And what exactly is an intellectual bully???

That's not hypocrisy. That's social responsibility. It was with great restraint that I kept it halfway reasonable here in the public forum.

Your attacking me with it here shows you to be rather weak and socially inept in my opinion. Especially when your only private reply was to say that you narked on me to the administrators. I deliberately addressed it in private to keep from making a big public spectacle of it.

Unfortunately, Jordan, your inadequacies and immaturity have brought it to the forefront.

And, I am not painting myself as any sort of victim. I merely point out that your own behavior is antagonistic and socially reprehensible. And I freely admit that this is my biased and subjective opinion.

Nah. You don't get to stab at me from the shadows and then cry foul when I call you out about it.

When you said "Your attacking me with it", you were painting yourself as the victim. And far be it for me to indulge in a little pop psychology, but you might want to look up Narcissistic Personality Disorder and then do a little soul searching.

DSM Criteria > >

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:^[1] > >

1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance What gives this impression? The fact that I tend to point out things that seem to me abhorrant? N/A > >
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love This one is far too generic. Especially in our industry. Perhaps it would be a problem if I believed my own stories to be reality. Questionable at best > >
3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique This is an absurd qualification for a number of reasons. Yes, I believe I am special and unique. I believe the same thing of every sentient being in the universe. No more of myself than others, though somewhat less of particular others . . . N/A > >
4. requires excessive admiration If I required this, I'd have eaten a bullet decades ago. Sure, I would love to be admired. Define 'excessive'. And demonstrate from my own posts in these fora that I seek excessive admiration. N/A > >
5. has a sense of entitlement There are few things in the world that spark my intolerance more than unearned sense of entitlement. I beleive all persons are entitled to respect; and that they are entitled to forfiet that by disrespect to others. Does Not Apply > >
6. is interpersonally exploitative This is the most absurd and offensive accusation I can imagine being leveled against me. I would cite antithetical evidence, but it might be mistaken for grandiosity and glory-seeking. N/A > >
7. lacks empathy  How I wish to GOD and every celestial power in the universe this would afflict me!!!!!!!!!! At the risk of grandiosity, I will say that I have far more empathy than 99.99% of everyone I've ever met. Only one person I know of may have more of it. Off the scale not applicable > >
8. is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her Who is it you think I envy? No one. I don't deal in envy. The only persons I know who may envy me are not interested in me personally but in my wife. Envy is even more a waste of energy than rage. Does NOT Apply > >
9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes Well, that's a pretty subjective description. I won't deny arrogance or arrogant attitudes. I am seldom haughty. And my arrogance is not the kind of arrogance that condescends or expresses itself in belittling others. It is simply a very high estimation of my own skills and characteristics. Some might even call it earned confidence. > >

That gives me at best two of nine such behaviors. Diagnosis invalid.

Now, on the matter of the 1998 study by Peter Weiss: it deals with a topic completely different from what I explained earlier. And it seems to me that there is a good posibility of rationalization toward a pet theory involved in the research as well as the article.

Back to the subject of the thread:

Entropy itself has its share of misunderstandings. For one, it is not the movement of order toward chaos. It is the movement of matter and energy toward total stasis. And yet this remains scientifically unproven in regards to cosmology and particle physics. It is currently merely a scientific tool to measure dynamics of energy and matter within a closed system - basically. There are numerous entropic formulae dealing with specific disciplines, including "social entropy".

Social Entropy is actually an interesting subtopic in the discourse of human evolution because it basically predicts that as creative intelligence increases, society's cohesion lessens.

I believe there is further evidence to suggest that entropy is cyclical, just as are all other physical phenomenon. Social structures have a proven history of cycles. So, this brings up in mind the question of our current cycle in the evolution of humankind. Is it time for Rome to burn? Are we a few breaths away from the collapse of civilization as we know it? Are we due to flirt again with extinction on our way to the next step in evolution? Or are we creating the next step in evolution?

EDIT: Because tone doesn't come across in this things: I'm genuinely confused.

For a really fascinating read in relation to evolution, I give my highest recommendation to The Web of Life.

I'd read it again, but I loaned it to my brother . . . And he is currently out of touch. Great book, though. Very fascinating and readable even for us BA unscientific folk.

As a follow-up to my blog post (25 April) about the New Scientist's feature on evolution, another development covered in the magazine (10 May) is the sequencing of the genome of the Australian duck-billed platypus. This has revealed some intriguing information, as might be expected of an animal which combines a bird-like beak with fur, and lays eggs while producing milk for its young. As expected, its genome contains a mixture of mammalian and reptilian features. The sequence for determining sex is more like a bird's than a mammal's, yet the milk-producing genes are similar to humans and cows. The conclusion is that milk-producing evolved before the ability to have live offspring.

Perhaps my marsupial saurians in 'Scales' weren't quite so implausible after all!

(An extract from my SFF blog)

Tony Williams
Scales (2007), The Foresight War (2004)
Homepage: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk