Transtastic ||Support for the proud Trans Population||

Remy is back again....

Please don't kill me. D:	13.8%	[ 185 ]
I'll be nice, I promise.	23.2%	[ 310 ]
I'm back for now, we're all good right?	14.2%	[ 190 ]
Wait... What are you doing with that knife?	48.8%	[ 652 ]
Total Votes:			[ 1337 ]

[Desideraht]

Biblical Unicorn

Dandrogyny

Biblical Unicorn

Dandrogyny

Biblical Unicorn

Dandrogyny

I disagree... being in academia/academics/etc. is a mark of money. The higher the tier, the more you could afford.

Not everywhere is as corrupt as America.

Just because a person is NOT in academia does not mean that you're dumb. But just because someone is in academia does not make them rich and corrupt. Perhaps it is common in America, but in most other places it is not the case. For example - Australia has free higher education. That's where my parents got their qualifications. My dad came from working class French refugees, and he has multiple degrees and taught at university. He only got rich after he married my mother - when he was in his 50s.

By insisting that academics only get where they are via money harkens back to your original post on academia. You're right - you are being petty at this point.

I never said rich meant corrupt but a lot of smart people go to waste because they are poor. Just saying.

You said people in academia are not intelligent, just rich. That implies they got there via paying for it, not earning for it. That is flat out wrong for 99% of cases. Also, ever heard of scholarships? If poor people want to go to college most countries (not so much America) have quite well functioning systems to allow that. Some are better than others. I never said that people who were NOT in academia were stupid. I merely stated that those who ARE there are highly likely to be smart. You disagreed with that and said it was only because they are rich not smart. Therefore, with your logic, there must be some form of buying off or corruption for those people to get where they are. That is petty and incorrect.

No, I said it ONLY proves that they are rich. It doesn't prove that they are smart. You twisted my words (hopefully unintentionally?). A rich dumb person can get in. A rich smart person can also get in .But a very smart, poor person, cannot. Therefore it is not a fair measure of intelligence.

Scholarships are a head start but not enough. You have to be able to juggle schooling and living expenses. It pay pay for school but how do you pay the rent? How do you eat? With those many hours of studying? Bank.

Many scholarships include that stuff fyi. A friend of mine got a scholarship that included student housing, so she only had to pay for her food, which...part time jobs. Most uni students - rich or poor, have to have a part time job.

Also, a rich dumb person can get into college. They cannot get into academia without corruption. Honors, most Masters and PhD courses require an academic record to be assessed. A smart poor person CAN get in. There are barriers to it, but it is not THAT hard. It is in America, but as someone who has studied in 4 countries, America is the exception, not the rule. Even other countries that have student loans like America have much better policies around them that protect students while they are studying.

Therefore, being in academia is a very good indicator of intelligence. People who are there are very likely to be intelligent. Almost guaranteed. That does not mean that people who are NOT there are not intelligent. I said that at the outset... Just because it is one indicator, doesn't mean that all intelligent people have to have it/it is the only indicator. Incidentally most college graduates are not in academia. There is a difference.

Also an indicator is not proof. Some academics are not rich, some are not smart. It is merely an INDICATOR, not proof. Seriously...

Good luck getting one in this economy.

What I'm saying is that dumb people can maintain straight As. Or rather instead I should be saying "average" people. You don't have to be a genius to go to school basically.

I think this is a stupid argument personally ad I don't get what you are trying to prove (or "indicate"). I have my opinion based on my knowledge/experiences and I am entitled to it. Sorry it offends you?

[Biblical Unicorn]

Dandrogyny

Biblical Unicorn

Dandrogyny

Biblical Unicorn

Dandrogyny

I never said rich meant corrupt but a lot of smart people go to waste because they are poor. Just saying.

You said people in academia are not intelligent, just rich. That implies they got there via paying for it, not earning for it. That is flat out wrong for 99% of cases. Also, ever heard of scholarships? If poor people want to go to college most countries (not so much America) have quite well functioning systems to allow that. Some are better than others. I never said that people who were NOT in academia were stupid. I merely stated that those who ARE there are highly likely to be smart. You disagreed with that and said it was only because they are rich not smart. Therefore, with your logic, there must be some form of buying off or corruption for those people to get where they are. That is petty and incorrect.

