Today my girlfriend told me that she would never have kids with a guy with tattoos because she doesn't want her kids born with the tattoos of the father, as if they were passed genetically. What are some ridiculous science-related ridiculous misconceptions you've had the displeasure to observe?

oldspicerolldadice · 2012-05-24T12:45:42.017910+00:00

http://i.imgur.com/FHiRQ.gif

kskaudonsu · 2012-05-24T03:06:52.707397+00:00

Or if he just overcompensates because someone just succeeded in throwing something under his wheel...

kskaudonsu · 2012-05-24T03:04:52.068079+00:00

Job's not on board.

EDIT: I stand by my misspelling so the replies make sense. I will go down with the ship if it comes to that.

adhocadhoc · 2012-05-24T01:20:39.073070+00:00

http://i.imgur.com/BZkGD.gif

GoodLuckLetsFuck · 2012-05-24T01:17:26.241341+00:00

I guess no one else is gonna bring up a game called Stump. You need:

A stump with a flat top, between knee and waist high preferably
Nails
A hammer
Alcohol

You stand around in a circle about the stump. You each tap a nail into the surface of the stump. That is your nail. Then, one person flips the hammer once, and without winding up after the flip, attempts to hit one of the other person's nails. If the nail comes out, that person must finish their drink. If a person's nail's head goes completely below the plane of the stump, that person must finish their drink. If the nail gets hit, that person must drink. If you miss the nail, the swinger must drink. If your drink is gone, you are out. Last nail standing wins.

So. Many. Accidents.

DrToonz · 2012-05-23T22:17:48.008442+00:00

WARNING: TV TROPES LINK

PrinceDakkar · 2012-05-23T21:48:27.198473+00:00

Disregarding the misnomer of calling it a "warrior" gene, yes there are variations in genes that correlate with variations in aggressive behavior. I was trying to make the most clean-cut example of violence, because there would be obvious drawbacks to removing aggressive genes from the gene pool. This is why it's a pure ethical thought experiment and not actually practicable.

joe_shmoe · 2012-05-23T21:45:24.270306+00:00

He is also the only one who does his job as stated (non-partisan, uphold the constitution).

Don't Justices have some responsibility to respect precedent as well? Since National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, the federal government has been allowed generally by the Court to act through the commerce clause to affect things that don't obviously influence interstate commerce or travel directly. As stated by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes in the majority opinion,

"Although activities may be intrastate in character when separately considered, if they have such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce that their control is essential or appropriate to protect that commerce from burdens and obstructions, Congress cannot be denied the power to exercise that control."

Now not having read the entirety of Gonzales v Raich, I can't say how the majority reasoned that private growing and consumption of marijuana affects interstate commerce or travel, but I'm sure they used logic similar to that of the above quote.

Essentially, whoever interprets the Constitution can use judicial activism to forward their own interpretation regardless of which stance they take, generally so long as they can tie it back to the commerce clause. I feel like saying "Thomas is the only one who does his job" is decidedly one-sided. I would bet that every single Justice has a different idea of what their jobs are. I, for one, feel that the job of a Supreme Court Justice has evolved since the framing of the Constitution, though that doesn't mean I support unbridled judicial activism.

EDIT: Also, I tend to agree with Thomas on the Raich decision. I too, feel that the interstate commerce clause has probably overstepped its original textual implementation. This raises a few further issues: do we as a modern society only care about the text of the Constitution? I could see how one would make a case that Supreme Court Justices ought to, but I mean more generally, in the sense of we as a people today. If not, I think there ought to be an amendment clearly outlining the limits on and potential for expansion of federal powers not present in the original constitution. While this would certainly make the issue clearer, of course it's an ideal that would never be implemented.

PrinceDakkar · 2012-05-23T18:48:54.724069+00:00

it's hard to see who else they would need to diminish the sexual drive of besides serial rapists.

To be fair, this is what they did to Alan Turing (and others) because they were homosexual.

but how exactly would you say that it is wrong to take away someone's desire to kill if it did?

