Jump to content

PeakGammon

Members
  • Content Count

    791
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

PeakGammon last won the day on January 4

PeakGammon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

305 Excellent

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. PeakGammon

    Puzzles And Tests

    The point is that the other "solution" you offered was blatantly incorrect, and Rupert called you out on it (and yet you still didn't admit it). The end.
  2. PeakGammon

    Puzzles And Tests

    Just to point out that Rupert was actually correct. Your second method (the sum of two pairs of numbers) is incorrect. It might be your quiz, but your solution is definitely incorrect, and you should be gracious enough to accept that.
  3. PeakGammon

    Puzzles And Tests

    You would have two balls of dough. No, that is incorrect, and I see why you are tying yourself up in logical loops. Assuming you separated the dough into equal halves, you would have half of the original quantity of dough separated into two balls, each containing 0.5, or half, of the original dough ball. You are conflating quantity with weight, which is incorrect. If you had one ball of dough which weighs 1kg (1,000g) and split this equally in half, you would have two balls of dough each weighing 500g, or half of the original amount. You wouldn't have "half" of the original dough left, you would have half of the original dough in each newly divided bit of dough. You're confusing yourself with your earlier mistake of assuming that 0.5 of the original dough means there should be half of the quantity left, rather than two halves of the original dough. And nobody is "magically intending division to really mean subtraction" except you in your strange, and incorrect logic. Dividing a ball of dough into two or more pieces does not mean anything is subtracted. No, we are left with two balls of dough, which were divided thus from the original single ball of dough. Or, maybe, something's not right with your illogical approach to what is an incredibly simple problem, so much so that my 2 year old daughter can solve this problem. Easy. Q: If I have a ball of dough weighing 1kg (1,000g) and I need just 500g of dough for a recipe, how many portions of dough would there be if each divided portion weighs exactly 500g? A: The original 1kg ball of dough would be split into two equal portions of 500g each, or, to represent this mathematically 1000/500 = 2. It isn't that difficult to understand, surely? To use your logic, and to show why it is wrong: Let's imagine you didn't have any dough. If you were asked to cut the non-existent dough in half, how many balls of dough would you have left? The answer would be "no balls of dough" because one cannot magically create dough from nothing, can they? If you think that it can then I suggest you speak to the main bread manufacturers and inform them that you have devised a method which can create dough from nothing.
  4. PeakGammon

    Puzzles And Tests

    You mean the mathematical concepts which have helped developed the very device you are typing your reply to, along with the concepts which have enabled electricity to be safely carried to your home? You may not understand or appreciate abstract mathematics but they exist in everyday life and humans make good use of these concepts. Except we have divided something BY something if we are talking about a distance, are we not? That's just not true, no matter how you state it. Let's use a "kindergarten-level" example for you then. If you went to a shop with no money (nothing, or zero currency) and asked the shop keeper what you could buy with your zero currency, when they say "nothing" does this magically create currency or goods? No, it doesn't. And that is why zero is indivisible by itself, to put it simply.
  5. PeakGammon

    Can't be arsed to go out

    No doubt we have. One thing I recall about Jung and his archetypes is that there are some similarities in the archetypes found in traditional tarot card decks, such as The Fool and Magician (and all cards with a person or people on), so I would be willing to bet that these archetypes are portrayed throughout documented history in various forms. I will re-read it soon and see what I can spot.
  6. PeakGammon

    Can't be arsed to go out

    In "Modern Man..." he touches on that subject and states that the archetypes are primal and were known, or understood, by our "primitive" ancestors, so although I don't recall him being specific about ancient rulers using these archetypes and concepts to manipulate people, he definitely alludes to them knowing the underlying principles which Jung states, even if he doesn't explicitly state it. "Modern man..." goes even further and shows why religion doesn't help one develop spiritually (hence why modern man is still searching for his "soul"), so I think it was Jung's way at cleverly exposing the key influencers of his time. That is part of what I took from it in terms of the control system, but there is probably more I missed as I wasn't reading it with that intention. The next time I re-read it I will see if he makes any specific allusions.
  7. PeakGammon

    Can't be arsed to go out

    It is well worth reading, and re-reading periodically. Modern Man in Search of a Soul is my personal favourite and deals with archetypes, but it is just the insights Jung has that makes it outstanding. As you said, he was a genius and his writing style is a work of art in itself.
  8. PeakGammon

