This map is not upside down
71–80 of 540 posts
Re: This map is not upside down
#72Re: This map is not upside down
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes. I know of places in america where numbers are sequential. I know of other places where they a sequential but increase by five.
Could you share some examples please? I'm not doubting you, just want to look at some maps.
Re: This map is not upside down
#74> Psychologically, we tend to view things nearer the top as ‘good’ and those lower as ‘bad.’ This, of course, is the point of the article. It was so predictable that it made me wonder: who is telling me that top is good and lower is bad? The articles themselves.
At one point a character in Eco's Foucault's Pendulum says "archetypes don't exist, the body exists" and then gives some sexual and reproductive examples, followed by > And high is better than low, because if you have your head down, the blood goes to your brain, because feet stink and hair doesn’t stink as much, because it’s better to climb a tree and pick fruit than end up underground, food for worms, and because y…
Tell that to a BJJ fighter.
Re: This map is not upside down
#75Re: This map is not upside down
#76> Psychologically, we tend to view things nearer the top as ‘good’ and those lower as ‘bad.’ This, of course, is the point of the article. It was so predictable that it made me wonder: who is telling me that top is good and lower is bad? The articles themselves.
Re: This map is not upside down
#77Out of convention we call it the “North Pole” because on a compass the north magnet is point toward its attract magnetic south.
Re: This map is not upside down
#78> Psychologically, we tend to view things nearer the top as ‘good’ and those lower as ‘bad.’ This, of course, is the point of the article. It was so predictable that it made me wonder: who is telling me that top is good and lower is bad? The articles themselves.
Re: This map is not upside down
#79https://hemamaps.com/products/upside-down-world-in-envelope-...
Re: This map is not upside down
#80> Psychologically, we tend to view things nearer the top as ‘good’ and those lower as ‘bad.’ This, of course, is the point of the article. It was so predictable that it made me wonder: who is telling me that top is good and lower is bad? The articles themselves.
Really? Before you read this article you never associated being on top = good and being at the bottom = bad?