My wife is special AND the stereotype is WAY off.

I've dated LOTS of girls and never have I ever gone out with somebody like what Chris Rock describes. I have to say, speaking broadly, that my experience, my concept, my picture of "the feminine creature" if you will is completely different from Chris Rock's.

I believe, for the most part, that aside from anatomy, I find that there is very little difference between boys and girls, at least on a deep level. I guess what I mean is that there is more difference between say two girls than there are between say a guy and a girl, and that a guy and a girl may have WAY more in common than two guys.

I've almost always dated girls that I had at least SOMETHING in common with, so I may have a skewed perspective.

Also my perspective is undoubtedly skewed because I was raised to believe in gender equality. That probably is a big part of the reason why I see any differences between boys and girls as being very vague, and slight.

Now having said all that, here's my (sexist) view on women:
- women can be moody. PMS is kind of scary. But they're also intelligent and self sufficient, and can recognize their own unreasonableness. But they are still allowed to be upset. Fuck, I get in a bad mood from time to time too.

- women aren't as strong (physically) as men. (given the same lifestyle, activity level, etc) this makes me sad, because i am not strong, but i'm stronger than unathletic girls. I would hate to be weaker than i already am.

- doubtlessly because of social conditioning, girls are more likely to understand their own feelings than guys. I am down with people who are into their own feelings. Especially when they know about the little things that make them happy. Girls know those things, and will tell you if you are nice to them. I like that.

...

wow, I can't really think of too many more things that I can say blanket statement about girls. I've dated rational ones, I've dated depressed ones, I've dated super-rational ones.... but... that was all their own personalities, not something that I would say about all girls.

...

Now my wife, on the other hand, is a completely different story. ... I think that if you take the Chris Rock routine, add in a very healthy dose of mutual respect, and then completely reverse the roles, you'd be closer to the dynamic in our relationship.

Oh, yeah, and we both make sense when we argue. But then again, we both are students of consciousness and AI and perception and neuropsychology, so we both recognize one very important thing. We know that our brains are really imperfect (wetware is so kludgy, especially with horomones and mood altering neurotransmitters just sloshing around). We trust and respect each other enough to be able to see that we both think we're right, even if only one of us could (logically) be right.

If it is not a strict logical argument, if the things at stake are moral or emotional, we have both been through enough shit with enough people that we can take a breath, and a step back, and try and figure out why we disagree.

...

But yeah, that's the sort of arguments we have. But always kind, and always respectful and caring.

...

In particular I really REALLY disagreed with Chris Rock when he was talking about looking yourself in the mirror and saying "What can I do to please her" every day. Fuck you. Jessica does so many things for me that make me so happy. Little things like putting my bowl and spoon out for me for my breakfast in the morning, or scratching my head when we're watching a movie (or videosift), just lots and lots of thoughtful nice things, it's almost like she's getting up every morning and trying to think of ways to please ME.

And what's better then that- when I DO think of something to do that makes her happy, it's like I was a saint or something. I tell you, I love my life. Oh I mean I love my WIFE.


In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
^ Yep that's the kind of thing i'm looking for! Of course along with lucky and djsunkid's posts about how they don't suffer it. Wondering, would you say your ladies are special or that the stereotype is way off?

My wife is special AND the stereotype is WAY off.

I've dated LOTS of girls and never have I ever gone out with somebody like what Chris Rock describes. I have to say, speaking broadly, that my experience, my concept, my picture of "the feminine creature" if you will is completely different from Chris Rock's.

I believe, for the most part, that aside from anatomy, I find that there is very little difference between boys and girls, at least on a deep level. I guess what I mean is that there is more difference between say two girls than there are between say a guy and a girl, and that a guy and a girl may have WAY more in common than two guys.

I've almost always dated girls that I had at least SOMETHING in common with, so I may have a skewed perspective.

Also my perspective is undoubtedly skewed because I was raised to believe in gender equality. That probably is a big part of the reason why I see any differences between boys and girls as being very vague, and slight.

