or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2 - Page 26  

post #376 of 21760
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post

 

I've mentioned it before but I think that the between/within groups distinction is a little misleading.  It needs to be broken up by prevalence of specific attributes in each group.  I don't mean to criticize you or expect you to have that kind of data off the top of your head though.  I just think that a large enough sample to cut through the noise of individual preference might reveal some interesting, but subtle, differences.  Given the current genetic and developmental hypothesises for sexual orientation I think it would make sense if there was a great deal of overlap but not a complete overlap of preferences.

 

 

 

I don't see how it's misleading.

 

There is undoubtedly overlap between groups in preference when it comes to partner selection and attraction in general, but I honestly think it's such an individualized and personal thing, that "breaking it up into specific attributes" does violence to the original phenomena one is trying to measure. Reductionism often misses out on the larger picture in my opinion, and this is a perfect example. My original point is that, on the one hand, one woman to another or one man to another is going to exhibit on average a far greater difference than a particular attribute compared across groups. That's just basic statistics. However in another sense, the relationships and interplay between those attributes---their context---are just as important as the attributes themselves, and so I think "the noise of individual preference" is precisely what is important.

 

Also I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea of applying purely biological models of sexual attraction to groups based on a factor that isn't purely biological, ie. gender. 


Edited by MuppetFace - 9/14/12 at 12:06pm
post #377 of 21760
This seems like exactly the sort of thing that OK Cupid's social statistics blog would have an entry about.
post #378 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybob_jcv View Post

The discussion of attraction reminds me of a saying I heard a long time ago, that when translated into English went something like:
For every trashcan, there is a lid.

 

LOL. I liked it.

 

And I think your avatar is sexy.

 


Edited by mutabor - 9/14/12 at 12:34pm
post #379 of 21760

Hey Diary thread members, I have just completed a post I believe is worthy of this thread. I got bored after typing about performance and thus just summed up this and that but here:

 


 

 

 

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by nywytboy68 View Post

Heh, the apple fonbois' are starting to arrive. The iPhone 5 is not innovative, and for the last & this generation apple has been playing catchup. The camera is no longer considered #1, and their processor is not the fastest when it comes to performance.
And, the Nokia phones aren't "niche" phones, and the Lumia 900 camera topps the iPhones that I've owned. The new Lumia 920 is actually considered innovative - hardware AND software wise.
As for ease of use, it's got that going for it. But, it's also a stagnant OS, it's easy to use because it never changes. Well, those "incremental innovations" count, right?!?!?! Apple steals all the features it'd been missing, then claims it as new. And lets face it, it's become a boring device in general.
Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. iOS and the iPhone are no longer #1. And were never #1 world wide.
An iPhone is actually more status symbol than function. I personally love how iTunes handles my media when it comes to putting it on or taking it off of my iDevices. I actually enjoy the sq these toys produce. No WAY will I blindly claim it's as good as the apple keynote claimed. Especially since the candy-colored hues have been pulled out of the hat. Apple has finally "jumped the shark", and it's now only a matter of time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:Me

http://www.head-fi.org/t/627166/iphone-5-announced/30#post_8698659

 

 

 

 

 

 

Their camera was never number one, their camera matched up and were on hand with Samsung and other company flagships with a tied rating on most sites for both the 4 and 4S. Megapixels do not equal quality. The Nokia ones now do have better ones so every other brand is now number 2 as of right now.

 

Incremental? You are talking about last generation as well so here is a few benchmark pics of last gen performance ON LAUNCH as current gen one is not yet released.


 

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

SunSpider Javascript Benchmark 0.9.1 - Stock Browser

 

Rightware BrowserMark

 

 

GLBenchmark 2.1 - Egypt - Offscreen

GLBenchmark 2.1 - Pro - Offscreen

 

 

 

 

 

Keep in mind that the iPhone 4S is 800MHz A5 or ARM A9 as well as the others.

 

So how does it do this? Through some of the most innovative practices they employ. The practices they are using may not be theirs and have already been founded by other companies but they are the ones using it and thus they are using innovative measures. What are these innovative measures? Innovation is not anything big. look it up, it can be incremental if it has to be , it is still called innovation.

 

They have a specific way of doing their business that they have learned and perfected in their mind from past failures decades ago. That 3rd party can not and will not achieve their dreams. They have to take it into their own hands if they want something and from personal experience and as we can see, it works.

