Hi there,
I'm a 300 level student of anatomy, and I'ld like this thread to be a section where we interact on the above courses, questions bothering you can be posted here, for those of us who are much grounded in the field to unravel.

So I will go first by posting information on interesting topics I've come across as well as questions.


Note: Before you post please do well to introduce yourself, and your course/level.

Dessydemmy:
You made my day and say my mind.

Glad I did.

Habyz:

Calling him frog voice is just stating the obvious. Davido really does have a terrible voice.

Exactly my point, it is obvious that he has a terrible voice, it is also very obvious that he is great musician, many artistes including those with even sweeter voices are aspiring to be in his shoes, which makes Mr wizkid a dreamer if he thinks his sweet voice makes him any better than him

trustyshoess:

Big deal. Wizkid won the same award last year and a MOBO.
And btw how does Wizkid praising Simi for her AFRIMMA award translate into shading Davido? This is a case of if the boot fits. Nobody chased his fans, but theyre running

Yes he did, but I heard the award was collected from him and given to another African artiste. Let's assume he really won these awards then it still goes to show that, someone he called "frog voice" could still achieve what his sweet voice achieved, which makes me wonder why he thinks he's sweet voice makes him better than the latter.


I

IF truly Mr David is a star today because of his frog voice and song buying skills then it is a bigger shame to Wizkid.

Your greatest rival in the Music Industry today is a so called frog how come?


A frog collected awards that you couldn't collect?


Then I wonder what he would have done if he had a sweet voice, if a frog has gotten to a level where he is now being compared to a "so called legendary musician" then he probably would have won the Grammy's, which you've not been able to win even with oyour sweet voice.

[quote author=naeto2 post=62271952]You call yourself “average” and that is what I term “the Captivity of Negativity”.



You must be Cole Pfeiffer!

pressplay411:


True. But is wisdom experience based or just God-given? Does it have some spirituality to it?

As a theist I believe it does, I believe we all have wisdom deposited in us, which is traceable to creation. However, how well we are able to demonstrate and maximize it, is solely dependent on our level of experience

pressplay411:



But the issues here is not knowledgeablity VS intelligence but intelligence VS wisdom. Whats the difference?

I think they complement each other, we need a degree of intelligence to exhibit wisdom, and wisdom itself is a quality of the intelligent, i see it as the ability to apply and manipulate knowledge or rather your intelligence to your advantage and putting it to more practical use

You should learn not to force yourself on people, especially when it's obvious they don't like you.

[quote author=DarkRebel69 post=62050600]

If you had data then you wouldn't have insinuated that Kim Peek (a guy who scored a measly 87 on the general IQ tests he took) may not have been unintelligent. This is a guy who could not even function as a human being without the help of his father.

I didn't use abusive words on you. I only spoke the truth. You are slow & your intellect is zero. Now, kindly fück off.



OK.

DarkRebel69:


Why theorize before having data? It's a shocking habit, don't you think? More so, it makes a person appear silly, if not dumb.

Kim Peek scored 87 in the general IQ tests he took. That's not "unintelligent"... that's borderline mental retardation.

what makes you think I don't have data. I think it makes people appear even more silly and dumb to use abusive words on people, because you don't agree with their opinions.

[quote author=DarkRebel69 post=61975909]

This is a fallacious statement of the highest order of magnitude. Do you have concrete proof to back this up or is this, as I know it is, merely some milk-and-water claim conjured out of thin air?



"Knowing so much" is one out of the many characteristics of an intelligent person (agreed), but "intelligence" is not always a characteristic of people who "know so much".

The problem is that you are treating "intelligence" as merely the ability to assimilate (i.e. to retain information), forgetting that one does not have to be meta-humanly intelligent in order to retain information—one only need have a reliable mnemonic methodology.



You say it's impossible for one to be knowledgeable without being intelligent, and yet you concluded by saying:- "so both are not mutually exclusive of each other".

