|
Re: Are Kiwis the grinch?
Originally Posted by Am Loolah
(Post 6957937)
Interesting - I actually know a few Kiwi's who won't buy from Starbucks as it is American - I kid you not! Blimey, coffee's coffee surely?!:o
And there is a big difference between good and bad coffee - although if I recall correctly Starbucks was not too bad (especially compared to the rest of the dirty water that poses as coffee made in its home country.) |
Re: Are Kiwis the grinch?
Originally Posted by BEVS here
(Post 6958345)
Oh tosh.....The only people I have heard/read that match the small man syndrome thing have been from people taller than us who feel they have something to prove and cannot accept that they have nothing to prove.
I agree with you, Maradona made the best of being a short, athletic bloke but I think Duncan Edwards was the more "complete" football player - me old man played with him before dad had his trials with pro clubs and he was a 6 foot centre forward who would be something of a dwarf in that position these days.....Duncan was a larger bloke, but having a low centre of gravity helps in much of football and rugby.......and used to be the norm for sprinters....but no more on that one :p In my view, there is "small man syndrome", be it a real thing or perceived, Kiwis remark upon it (by name) when discussing professional realtionships with other Kiwis, and to me there is evidence of it being close to endemic in some parts of NZ life (in that it pervades much of NZ's relationship with Oz) and there are clear cases of the vertically challenged "compensating".....a Napoleon complex is called that for a reason.......also look at the behaviour of small dogs vs. larger ones........ I reckon Kiwis have this in their vocabulary, in part at least, as a result of a certain Prime Minister who was a little under-tall and rather aggressive ;) - he also managed to call an election on camera after having had a few to drink.......:lol: ..... did anyone else cringe inside when that footage was aired lately....?? BEVS - - - not that you or your hubbie have it.............I hasten to add........ I also read the paper on "short man syndrome" from the University of Central Lancs and TBH the experiments that they conducted have very little (no pun intended) bearing on the question they asked and are not justification, IMHO, for the "soundbites" and "headlines" painted above them.........just because shorter people, on average, perform less aggressively in a test does not mean that the syndrome is "a myth".......sorry guys but yet again the wrong experiment is being used to make the wrong headlines......... Bear with me for a second and wonder, what would happen if you put Muldoon (oops I said it now) in their experiment? One of two things: either he would make the shorter people more aggressive on average or he would not.......and what would that prove about the "existence of short man syndrome" ? Very little, Muldoon as someone who many people would suggsest suffered from the very syndrome, his results would simply influence the result of that test one way or another - his "short man"-ism would not be detected, simply averaged out in the results of the test.......get my point? The experiment shows trends but does not disprove the syndrome's existence, in fact it would be very difficult indeed to disprove that using such an experiment - all you would be able to do is to show "some suport for the proposition" that either shorter people are more/less aggressive. If they were more aggressive then this could lend support to the existence of the syndrome.....the contrary result (as reported) does reduce support but doesn't make it a "myth". And forget the "statistical significance" argument......the argument that "on average" shorter people are "less aggressive" compared to taller people -could very well be true, BUT it does not and can not explain away why there are some "vertically challenged" people who show outward symptoms of the defensive attitude and they do compensate (- certainly not all short people, but some) and some do it in spades........hence, as we can see all around us life does not work the way of averages.......averages do not make for arguments over "the exceptions", particularly as regards "syndromes", "short arses" and "tall poppies".......real world data shows us that it is out there, badly interpreted experimental results do not a good theory make..... /ducks/ or maybe...... /does not need to duck, Lardy by name, Lardy by nature/ |
Re: Are Kiwis the grinch?
Originally Posted by lardyl
(Post 6960174)
by your words BEVS you almost make his point.........
