That's a pretty big box! For a much more "contained" container visit the CR list. The rigidity is actually kind of refreshing.
. But I left the iBOB > group because I felt we were being challenged to stay within a certain box. > Are we suggesting to create one here? > > Respectfully yours, > Bobby "please don't box me in" Birmingham > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 7:27:49 PM UTC-4, Stephen S wrote: > > > How about we just let the old thread, this thread, and any future threads > > on helmets die? It seems that this thread brought everything the topic back > > up again under the guise about talking about the discussion of helmets. > > > just saying > > Stephen > > > On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 3:42:48 PM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote: > > >> I meant sociobiology as a theory -- it has come under much criticism > >> recently and, intrinsically, doesn't make sense anyway, just as any other > >> reductionist theory of knowing. I don't mean to pick a fight at all; I just > >> feel obliged to say that sociobiology is not a good tool by which to > >> analyze this (or any other) value or opinion. > > >> My only other comment on this thread will be to urge anyone who has some > >> definite statistics on the dangers of cycling and the related value of > >> helmets to please post sources and links. I myself will immediately start > >> using a helmet if it can be proved (1) that cycling is statistically > >> significantly more dangerous than other common activities and (2) helmets > >> help reduce this statistical risk. Again, not trolling, not being snide: I > >> really want to know. > > >> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery < > >> thil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> Just so everyone is clear, I never said, or meant to suggest, directly > >>> or indirectly, that your political leanings are inextricably tied to your > >>> helmet attitude. The point was that there may be biological reasons why we > >>> find agreement difficult, or impossible. In that case, convincing > >>> arguments > >>> will generally be fruitless. > > >>> But there is a similarity in that it is a seemingly irreconcilable issue > >>> and each of the two opposing camps seem to not place any importance on the > >>> argument of the other side. Most of us would like to think that we come by > >>> our attitudes and beliefs through a process of informed logic, but that is > >>> probably not 100% true, of course, because we tend to weigh certain > >>> "facts" > >>> more heavily than others for various reasons. A classic nature vs nurture > >>> puzzle. If intelligent people exposed to the same information cannot come > >>> to an agreement, then maybe intelligence and information are not the only > >>> determining factors. > > >>> On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 12:47:09 PM UTC-5, Patrick Moore wrote: > > >>>> I suggest we leave sociobiology out of this discussion. > > >>>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery < > >>>> thil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>> Now, Steve, I assume you're being humorous, but I can't say for sure > >>>>> because I've learned over the years that you and I most likely have very > >>>>> different personalities (based only on the limiting medium of this > >>>>> discussion forum). I bet we have different brain structure, even if > >>>>> similar > >>>>> intelligence. But no, that's not what I'm saying. Perhaps some PhD > >>>>> student > >>>>> will identify and analyze that correlation someday, but my PhD years are > >>>>> well behind me! > > >>>>> All I'm saying is that we seem to have two sides in this debate (as in > >>>>> politics), and for the most part they talk past each other because, I > >>>>> believe, our brains are wired to light up in response to different > >>>>> inputs. > >>>>> It would be nice if there was an objectively "right" answer that > >>>>> perfectly > >>>>> intelligent people could agree on! > > >>>>> On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 11:59:58 AM UTC-5, Steve Palincsar wrote: > > >>>>>> On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 09:56 -0700, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> > Discussing this topic in a different way is a puzzle, isn't it? On > >>>>>> my > >>>>>> > (helmet-free) ride to work today, I thought of an article I read > >>>>>> > several years ago, about brain scientists identifying brain > >>>>>> structure > >>>>>> > differences between political conservatives and political liberals. > >>>>>> > Finally an explanation of why these two groups can't understand > >>>>>> each > >>>>>> > other! The difference was primarily in identification of and > >>>>>> response > >>>>>> > to risks. The conservatives tended to have enlarged brain sectors > >>>>>> that > >>>>>> > were wired to identify and rapidly respond to risks. In other > >>>>>> words: > >>>>>> > "there's a risk, kill it!" The liberals tended to be enlarged in > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> > sectors that handle analysis and nuance. In other words: "this may > >>>>>> or > >>>>>> > may not be a risk, study it some more!" Not sure if order of > >>>>>> causality > >>>>>> > has yet been established. I don't know if politics correlates to > >>>>>> > helmet attitudes, but it seems like the same pattern exists here. > >>>>>> On > >>>>>> > one hand, you have the helmet proponents who relate strongly to > >>>>>> > graphic examples of cracked skulls, and on the other hand, you have > >>>>>> > the group (typified by GP, I'd say) who seemingly cannot relate to > >>>>>> > graphic examples and who tend to spend lots of bandwidth picking > >>>>>> apart > >>>>>> > the flaws in the statistics. > > >>>>>> So you're saying the conservatives favor helmets and liberals do not? > > >>>>>> -- > >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >>>>> Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > >>>>> To view this discussion on the web visithttps://groups.google.com/d/* > >>>>> *msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/**0L54ao9Iwg8J<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/0L54ao9Iwg8J> > >>>>> . > >>>>> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.**com. > >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@** > >>>>> googlegroups.com. > >>>>> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/** > >>>>> group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en> > >>>>> . > > >>>> -- > >>>> "Believe nothing until it has been officially denied." > >>>> -- Claude Cockburn > > >>>> ------------------------- > >>>> Patrick Moore, Albuquerque, NM, USA > >>>> For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW > >>>>http://resumespecialties.com/**index.html<http://resumespecialties.com/index.html> > >>>> ------------------------- > > >>> -- > >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >>> Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > >>> To view this discussion on the web visit > >>>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/eubNqI6-a-0J. > >>> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com. > >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >>> rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com. > >>> For more options, visit this group at > >>>http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. > > >> -- > >> "Believe nothing until it has been officially denied." > >> -- Claude Cockburn > > >> ------------------------- > >> Patrick Moore, Albuquerque, NM, USA > >> For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW > >>http://resumespecialties.com/index.html > >> ------------------------- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
