Chiki said: traed said: Isn't it that IQ tests don't measure ability but estimate potential instead? It's possible to have a high IQ but not reach that potential. IQ tests only measure a few unimportant aspects of intelligence, if at all. Richard Feynman, one of history's best physicists, had an IQ of around 125. Marilyn vos Savant, who supposedly has an IQ of 228, writes trivial magazine articles for a living. Chris Langan, who has an IQ of around 180 or 190 or something, spends his life writing gibberish. Also, it's possible to train and practice for IQ tests. http://www.businessinsider.com/actually-you-can-change-your-iq-if-you-work-hard-enough-2011-11 No surprise you can study for these IQ tests. They measure very specific things. I'm sure that if you constantly do IQ tests you'll get better, just like if you'll constantly do math exercises you'll get better at math. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
| When I think of someone intelligent, I think of someone who specializes in a certain topic and could answer all my conceivable questions regarding that topic. |
  |
DejWo said: Chiki said: IQ tests only measure a few unimportant aspects of intelligence, if at all. Richard Feynman, one of history's best physicists, had an IQ of around 125. Marilyn vos Savant, who supposedly has an IQ of 228, writes trivial magazine articles for a living. Chris Langan, who has an IQ of around 180 or 190 or something, spends his life writing gibberish. Also, it's possible to train and practice for IQ tests. http://www.businessinsider.com/actually-you-can-change-your-iq-if-you-work-hard-enough-2011-11 >Unimportant Topkek Yes,it is possible to practice for IQ tests,but it makes it pointless for you want to know how smart you actually are. Plus,what does your IQ have with the job you do? You can be a genius but still be a shop assistant if you are fine with it. The fact that you can practice for it, shows how unimportant the traits that IQ tests purport to measure are. Intuitively, intelligence shouldn't be something that improves significantly after a few weeks of practice. It has everything to do with it. She probably couldn't do any better: Teenage Savant worked in her father’s general store and wrote for local newspapers using pseudonyms. She married at 16 and divorced ten years later. Her second marriage ended when she was 35. She went to Meramec Community College and studied philosophy at Washington University in St. Louis but quit two years later to help with a family investment business. That doesn't sound like a person with even an ounce of intelligence lol. |
| ability to overcome life obstacles |
deadoptimist said: Though I think shit-flinging should also have standards - no personal, no behind the scenes. |
DejWo said: TheBrainintheJar said: No surprise you can study for these IQ tests. They measure very specific things. I'm sure that if you constantly do IQ tests you'll get better, just like if you'll constantly do math exercises you'll get better at math. Yeah,but it makes it pointless,unless you want to brag about some useless numbers on the paper. I agree. Also, psychometrics tests are stupid. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
TheBrainintheJar said: ok let's not push it lmaoAlso, psychometrics tests are stupid. |
deadoptimist said: Though I think shit-flinging should also have standards - no personal, no behind the scenes. |
| basically how well they can problem solve i guess. and if there isnt a particular problem, the ability to use logic and reasoning to support their claims. all of these also implies the person has at minimum some knowledge to be able to solve the problem. |
| I'm going to assume you're talking about cognitive intelligence. Mental processing speed (time it takes to go through a similar thought process) learning capacity (how long it takes to understand and be able to apply learned material) logical reasoning (how thoroughly you can analyze, how many factors you can account for). Emotional (social) intelligence tends to be considered separate in psychology, and for good reason. A lot of it is learned; don't attempt to compare it with cognitive intelligence. IQ attempts to measure your mental "lifting" ability; your direct ability to understand and solve problems that do not require prior knowledge. |
MortalMelancholyNov 25, 2015 8:11 PM
| Be thankful for the wisdom granted to you. |
Bernkastel said: TheBrainintheJar said: No surprise you can study for these IQ tests. They measure very specific things. I'm sure that if you constantly do IQ tests you'll get better, just like if you'll constantly do math exercises you'll get better at math. Richard Feynman's highschool IQ test had been discussed by professionals. The result was because of his narrow range focus, where he scored high on the logic section but very poorly on the verbal section, this resulted in his average test score across the battery to be significantly impacted. Not to mention 125 isn't exactly a poor score. Most of MAL won't even have that. This guy scored a perfect score in the Princeton entry exam for physics (had never been done, and as far as I'm aware was never done again), but got a poor score for the English section... Again explaining how he fucked up his IQ test so hard. Feynman worked on among the most challenging mathematics in theoretical physics, in quantum electrodynamics, and it's dead obvious that he would score possibly even in the 180s if an IQ test was mostly based on logic test batteries. It's great that you're finding cherrypicked examples to support your case, but what about people like Terence Tao and Garry Kasparov? They tend to be the norm. If you measure Harvard, major corp CEOs, top scientists, etc, etc, I would not even be surprised if the average is 2 standard deviation above normal. You guys missed the point about IQ tests. It's like saying you can train yourself to not feel pain when you run with a broken ankle so when a doctor examines you they're less likely to