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

Thanks for the link Tango. The pictures are pretty good. Did you do them yourself?

Wotchit

Your post 139 makes very little sense - and not because of the bit you missed out. It turns out that your "I'm in MENSA too" from post 137 was not in addition to the other statements you had made but on the misconception that I had bothered to join that organisation (it being such a joke in my circle of friends). Whoever told you I was in it is lying, unless I've been made an honorary member and not been notified. You really do seem to believe the most unreliable people.

You missed out 3) that it isn't true.

I am mostly not insulting you but you would seem to be so paranoid that you think I am. I am, however, pointing out your mistakes - not necessarily always for your benefit but that of other readers who might otherwise believe you were right in your assertions. So, to turn it around, what is it in your life that makes you jump to so many wrong conclusions.

Thanks for adding that "mostly" in there SEF.

I have the feeling we all have better things to do than play these games. Well, at least I hope we all do. This thread doesn't really seem to be going in any direction that I can see any of the participants getting much benefit from.

Since this thread has already been hijacked utterly from its original intent..... Hmmmm.... Anybody interested in lending me a hand with the guide entries I'm going to work on next (one on life with large breasts, and the other on the fertility awareness method), or on the one I currently have in Peer Review (it's on a craft project, and I could especially use someone who does things like crafts, and will be able to tell if the instructions are clear and detailed enough)?

Or in helping me plan a meetup for the Northwest Researchers (and anyone else willing to brave the environs)? Seems like we need to do something to celebrate our impending graphixacation. (Yes, that's a made up word -- but it's a fun one, don't you think?)

hello nice thread you got here . Alot of abuse being flung about.and thank god it wasnt me who started it.Cause i always get blamed for it.Just for the record 47 fights 44 by way of knock out.3 by fright bye.

The "mostly" was necessary because it is not possible to avoid insulting someone by implication when they make so many outrageous errors which need to be corrected. MR could always start demonstrating these supposedly good research skills and desist from making so many errors. Then there would be no need to point them out.

Would you like to remind me again what assertions I've actually made, besides the fact that in my personal experience, Lil is not hypocritical, and that what Tango did caused some people to question everyone else they'd encountered on this site?

I didn't assert Tango didn't do the graphics...I asked him.

I didn't assert that he'd done anything illegal...I suggested there might possibly be legal implications.

I didn't assert that you were helping him in any way---ever.

I don't jump to wrong conclusions. I have only experience to base my criteria on, and in my experience, someone who refuses to answer straight forward questions tends to be hiding something. My conclusion here? You enjoy this. You want the win so bad, SEF? Then take it. It's a rather empty victory, since you've really done no lasting damage to me.

*unsubscribes*

why whos beng doing something wrong ? let me be the judge .

Some of MR's false assertions in just the previous few posts:

#122 "I wouldn't be teaching college courses if I wasn't." - based on a faulty premise as already explained.

#122 "You are implying that the only faulty people here are the ones who don't agree with you" - wrong on many levels.

#137 "All you have done is attack me, when all I have done is asked questions" - neither part being true.

#137/9 "I'm in MENSA too." - given that it turned out the too was meant to include me.

#139 "You seem to have been pretty proud of flaunting it around." - never have I said it at all. So the research skills don't seem to be being used or they are not as good as was claimed. Most of the rest of 139 is also wrong.

The points in 146 have nothing to do with it at all as they were never things I claimed had been asserted (middle one already covered in a previous post here anyway).

Well, unfortunately I don't have large breasts... or fortunately, as the case may be! I'll go check out the article on crafts - does this entry include how to make a disco snake, Mikey?

