Inquiry into the psyche of some cyclists



Crankyfeet

New Member
Jun 5, 2007
10,817
0
36
alienator said:
Well, that only demonstrates your bias. It says nothing about fact or reality. Who knows, maybe in the "collection of data" by other people, you'd make the asshole list.

It seems like you could do with a bit more learning about how to think critically, especially if you're prone to making such bigoted observations.
Come on alienator... I think we all know that sparkwave is right. I am an asshole myself and it didn't take much research to determine that cycling offered the best activity for me to express my assholeness. Once I had invested in the new bike and the spiffy lycra gear, helmet and cool sunglasses... I now ride down nothing but MUT's doing 25 mph and wolf whistlin' at pretty rollerblade girls... and giving the finger and my best "Get outa the farkin way motherfarkers!!!' to anyone else in my way who doesn't have big boobs.

Then to cap it off, I found this cycling forum, where I could express even more of my assholeness through an anonymous handle and a professional cyclist looking avatar.

This sport is asshole heaven. Sparkwave is just a "nice guy" and not what this sport needs. He really thinks he will love cycling and is just disappointed that every time he tries to get into it... he keeps seeing us assholes... who make him think twice. Stay out of cycling sparkwave. You'll give us a wussy reputation.
 

sparkwave

New Member
Jan 27, 2008
9
0
0
53
If I am cyclist and live in a not-so-bike-friendly city, in a city in which there are no bike paths/lanes, I will become an annoyance to the drivers and the drivers will become annoyance to me. One thing is being annoyed and the other is our reaction or how we cope with it.



One of our personality characteristic that explains our readiness to get angry is how secure we feel about our identity and our position that we hold in society. Since anger is a reaction to being slighted or demeaned, those easily angered are more likely to have grave doubts about who they are. Their egos are shaky. Insecure people – uncertain of their own worth – are more likely than secure people to be provoked by mild provocations and ambiguous situations.



So, based on the above psychological fact, the two cyclists were people of low self-worth – they overacted to our standing in the middle of the road. Did they become a cyclist because they wanted to prove to someone something? Do they want to prove to themselves that they are worthy of something? Are they so introverted and found cycling, a non-social activity at most times, to be more enjoyable? Did they have doubts about themselves before choosing to become a cyclist or did they start having doubts sometime during cycling?



This incident, since I found so embarrassing and contradicted my views about cyclists, makes me start thinking honestly of why I became a cyclist.



Regards,



sparkwave
 

alienator

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2004
12,596
310
0
sparkwave said:
This incident, since I found so embarrassing and contradicted my views about cyclists, makes me start thinking honestly of why I became a cyclist.

It makes me wonder why a cyclist, such as yourself, would do something so stupid as to stand in the middle of a MUT. If their reaction makes you wonder why you became a cyclist, then you should see someone for some counseling because if you base your decsions on what you do based on the appearance given by the actions of others, you have some serious issues.

FWIW, I doubt anyone will miss you.
 

sparkwave

New Member
Jan 27, 2008
9
0
0
53
I do not remeber getting agree at people who share the road. But I am stil looking forward to my Tour de Palm Springs!
 

Pendejo

Member
Apr 8, 2006
589
10
0
sparkwave said:
One of our personality characteristic that explains our readiness to get angry is how secure we feel about our identity and our position that we hold in society. Since anger is a reaction to being slighted or demeaned, those easily angered are more likely to have grave doubts about who they are. Their egos are shaky. Insecure people – uncertain of their own worth – are more likely than secure people to be provoked by mild provocations and ambiguous situations.
That explanation is sound, for a lot of people. However, I think anger is a justified reaction in many cases (for example, toward an individual who acts in a way that indicates that other people, for him, are little more than objects to be used, negotiated, or pushed aside in the quest of his own self-interest). I think a main reason why our society today is so rife with such individuals is because anger has become politically incorrect. So the "good" people avoid trouble instead of confronting it. And what we have today is the result. There should be a lot more anger in the world, and it should be directed at the people who regard themselves as above the practical norms of society.
 

oldbobcat

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2003
3,233
194
48
70
alienator said:
You're not going out on a limb. You're absolutely correct. Pedestrians aren't free to do what they want ***** nilly. Pedestrians need to observer the "rules of the road," too. Standing in the middle of the MUT with a group of people either demonstrated a supreme arrogance or a supreme ignorance. Heck, it might just go to show that some pedestrians are assholes.
Just the same, the mark of a gentleman is to know when not to call people "motherf*ckers" even when one feels justified.

I got my comeuppance in a criterium in Providence, RI. On a backstretch, away from most of the spectators and officials, a drunk was trying to cross the road and looked like he was about to stumble into the middle of the peloton. We all shouted at him, and in the heat of it all I yelled something like, "Look out, f*ckface!" A rider near me warned that he was an ABLA (before USCF) district rep and he could have my license pulled for something like that. I learned to shut up.

I quit riding for about 10 years because of the attitudes of local riders (I live near Boulder). I started up again because I needed a way of getting exercise without getting in my car and driving somewhere. While I enjoy riding again, it does get lonely out there sometimes.
 

alienator

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2004
12,596
310
0
oldbobcat said:
Just the same, the mark of a gentleman is to know when not to call people "motherf*ckers" even when one feels justified.