realize your ankle is broken thanks to you being very good at masking a sign. That's counterproductive. Dej already told you why training for a test you're not supposed to train for helps you with your e-peen, but makes the result inaccurate. It's like training techniques to mask your suffering in front of a psychologist in a therapy session. Do you tell people therapy is bullshit because you can lie to the psychologist and they won't be able to give you an accurate diagnosis? Chiki said: The fact that you can practice for it, shows how unimportant the traits that IQ tests purport to measure are. Intuitively, intelligence shouldn't be something that improves significantly after a few weeks of practice. And if you actually read papers on psychometrics about this, you'll realize the increase is usually single digits of IQ points and you lose that after a short period of time of not training. You made your IQ temporarily go from 100 to 105 and invalidated your results after wasting time studying it for a month, congrats. The article talks more about training. It shows IQ is constantly moving up and down, so what kind of thing does it test? Feynman then highlights the problem with IQ: There are all kinds of fields that demand different thinking skills. What's the point of a number that won't tell you how a person does in each field? |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
khunter said: Regardless of my opinions, how, in the most simplest way possible, would you consider another person intelligent? (regardless of their personality) If they know a lot about a certain subject. |
| I'm not sure if I have taken a real IQ test or not so I am not totally sure what they are like. I mean I have had an IQ test done before in High School but it was run by a teacher doing the testing on me. It was timed and I just had to answer various questions. |
| I prefer EQ > IQ. Too many monkeys nowaday |
| Signature removed. Check your inbox |
Bernkastel said: TheBrainintheJar said: The article talks more about training. It shows IQ is constantly moving up and down, so what kind of thing does it test? Children who receive education have increased IQ points compared to children who don't over their entire 2 decade long education. How much is the difference? A couple of points. Training does very little for IQ, approximately 3/4 of it is genetically determined. TheBrainintheJar said: Feynman then highlights the problem with IQ: There are all kinds of fields that demand different thinking skills. What's the point of a number that won't tell you how a person does in each field? It's an approximation. For the vast majority, it's quite an accurate predictor for many things. Feynman is an outlier. What are the evidence for IQ being a valid and useful measurement? |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
| Im sure OP's mom is more intelligent than me |
| Twitter and it's consequences had been a disaster for the human race |
| Know Common sense |
| If you generate impressive thoughts, you have impressed me with your intelligence. If you score high on an IQ test, you have impressed me with your test-taking abilities. Do the two correlate? Sure, but the thoughts are what actually make me think "wow that person is intelligent". |
 |
Bernkastel said: FloatingIdiot said: If you generate impressive thoughts, you have impressed me with your intelligence. If you score high on an IQ test, you have impressed me with your test-taking abilities. Do the two correlate? Sure, but the thoughts are what actually make me think "wow that person is intelligent". To be fair, that opinion sounds much less impressive when you think about it logically. IQ is a form of objective testing while your impression is subjective. It's like saying if I think you're fat you are, if you have 40 BMI that's just a number. Sure if you're an experienced physician you can make that kind of call sometimes, but as a layman don't you think you should really trust BMI over your subjective judgement? Same applies here. Wow it's subjective? Yeah, that's the point. I don't have an obsession with "objectivity" like you do, and ultimately even your "objectivity" is subjective as well based on what "objective" measure you choose to define the complex topic of intelligence. You subjectively worship IQ test scores. Also, "to be fair", your use of bad analogies throughout this entire thread make you look like someone who either lacks intelligence or is intellectually dishonest. |
|
Bernkastel said: aLotQuestion said: I prefer EQ > IQ. Too many monkeys nowaday Is that comparison even valid? IQ is like talent, something you're largely born with. EQ is a skill, something you can learn. There is nothing stopping you from having both, or neither. Comparing EQ and IQ is like saying "I prefer playing basketball over being born with teeth"... The comparison is simply not valid. All they were saying is that high EQ is more meaningful to them in this kind of world than high IQ. Also what makes you say largely born with? I know there is a genetic factor but the environment greatly effects people as well. |
traed said: Bernkastel said: Is that comparison even valid? IQ is like talent, something you're largely born with. EQ is a skill, something you can learn. There is nothing stopping you from having both, or neither. Comparing EQ and IQ is like saying "I prefer playing basketball over being born with teeth"... The comparison is simply not valid. All they were saying is that high EQ is more meaningful to them in this kind of world than high IQ. Also what makes you say largely born with? I know there is a genetic factor but the environment greatly effects people as well. yeah also you can technically 'learn' IQ as well, by doing lots of those kinds of questions |
deadoptimist said: Though I think shit-flinging should also have standards - no personal, no behind the scenes. |