Now having said all that, here's my (sexist) view on women:
- women can be moody. PMS is kind of scary. But they're also intelligent and self sufficient, and can recognize their own unreasonableness. But they are still allowed to be upset. Fuck, I get in a bad mood from time to time too.

- women aren't as strong (physically) as men. (given the same lifestyle, activity level, etc) this makes me sad, because i am not strong, but i'm stronger than unathletic girls. I would hate to be weaker than i already am.

- doubtlessly because of social conditioning, girls are more likely to understand their own feelings than guys. I am down with people who are into their own feelings. Especially when they know about the little things that make them happy. Girls know those things, and will tell you if you are nice to them. I like that.

...

wow, I can't really think of too many more things that I can say blanket statement about girls. I've dated rational ones, I've dated depressed ones, I've dated super-rational ones.... but... that was all their own personalities, not something that I would say about all girls.

...

Now my wife, on the other hand, is a completely different story. ... I think that if you take the Chris Rock routine, add in a very healthy dose of mutual respect, and then completely reverse the roles, you'd be closer to the dynamic in our relationship.

Oh, yeah, and we both make sense when we argue. But then again, we both are students of consciousness and AI and perception and neuropsychology, so we both recognize one very important thing. We know that our brains are really imperfect (wetware is so kludgy, especially with horomones and mood altering neurotransmitters just sloshing around). We trust and respect each other enough to be able to see that we both think we're right, even if only one of us could (logically) be right.

If it is not a strict logical argument, if the things at stake are moral or emotional, we have both been through enough shit with enough people that we can take a breath, and a step back, and try and figure out why we disagree.

...

But yeah, that's the sort of arguments we have. But always kind, and always respectful and caring.

...

In particular I really REALLY disagreed with Chris Rock when he was talking about looking yourself in the mirror and saying "What can I do to please her" every day. Fuck you. Jessica does so many things for me that make me so happy. Little things like putting my bowl and spoon out for me for my breakfast in the morning, or scratching my head when we're watching a movie (or videosift), just lots and lots of thoughtful nice things, it's almost like she's getting up every morning and trying to think of ways to please ME.

And what's better then that- when I DO think of something to do that makes her happy, it's like I was a saint or something. I tell you, I love my life. Oh I mean I love my WIFE.

>> ^alien_concept:
^ Yep that's the kind of thing i'm looking for! Of course along with lucky and djsunkid's posts about how they don't suffer it. Wondering, would you say your ladies are special or that the stereotype is way off?

Agreed on it needs to be legalized at least off of schedule 1 so we can regulate rather than pretend we can make it go away like we do now. Can't even do many types of research now since we can't "distribute" so can't do controlled studies.

On your second point, Snap right back at ya In "MEMORY, ATTENTION, AND COGNITIVE FUNCTION" as you put it there's a small catch involved. Similar to the way the risk of psychotic disorders is badly overstated (almost nothing to a hair over almost nothing) this is overstated and badly as well. The effects are mostly WHILE intoxicated, for casual use that doesn't extend much if at all past that. You wouldn't know that from the scare stories though. I'll offer you some sources for further research if you'd care to follow up on it and a decent source for a bunch more.

"The results of our meta-analytic study failed to reveal a substantial, systematic effect of long-term, regular cannabis consumption on the neurocognitive functioning of users who were not acutely intoxicated. For six of the eight neurocognitive ability areas that were surveyed. the confidence intervals for the average effect sizes across studies overlapped zero in each instance, indicating that the effect size could not be distinguished from zero. The two exceptions were in the domains of learning and forgetting."

Source: Grant, Igor, et al., "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (Cambridge University Press: July 2003), 9, p. 686.

"In conclusion, our meta-analysis of studies that have attempted to address the question of longer term neurocognitive disturbance in moderate and heavy cannabis users has failed to demonstrate a substantial, systematic, and detrimental effect of cannabis use on neuropsychological performance. It was surprising to find such few and small effects given that most of the potential biases inherent in our analyses actually increased the likelihood of finding a cannabis effect."

Source: Grant, Igor, et al., "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (Cambridge University Press: July 2003), 9, p. 687.