I got my comeuppance in a criterium in Providence, RI. On a backstretch, away from most of the spectators and officials, a drunk was trying to cross the road and looked like he was about to stumble into the middle of the peloton. We all shouted at him, and in the heat of it all I yelled something like, "Look out, f*ckface!" A rider near me warned that he was an ABLA (before USCF) district rep and he could have my license pulled for something like that. I learned to shut up.

I quit riding for about 10 years because of the attitudes of local riders (I live near Boulder). I started up again because I needed a way of getting exercise without getting in my car and driving somewhere. While I enjoy riding again, it does get lonely out there sometimes.

I didn't say the actions of the idiots in the middle of the MUT merited the response of the cyclists. I didn't say that at all.

It sure sounds as if a lot of riders take a lot of assumptions about other people out on their rides.
 

Bro Deal

New Member
Jun 26, 2006
6,698
4
0
alienator said:
It sure sounds as if a lot of riders take a lot of assumptions about other people out on their rides.
This is an outrageous generalization of other people. How dare you make such an assertion without a ten year, peer reviewed study.
 

Crankyfeet

New Member
Jun 5, 2007
10,817
0
36
Bro Deal said:
This is an outrageous generalization of other people. How dare you make such an assertion without a ten year, peer reviewed study.
What about the poor sods who are "lots of riders" who have been lumped into a generalization based on "sounds as if" evidence?...:p
 

oldbobcat

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2003
3,233
194
48
70
alienator said:
I didn't say the actions of the idiots in the middle of the MUT merited the response of the cyclists. I didn't say that at all.
Didn't mean to insinuate, just clarify. Sorry if it was taken that way.
 

Bro Deal

New Member
Jun 26, 2006
6,698
4
0
Crankyfeet said:
What about the poor sods who are "lots of riders" who have been lumped into a generalization based on "sounds as if" evidence?...:p
Sounds like a clear example of mental laziness to me. :p
 

alienator

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2004
12,596
310
0
Crankyfeet said:
What about the poor sods who are "lots of riders" who have been lumped into a generalization based on "sounds as if" evidence?...:p

Sounds if, don't it? Do you have an actual, logical argument to make, or will you actually do your usual bit and stand in the shadows, only to come out and bite an ankle occasionally?
 

Bro Deal

New Member
Jun 26, 2006
6,698
4
0
alienator said:
Sounds if, don't it? Do you have an actual, logical argument to make, or will you actually do your usual bit and stand in the shadows, only to come out and bite an ankle occasionally?
Must suck to have your same logic applied to yourself. Too bad you cannot come back with anything other than an ad hominem attack.
 

Crankyfeet

New Member
Jun 5, 2007
10,817
0
36
alienator said:
Sounds if, don't it? Do you have an actual, logical argument to make, or will you actually do your usual bit and stand in the shadows, only to come out and bite an ankle occasionally?
I don't have to provide counter-logic... I just have to show that you are countering your own...:)
 

alienator

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2004
12,596
310
0
Bro Deal said:
Must suck to have your same logic applied to yourself. Too bad you cannot come back with anything other than an ad hominem attack.


Here, peaches: the comment was supposed to be analogous to your lame generalizations. You are prone to those, aren't you?
 

alienator

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2004
12,596
310
0
Crankyfeet said:
I don't have to provide counter-logic... I just have to show that you are countering your own...:)

I didn't counter my own logic, thanks.
 

Crankyfeet

New Member
Jun 5, 2007
10,817
0
36
alienator said:
I didn't counter my own logic, thanks.
Your logic, unless I've misunderstood it, is that one shouldn't extrapolate generalizations to a wider population based on a limited sample set of data. Then you make this statement...

alienator said:
It sure sounds as if a lot of riders take a lot of assumptions about other people out on their rides.
Which takes a small sample set of riders in this thread and extrapolates it into the group term "a lot of riders". I hardly think that two or three people in this thread constitute "a lot of riders". Maybe it was just a clumsy statement on your part.
 

Bro Deal

New Member
Jun 26, 2006
6,698
4
0
I am getting this picture of alienator, circa 10,000 B.C.

Alienator is leading a group of hunter gathers as they look for food. Out jumps a saber toothed tiget and eats one of them. Most of the group is fearful but alienator derides them for basing their decisions on a single incident.

They walk further and a second saber toothed tiger leaps out and drags another of the group to his doom. Again alienator sneers at the others for basing their fears on a couple of anecdotal experiences. He tells them they have too little data to draw the conclusion that all saber toothed tigers are dangerous.

They continue on and a third tiger jumps out. This time the clan says, "**** this ****," and they pick alienater upp and throw him to the beast.
 

Crankyfeet

New Member
Jun 5, 2007
10,817
0
36
But alienator is able to start up another thread quickly, calling the tiger a "********" in the thread, which distracts it. He then shows the tiger this equation for conditional probability:

A⊆B, then P(B|A)=P(BA)/P(A)=1? ......... [reference post #8 on this thread]

And the tiger is really confused. He calls the tiger an anklebiter and the tiger... still trying to work out WTF "A" and "B" are in the equation... starts to also consider and doubt momentarily its own ego.

Alienator then grins at his perceived mental accuity and superior intelligence. Then the tiger eats him.