No, I said it ONLY proves that they are rich. It doesn't prove that they are smart. You twisted my words (hopefully unintentionally?). A rich dumb person can get in. A rich smart person can also get in .But a very smart, poor person, cannot. Therefore it is not a fair measure of intelligence.

Scholarships are a head start but not enough. You have to be able to juggle schooling and living expenses. It pay pay for school but how do you pay the rent? How do you eat? With those many hours of studying? Bank.

Many scholarships include that stuff fyi. A friend of mine got a scholarship that included student housing, so she only had to pay for her food, which...part time jobs. Most uni students - rich or poor, have to have a part time job.

Also, a rich dumb person can get into college. They cannot get into academia without corruption. Honors, most Masters and PhD courses require an academic record to be assessed. A smart poor person CAN get in. There are barriers to it, but it is not THAT hard. It is in America, but as someone who has studied in 4 countries, America is the exception, not the rule. Even other countries that have student loans like America have much better policies around them that protect students while they are studying.

Therefore, being in academia is a very good indicator of intelligence. People who are there are very likely to be intelligent. Almost guaranteed. That does not mean that people who are NOT there are not intelligent. I said that at the outset... Just because it is one indicator, doesn't mean that all intelligent people have to have it/it is the only indicator. Incidentally most college graduates are not in academia. There is a difference.

Also an indicator is not proof. Some academics are not rich, some are not smart. It is merely an INDICATOR, not proof. Seriously...

Good luck getting one in this economy.

What I'm saying is that dumb people can maintain straight As. Or rather instead I should be saying "average" people. You don't have to be a genius to go to school basically.

I think this is a stupid argument personally ad I don't get what you are trying to prove (or "indicate"). I have my opinion based on my knowledge/experiences and I am entitled to it. Sorry it offends you?

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what academia is. It's not school. It's being a lecturer, a professor, a researcher etc etc etc. An academic is not a student. I have AGREED with you that high school and college are easy to maintain straight As. I disagree with you that college is not accessible to poorer people in a general sense, that is not necessarily the American example. And there are barriers to academia that are greater than money - it is based on your merit and ability. Also, America is the exception, not the rule. Most Western countries have waaaaaaaaaay better education systems than America, and therefore the American example is not indicative of academia, and is an extreme outlying example.

I also think you're limiting your argument only to your own personal experience rather than the actual facts. Which you have admitted as much. The world is bigger than America. The world is bigger than your specific situation. Education and academia are not the bastions of the rich and stupid. emotion_facepalm To think that it is, however, is a bit rich, and stupid.

[Desideraht]

Biblical Unicorn

Dandrogyny

Biblical Unicorn

Dandrogyny

Biblical Unicorn

Dandrogyny

I never said rich meant corrupt but a lot of smart people go to waste because they are poor. Just saying.

You said people in academia are not intelligent, just rich. That implies they got there via paying for it, not earning for it. That is flat out wrong for 99% of cases. Also, ever heard of scholarships? If poor people want to go to college most countries (not so much America) have quite well functioning systems to allow that. Some are better than others. I never said that people who were NOT in academia were stupid. I merely stated that those who ARE there are highly likely to be smart. You disagreed with that and said it was only because they are rich not smart. Therefore, with your logic, there must be some form of buying off or corruption for those people to get where they are. That is petty and incorrect.

No, I said it ONLY proves that they are rich. It doesn't prove that they are smart. You twisted my words (hopefully unintentionally?). A rich dumb person can get in. A rich smart person can also get in .But a very smart, poor person, cannot. Therefore it is not a fair measure of intelligence.

Scholarships are a head start but not enough. You have to be able to juggle schooling and living expenses. It pay pay for school but how do you pay the rent? How do you eat? With those many hours of studying? Bank.

Many scholarships include that stuff fyi. A friend of mine got a scholarship that included student housing, so she only had to pay for her food, which...part time jobs. Most uni students - rich or poor, have to have a part time job.

