Or the theory that the number of beautiful women on TV is above real life frequencies because, conspiracy theory in action, they tend to promote and help advance the most pleasant looking ones. That can also mean the easier ones in other ways that offer less resistance to abusive behavior (or behavior that is abusive because nature wants it to be so and we can be better than that of course because of civilization without rejecting its original basis). Nasty as this is its a fact likely. My father worked in sound editing behind the scenes in many quality productions on TV, radio and theater but also the standard government manipulated news productions, media journalism etc and knows it all too well.


Or another theory yet that there is in fact such a thing as universally sexy and beautiful regardless of cultural bias and also such a thing as internal consistency in choices that you always return to it as a man when you close your eyes and see the same girl all over again in a group but with different clothes and setting. Yes consistency is a "proof" that there is something deeper that takes you there every time almost. Choice... haha. No choice.

Did you as a student (because this is where the truth of it all starts) prefer to help with homework the uglier looking girl or the sexy blond slutty behaving one (i wonder how they ever get there so young and who is responsible if not also nature itself at times) or the secretly beautiful shy one etc. I knew very well what i preferred but i made it a plan to never show them that i internally discriminated like this. But real world is uglier than that. I am not here to deny the truth and hide behind political correctness. I am here to study the nature in all its glory wherever this takes me and understand not only the character of physical law but also the games it played in defining the human condition after billions of years of random walk adventures.

grunching here....................................

don't know messi's back story or even current story......... but i do assume that maybe the 2 are related. i.e. one of the reasons he's the best - by far? - is due to having been able to take special meds

one thing that amazes me about messi and confuses me about other sports....... i would have thought his being small is terrible. one sport i'm specifically thinking of that is anti-small is ice hockey. but i personally think smaller quicker players in soccer or hockey could have tremendous advantages

as to "smaller and quicker players", if you've ever seen the results of a 40 yard run trial at a high school football camp there are tons of 5 foot 5 players who can run really fast times because they are very light on their feet.......... doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm for them with football coaches. again, i disagree on their usefulness but not like hockey/soccer.

i thought that you can't generally exemptions for banned substances..... i realize there are many leagues/rules........... surprised someone hasn't hired aggressive lawyer to be able to take amphetamines for ADHD i.e. baseball would be good example

of course, some doctors will basically sign almost anything these days. in fact with the worst you could probably compose their letters for them

i asked a few people i respect if it's wrong to blatantly favour hot women in dealing with them personally i.e. they are annoying but you give them benefit of doubt and/or slack.

they basically said that's life and "that's just the way it is" - to quote Bruce Hornsby.

The point is that they were almost all blondes, not just attractive.

The Messi thread is, like they say, that way --->

Maybe Zeno will help?

The Germans are at it again.......

I just did.

****, i, the plaaynde, was mistaken!

Or maybe I wasn't?

****zofrenia.

HGH might be used to increase height but it also does increase sprinting times, according to the link in the OP:

The researchers speculated that the boost from HGH alone is enough to shave off about half a second in a 10-second sprint over 100 meters. That little time 'divides the winner from the last place finisher', said Ho.

Also adults need some HGH or they are a mess and weak, fat, etc. Assuming Messi is not producing HGH as adult, I think he'd need HGH to have any hope of competing and if he took a little too much he'd have an edge over a normal person.

This is also a pretty big coincidence and ironically I had speculated along these lines I think also on this message board. I would imagine if this happened with regular frequency and not just with 2 kids in your high school we would know. There was a guy named Chris Langan who supposedly has a head 6 standard deviations above the mean in size as well as supposedly the highest IQ ever recorded. By his account he had gotten into weight lifting and as 16 beat his step dad almost to death. Barry Bonds as you might recall was taking HGH and steroids and according to one account his hat size actually increased. As an adult your head bones are fused so you wouldn't be able to increase cranial capacity but I wonder if it wouldn't be possible in a kid.

If you can increase cranial capacity and fill it with brain matter I think you'd increase intelligence. I really think its that simple. With weight lifting strength is fairly directly correlated with muscle volume. According to Kurzweil's how to build a brain the neo-cortex consists of a consists of very general pattern recognition collections of neurons. Basically our pattern recognizers can be put to any task and more would be an advantage. I don't even know that Langan took HGH so this is pure speculation but whether HGH in children increases IQ is probably a question that can be answered. Actually I just googled this and its possible there is some link.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...78378281900542

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4481164.stm

Is that why men are far smarter/more successful than woman at the upper end? The larger cranial space allows the very best to have bigger brains than women. Brain size has a fairly weak correlate with intelligence (but it does correlate), and perhaps in some, that extra cranial space combined with exceptional organization of brain cells creates higher intelligence?

In other words, are the most intelligent women upper-bounded by brain volume in a way that men aren't?

Or then not.

Let me present the classic: Einstein. Those bastards took his small brain without permission.

And also: a bigger brain makes distances longer, and hence leads to slower function. Go figure. There may be a biological maximum/optimum.

It's inarguable that men at the tails are smarter than women. It's not even a contest. Men crush women at the tails in intelligence and learning ability.

Einstein had a small brain? Citation? I don't know anything about his brain, but weight seems substantially above average.

Citation? I think you're dead wrong. Einstein for example is believed to have far more folds/cells in certain areas. Besides, the difference in speed for a larger brain would be absolutely negligible compared the effect of having far more cells to train for specialization. Brains are ultra-slow self organizing structures, not something where 2.5GHz is better than 2GHz.
Why on Earth do you believe it is reached at the size of a female brain? All the evidence, and common sense, suggests that that isn't the case.

You just want to be among the smart?

Einstein's brain was average in size. That means small, because according to Einstein, things are relative.
https://www.reference.com/history/ei...161758f022108c

Think about the brain as a dick. A smaller one can be at least as effective. Too small doesn't get the job done though, think about a clit.

We shouldn't confuse something being a factor with it being the only factor. Einstein's brain was unique in other ways, for example it had more glial cells than normal. Of course it was probably wired differently too, there could have been all kinds of difference as iirc half the genome is devoted to the brain. Perhaps, if Einstein had a head as large as Langan's with the same ratio of glial cells he would have been even smarter, likewise maybe Langan could have been smarter with his large brain and high glial cell counts. But they are both statistically incredibly smart. If Langan's brain were dissected some day and his glial cell ratio is normal it certainly doesn't mean that glial cells aren't a relevant factor.

The thread is at risk to derail. Please keep it on track.

Messi was born with growth hormone deficiency. He still hasn't won a world cup. In soccer parlance this is still a deficiency. Is this another example that Sklansky's theory holds water?

I'm struggling to see why this isn't just conditional probability, restricted to cases where some conclusion goes from having probability <.5 to >.5?

It basically is. The only difference is that the original theory that two things might be connected wasn't on the table until AFTER the event occurred. So you have to go back in time and visualize what the odds would have been in those pre event days.