When you say two things are not mutually exclusive, what you are in fact saying is that one can exist without the other (an assertion that goes against your initial theory about knowledge being inseperable from intelligence). Do you not understand what "mutual exclusivity" means?


You should know this was a mistake, I actually meant the opposite.

when I say all knowledgeable people are intelligent, I'm simply saying that it takes a degree of intelligence to have a good and retentive memory. to acquire great knowledge , as they're still part of the criteria for judging intelligence.

It wouldn't be safe to call Kim peek an unintelligent person would it?

DarkRebel69:
Yes, they are very different, although time is usually a function of wisdom, and wisdom usually comes more easily if a person is already intelligent.

It is my belief that there 3 classes of people when it comes to this sort of thing:

1) People who are knowledgeable

2) People who are intelligent

3) People who are wise

People in the first group (especially if they aren't intelligent) are like programmed automatons. Their head is stockpiled with every fact, every important historical date, and every trivia under the sun. They can recite the entire Magna Carta. They are walking libraries. Except that they can't manipulate the knowledge they have. They can't think abstractedly nor can they make connections between the reams of knowledge floating in their heads, and all they do is blind regurgitation. This sort of people only know 'definitions". They can tell you the definition of this and that, but are clueless about the working mechanisms.

People in the second group on the other hand are intelligent, and so naturally would be knowledgeable. Unlike the first group, they have intelligence and can easily absorb, manipulate, and apply the knowledge they have gathered. They are also capable of abstraction and they can synthesize disparate bits of knowledge.

And, lastly, the people in the third group (the wise ones) know when and when not to apply knowledge. Wisdom comes with experience and is sometimes an innate quality.

Intelligent person: Knows how to create an Atom bomb and so he creates one

Wise person: May or may not know how to create an Atom bomb. Understands the ramifications of creating a nuclear weapon and so chooses not to create one.

All knowledgeable people are intelligent, but not all intelligent people are knowledgeable.


it's wrong to say that there's a possibility for someone who isn't intelligent to be knowledgeable, the retentive memory, and possession of a vast mental capacity to absorb so much knowledge on a given subject, is characteristic to being intelligent.


knowing so much is one out of the many characteristics that makes an intelligent person, so both are mutually exclusive of each other.

It is possible to see an intelligent man who is not wise, but impossible to see a wise man who is unintelligent

Dalam0n:

What do you mean by failing morally? Morally in terms f what?

In terms of the Christian understanding of morality

boringnigerian:


Whether in Lagos or in rural communities around Nigeria, the world is either getting better or hasn't changed. We only think it is getting worse but the truth is that every generation thinks they are worse than the previous one. Look at today's Nigeria when people speak wistfully about times past when there was free education and life was easier and all, forgetting that those that lived in those times had either none of the comforts that are freely available now like mobile phones, computers, electricity etc or it was too expensive for them to afford. The fact on ground is that the world is improving and is getting better at managing disasters than before. Also, look at now, when disasters occur, the world bands together to help the affected community rebuild and get back on its feet. In times past, if you got struck by disaster, you were pretty much on your own.

I made this clear in my former thread, The world might have advanced in technology and civilization, but they are falling morally.

boringnigerian:


You're looking at history through rose tinted glasses. For one, people DID watch naked people in times past as a form of entertainment. You seem to have forgotten about the Roman gladiators who had to battle each other and wild animals to the death for the amusement of a gawking public. Tell me, where that occurs now. Do we still hear of things like human sacrifices, killing of twins, banishment of people for the most pedestrian offences and such? How then can we say those tines aren't worse than today?

Yes, we still hear of ritual killing, and human sacrifices and it's even rampant , I'm guessing you're Nigerian or African.

Agreed. Some things like Gladiator fights might have stopped. but we have terrorism which is not prearranged, like what we have
in the gladiator fights and the members of the public are the victims in this case. So it's matter of a greater evil replacing the lesser.


We might have become less barbaric and civilized in our conduct now compared to past times , I'm not disproving that , but still more immoral.

