Originally posted by aspviper666You may be right about that guiana stamp.
Neither am I .I had a friend that was into that,he would drool as he said that stamps name,so I assumed it was the shizznitz.
The most popular stamp is the same as my avatar.
The one I have now, the Love one. I'm gonna change it in a minute.
Originally posted by NordlysSome limitations on entry make sense. A local chess club for players above a certain rating sounds reasonable, since they want to spend most of the time playing against themselves and not against newbies. I see no problem with that.
It depends on what you actually meant by "the other way round". I took it to mean "If you are Mensa you have to be ridiculous", which may not have been the intended meaning. My statement wasn't really meant as a provocation, it was more an expression of annoyance about your playing stupid and sarcastically attributing it to your non-membership (this may not ...[text shortened]... usively for musicians of a certain level, chess players, autistic people or fat people?
Why don't people create groups for those special interests and then make their own criteria for entry? I'm pretty sure the IQ criteria is not the best criteria for each of those groups.
And specially because it sends a message: If you aren't in the top 2%, it's not worth it for you to bother with such activities.
Originally posted by PalynkaI think the message is that people want to be with people like them for some things. What if I wanted to join a book club and discuss Camus and the people around me could barely make it through Magic Tree House books? (bad example -- way too close to reality) People like to be with people who are *like them* at least part of the time, however they define themselves. Even for non-intellectual pursuits, it's still nice to gather with people that you feel you can have a conversation with (or with whom you feel you can have a conversation, in case the grammar gurus are out and about).
Some limitations on entry make sense. A local chess club for players above a certain rating sounds reasonable, since they want to spend most of the time playing against themselves and not against newbies. I see no problem with that.
Why don't people create groups for those special interests and then make their own criteria for entry? I'm pretty sure the I ...[text shortened]... sage: If you aren't in the top 2%, it's not worth it for you to bother with such activities.
Originally posted by PalynkaIt's just using several criteria. It's like when a group of autistic people has meetings about a special interest. It doesn't mean that non-autistic people can't have that interest, or that everybody who participates in that group only pursues this interest together with other autistic people. It just means that this specific group has those two criteria. Sometimes I may prefer to spend time exclusively with autistic people because it makes certain aspects of communication easier. Is there something wrong with that? I don't think so.
Some limitations on entry make sense. A local chess club for players above a certain rating sounds reasonable, since they want to spend most of the time playing against themselves and not against newbies. I see no problem with that.
Why don't people create groups for those special interests and then make their own criteria for entry? I'm pretty sure the I ...[text shortened]... sage: If you aren't in the top 2%, it's not worth it for you to bother with such activities.
Originally posted by reader1107People generally like to be with people who see in them what they see in themselves. That is, people who value a quality we have (or even think we have) in us. We tend to avoid those who call attention to things we don't like in ourselves, or value things we don't.
I think the message is that people want to be with people like them for some things. What if I wanted to join a book club and discuss Camus and the people around me could barely make it through Magic Tree House books? (bad example -- way too close to reality) People like to be with people who are *like them* at least part of the time, however they defi ...[text shortened]... r with whom you feel you can have a conversation, in case the grammar gurus are out and about).
I think that's the essence of "people like them".
Originally posted by RookRAKSo that's why all my buddies are jerks?
People generally like to be with people who see in them what they see in themselves. That is, people who value a quality we have (or even think we have) in us. We tend to avoid those who call attention to things we don't like in ourselves, or value things we don't.
I think that's the essence of "people like them".
Originally posted by NordlysGets back to communication being key. There are things I want to do with fellow teachers because we have a similar language, experiences, and world view in some areas. There are other groups I'm a part of that I want to do things with for the same reasons. That doesn't mean I'm exclusively with those groups.
It's just using several criteria. It's like when a group of autistic people has meetings about a special interest. It doesn't mean that non-autistic people can't have that interest, or that everybody who participates in that group only pursues this interest together with other autistic people. It just means that this specific group has those two criteria. So ...[text shortened]... tain aspects of communication easier. Is there something wrong with that? I don't think so.
Originally posted by reader1107I don't think having similar scores in an IQ test makes people alike, that's all.
I think the message is that people want to be with people like them for some things. What if I wanted to join a book club and discuss Camus and the people around me could barely make it through Magic Tree House books? (bad example -- way too close to reality) People like to be with people who are *like them* at least part of the time, however they defi ...[text shortened]... r with whom you feel you can have a conversation, in case the grammar gurus are out and about).
Originally posted by NordlysOf course there's nothing wrong with that. It's not comparable, though.
It's just using several criteria. It's like when a group of autistic people has meetings about a special interest. It doesn't mean that non-autistic people can't have that interest, or that everybody who participates in that group only pursues this interest together with other autistic people. It just means that this specific group has those two criteria. So ...[text shortened]... tain aspects of communication easier. Is there something wrong with that? I don't think so.
Autists have a brain disorder that creates problems when interacting socially, especially with people who are unaware of that disorder or how to deal with it. Creating such a voluntarilly controlled environment can be positive if it benefits communication and doesn't have the objective (or merely effect) of prolonged isolation.