Random Firings of Neurons

The rest of your life is going to be spent getting back up after life has knocked you down again. You might as well just get used to it.

My Photo
Name:
Location: Round Rock, Texas, United States

Thursday, August 03, 2006

The Answers

Okay, here are the answers to my little quizzes.

If you can only do ONE of these, which is more important? Caring, or doing?


The obvious answer is "doing", of course. And, this time, the obvious answer is the correct answer.

One cannot "do" without "caring", and one can "care" without "doing", so, "doing" is the most important one, because it is the only one that can't exist without the other.

But...

Just about everyone will respond "doing" to that question, and then, spend ZERO thought on what that means.

What it means, ladies and gentlemen (and you, too, Harvey), is that what you DO determines what you care about.

Take a week, and chart the time you spend on each and every activity you do. Add the times up at the end of the week, and you will now have a good idea of what you care about, because you'll have a record of what you did.

For the vast majority of Americans, work is their number one care, since they spend the most amount of time there. Watching television is their number two care. Talking with friends and family is usually right near the bottom of the list.

That makes me sick. It should make you sick, too.

Now, you've already answered that doing is more important than caring. So, what are YOU going to do about that?

I buy a pair of shoes for $30. I mark the shoes up to $60, and you buy them. Who profits from this deal?


This has already been discussed in the comments to the quiz. If you didn't read the comments, the answer is "we both profit".

I make $30, and you have a new pair of shoes. We both have something more than we started with, so, we both profit.

There is no mention of coercion, nor of deception. If either one of those was present, then, only I would profit, since I would have stolen from you. Even if I left you with the pair of shoes, I still stole $60 from you. So, only I would profit.

But, the interesting thing about that question is the varying responses you can get from people. The ONLY answer is "We both do. I make $30, and you have a new pair of shoes. (or vice versa. order is unimportant)". Adding anything to it tells me more about the person answering the question than they really wanted to tell me. By adding to the answer, that person has just told me what concerns them the most about a free market exchange.

Ponder that for a while.

What statistic will give you the best idea of a team's chances of winning a particular game?


As Harvey correctly pointed out, the ending score is 100% accurate for determining the chances of team winning a game.

During the game, the score is also the most accurate method, since the team with the highest score at any point has the best chance of winning.

Before the game? No statistic is useful, truthfully. Every statistic that is used before the game is merely a representation of how the team has performed in the past...and as any good stock broker will tell you, past performance isn't the best judge of future activity. It is *A* judge, but, not the *best* judge.

Only while the game is being played can you assess a team's chances of winning. And the score is the ONLY statistic that will let you do that.

What can you do to get any problem to go away?


Ignore it long enough.

Not all problems have solutions. It's high time we got that idea into our heads. Everyone has this problem of only 24 hours in a day. No solution to that problem. (actually...there are some people for whom the problem is that there are too MANY hours in the day...I've been there) Everyone has the problem of death. Everyone has the problem of needing food, air, and water. None of these problems have solutions. So, get the idea out of your head that the solution to every problem is to fix it. You can't.

Now, the problem with this answer is that ignoring a problem long enough WILL make the problem go away, but...usually, by causing greater problems. So, ignoring the problem long enough isn't actually a good way of solving the problem.

There's got to be a middle ground, right? Yes, there is.

Every time you are faced with a problem, ask yourself a couple of questions:

1. Is there a solution to the problem?
2. If I ignore the problem, will a greater problem arise?

By asking yourself those two simple questions, you'll put the problem into a perspective that you can now deal with. Sure, there ARE problems that don't have solutions, and WILL cause greater problems if ignored. Those, you just have to deal with. Sorry. Anyone who told you life was fair was lying to you.

How many hours of classes must you require someone to take before they are educated?


Again, Harvey hit this one on the head.

Attending a class is no garauntee you will become educated. Some of the least educated, ignorant people I have ever met have more degrees than a thermometer, and I know quite a few educated people who have spent the minimum time possible for a high school graduate in classes (and, in my case, LESS than the minimum time possible...attendance wasn't my strong point) and be very educated.

The next time you hear about someone being mandated to attend a "sensitivity class", or other such nonsense class, feel sorry for them. It was forced upon them by an uneducated, well-schooled buffoon.

How many competing theories are there of how the universe was created?


Harvey *almost* got this one right.

He's right, in that it IS a trick question. He's just wrong about WHY it's a trick question.

There aren't any competing theories of how the Universe was created. There is only ONE theory. All matter (hence, the Universe) didn't exist at some point, and then, matter existed, therefore, being created. That's the 'how'.

The only competing theories are in WHO created it. In that field, there are only two theories that have any relevance: Judeo-Christo-Muslim Creation (I lump Islam in with Judeo-Christianity ONLY because they have the same Creation theory), and self-creation (matter created itself). No other theories are relevant, nor have any significant following.

Read up on logic sometime, and tell me which theory of WHO created the Universe makes sense. It will be illustrative.

(There are also disputes between the two WHO theories on WHEN, WHY, and WHERE. Too long a discussion to go into here.)

Harvey then dodges the correct answer by saying "science isn't about religion". Hm. That's funny. The entire set of physics 'laws', as we know them, were created by an Anglican theologian, and an Orthodox Jew, both of whom claimed that they were only interested in figuring out the rules that God used to create the Universe.

The only significant advance to the science of physics by an atheist were the 'Laws' of Logic that Aristotle used to prove that the Greek gods were insufficient to account for the Universe, so, another, greater god must exist. For that, he was branded an atheist.

Oh...before I forget...atheism is a religion, too. Look up the definition of "religion" sometime. Atheism meets several of the definitions.

Tomorrow, when I'm not so tired, I'll explain why these type of questions have been tugging at my skull for the past few days. (I thought of at least three more, just today.) It's actually relevant to all of your lives. I'll give you a hint: it's a concept so simple, most people don't understand it.

Semper Fidelis: Always Faithful, to God, Corps and Country