    Can't be arsed to go out

    Exactly. Each person will have a better understanding from one route over another, so what works best for them is the best solution. Sorry if I was being pedantic but I felt it was important to distinguish between the two methods as they are quite different in their approaches, and I respect Jung's work too much for it to be blurred. As a side note, if you've not read Synchronicity then I recommend it as it refers to unconscious symbology other than dreams (as do his other books), such as recurring numbers and even relationships, which was fascinating (in the book he evidences a theory that people are synchronistically brought together, and his analysis of couples' astrological charts revealed various compatibilities, even if the people were unaware of them).
  9. PeakGammon

    Poll: Are well endowed women dull & boring people?

    Yeah, it's odd that people think she had big breasts when they are average sized really. To me, it all depends on whether the breasts are proportionate to the body as to whether they look "big". See attached photo for natural breasts that are disproportionate and what I would say are "big" breasts (and obviously breasts larger). There's some big knackers, I mean knockers!
  10. PeakGammon

    Can't be arsed to go out

    But that is wrong in Jungian psychology. There are but 4 functions, each of which has two flavours, which does give 8 possible combinations, but still only 4 functions. Jung's concept of integrating the inferior function was to become aware of it through the unconscious manifestation of itself, such as symbols in dreams or recurring themes or synchronicities whose meaning was not manifestly apparent. What you describe is more towards the Myers-Briggs interpretation of Jung's ideas, but if it helps people become aware of their unconscious functions and obtain happiness then fair enough. I personally feel that Jung's approach is more holistic and personal than the MBTI approach of being very prescriptive and general to all people fitting a particular 4-trait code. I don't know if you've read much of Jung's work but Modern Man in Search of a Soul is one of his best for insights into our own state of being, followed by Synchronicity. I love the work of Jung and can't recommend him enough.
  11. PeakGammon

    Poll: Are well endowed women dull & boring people?

    She didn't actually have large breasts. They were 36C, which is medium sized, and quite proportionate to her body.
  12. PeakGammon

    Can't be arsed to go out

    That source is incorrect then. As I said: there are the four functions, each of which have two attitudes. Jung saw the two attitudes of each function as two sides of the same coin, as opposed to being distinctly different in their own right, such as "thinking" was one function and one can have the same function expresses in two different ways. Easy mistake to make if you're not familiar with the works of Jung and just read interpretations of his work.
  13. PeakGammon

    Poll: Are well endowed women dull & boring people?

    From my own perspective, I generally avoid any woman that openly flaunts her cleavage and her looks because I perceive that she is trying to attract, or distract, people using her looks, which can often be a front (no pun intended) for lacking personality or covering up other serious flaws. I find large breasts that are out of proportion to the body oafish and ridiculous looking, like the stereotypical clown feet that are long. As my dear old nan used to say: more than a handful is a waste.
  14. PeakGammon

    Poll: Are well endowed women dull & boring people?

    In a nutshell: no. Breast size has no correlation with intelligence. In fact, one might say that larger breasted women possess a unique form of intelligence in that they may use their breasts to influence others. As I see it, any person who uses their physical attributes to influence or coerce another person to do something they don't want to do is a bully, and it may just be that some large breasted women use their breasts to bully others, obviously in a non-violent manner. I suspect the woman you refer to simply learned that using her breasts to get what she wants works for her, so this may have atrophied any other skills one may usually develop to help in social interactions.
  15. PeakGammon

    Forum meet up

    Of course it is ok. In fact, it is a very pertinent question to ask wherever a minority group is over-represented. Do you vote in the US? Do you actively create pressure groups to stop these activities which you oppose? If not, why not? Again, have you actively campaigned against this? If not, why not? Personally, it doesn't really bother me as it exposes these groups for what they are, and one can actively campaign and target these groups if they are known. The danger comes when these groups go underground and still exert influence because they can remain hidden that way. Exposing these groups is one thing. Blaming them for everything without question is another. My argument is that it is easy to say "Jews Did It" or "Sabbatean did it" and offer no proof, but, as people here point out, the Jews and Sabbateans are but another set of pawns in the game, even if they appear to have more "rights" or "power" than other groups. That doesn't excuse the actions of these groups, but it does create a nice distraction from who is really pulling the strings of all these groups.
×