I would think this is wrong too. What if we found a "violence gene" (completely ridiculous from a scientific standpoint, but for the sake of argument) that only produced activities we deemed needlessly violent. Would you call a perfect method (not that one could ever be developed) to eliminate this gene through germline engineering (so no one could ever be born with it ever again) ethical? I know I wouldn't.

stats_what_she_said · 1 day

Man, I really suck at that game. In real life it's a cafe. And/or bar.

S_Eltron · 1 day

Omar comin'.

Pigs_On_The_Wing · 1 day

And so modest too.

S_Eltron · 1 day

http://i.imgur.com/nWvEl.gif

stats_what_she_said · 1 day

We have an airport? I always thought the helicopters at all hours were kind of weird.

stats_what_she_said · 1 day

Well the first thing to realize is that there is a hipster continuum. I'm somewhere between "owns a record player" and "owns a player piano". Somewhere between "recycles" and "powers his house with a bicycle". Somewhere between "goes to Big Bear Cafe" and "works at Big Bear cafe".

DrJulianBashir · 1 day

The insular cortex is divided into the front and rear (anterior and posterior). The frontoinsular cortex is the posterior portion. It is intimately involved in emotional processing, and a colleague of mine thinks it is essential for the more general notion of subjective perception. There's debate about how much it is involved in this, but it's pretty clearly important for it to some degree or another. It's known to integrate signals from the gut and send projections to higher (more cognitively "aware") brain regions like the frontal cortex, so the working hypothesis is that it's involved in the literal feeling of "gut" thinking.

The sensations in your body, and especially your enteric nervous system, process information independently of the cognitive processes of your CNS. The hypothesis goes that the frontoinsular cortex is essential for integrating this "gut level" reaction to stimuli with higher order cognitive function. This is borne out in the particular molecular targets of neurohormones in the insula, such as leptin, a neurohormone released by fat cells that signals satiety or satisfaction. That pain in your heart you feel when you break up with the girl of your dreams, that sinking feeling in your stomach when you forgot to study for that test, that walking on water feeling when you just won the gold, all of these are potentially integrated into your conscious experience via the activity of the frontoinsular cortex.

Additionally, it's probably involved in decision making, in terms of how you act on how you feel. People with degraded frontoinsular cortices often have very poor abilities to refrain from doing what they feel like at any given moment, as in frontotemporal dementia. In this sense, it may act as a "gatekeeper" as well, letting through relevant information while inhibiting inappropriate responses. This is also apparent in its role in recognition of social error: when we make gaffes or some social gamble doesn't go our way, this thing lights up like a Christmas tree (though noticeably much more so in the right hemisphere).

It also contains VENs, which are interesting in and of themselves. The work showing them in macaques really made us go back to the drawing board, or at least certainly me. We used to think they were hallmarks of large brain size (> 400g) but now we have to move past that.

stats_what_she_said · 1 day

If you want the best of both worlds, live in Bloomingdale or Columbia Heights. They've got a vaguely hipster aesthetic (though of course nothing comparable to Portland). Most folks are pretty nice too, depending on exactly which street you live on. I'm no hipster, but I like Bloomingdale just fine.

hydrusdsc · 1 day

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

Flowtos · 1 day

Brothah.

Jjiinx · 2 days

But then how will they get rustled?

DrJulianBashir · 2 days

Aha! My research! I'm not on Evrard's team, but I've met him (SfN Neuroscience Con 2011: 30,000 people, my boss: "It was small this year") and I work under one of the other three or so groups studying VENs. I spent 6 hours counting the damn things in human brain slices today. I am an expert on the frontoinsular cortex. AMA, I guess?

stucknmove · 2 days

r/Amish

BeeneMachine · 2 days

Oh yeah I totally understand. I just thought Game of Thrones is actually one of the weaker examples of this trope. Gladiator and Prince of Persia are probably better (if less topical) examples.

TestZero · 2 days

It's still not true that we only use 10% of our brain at once, though yes, we don't use 100% either. The "fact" is based on outdated pop-psychology.

TommyCollins · 2 days

Cool, thanks.

Rappaccini

TROPHY CASE

Rappaccini

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login