 

They get specific OEM's by the force of their power to build secret and well spec'd and measured equipment on boards and using components that have been tested to work well. Yes as many others note, they are more or less the "same" hardware but how it is implemented and the care it took to implement is differnent. As we can see with OEM PC's , the quality of implementation and hardware quality check on sub $500 PC's are nowhere near, this is what I mean. Through using specific parts that DIRECTLY match up to their closed OS that will not accept anything else, they can get the most performance out of the device using only parts and specifically made and implemented components.

 

At the next level, with their OS, they made one that runs well. One probelm of Android is that it was made too fast. IT was supposed to be a keyboard OS back when it started but then came the iPhone. For reasons I am not sure of, multi touch features were added hapzardly and thus are not rendered in real time priority on Android as opposed to iOs and a suite of other software caused performance hogs. Think of Firefox's memory leak. Inefficiency basically. As Android is so open, so does it creates a further gap in efficency. The model that many apps run on in Android and some in iOS is DVM, Dalvik. DVM is easy to mass eject onto many different devices but it does this without being as efficent as JVM(java) which needs more specific conditions that Android can't give on all their phones as Android is availble to anyone. This is accounted towards Google and can be seen as Apple's win as Apple's way works and so does Android and Googles. I was mearley pointing out that Microsoft and Google themselves were the ones that choose to use such a 3rd party reliant system as oppose to Apple's closed one. We keep hearing tech lovers crying out about little 3rd party love and we see that Apple largely doesn't care much. Why? Because the numbers they are getting shows that their system works. A centralized OS that can use system resources at the most efficent level as well as allowing for older applications as they use the same baseline to take advantage of next gen hardware performance boost WITHOUT any new code or hardships on their part.

 

This is why as the benchmarks show, an 800MHz A9 kicks 1.2GHz A9's ass's. Not that the 800MHz A9 is faster than a faster clocked exact same A9, but because of the SoC it is on. Most ARM A9's or ARM's in the market or either unmodified or slightly modified. Slightly modified in Apple and most others causes and heavily modified in Qualcomm's case. Depending on how they modify it and what type of implementation to put on the SoC delivers very different results in performance.

 

That is performance innovation, in the 4S they have done many things, with a second generation Audience chip on a specific custom platform they designed, they were able to use their system to cancel out sound. Big? Not really, not innovational but none others have done it so well on a massive scale.Massive scale is always the key word and done well as well. Many of the things I have mentioned have been used before but the differnce was that they failed due to messing up somewhere, you mess up somewhere on the device in any aspect and it's over. Literally it needs to be perfrect.

 

 

Basically I am tired of typing, look at the 4S, it is thin. And packs these feautures, yes the RAZR is thinner in a sense but it has many bad con's against it due to how thin it is such as a slow down in speed as the CPU downclocks as it gets too hot and other things like battery. They this time around have placed the sensors along with the screen into the same installation and what not and other things to make it even thinner.

 

I am even more tired now. They didn't change their winning formula, they further improved it. However this formula doesn't work too long as Nintendo has shown us. So let's await the future.


Edited by bowei006 - 9/14/12 at 12:41pm
post #380 of 21760
Fix your post post. It's hard to see where the quote ends, and the post begins.
Edited by Tilpo - 9/14/12 at 12:45pm
post #381 of 21760
.
Edited by bizkit - 2/19/13 at 4:41am
post #382 of 21760

.


Edited by music_4321 - 9/14/12 at 4:21pm
post #383 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by music_4321 View Post

 

 

I hope billybob fancies green Russian birds. My guess is he might actually do.

 

It's not a Russian bird it's Austrian. Did you forget that?


Edited by mutabor - 9/14/12 at 12:49pm
post #384 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post

LOL. I liked it.

And I think your avatar is sexy.

post #385 of 21760

.


Edited by music_4321 - 9/14/12 at 4:22pm
post #386 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

I don't see how it's misleading.

