User talk:Peoplesunionpro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Peoplesunionpro, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 02:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Adaptations

Hi,

I noticed your message on the [race] discussion page. I have been wondering whether some of the supposed physical differences I read about 20 years ago go or thereabouts have turned out not to be real. One adaptation that sounded useful (and probably confusing to casual observers) is that the arch areas of Africans are filled in, so that their feet appears to be flat. If one is going bare foot over rough terrain, that would seem to me to be a useful adaptation. I've asked various people what the evolutionary significance of the epicanthal fold might be, and some have suggested that it may offer better protection against the fine sand that is frequently blown into China from the desert (and which forms the basis of their excellent lōss soil). Also, I seem to recall that people from that part of the world are innately better insulated, and extra layer, or extra-thick layers of subdermal fat.

People have talked about the value of black skin in protecting people against UV radiation. One thing to keep in mind is that people in Africa were probably developing their characteristic colors at a time when clothing was not used to protect the skin. People who moved to high UV areas after the development would experience less environmental pressure to evolve toward the darker colors. But there is another interesting feature of black skin vs. white skin that not many seem to have considered: Black skin absorbs infrared radiation better than does white skin, but it also radiates heat better than does white skin. Thus, for people who needed to shed heat under the cover of the jungle canopy and during the hours of darkness, black skin would have another advantage. (When we held karate classes in a near freezing dojo, I could feel my black classmates just from their ir radiation. It was like walking by a brick wall in the early evening.) The same black skin would be a disadvantage in northern regions because individuals would radiate heat wastefully, particularly during the cold nights, whereas people with white skin would not radiate so much. Without mylar blankets they would have suffered more than their white cohorts. I'd be interested in reading current research about these differences, but I think it would also be useful to point out how often supposedly Asian characteristics like shovel-shaped incisors show up in non-Asian populations, how often curly hair shows up among predominantly straight-haired people, etc. P0M 00:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for your message. :) Peoplesunionpro 04:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligence and brain energy (wattage) use

From a note on the same talk page:

From Gray & Thompson (2004) [1]... stuff we should integrate here --Rikurzhen 04:07, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC) Neurobiological determinants of intelligence as measured by IQ:


  1. Speed and reliability of neural transmission are related to higher intelligence (reviewed in Refs 15,20). Early neuroimaging studies using PET found that intelligence correlated negatively with cerebral glucose metabolism during mental activity54 (for a review, see Ref. 55), leading to the formulation of a 'neural efficiency' hypothesis...

"and it goes against the general biological idea that higher intelligence requires more energy use from the brain." -- What it generally indicates is that for the same mental tasks, a person with a greater g quotient will generally use less energy than a person with a lesser g quotient (adjusting for differential specific abilities that vary between people [ie. an idiot savant mathematician will use less energy than almost everyone else when doing a calculation, but that's all they'll use less energy for]). It is probable that people with lower and greater IQs would have approximately the same total energy expenditure for the most difficult tasks that they can do, but that the people with higher IQs will be able to do much more difficult tasks at that energy expenditure (and that people with the highest intelligence may have both greater energy expenditure capacity and only spend it on really difficult tasks).

"It's also confusing when debating the 'race and intelligence (genetics)' issue, because it seems odd that some population groups would average such below average IQs when there would be much to gain in metabolic efficiency in having higher IQs." -- Probably so, but there would also be much to gain in having IQs significantly greater than what even the most intelligent people have now, that doesn't mean we have them yet (luck plays a role in which new genetic alleles evolve and propogate in different groups). Sometimes other tradeoffs are made evolutionarily (such as island dwarfism - nichefying). Perhaps, in general, generally high intelligence (for the metabolic efficiency) was not needed (the total brain changes needed for it would have been counter-productive and/or unnecessary). Perhaps, in general, for certain tasks made more common in those groups, they do have more efficient brains, but such tasks are no longer as important with respect to g. I do not know.

-- 24.16.251.40 07:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC) (Formerly 24.22.227.53 8•Vomit )

[edit] Helminthic therapy

Thanks for your contributions to the page. i am really new to this and the way it is now is much better that what i did, although I am working on a major revision offline right now with a friend.

You asked about how common the use of helminthic therapy is, citing your allergies. Ovamed has a pretty active discussion board on their web site and Yahoo has two groups titled Helminthic therapy in one form or another. I think the common revulsion for intestinal worms means the therapy is less commonly used that one would expect given how effective it appears. I actually cured my asthma and seasonal allergies and mild irritable bowel all with hookworm infection by Autoimmune Therapies.

I also know of one other of their patients who cured, or more correctly, put into remission his exercise induced bronchospasm and is experiencing a great improvement in his psoriasis using their therapy (hookworms).

If you read the boards for Asthma, Crohn's, Colitis, etc., you will find the occasional post from mostly Ovamed patients, they seem to have been around longest. Most report very positive results, except for cost.

thanks again.

FQ1513 04:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polyamory

If you belive the idea that dividing love among multiple partners automatically lessens it “is a logical fallacy because parent/child love and relationships are very different from romantic love and relationships”, then per Wikipedia policy, you must verify that with reliable sources. If you believe it is encyclopedic content and have relable sources to verify it, then please feel free to discuss it on the talk page. Otherwise, understand that User:Vidkun reverted your edit, because Wikipeda publishes no original research. Thank you. Taric25 13:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC) Also, if you have any questions, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Taric25 13:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That's like saying it's original research to publish the answer to 2+2. Peoplesunionpro 17:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics) is a guideline of what mathamatical problems users may and may not state without a citation. In addition, it is not necessary cite general common knowledge: statements that everyone recognizes as true. For example, "Paris is the capital of France.", per Wikipedia:When to cite, however, per Wikipedia:Verifiability, “The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.” Thus, because I have challenged your edit, then you automatically have the burden of proof. In addition, publishing 2+2=4 is very different from A+B=C. Per Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, “Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.” Your edit, “This contains an assumption that romantic love is the same thing as familial love, which is false.”, is not only unreferenced, it is synthesis. Not only must you prove that romantic love is different from familial love, you must also show a source that says because romatic love is different from familial love, the assumtion that they are the same is false. Plus, because a user has already reverted your edit, then per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, please continue this discussion at Talk:Polyamory#Division_of_love instead of re-inserting that information. Thank you.Taric25 15:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Stalker

Again, I believe you're mistaken. You made a controversal un-cited edit (without even an edit summary) to a page, and I left a friendly note (not a warning) about citing sources. Then you claimed that you had discussed it on the talk page, which you clearly had not. I don't see how my actions can be interpreted as bad faith, when an experienced editor makes such omissions. I have not reverted any articles without proper reason. Nothing against you, certainly have better things to do then stalk you, so let's leave it at that. Cheers! Newtman (talk) 09:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)