h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

...I suppose I might begin, in order to set the tone, with an interpretation on the perennial question as to why don't bite: Proposed answer, "Probably because you don't look very much like a <><." This is in response to: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F1926355?thread=5515389&skip=20&show=20 BBC - h2g2 - A Conversation Forum, posts 24 and 25. The questions there aside, I've been reading over some of your psychological tests, on this occasion and on a previous one when I was studying responses on the "henriprefect" question in PR. Given my habit of living outside the envelope, I'm usually rather uncomfortable with questionnaires of the character. I expect I often make an impression like the proverbial Bull in the china shop. However, this isn't about all that. I'd like to get up a forum on psychohistory. Just defining the term is a difficult task, I'd personally begin with a differentiation of micro-level studies and macro-level studies. With the first, one is thinking in terms of psychoanalyzing historic personalities. Examples: 1) Suitable for a final exam question, with the warning to the students that if they get it wrong, they'll flunk the course: Problem, on a basis of his paintings, writings, movie work and TV talk show appearances, write a psychological profile for Salvador Dali. My own answer on this one would be just two words, fifteen letters, one space. There are a few other answers I'd accept, just so long as its reasonably tantamount to the same. 2) Other personalities of reference: Isak Dennison My answer on this one would still be a two word answer, the first word, though, would be "advanced". 3) Someone once suggested that no one had ever successfully psychoanalyzed Joan of Arc. Hearing the challenge, I thought it over several times and responded that, "I, for one, am not willing to try." After further reflections, several days later, I came back with a second response, "Phenomenally high IQ". [The French military IQ testing standard at that time was a 1 - 20 scale. Average is "10". I suggested that Joan of Arc definitely rated a "20".] Thought problems of other sorts: 4) Might Ivan the Terrible's life-long pinworm infestion, evidenced by the rather pinched features in his official portaits, have affected his temperament? An interactive problem: 5) On a basis of their respective psychological profiles, if Vincent van Gogh and Salvador Dali were respectively dragged kicking and screaming into opposite corners of a wrestling ring, they were free to do anything they wanted, what kind of interaction do you suppose might develop between them? Starting condition: Both are angry and somewhat terrified about having been dragged into the ring. 6) I'm tempted to throw in a detailed treatment on the Borgias here. Time, unfortunately, forbids. Micro-level studies aside, with macro-level psychohistory, one is, instead of personalities, thinking in terms of dynamic demographic principles. Problems: 1) From the dynamics of the secular trend, derive an idealized and generalized formulation for political and economic policy. My own answer: I. Authoritative leadership and governance; taken together with, II. Sustained growth economics; in that prerequisite order, to the purpose of producing, III. A positive synergy of the secular trend. 2) Explain by means of example the application of the Hardy-Weinberg law to predicting success or failure of a proposed colonial venture. Example: The establishing of the Viking colony in Greenland compared and contrasted with the establishing of the Jamestown colony in Virginia. Establishment of a successful colony requires that one have a logistical support capability adequate to install and sustain a population in excess of the Hardy-Weinberg limit over the course of a generation, the term of the 'generation' being reckoned as a term of years equal to

Um, thanks, if you get something set up then I will probably pop along

...philosophy on debatable questions, I'm willing to take either side of the debate, or even introduce a third proposition into the discussion in order to discourage excessively dogmatic thinking, just so long as its stipulated that the debating position I take isn't binding.

Mainly posting here at the moment to bring this back up to the top of my posting so I can find it again easily...

Still tied up with other matters.

This looks interesting

yes, we'll have to see what comes of it.

Yellow Submarine

One of the great stumbling blocks is 'psychobabble' confusion.

colloquial malapropisms like 'antisocial' for shy, standoffish, socially reserved.... While terms like psychopathic, or con-artist, or sycophant are better synonyms. Strictly used, perhaps the best synonym is "conscienceless"

...to be continued.

"...so little time..."

Posting to bring this back up to the top of my conversation list. still going to be tied up most of the time for several more weeks.