Also, a rich dumb person can get into college. They cannot get into academia without corruption. Honors, most Masters and PhD courses require an academic record to be assessed. A smart poor person CAN get in. There are barriers to it, but it is not THAT hard. It is in America, but as someone who has studied in 4 countries, America is the exception, not the rule. Even other countries that have student loans like America have much better policies around them that protect students while they are studying.

Therefore, being in academia is a very good indicator of intelligence. People who are there are very likely to be intelligent. Almost guaranteed. That does not mean that people who are NOT there are not intelligent. I said that at the outset... Just because it is one indicator, doesn't mean that all intelligent people have to have it/it is the only indicator. Incidentally most college graduates are not in academia. There is a difference.

Also an indicator is not proof. Some academics are not rich, some are not smart. It is merely an INDICATOR, not proof. Seriously...

Good luck getting one in this economy.

What I'm saying is that dumb people can maintain straight As. Or rather instead I should be saying "average" people. You don't have to be a genius to go to school basically.

I think this is a stupid argument personally ad I don't get what you are trying to prove (or "indicate"). I have my opinion based on my knowledge/experiences and I am entitled to it. Sorry it offends you?

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what academia is. It's not school. It's being a lecturer, a professor, a researcher etc etc etc. An academic is not a student. I have AGREED with you that high school and college are easy to maintain straight As. I disagree with you that college is not accessible to poorer people in a general sense, that is not necessarily the American example. And there are barriers to academia that are greater than money - it is based on your merit and ability. Also, America is the exception, not the rule. Most Western countries have waaaaaaaaaay better education systems than America, and therefore the American example is not indicative of academia, and is an extreme outlying example.

I also think you're limiting your argument only to your own personal experience rather than the actual facts. Which you have admitted as much. The world is bigger than America. The world is bigger than your specific situation. Education and academia are not the bastions of the rich and stupid. emotion_facepalm To think that it is, however, is a bit rich, and stupid.

No, I don't. A lot of those people are just as full of themselves as the students are. Are you saying you've never had a bad professor? Lucky you.

[Biblical Unicorn]

Dandrogyny

Biblical Unicorn

Dandrogyny

Biblical Unicorn

Dandrogyny

No, I said it ONLY proves that they are rich. It doesn't prove that they are smart. You twisted my words (hopefully unintentionally?). A rich dumb person can get in. A rich smart person can also get in .But a very smart, poor person, cannot. Therefore it is not a fair measure of intelligence.

Scholarships are a head start but not enough. You have to be able to juggle schooling and living expenses. It pay pay for school but how do you pay the rent? How do you eat? With those many hours of studying? Bank.

Many scholarships include that stuff fyi. A friend of mine got a scholarship that included student housing, so she only had to pay for her food, which...part time jobs. Most uni students - rich or poor, have to have a part time job.

Also, a rich dumb person can get into college. They cannot get into academia without corruption. Honors, most Masters and PhD courses require an academic record to be assessed. A smart poor person CAN get in. There are barriers to it, but it is not THAT hard. It is in America, but as someone who has studied in 4 countries, America is the exception, not the rule. Even other countries that have student loans like America have much better policies around them that protect students while they are studying.

Therefore, being in academia is a very good indicator of intelligence. People who are there are very likely to be intelligent. Almost guaranteed. That does not mean that people who are NOT there are not intelligent. I said that at the outset... Just because it is one indicator, doesn't mean that all intelligent people have to have it/it is the only indicator. Incidentally most college graduates are not in academia. There is a difference.

Also an indicator is not proof. Some academics are not rich, some are not smart. It is merely an INDICATOR, not proof. Seriously...

Good luck getting one in this economy.

What I'm saying is that dumb people can maintain straight As. Or rather instead I should be saying "average" people. You don't have to be a genius to go to school basically.

I think this is a stupid argument personally ad I don't get what you are trying to prove (or "indicate"). I have my opinion based on my knowledge/experiences and I am entitled to it. Sorry it offends you?