Pertaining to doorknobs, in many cases the failure to operate one correctly stems from a misinterpretation of non-standard uses of common design elements to have standard implications, or the use of non-standard design that does not clearly communicate the operation of the lock. The problem is really one of communication, not intelligence. The designer has an idea of how the doorknob works based on his understanding of the mechanics, the knob-turner has a completely different idea based on the visual clues in the shape of the knob. If the two ideas don't match closely enough, someone gets locked out. This is most commonly seen in the use of horizontal bars on pull doors. Traditionally the horizontal bar is used on push doors, causing people to bump their noses on the door even though it is clearly marked "pull". There's lots of information about this is the works of Donald Norman, but specifically in "The Psychology of Everyday Things" (also published as "The Design of Everyday Things"). Fascinating reading.

Yes, I am a door geek. I could not let the doorknob comment pass.

In this case the doorknob issue was very much one of intelligence - in the forethought sense. What you are referring to is much more along the lines of common sense - where a design fails to match up to what most people would expect. It may also sometimes be referred to as intuition or instinct. The key thing missed by many is that these magical qualities are actually based on prior experience.

What a truly intelligent or sensible person does when confronted by an unfamiliar doorknob mechanism is experiment with its operation under controlled conditions (ie not leaving it until it is already too late and one is wearing nothing but a skimpy towel for example). The other alternative is to consult (again in advance) someone who might reasonably be regarded as an expert and then verify the information.

What the pseudo-intelligent person does is not think about it at all in advance, fail to notice any difference, assume it will behave in a certain way or be too arrogant to consult. Any of those last courses of action lead to the aforementioned locking out wearing just a towel ... and that is of course assuming they had the sense to not only know where their towel was but have it with them.

These particular people, by getting repeatedly locked out, demonstrated they had not even learned from previous experience and instruction.

Yup, it's the disco snake entry, Lentilla. I'd love it if you'd give it a peek!

I'm not a psychologist, but from what I've read on the subject I think many psychologists would disagree with you.

I am referring to the principles of design, which are based on allowances and constraint, physical, cultural, semantic and logical. An example of a physical constraint would be a flat plate on a door - you cannot pull it, thus it clearly communicates "push". The horizontal bar if it raised *can* be pulled, which is a physical allowance but in this case the *cultural* constraint is that horizontal bars generally cannot be pushed because the hinges of the door are on the wrong side. A different culture could do it differently, which is why travellers have such a tough time of things (that, and jet lag).

Before assessing the cause of a person's mistakes, there are still several other factors that must be taken into consideration. These are categorized as (now I have to look this up): capture errors, in which a frequent activity replaces the intended one (force of habit), description errors in which things that are similar are momentarily confused, data-driven errors in which something present or visible replaces what was intended or thought, associative-activation errors (the "Freudian slip") in which something associated with the intended action (either consciously or subconsciously) replaces it, loss-of-activation errors in which intervening events cause a "forgetting" of the intended action, and mode errors in which the meaning of an object changes depending on it's state. These are all just ways that the mind works, and have no bearing on intelligence or lack of it - think of the famous story of Einstein not being able to find his own home in Princeton because all the houses looked so similar (most likely a description error).

Add to that the fact that while learning does happen through repetition, it sometimes takes several repetitions particularly in cases where there has been a strong cultural base that had an opposite meaning. The more you have to *unlearn* the more repetitions it takes to learn the new workings of the doorknob.

And if these MENSAns were travelers, add jet lag and the propensity to giddily run down to the bar and other people's bedrooms and not think about trivial things like doorknobs.

well a doorknob is a a simple thing. In my home we have doorhandels

What you are describing is "instinct" again. Intelligence is supposed to be able to override this.

Sorry, I didn't meant to upset you boxing-baboon. The same applies to doorhandles, as well as toasters, oven knobs, computer mice, hats, web sites, shoe strings, rocket ships, surgical instruments, and sardine tins. Plus other stuff.

Running around to other people's bedrooms is instinct. The design, application and use of doorknobs is not instinct.

d'Elephant, that's fascinating... I can think of examples of capture errors, data driven errors, mode errors in my own life - just didn't know what to call them!

You would love the Don Norman book I mentioned then - it has the effect of making it so you can never look at common objects the same way again, and goes a long way towards explaining the minor irritating frustrations of daily life.

At least some of them! Thanks, I'll look it up.