't understand it'.

I said it as the general case (note that I did not say "you") and I meant it as the general case.

As a general case I support following norms and convenient unless there is a very positive negative case against them. Humility is a wonderful thing and admitting that one cannot always see the consequences of a given action is part of that.

One can do whatever one want. I support that. This does not imply that one should.

Vonz90 wrote:

Greg wrote:

Vonz90 wrote: Of course, but just because one cannot decipher what purpose a norm or convention serves, does not mean it does not serve one. This is the point of Chesterton's fence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Che ... .27s_fence

I'm aware.

I also, as a free man, get to decide for myself if I understand something well enough to choose to do away with it.

You assume a great deal when your automatic standard reaction is, 'if he's choosing to do away with something, the only reason must be that he doesn't understand it'.

I said it as the general case (note that I did not say "you") and I meant it as the general case.

As a general case I support following norms and convenient unless there is a very positive negative case against them. Humility is a wonderful thing and admitting that one cannot always see the consequences of a given action is part of that.

One can do whatever one want. I support that. This does not imply that one should.

Hmmm. No fun if you're going to be so sensible. I must apologise for misreading you, because I can't see anything wrong with this.

Though I will bend a convention if I see a definite positive in doing so, not necessarily a strong one. Matter of personal judgement. Of course I reserve the right to change my mind and follow said convention, in light of new data.