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what academia is. It's not school. It's being a lecturer, a professor, a researcher etc etc etc. An academic is not a student. I have AGREED with you that high school and college are easy to maintain straight As. I disagree with you that college is not accessible to poorer people in a general sense, that is not necessarily the American example. And there are barriers to academia that are greater than money - it is based on your merit and ability. Also, America is the exception, not the rule. Most Western countries have waaaaaaaaaay better education systems than America, and therefore the American example is not indicative of academia, and is an extreme outlying example.

I also think you're limiting your argument only to your own personal experience rather than the actual facts. Which you have admitted as much. The world is bigger than America. The world is bigger than your specific situation. Education and academia are not the bastions of the rich and stupid. emotion_facepalm To think that it is, however, is a bit rich, and stupid.

No, I don't. A lot of those people are just as full of themselves as the students are. Are you saying you've never had a bad professor? Lucky you.

I've had bad teachers. There's a split amongst teachers...ones who teach because they want to foster young minds, and ones who want to sadistically hold power over children. But my professors have been pretty awesome, at every school I've gone to, across different countries (gone on a lot of exchange scholarships). The worst professor I've had was a very good teacher. He just has a speech impediment that made it VERY hard to follow his lectures. >.>

Oh and the ones in foreign universities who sign up to take English spoken courses, when what they think is English is not English.

And by 'bad' I mean inferior teachers/idiots. I've certainly had ANNOYING professors. Like the one who thought she was oh so hip and happening because she wore Emily the Strange clothes at age 50. emotion_donotwant

[Desideraht]

Biblical Unicorn

Dandrogyny

Biblical Unicorn

Dandrogyny

Biblical Unicorn

Dandrogyny

No, I said it ONLY proves that they are rich. It doesn't prove that they are smart. You twisted my words (hopefully unintentionally?). A rich dumb person can get in. A rich smart person can also get in .But a very smart, poor person, cannot. Therefore it is not a fair measure of intelligence.

Scholarships are a head start but not enough. You have to be able to juggle schooling and living expenses. It pay pay for school but how do you pay the rent? How do you eat? With those many hours of studying? Bank.

Many scholarships include that stuff fyi. A friend of mine got a scholarship that included student housing, so she only had to pay for her food, which...part time jobs. Most uni students - rich or poor, have to have a part time job.

Also, a rich dumb person can get into college. They cannot get into academia without corruption. Honors, most Masters and PhD courses require an academic record to be assessed. A smart poor person CAN get in. There are barriers to it, but it is not THAT hard. It is in America, but as someone who has studied in 4 countries, America is the exception, not the rule. Even other countries that have student loans like America have much better policies around them that protect students while they are studying.

Therefore, being in academia is a very good indicator of intelligence. People who are there are very likely to be intelligent. Almost guaranteed. That does not mean that people who are NOT there are not intelligent. I said that at the outset... Just because it is one indicator, doesn't mean that all intelligent people have to have it/it is the only indicator. Incidentally most college graduates are not in academia. There is a difference.

Also an indicator is not proof. Some academics are not rich, some are not smart. It is merely an INDICATOR, not proof. Seriously...

Good luck getting one in this economy.

What I'm saying is that dumb people can maintain straight As. Or rather instead I should be saying "average" people. You don't have to be a genius to go to school basically.

I think this is a stupid argument personally ad I don't get what you are trying to prove (or "indicate"). I have my opinion based on my knowledge/experiences and I am entitled to it. Sorry it offends you?

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what academia is. It's not school. It's being a lecturer, a professor, a researcher etc etc etc. An academic is not a student. I have AGREED with you that high school and college are easy to maintain straight As. I disagree with you that college is not accessible to poorer people in a general sense, that is not necessarily the American example. And there are barriers to academia that are greater than money - it is based on your merit and ability. Also, America is the exception, not the rule. Most Western countries have waaaaaaaaaay better education systems than America, and therefore the American example is not indicative of academia, and is an extreme outlying example.

I also think you're limiting your argument only to your own personal experience rather than the actual facts. Which you have admitted as much. The world is bigger than America. The world is bigger than your specific situation. Education and academia are not the bastions of the rich and stupid. emotion_facepalm To think that it is, however, is a bit rich, and stupid.

