ampage
Tube Amps / Music Electronics
For current discussions, please visit Music Electronics Forum. New: view Recent Searches.
New: visit Schematic Hell!
The sunn still shines online!

 
Listen to great tunes streaming live right now!

ampage archive

Vintage threads from the first ten years

Search for:  Mode:  

Re: success and god


 
10/24/2005 1:19 PM
Mark Hammer Re: success and god
Too busy today to read the entire thread, but the short answer to the question is, no. PEOPLE are biased against the unattractive, whether inspired by their faith or not.  
 
If you live near a university library, Pierre, go to the BF (psychology) section, find a social psychology textbook, and look up "halo effects". It is a common finding that the physically attractive get perceived as more intelligent, more talented, more honest, more generous, more sincere, etc. etc. If it is a "good" trait to have, attractive people will be perceived as having more of it. Of course, what is key here, is that those who ARE biased in their perceptions are absolutely unaware of it. They just "see" more honesty, smarts, talent, etc.  
 
Of course, viewed from the complete other side, it can also be suggested that people who know how to be successful often also know how to MAKE themselves be more attractive to others.  
 
Is "attractive" a physical absolute, in the sense that attractive is attractive is attractive, across history and culture? No. Whether lip-disks, lotsa "back", bling, little feet, or generally class-associated chubbiness, standards for beauty and attractiveness vary a lot. Look at photos of the actors and actresses that the public used to have wet dreams over in 1920 and 1940 and even 1960, and you'll find yourself going "Huh? I don't see it."  
 
Having said that, there ARE a few apparent standards that seem to be true...more or less, and these can be demonstrated in both cross-cultural studies and examination of what makes BOTH infants and adults fix their gaze. For instance, Judith Langlois at the University of Texas finds that infants find the same sorts of faces attractive that adults do, and that what makes for the most attractive face is surprisingly, the most "average" face. In other words, if you were to construct a face made up of the average measurement on all possible dimensions (lip thickness, distance from septum to top of upper lip, mouth width, thickness of eyebrows, distance between eyes, eyelid size, width of nose, etc.), you would end up with a face that just about everyone agreed was attractive. Doesn't mean they would rate it as THE most beautiful face (there is some value to be found in imperfections, like the slight strabismus in someone like Kate Moss, or Owen Wilson's nose), but what it looks like is that people find faces that correspond to their expectations of a "typical" face attractive.  
 
My very best friend as an adolescent and college student was a guy who was hideously deformed by a congenital skin cancer that resulted in lesions all over his body, a constant need for grafts and facial reconstructive surgery over summer breaks, and one of his eyes growing shut. Imagine Eric Stolz in the movie "Mask", except without a forehead quite so high, and what looks like exzema all over. We were accustomed to having people either stare or wince and look away everywhere we went. Brilliant, brilliant guy, sweet and ethical as they come, and a scholar of the highest order. He died shortly before completing his doctorate in comparative religion. One can only imagine what would have happened had he completed his doctorate and applied for teaching jobs. People would look over his resumé, say "holy s**t, how can we GET this guy?", and when they drive out to the airport to pick him up for the job talk and get a look at him start thinking "holy s**t, how am I gonna get RID of this guy?".  
 
Do people run immediately and directly to what they perceive as attractive? You betcha, baby.
 
10/31/2005 5:09 PM
Pat
Pierre,  
 
You just reminded me why I seldom visit this forum anymore. To quote you... "ugly fat ass greasy faced muther fucker".  
 
This is a rhetorical question, so I won't come back to see your reply. Perhaps it will make you consider broadening your vocabulary a little, but I doubt it.  
 
Do you speak in public the same way you post here? Do you feel it is more effective to lace every sentence you write with vulgar profanity. Do you think it makes you look intelligent, worldly and sophisticated? I think it just makes you look like a profane person who cannot be taken seriously.  
 
I never got to the subject you were addressing in your original post because I was so put off by your excessive use of profanity. Something about MTV, not sure, I never watch it. Grow up dude.
 
 
  Sunday
Book Of The Day The Ultimate Tone, Volume III by Kevin O'Connor
Have you ever wondered if there is a better way to build a Bassman, Champ, Plexi, an 800, AC-30, Bulldog or Portaflex? Or you wanted to build an SVT with off-the-shelf parts? How about a master-volume amp that doesn’t change tone with the master setting? Everything you need to know is right here, including: proper grounding techniques, wiring methods, and mechanical considerations. Eighteen chapters cover the “iconic” amps everyone knows and loves, with schematics and layouts for each, along with the technical history of the product. Eyelet-board and chassis-mounted tube socket construction is used throughout, for easy servicing and modding. TUT3 is very accessible even if you cannot fully read a schematic and is a "must have" if you are going to build an amp for your self.

Note: The Ampage Archive is an Amazon Associate site. A small commission is paid to the site owner on any qualified purchase made after clicking an associate link such as the one above.
 
10/31/2005 11:25 PM
Pierre Debs
Yeah dude, I´ll grow up.
 
<<First Page<Prev Page 8 of 8