LGBTAitp - Part Fifteen

[Heliomance]

That is all. Thank you to people for your advices.

I think that's an "I got lucky" face. Is that an "I got lucky" face? That's an "I got lucky" face.

[golentan]

I think that's an "I got lucky" face. Is that an "I got lucky" face? That's an "I got lucky" face.

shut up

[Blisstake]

Hehe, excellent news.

[cycoris]

shut up

It is it is it TOTALLY is! Congrats.

[Skeppio]

shut up

Congrats, Golentan.

[KenderWizard]

Wooo! Golentan! Have you a story to tell us, then?

I had a lot of problems with the 4th Twilight book, but the eviscerating pregnancy wasn't one of them... Unlike many things in those books, that pretty much made sense.

[golentan]

Words cannot express how embarrassed I am right now.

[LaZodiac]

Wooo! Golentan! Have you a story to tell us, then?

I had a lot of problems with the 4th Twilight book, but the eviscerating pregnancy wasn't one of them... Unlike many things in those books, that pretty much made sense.

She established vampires don't have fangs, and then he uses his fangs to give her a c section. There is nothing correct about any of it.

Also, hooray for Golentan!

[Lix Lorn]

I think that's an "I got lucky" face. Is that an "I got lucky" face? That's an "I got lucky" face.

shut up

Juicy info please <3

She established vampires don't have fangs, and then he uses his fangs to give her a c section. There is nothing correct about any of it.

He uses his teeth. I know it's terrible, but can we please complain about the bits that are actually wrong?
For example: Off the west coast of brazil.

[LaZodiac]

I'm sorry Lix, I'm just going off of what I know about the series. I'll stop.

[Mystic Muse]

Can we please not turn the LGBTA thread into a Twilight discussion?

[Blue Ghost]

The MLP thread has been turned into a Pokemon discussion...
But I agree. It's probably best to stick to the topic.

[Al'izh'dheg]

Rainbows must not sparkle! Oh wait... :)

[Heliomance]

Words cannot express how embarrassed I am right now.

Juicy details plz.

[DeadManSleeping]

I'm pretty sure that it's against board rules to talk about who stuck what in what.

[golentan]

Seriously, guys, I don't feel comfortable talking about this. Even more so without clearing that it's okay to talk about. So, I'm going to reiterate my last two posts: I am embarrassed and did not mean for my original comment to turn into a discussion of my sex life, and I would greatly appreciate if we changed the subject.

[Asta Kask]

Ok, discuss this quote and its implications for things like genderqueerness and neurodiversity:

The amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigor, and moral courage it contained. That so few now dare to be eccentric marks the chief danger of the time.

[Worlok]

Look at golentan being all shy and secretive about it. Now, I won't insist on that topic, but if there are good news, congratulations. That's all.

[golentan]

Ok, discuss this quote and its implications for things like genderqueerness and neurodiversity:

The quote seems straightforward and accurate. I think that genderqueerness (but probably not sex issues) are probably a sign of the eccentricity referred to, and the fact that it's not widely accepted is a bad sign. On the flip side, if it becomes too integrated it's no longer a quirky, eccentric sign of individuality and ceases to function as a measure. I simultaneously support this and fear it: I hate having to track down new benchmarks.

[Yora]

The quote by itself seems highly doubious to me. How does one measure genius, mental vigor, moral courage, and eccentricity?
This seems like a highly subjective interpretation of history, backed up by no data or theory.

And as a genderqueer, I don't reagard it as being eccentric. I regard it as being normal.

Although I am a girl, I had find myself to be of both genders. It's confusing, but whatever.

Hello, fellow gender-ambigous person.

On a side note:

http://i1206.photobucket.com/albums/bb443/Zernobog888/lgbtaitptbig.png

If someone ads a third arrow-cross to it, I support the banner. There's a T and A for a reason.

[DeadManSleeping]

The quote by itself seems highly doubious to me. How does one measure genius, mental vigor, moral courage, and eccentricity?

Well, you can always do what I do and pick up a brainometer at Lowe's.

[Asta Kask]

And as a genderqueer, I don't reagard it as being eccentric. I regard it as being normal.

Right. What would you call eccentric?

If I had to, I would define 'eccentric as something like this: You look at the population and divide it into categories. How is not important at the moment - standardized testing, self-report, whatever.

Then you take the largest category and see, does it represent more than 90%*? Very probably not, so you add the second largest category and check, do the two represent more than 90% of the population? And so on until you hit the magic number. The categories that are left are 'eccentric'.

Eccentricity, if it means anything in population studies, must be defined from the majority point of view. In that sense it much resembles the word 'queer', which originally meant 'strange' or 'unusual'. Denying eccentricity and affirming queerness seems to me more than a little... odd.

*number chosen on a whim - susceptible to revision

[golentan]

I'd say we can measure it by accomplishment. If you look at the number of eccentric great artists out there, I think it's easier to name the ones whose memory lasted that didn't violate social expectations. If you look at wider fields, people like Newton (and his love of the occult), Feynman (who was, well, Feynman), Socrates (who, by all accounts, was trolling society)... Eccentrics get things done that others can't or won't.