No, I don't. A lot of those people are just as full of themselves as the students are. Are you saying you've never had a bad professor? Lucky you.

I've had bad teachers. There's a split amongst teachers...ones who teach because they want to foster young minds, and ones who want to sadistically hold power over children. But my professors have been pretty awesome, at every school I've gone to, across different countries (gone on a lot of exchange scholarships). The worst professor I've had was a very good teacher. He just has a speech impediment that made it VERY hard to follow his lectures. >.>

Oh and the ones in foreign universities who sign up to take English spoken courses, when what they think is English is not English.

Well yeah there are good ones I never said they ALL were dumb I was just saying that uh "status symbol" or whatever does not prove that person is smart, other aspects of their personality is what makes them smart, not education level or whatever.

[Biblical Unicorn]

Dandrogyny

Biblical Unicorn

Dandrogyny

Biblical Unicorn

Dandrogyny

Good luck getting one in this economy.

What I'm saying is that dumb people can maintain straight As. Or rather instead I should be saying "average" people. You don't have to be a genius to go to school basically.

I think this is a stupid argument personally ad I don't get what you are trying to prove (or "indicate"). I have my opinion based on my knowledge/experiences and I am entitled to it. Sorry it offends you?

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what academia is. It's not school. It's being a lecturer, a professor, a researcher etc etc etc. An academic is not a student. I have AGREED with you that high school and college are easy to maintain straight As. I disagree with you that college is not accessible to poorer people in a general sense, that is not necessarily the American example. And there are barriers to academia that are greater than money - it is based on your merit and ability. Also, America is the exception, not the rule. Most Western countries have waaaaaaaaaay better education systems than America, and therefore the American example is not indicative of academia, and is an extreme outlying example.

I also think you're limiting your argument only to your own personal experience rather than the actual facts. Which you have admitted as much. The world is bigger than America. The world is bigger than your specific situation. Education and academia are not the bastions of the rich and stupid. emotion_facepalm To think that it is, however, is a bit rich, and stupid.

No, I don't. A lot of those people are just as full of themselves as the students are. Are you saying you've never had a bad professor? Lucky you.

I've had bad teachers. There's a split amongst teachers...ones who teach because they want to foster young minds, and ones who want to sadistically hold power over children. But my professors have been pretty awesome, at every school I've gone to, across different countries (gone on a lot of exchange scholarships). The worst professor I've had was a very good teacher. He just has a speech impediment that made it VERY hard to follow his lectures. >.>

Oh and the ones in foreign universities who sign up to take English spoken courses, when what they think is English is not English.

Well yeah there are good ones I never said they ALL were dumb I was just saying that uh "status symbol" or whatever does not prove that person is smart, other aspects of their personality is what makes them smart, not education level or whatever.

It's still an indicator. It does not prove anything. I have never spoken about proof. Why are you hung up on proof?!?!?! Proof is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Adding proof to the mix makes ALL these arguments invalid. They are not deductive arguments, they are inductive. If someone has managed to not only go to college, but maintain high grades throughout an undergraduate degree, post graduate degree, and a masters or PhD program, it is likely that they are intelligent people. Thems the facts. It does not mean that there are not intelligent people who have NOT done these things. It also does not mean that all people who achieve these things are as smart as people who have not achieved them. However, it would be very frickin' hard for someone who was below average intelligence to achieve them, and pretty hard for someone of average intelligence to achieve them, unless there is some sort of 'if I give you x amount of money you give me this grade' tit for tat going on. Therefore, being in academia is a strong indicator of intelligence. People who are in academia are likely to be more consistently intelligent than say, people who work as cleaners. That does not mean ALL cleaners are stupid, nor than all academics are intelligent. But it is an INDICATOR.

[That Is All]

Dandrogyny

I'm 5'3" too and it sucks. Except I'm also like 85 lbs. >.<;
My height is a pretty big disadvantage, as well as being thin. Fortunately I'm not very curvy. My BF looks curvier than me a lot of the time, other than his broad shoulders. I'm very jealous...

I wish I was as short as you guys, I really do. At 6'3" I kinda stick out, just a little, even as a guy. I'm scared to death that my height will be the first thing people clock me on when I transition.