[quote author=boringnigerian post=61837887]I'm posting this as a response to this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/4070239/why-immorality-increase-todays-world

Let me jump right in. I don't really think immorality is on the increase or that generally, the world is worse than it has been. History tells us that what we call immorality has pretty much always been in existence (and at levels that shocked the people of each generation) and at each generation tends to think it is worse than the previous one. Take things like prostitution, homosexuality, bestiality, etc and check your history books (history books, not holy books!); you'll find that they have always been with us. As one joke has it, as soon as man realized he could stick his d-ick in a woman and feel good, he probably also realized he could stick it in other places and also feel good. The reasons we THINK they are on the increase are:


Of course, homosexuality bestiality etcetera have always existed, but I don't think there was ever a time, those that practiced it then, came out to announce to their neighbors and friends that they are Gays or lesbians, neither do i think there was a time when the priests of old, will join them in holy matrimony, while their friends and family cheered.

My point : things have been taken to a whole new level, just as man has advanced in science, he has also become more immoral.


The people of old times, must have had their ways of getting entertainment, without electronic media, but I'm not sure it included coming out to watch adults bang themselves in the name of entertainment.





I don't think There was ever a time humans were lawless, even in the absence of the kind of government will have now, they set up leaders among themselves, That's how the monarchical system of government started, they also had do's and donts, but no law is effective enough. Even in the presence of law there is still lawlessness, up till today, because, deviants will always exist in the land. that a man carried out a crime successfully doesn't mean there were no laws, he simply defied them.

onyekachee:
I prefer Mr eazi' music to your noisy frog voice jam,turtle ninja singing trash since 1200

he never uttered a word, why always in a hurry to spew hate.
He does not care about what you prefer,

wirinet:

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. In many ancient cultures there were Gods and temples dedicated to sex. Phallic symbols were highly revered and special days were dedicated to sex and orgies.

When I I talk, I talk from the the Christian perspective and I guess he too subjects his reply to that viewpoint , these things you mentioned were never revered by Christians even in ancient times. it was this sexual pervasion, and Idolatry that caused the extermination of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.


Even at that sex as at now, is more glorified than then, there was a certain age bracket one could get to before knowing anything about it, because parents religiously kept it from their children. But now the Music Industry, both home and abroad, the movie industry and the media, has given so much exposure to things of sexual nature that even infants know one or two things about it. Nudity has been publicized so much that it has become a norm in Fashion,


What was called sexual pervasion in old times, is an amateur to today's own.

[quote author=Dalam0n post=61793885][sup][/sup]

I consider having sex like bonobos wrong because they have sex even with their kids.

[/quote


Alright. So why do you think sexual pervasion which is one out of the many examples of prevalent immoral behavior in contemporary times, on the rise

Dalam0n:

I don't consider consentual sex btw two adults that are not married to someone else wrong at all. Having said that, I think we now glorify sex much more than them.

As long those involved are adults, you don't consider having sex like bonobos wrong, then you shouldn't have accused the ancient Romans of been immoral then. however I'm happy that you've agreed that sexual pervasion is much more glorified now than then.

And my question is why?

Marvel1206:
It is undoubtedly increasing and its increase is catalysed by the open celebration of immorality

[/true]

Dalam0n:


Studies after studies have shown violence has gone down. I've even posted 2 for you here. Where I'd your own research that has shown that violence has increased btw now and 2000 years ago?

We now live on a civilized society where people have human rights compared to back in the days when it was master and slave.

Our morality is better compared to the ancient Romans that were having sex every and anywhere like bonobos.

The Ancient Romans that were having sex every and anywhere were not regarded as moral at that time. And their actions were not considered as standard for living. hope you are not saying sexual pervasion has declined.
when you go to strip clubs you will find people far worse than the ancient romans. at least as at that time sexual perverts like porn actors and actresses were not celebrated and seen as role models like we have now.

Dalam0n:


2000 years ago they had their own type of terrorism that is different from ours today.