I agree with you, Maradona made the best of being a short, athletic bloke but I think Duncan Edwards was the more "complete" football player - me old man played with him before dad had his trials with pro clubs and he was a 6 foot centre forward who would be something of a dwarf in that position these days.....Duncan was a larger bloke, but having a low centre of gravity helps in much of football and rugby.......and used to be the norm for sprinters....but no more on that one :p In my view, there is "small man syndrome", be it a real thing or perceived, Kiwis remark upon it (by name) when discussing professional realtionships with other Kiwis, and to me there is evidence of it being close to endemic in some parts of NZ life (in that it pervades much of NZ's relationship with Oz) and there are clear cases of the vertically challenged "compensating".....a Napoleon complex is called that for a reason.......also look at the behaviour of small dogs vs. larger ones........ I reckon Kiwis have this in their vocabulary, in part at least, as a result of a certain Prime Minister who was a little under-tall and rather aggressive ;) - he also managed to call an election on camera after having had a few to drink.......:lol: ..... did anyone else cringe inside when that footage was aired lately....?? BEVS - - - not that you or your hubbie have it.............I hasten to add........ I also read the paper on "short man syndrome" from the University of Central Lancs and TBH the experiments that they conducted have very little (no pun intended) bearing on the question they asked and are not justification, IMHO, for the "soundbites" and "headlines" painted above them.........just because shorter people, on average, perform less aggressively in a test does not mean that the syndrome is "a myth".......sorry guys but yet again the wrong experiment is being used to make the wrong headlines......... Bear with me for a second and wonder, what would happen if you put Muldoon (oops I said it now) in their experiment? One of two things: either he would make the shorter people more aggressive on average or he would not.......and what would that prove about the "existence of short man syndrome" ? Very little, Muldoon as someone who many people would suggsest suffered from the very syndrome, his results would simply influence the result of that test one way or another - his "short man"-ism would not be detected, simply averaged out in the results of the test.......get my point? The experiment shows trends but does not disprove the syndrome's existence, in fact it would be very difficult indeed to disprove that using such an experiment - all you would be able to do is to show "some suport for the proposition" that either shorter people are more/less aggressive. If they were more aggressive then this could lend support to the existence of the syndrome.....the contrary result (as reported) does reduce support but doesn't make it a "myth". And forget the "statistical significance" argument......the argument that "on average" shorter people are "less aggressive" compared to taller people -could very well be true, BUT it does not and can not explain away why there are some "vertically challenged" people who show outward symptoms of the defensive attitude and they do compensate (- certainly not all short people, but some) and some do it in spades........hence, as we can see all around us life does not work the way of averages.......averages do not make for arguments over "the exceptions", particularly as regards "syndromes", "short arses" and "tall poppies".......real world data shows us that it is out there, badly interpreted experimental results do not a good theory make..... /ducks/ or maybe...... /does not need to duck, Lardy by name, Lardy by nature/ |
Re: Are Kiwis the grinch?
Originally Posted by love30stm
(Post 6960198)
OMG you must have a lot of time on your hands...I couldn't even be bothered to read this post :blink:
|
Re: Are Kiwis the grinch?
Originally Posted by southerner
(Post 6960242)
Prof Lardy keeps me sane - every time I think I've overanalysed something along he comes and makes me look distinctly normal.:D
when you can't sleep because of it some things start to get to your head, eh? used to have the same problem with the Broadsheets' crosswords.......wake up with the eureka moment on 12 down, 8 letters.......:o |
Re: Are Kiwis the grinch?
Originally Posted by love30stm
(Post 6960198)
OMG you must have a lot of time on your hands...I couldn't even be bothered to read this post :blink:
|
Re: Are Kiwis the grinch?
Originally Posted by lapsed kiwi
(Post 6960540)
I got as far as para 5 before scrolling down to your post - but keep 'em coming Lardyl
|
Re: Are Kiwis the grinch?
Originally Posted by janek
(Post 6960874)
Well I've read it 3 times but I'm not going to comment,;) otherwize I would end up too off topic.
What I can say is that most Kiwi's interest in Halloween was zilch until the big red shed starting marketing it. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 4:29 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.