[Desideraht]

Biblical Unicorn

Dandrogyny

Biblical Unicorn

Dandrogyny

Biblical Unicorn

Dandrogyny

Good luck getting one in this economy.

What I'm saying is that dumb people can maintain straight As. Or rather instead I should be saying "average" people. You don't have to be a genius to go to school basically.

I think this is a stupid argument personally ad I don't get what you are trying to prove (or "indicate"). I have my opinion based on my knowledge/experiences and I am entitled to it. Sorry it offends you?

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what academia is. It's not school. It's being a lecturer, a professor, a researcher etc etc etc. An academic is not a student. I have AGREED with you that high school and college are easy to maintain straight As. I disagree with you that college is not accessible to poorer people in a general sense, that is not necessarily the American example. And there are barriers to academia that are greater than money - it is based on your merit and ability. Also, America is the exception, not the rule. Most Western countries have waaaaaaaaaay better education systems than America, and therefore the American example is not indicative of academia, and is an extreme outlying example.

I also think you're limiting your argument only to your own personal experience rather than the actual facts. Which you have admitted as much. The world is bigger than America. The world is bigger than your specific situation. Education and academia are not the bastions of the rich and stupid. emotion_facepalm To think that it is, however, is a bit rich, and stupid.

No, I don't. A lot of those people are just as full of themselves as the students are. Are you saying you've never had a bad professor? Lucky you.

I've had bad teachers. There's a split amongst teachers...ones who teach because they want to foster young minds, and ones who want to sadistically hold power over children. But my professors have been pretty awesome, at every school I've gone to, across different countries (gone on a lot of exchange scholarships). The worst professor I've had was a very good teacher. He just has a speech impediment that made it VERY hard to follow his lectures. >.>

Oh and the ones in foreign universities who sign up to take English spoken courses, when what they think is English is not English.

Well yeah there are good ones I never said they ALL were dumb I was just saying that uh "status symbol" or whatever does not prove that person is smart, other aspects of their personality is what makes them smart, not education level or whatever.

It's still an indicator. It does not prove anything. I have never spoken about proof. Why are you hung up on proof?!?!?! Proof is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Adding proof to the mix makes ALL these arguments invalid. They are not deductive arguments, they are inductive. If someone has managed to not only go to college, but maintain high grades throughout an undergraduate degree, post graduate degree, and a masters or PhD program, it is likely that they are intelligent people. Thems the facts. It does not mean that there are not intelligent people who have NOT done these things. It also does not mean that all people who achieve these things are as smart as people who have not achieved them. However, it would be very frickin' hard for someone who was below average intelligence to achieve them, and pretty hard for someone of average intelligence to achieve them, unless there is some sort of 'if I give you x amount of money you give me this grade' tit for tat going on. Therefore, being in academia is a strong indicator of intelligence. People who are in academia are likely to be more consistently intelligent than say, people who work as cleaners. That does not mean ALL cleaners are stupid, nor than all academics are intelligent. But it is an INDICATOR.

We still disagree on this. Because dumb people can reach that level too. Therefore I do not find it a reliable indicator. Enough said.

[Desideraht]

That Is All

Dandrogyny

I'm 5'3" too and it sucks. Except I'm also like 85 lbs. >.<;
My height is a pretty big disadvantage, as well as being thin. Fortunately I'm not very curvy. My BF looks curvier than me a lot of the time, other than his broad shoulders. I'm very jealous...

I wish I was as short as you guys, I really do. At 6'3" I kinda stick out, just a little, even as a guy. I'm scared to death that my height will be the first thing people clock me on when I transition.

Being 6'3" sucks pretty much no matter what gender you are, IMO. Hard to fit in cute clothes. Then again, I have that issue, too. I can't fit in the shoes I like because my feet are too small.

[That Is All]

x_Magnus Bane_x

I have a question: has anyone tried to just cope with their physical gender before/ pre hormones? just curious ...

I've been trying to cope with it my entire life. It wasn't until last year that I completely broke down, finally admitted to myself that I AM transexual, and that I need to transition. I tried living my life up until then to male expectations, but I just couldn't. I've always been depressed, I always felt like something was wrong with me, but I could never quite figure out what it was. It wasn't until I read an article on MtF transexual people that everything finally clicked.