 

I'm not saying you were trying to mislead anyone but I see people use that phrasing a lot.  Sometimes they are tying to mislead others and other times they use it innocently and with good intentions but then leave them selves open to attack.  I don't know if you meant it this way or not, but it implies that there are no important distinctions between the groups by glossing over the details.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

There is undoubtedly overlap between groups in preference when it comes to partner selection and attraction in general, but I honestly think it's such an individualized and personal thing, that "breaking it up into specific attributes" does violence to the original phenomena one is trying to measure. Reductionism often misses out on the larger picture in my opinion, and this is a perfect example. My original point is that, on the one hand, one woman to another or one man to another is going to exhibit on average a far greater difference than a particular attribute compared across groups. That's just basic statistics. However in another sense, the relationships and interplay between those attributes---their context---are just as important as the attributes themselves, and so I think "the noise of individual preference" is precisely what is important.

 

This makes no sense to me at all.  I thought we were talking about commonalities in the first place.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

 

Also I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea of applying purely biological models of sexual attraction to groups based on a factor that isn't purely biological, ie. gender. 

 

I know you don't like 'reductionism' but...

 

 

I can't stand the term either.  It's far too negative.  I think of it as building upwards rather than tearing down.

post #387 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by music_4321 View Post


bizkit visiting this thread??!!

All of the highend IEM folks seem to hang out here, plus I need to take the choice of my last portable earphone purchase for the year to the jury. That choice being:

Something from FAD with a "X" in it's naming convention

Or

Something with an active crossovers [=http://www.custom-iem.com/um-platform-pure-pp6-p-670.html][/]
Edited by bizkit - 9/14/12 at 1:02pm
post #388 of 21760
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizkit View Post


Huh......?
Maybe it's because of the Asperger's thing or that I've spent the far too many years in third world countries, removed from the human experience, but you completely lost me with that last paragraph.

 

The whole post, or just the last part about biology and gender?

 

1.) I tend to see attraction as too individualized and holistic a phenomena for anything meaningful to be gleaned by simply observing the frequency with which certain aspects appear across groups.

 

2.) For instance, one person saying "I like women's legs" may not necessarily mean the same thing as someone else's saying it. There are too many variables and different contexts: ie. muscular legs, chubby legs, thin legs, pantyhose, certain acts involving said legs. The network of interconnecting signifiers is far too vast.

 

3.) Also attraction toward another person is often more than the sum of its parts, and also depends on context. For instance, I may like this particular girl's legs but not legs in general.

 

4.) Furthermore, we can know that someone prefers X, but why they prefer it is something else entirely. Knowing specific attributes is only part of the equation.

 

5.) Something is inevitably lost in reducing attraction down to a set of preferences.

 

6.) Gender is not the same as biological sex. It's a complex phenomena involving biological, social, and personal factors. Using a biological / evolutionary model to explain attraction in women and men gets into questions of how one is classifying "women" and "men." Are we looking at biological sex only? What about biologically intersexed individuals? Do we ignore gender altogether, or do we admit we're applying a model which cannot account for it and axiomatically rule it out? What about transgendered individuals? Etc.

 

Edit: By the way, I'm not saying it can't be done (one can set up groups of "men" and "women" a priori), but rather that the results of such a study would be, to my thinking, of questionable meaning and relevance.


Edited by MuppetFace - 9/14/12 at 1:40pm
post #389 of 21760
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post

 

This makes no sense to me at all.  I thought we were talking about commonalities in the first place.

 

 

Trying to compare commonalities in attraction across groups makes no sense to me. As for the points I'm trying to make, hopefully I can clarify things in the above post somewhat.

 

I'm not saying there aren't important distinctions between groups, but that often times the important distinctions between individuals are "glossed over" by trying to compare large groups to one another (ie. "men" and "women.") Sexual attraction strikes me as something that such a comparison would ultimately disservice.

 

My point in the first place however wasn't quite so poetic. I was really just saying that in sampling a group of women, statistically speaking, one is likely to find more variation within that group than when comparing "women" to "men."


Edited by MuppetFace - 9/14/12 at 1:16pm
post #390 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

2.) For instance, one person saying "I like women's legs" may not necessarily mean the same thing as someone else's saying it. There are too many variables and different contexts: ie. muscular legs, chubby legs, thin legs, pantyhose, certain acts involving said legs. The network of interconnecting signifiers is far too vast.

 

I think that the vast majority of men has the same feeling and they mean the same thing when they say "I like women's legs". 

 

There are gay men which feel different toward that statement but they are minority.


Edited by mutabor - 9/14/12 at 1:29pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2