[Yora]

Poor people are crazy, rich people are eccentric.

The most common way I see people use the term eccentric is to describe people who have habits and manerisms that conflict with "proper" social conventions, while being completely unable to notice that their behavior is unsettling and potentially offensive to everyone else. A bit insane, but mostly harmless and they are not called "crazy hobos" because other people think some of their fame can rub on them if they call them "geniuses" instead. ("I think he's a genius, look how sophisticated I am by being able to see it!")

Genderqueers might meet the first requirement in that their bahviour makes some people uncomfortable or offended. But it lacks the second requirement that genderqueers are completely oblibious to the fact that others think they are not normal.
Sure, genderqueer people can also be eccentric which then is bunched together to be the same thing, but the very few other examples of genderqueerness I've encountered are all very well aware of being in conflict with social conventions and that they have to develop ways to express their identity while avoiding direct confrontations.An eccentric would not be able to be aware of any conflict.

@golentan: Well.... yesss...

But I suspect some perception biass here. "Name someone who did great contributions to art or science who was not eccentric." does not match with the way our brains work. Remembering a story of someone who was completely crazy is easy, finding an example of someone who was completely normal is a lot more difficult, especially when you don't know that much about the person. I don't know anything about Feynman, so my assumption would be that he was completely average, but I wouldn't make that claim without being able to give an example of him being never strange. And "example of never being strange" is close to an oxymoron.
I'm not saying your claim is false, but I think it would be very hard to prove.
Also, if you have someone who was completely average, most people would still say "That guy was weird! He was always properly dressed and never did anything special. He must have been really messed up behind those glasses".
And then there's the problem of sources. If we don't have many reports of brilliant people and not many reports of eccentric behavior, this could mean that we just don't have many surviving reports from that time to begin with, or that people at that time did not consider these subjects to be worthy of being written down for future generations.

I'm currently writing my bachelors thesis in cultural studies, so bear with me.

[Asta Kask]

When I read the quote, I thought it clear that what Mill was thinking about was 'eccentric' in the sense of 'unusual'. What he feared was the de-individualization of society, the world where everyone thinks, looks, and acts as their brothers and sisters. And I must say I fear that world as well.

(JSM was well used to ecccentricity, by the way. Look up his father or Jeremy Bentham.)

[Lix Lorn]

Seriously, guys, I don't feel comfortable talking about this. Even more so without clearing that it's okay to talk about. So, I'm going to reiterate my last two posts: I am embarrassed and did not mean for my original comment to turn into a discussion of my sex life, and I would greatly appreciate if we changed the subject.

Oh, sorry for pushing you. I thought you were being shy in lead up to sharing rather than actual embarrassment. Hugs and congrats instead!
(hugs and congratulates)

[Lyesmith]

I've always had rather than for my "lucky" face. But I suppose I'm naturally smirky. However, good for you!


The idea of eccentricity and genius is an understantable link, but fails to count basic idioscyncracy - even the dullest and most average of accountants will have his own eccentricities. I mean, they might only extend to a collection of trolls, or a penchant for some kind of sexual pecadillo, but still.

Plus, genius as an idea is very hazy in and of itself. Or maybe I've been reading too much Nietzsche.

[Mina Kobold]

He uses his teeth. I know it's terrible, but can we please complain about the bits that are actually wrong?
For example: Off the west coast of brazil.

Have you ever tried to do complicated surgery with a human tooth? Impossible! Even as magnificent as Kobold teeth are, they barely stand a chance to accomplish something like that!

Also, hiya new person and lucky Golentan! I would glomp you, but this 'luck' sounds icky...

So I will do this instead!

*Throws water balloon at Golentan*

[Partysan]

Whatever good happened to you, golentan, I have reserved a corner of my mind for throwing you a mental party.

[celtois]

Then you take the largest category and see, does it represent more than 90%*? Very probably not, so you add the second largest category and check, do the two represent more than 90% of the population? And so on until you hit the magic number. The categories that are left are 'eccentric'.

I'd say that while your definition of eccentric makes sense in a big picture sense, as soon as you think about it more it starts to break down. Because whatever number you decide you have to go to, will always represent the majority. Which in this case means you defined the outlying 10% of the population as eccentric.

A better way to define eccentricity on such a scale would be the relative concentration of the scale.

Think of your classic bell curve
The more the scale bunches up around the median, the more people are near average, where as if your bell curve were to lose its bell and flatten out, you'd have a society that was very diverse, the flatter it got the greater the differences between each individual.

So as opposed to your definition of eccentric that defines a set percentage of the population as eccentric, and the number of categories that are eccentric varying. This serves as a measure of of the diversity of society and assumes eccentricity from that. I'd call it a better form of measurement.

Moving on to the context of the quote, some of you were saying it seems suspect simply because the eccentric people are more likely to stick out in memory while this is true, I'd like to argue that a lot of this may also be that people who think differently are likely to come up with new solutions to a problem, and also less likely to conform to societies norms because they can't understand them. Simply look at the stereotypical genius.