[Biblical Unicorn]

Dandrogyny

Biblical Unicorn

Dandrogyny

Biblical Unicorn

Dandrogyny

No, I don't. A lot of those people are just as full of themselves as the students are. Are you saying you've never had a bad professor? Lucky you.

I've had bad teachers. There's a split amongst teachers...ones who teach because they want to foster young minds, and ones who want to sadistically hold power over children. But my professors have been pretty awesome, at every school I've gone to, across different countries (gone on a lot of exchange scholarships). The worst professor I've had was a very good teacher. He just has a speech impediment that made it VERY hard to follow his lectures. >.>

Oh and the ones in foreign universities who sign up to take English spoken courses, when what they think is English is not English.

Well yeah there are good ones I never said they ALL were dumb I was just saying that uh "status symbol" or whatever does not prove that person is smart, other aspects of their personality is what makes them smart, not education level or whatever.

It's still an indicator. It does not prove anything. I have never spoken about proof. Why are you hung up on proof?!?!?! Proof is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Adding proof to the mix makes ALL these arguments invalid. They are not deductive arguments, they are inductive. If someone has managed to not only go to college, but maintain high grades throughout an undergraduate degree, post graduate degree, and a masters or PhD program, it is likely that they are intelligent people. Thems the facts. It does not mean that there are not intelligent people who have NOT done these things. It also does not mean that all people who achieve these things are as smart as people who have not achieved them. However, it would be very frickin' hard for someone who was below average intelligence to achieve them, and pretty hard for someone of average intelligence to achieve them, unless there is some sort of 'if I give you x amount of money you give me this grade' tit for tat going on. Therefore, being in academia is a strong indicator of intelligence. People who are in academia are likely to be more consistently intelligent than say, people who work as cleaners. That does not mean ALL cleaners are stupid, nor than all academics are intelligent. But it is an INDICATOR.

We still disagree on this. Because dumb people can reach that level too. Therefore I do not find it a reliable indicator. Enough said.

/face. palm. Whether or not dumb people CAN reach that level is irrelevant to an indicator. Whether they are LIKELY to is relevant. And they are unlikely to. Enough said.

[That Is All]

Dandrogyny

That Is All

Dandrogyny

I'm 5'3" too and it sucks. Except I'm also like 85 lbs. >.<;
My height is a pretty big disadvantage, as well as being thin. Fortunately I'm not very curvy. My BF looks curvier than me a lot of the time, other than his broad shoulders. I'm very jealous...

I wish I was as short as you guys, I really do. At 6'3" I kinda stick out, just a little, even as a guy. I'm scared to death that my height will be the first thing people clock me on when I transition.

Being 6'3" sucks pretty much no matter what gender you are, IMO. Hard to fit in cute clothes. Then again, I have that issue, too. I can't fit in the shoes I like because my feet are too small.

This is entirely true. I can never even find guy jeans that fit me. Suit shopping was always an incredible hassle, nobody seems to carry clothing for men that are over 6'2", and specialty shops only seem to tailor for men over 6'4". I hate to think how hard shopping will be when I'm looking for girl clothes. gonk

[x_Magnus Bane_x]

That Is All

x_Magnus Bane_x

I have a question: has anyone tried to just cope with their physical gender before/ pre hormones? just curious ...

I've been trying to cope with it my entire life. It wasn't until last year that I completely broke down, finally admitted to myself that I AM transexual, and that I need to transition. I tried living my life up until then to male expectations, but I just couldn't. I've always been depressed, I always felt like something was wrong with me, but I could never quite figure out what it was. It wasn't until I read an article on MtF transexual people that everything finally clicked.

hmm... you think there's a similar article for FtM?

[Desideraht]

Biblical Unicorn

Dandrogyny

Biblical Unicorn

Dandrogyny

Biblical Unicorn

Dandrogyny

No, I don't. A lot of those people are just as full of themselves as the students are. Are you saying you've never had a bad professor? Lucky you.