"Nevertheless, when considering all 15 studies (i.e., those that met both strict and more relaxed criteria) we only noted that regular cannabis users performed worse on memory tests, but that the magnitude of the effect was very small. The small magnitude of effect sizes from observations of chronic users of cannabis suggests that cannabis compounds, if found to have therapeutic value, should have a good margin of safety from a neurocognitive standpoint under the more limited conditions of exposure that would likely obtain in a medical setting."

Source: Grant, Igor, et al., "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (Cambridge University Press: July 2003), 9, pp. 687-8.

A Johns Hopkins study published in May 1999, examined marijuana's effects on cognition on 1,318 participants over a 15 year period. Researchers reported "no significant differences in cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and nonusers of cannabis." They also found "no male-female differences in cognitive decline in relation to cannabis use." "These results ... seem to provide strong evidence of the absence of a long-term residual effect of cannabis use on cognition," they concluded.

Source: Constantine G. Lyketsos, Elizabeth Garrett, Kung-Yee Liang, and James C. Anthony. (1999). "Cannabis Use and Cognitive Decline in Persons under 65 Years of Age," American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 149, No. 9.

"Current marijuana use had a negative effect on global IQ score only in subjects who smoked 5 or more joints per week. A negative effect was not observed among subjects who had previously been heavy users but were no longer using the substance. We conclude that marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence. Whether the absence of a residual marijuana effect would also be evident in more specific cognitive domains such as memory and attention remains to be ascertained."

Source: Fried, Peter, Barbara Watkinson, Deborah James, and Robert Gray, "Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults," Canadian Medical Association Journal, April 2, 2002, 166(7), p. 887.

# "Although the heavy current users experienced a decrease in IQ score, their scores were still above average at the young adult assessment (mean 105.1). If we had not assessed preteen IQ, these subjects would have appeared to be functioning normally. Only with knowledge of the change in IQ score does the negative impact of current heavy use become apparent."

Source: Fried, Peter, Barbara Watkinson, Deborah James, and Robert Gray, "Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults," Canadian Medical Association Journal, April 2, 2002, 166(7), p. 890.

Source for those and more, lots of sourced detail which includes perspective rather than tossing bold claims out without that perspective, can be found at the following. Yes, it includes both the good and the bad and the root site for that page covers medical marijuana and other drugs as well.http://www.drugwarfacts.org/marijuan.htm

The problem in part is that people use pot (and other drugs) sometimes to hide from life or to make themselves feel better about their failures and we try to assume the pot caused the problem rather than the problem caused them to find a way to make themselves feel better, in this case with pot. Association doesn't automatically mean cause and effect. It's not brain food, but it's not all that dangerous in casual use either. Even with heavy use function tends to drift back to the baseline with time, you just have to quit abusing. Better to look for the reasons for abuse than to blame the substance which isn't all that dangerous or toxic in itself.

This time I wasn't so lazy.

There is still a debate in the scientific community regarding low level exposure to mercury and mercury compounds.

Research indicating low level mercury exposure is toxic:

Chronic low-level mercury exposure, BDNF polymorphism, and associations with cognitive and motor function.

Low Level Mercury Exposure Accelerates Lupus in Mice

Low level methylmercury exposure affects neuropsychological function in adults

Research promoting low level mercury exposure as non-toxic:

Neurobehavioral effects of dental amalgam in children: a randomized clinical trial.

Low-level chronic mercury exposure in children and adolescents: Meta-analysis

My point in linking these few references was to show that there still is a debate within the SCIENTIFIC community about the health effects of low level mercury exposure. This video was produced by scientists, who showed their methods to reach their conclusions. To say this falls outside of science is to say that the Science channel shall show NO scientific debate.

This video wasn't produced by some herbalist or holistic practitioner, but by the University of Calgary's medical faculty. I bet they'd be surprised to find that their video doesn't meet the scientific standards of a video web site.

Question for rembar: If one of the researchers who produced this video called you and asked why this doesn't belong in the Science channel, what would you say? That because the majority of scientists currently think that low level mercury exposure is safe, the debate is over? That no further research into the safety of mercury is necessary? If that's the case, are all the researchers currently investigating low level mercury exposure wasting their time?