The people were so brutal that they lived in wall cities. You there not live outside the city walls. Slavery was the order of the day. Master slave relationship was how they conducted themselves. There was nothing like human rights then. The strong nations invaded the weaker nations and annex them at will and by force.

Studies have shown that you are 3 times more likely to die in the hands of another man 2000 years ago compared to now.

We are living in a very civilized world with less brutality than 2000 years ago.

Studies after studies have shown that to be true. Violence is generally on the decrease amongst humans despite our heavy weapons that include weapons of mass destruction. We even have what we call war crimes today. Back in the days nothing like that existed.

The possibility of bokoharam coming to were you stay now is the same as the example you made, and you make it seem like Nigeria is a safe haven, people are loosing their lives every minute, others are busy taking it.

2000 years ago they could build walls to shield themselves from impending attacks, but now you don't even know who the enemy could be, we hear of security agents(like the police) shooting at unarmed citizens, mothers and fathers killing their own children coupled with the Fulani herdsmen and bokoharam insurgency come on!

You seem to confine your opinion on immorality around violence alone.

hopefulLandlord:
I doubt peacesamuel94 is aware that preparing for war is arguably the best way to prevent war

for instance most of those nuclear weapons being shown to us on TV are many but some of them are simply used for testing while many are useless

the logic goes like this, if I USA has nuclear weapons capable of destroying Russia, Russia would then get their own nuclear weapons capable of destroying America, while both countries would look to the outsiders as "Oh sheet! they're gonna kill each other", both countries would simply never attack each other because they know if they do there would be only losers and no winners, so they're keeping the peace in a threatening way

https://listverse.com/2012/12/23/10-non-peaceful-ways-we-keep-the-peace/

My point was not against possession of nuclear weapons but, the number of lives it has once taken, and the agonizing state it has left those that were victimized.

OtemSapien:

The sacrilage of ancient days are the things in vogue in our current world, I.e homosexuality, sodomy etc
In the reverse, the things in vogue in the ancient days are the sacrilege of the modern days, I.e inces-t(practised in Israel but now fast fading off), genocides, sacrificing of animals to the gods, gender inequality(as encouraged by Pol/Paul the apostle)etc.


So I think life is like a see-saw.

Genocides still happens today, even more rampant(the Rise of terrorism in the world testifies to this) incest still happens, domestic violence which is an aftermath of the mentality of someone who is in support of gender inequality, is also in everyday news. so nothing has really declined.

OtemSapien:

Let's also take for instance, considering many instances. In the bible days, genocides commanded by the gods like Yahweh was the order of the day, killing other people and taking up their lands as commanded by Yahweh was the reigning issue. Also, marrying the widow your brother left behind as well as sacrificing innocent animals, thereby causing pollution to the world by roasting of meats and endangering domestic animal are the things they do as commanded by Yahweh and some other gods, etc. Now they don't do such 'evil' anymore or they hardly do it now. In conclusion, some supposed evil of the past go into extinction while some supposed new 'evil' takes their place. Such is life.

I agree that they were violent and people were killed in their thousands, but the number of lives the effect of America's nuclear attack on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the First, Second World war Nigerians civil war took, still surpasses that. Like you said, they no longer spread the gospel by violence.

there was never a new evil, Just that in the era will live in, it has now become more pronounced, what used to be done in secret, before now, has been made public. and what you used to be termed as sacrilege is what is now in vogue.

[quote author=Dalam0n post=61784257]

Exactly. Numerous studies have shown that violence is on the decrease all over the world. We are much less brutal now than the people that lived like 2000 years ago.

There was much more violence during the time of Jesus than now. [/quote


2000 years ago there were no biochemical weapons, no nuclear weapons, terrorism was not as rampant, if at all it existed. what will call jungle justice could only happen to adulterous women or witches as at then, but now we've heard how 12year old have been burnt alive for stealing Garri, and you say violence is on the decrease or has the meaning changed.