I've had bad teachers. There's a split amongst teachers...ones who teach because they want to foster young minds, and ones who want to sadistically hold power over children. But my professors have been pretty awesome, at every school I've gone to, across different countries (gone on a lot of exchange scholarships). The worst professor I've had was a very good teacher. He just has a speech impediment that made it VERY hard to follow his lectures. >.>

Oh and the ones in foreign universities who sign up to take English spoken courses, when what they think is English is not English.

Well yeah there are good ones I never said they ALL were dumb I was just saying that uh "status symbol" or whatever does not prove that person is smart, other aspects of their personality is what makes them smart, not education level or whatever.

It's still an indicator. It does not prove anything. I have never spoken about proof. Why are you hung up on proof?!?!?! Proof is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Adding proof to the mix makes ALL these arguments invalid. They are not deductive arguments, they are inductive. If someone has managed to not only go to college, but maintain high grades throughout an undergraduate degree, post graduate degree, and a masters or PhD program, it is likely that they are intelligent people. Thems the facts. It does not mean that there are not intelligent people who have NOT done these things. It also does not mean that all people who achieve these things are as smart as people who have not achieved them. However, it would be very frickin' hard for someone who was below average intelligence to achieve them, and pretty hard for someone of average intelligence to achieve them, unless there is some sort of 'if I give you x amount of money you give me this grade' tit for tat going on. Therefore, being in academia is a strong indicator of intelligence. People who are in academia are likely to be more consistently intelligent than say, people who work as cleaners. That does not mean ALL cleaners are stupid, nor than all academics are intelligent. But it is an INDICATOR.

We still disagree on this. Because dumb people can reach that level too. Therefore I do not find it a reliable indicator. Enough said.

/face. palm. Whether or not dumb people CAN reach that level is irrelevant to an indicator. Whether they are LIKELY to is relevant. And they are unlikely to. Enough said.

I disagree. The accuracy of that "indicator" is immediately in question due to the fact that stupid people can attain the same status.

[Biblical Unicorn]

Dandrogyny

Biblical Unicorn

Dandrogyny

Biblical Unicorn

Dandrogyny

Well yeah there are good ones I never said they ALL were dumb I was just saying that uh "status symbol" or whatever does not prove that person is smart, other aspects of their personality is what makes them smart, not education level or whatever.

It's still an indicator. It does not prove anything. I have never spoken about proof. Why are you hung up on proof?!?!?! Proof is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Adding proof to the mix makes ALL these arguments invalid. They are not deductive arguments, they are inductive. If someone has managed to not only go to college, but maintain high grades throughout an undergraduate degree, post graduate degree, and a masters or PhD program, it is likely that they are intelligent people. Thems the facts. It does not mean that there are not intelligent people who have NOT done these things. It also does not mean that all people who achieve these things are as smart as people who have not achieved them. However, it would be very frickin' hard for someone who was below average intelligence to achieve them, and pretty hard for someone of average intelligence to achieve them, unless there is some sort of 'if I give you x amount of money you give me this grade' tit for tat going on. Therefore, being in academia is a strong indicator of intelligence. People who are in academia are likely to be more consistently intelligent than say, people who work as cleaners. That does not mean ALL cleaners are stupid, nor than all academics are intelligent. But it is an INDICATOR.

We still disagree on this. Because dumb people can reach that level too. Therefore I do not find it a reliable indicator. Enough said.

/face. palm. Whether or not dumb people CAN reach that level is irrelevant to an indicator. Whether they are LIKELY to is relevant. And they are unlikely to. Enough said.

I disagree. The accuracy of that "indicator" is immediately in question due to the fact that stupid people can attain the same status.

No it's not. This is the standard of indicator that like...ALL sociological research uses.

ie, women are more likely to wear/buy dresses. Therefore, the majority of people who wear/buy dresses are going to be women. That does not mean men cannot wear/buy dresses. It also does not mean people who do not wear/buy dresses are men. But it INDICATES that the MAJORITY of those who DO wear/buy dresses are women. That is the SAME SCENARIO with different words.

But whatever, I'm bored of explaining logic ad nauseum.