Bernkastel said: FloatingIdiot said: If you generate impressive thoughts, you have impressed me with your intelligence. If you score high on an IQ test, you have impressed me with your test-taking abilities. Do the two correlate? Sure, but the thoughts are what actually make me think "wow that person is intelligent". To be fair, that opinion sounds much less impressive when you think about it logically. IQ is a form of objective testing while your impression is subjective. It's like saying if I think you're fat you are, if you have 40 BMI that's just a number. Sure if you're an experienced physician you can make that kind of call sometimes, but as a layman don't you think you should really trust BMI over your subjective judgement? Same applies here. A person who displays an ability to phrase an argument without logical fallacies is more impressive any IQ score. If you have the highest scores in IQ and still have cliched thoughts and logically fallacious argument, you're a moron. Can you point me to any of the research that found IQ useful? |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
| Exactly. You are so much below me in intelligence that your poor reasoning makes discussions with you meaningless. Or maybe it's just your analogies suck and I happened to notice that. |
|
Bernkastel said: FloatingIdiot said: Exactly. You are so much below me in intelligence that your poor reasoning makes discussions with you meaningless. Or maybe it's just your analogies suck and I happened to notice that. Then do you want to settle this with more objective and standardized means? No offense, but your reasoning right now is exactly what the last anti-vaxxer I met told me. At the very least do say why they suck. Your IQ is too low that this discussion is meaningless and you wouldn't be able to understand. Why should I put such effort into educating a peon like yourself? |
|
Bernkastel said: FloatingIdiot said: Your IQ is too low that this discussion is meaningless and you wouldn't be able to understand. Why should I put such effort into educating a peon like yourself? Take a deep breath and read what you're writing again. Is this you having a mature discussion? Prove yourself worthy of a mature discussion with IQ test results. |
|
| what are you guys even arguing about? Who thinks their definition of smarter is more accurate? |
Bernkastel said: FloatingIdiot said: Prove yourself worthy of a mature discussion with IQ test results. ...If you're just going to be salty then I'll stop replying. At the very least do tell me why my analogies are bad. You haven't proven yourself able to understand my analysis (of course through objective means). So I fear that my efforts will be wasted and my words lost on you. I always acknowledged this before but now the extent is becoming ever more clear. Judging people based on IQ scores leads to a subculture of toxic elitism. |
HalkenburgNov 26, 2015 8:46 PM
|
Bernkastel said: I guess I'd have to see the procedure and conditions of the study/studies to know what to make of it. traed said: Also what makes you say largely born with? I know there is a genetic factor but the environment greatly effects people as well. Genetic twin studies put genetic factor at 75%. Environmental factors like education, nutrition, illness, etc, together only make up 25%. |
Bernkastel said: FloatingIdiot said: I always acknowledged this before but now the extent is becoming ever more clear. Judging people based on IQ scores leads to a subculture of toxic elitism. Does judging someone's weight based on BMI lead to toxic prejudice too? Sometimes, sometimes not. It also begs the question, if it's true, is it still inherently wrong? You're a living example of the effect that the subculture has on people. Anyway, judging weight on BMI? That has nothing to do with intelligence at all. I don’t even get why you use BMI when it is derived directly from height and weight, and also just happens to probably be a worse judge of problem obesity itself than the naked eye. If the basis is the truth, then the basis isn’t inherently wrong, but how we treat the truth can lead to a wide variety of sociological effects. And I am speaking in purely hypothetical if there was one number that actually could define a person’s intelligence or another quality in totality. |
|
Bernkastel said: FloatingIdiot said: You're a living example of the effect that the subculture has on people. Do I abuse people of low intelligence? No. If you show conviction I will lend you a hand. I was very active in tutoring back in high school and still a very helpful individual. You can ask anyone who's PM'd me about anything from personal issues to intellectual topics to vouch. I’m not talking about what you do. I’m talking about the attitude that you promote, and the larger effects that attitude has on society. If only everyone was as kind, benevolent, and helpful as yourself -but they aren’t. FloatingIdiot said: Anyway, judging weight on BMI? That has nothing to do with intelligence at all. I don’t even get why you use BMI when it is derived directly from height and weight, and also just happens to probably be a worse judge of problem obesity itself than the naked eye. And IQ is derived directly from a bunch of standardized test batteries. For a skilled physician, their overall intuition about your health is probably worth more than BMI, but as a layman person, your judgement of obesity will lose to BMI 99% of the time. If you go to a doctor they won't base your health solely on BMI, they'll think about a lot of other things. BMI is still a valid predictor for health regardless, even if it's not the entirety of health. IQ has the same relationship with intelligence, that's why I used BMI as an analogy. See, this is where you miss the point completely. You reduce two different relationships down to bare bones which circumvent very much of what is in contention, and then treat demonstration for one case is an argument by proxy for the other. About BMI alone, BMI is probably about as good you can do with height and weight alone (I don’t think the exponent is perfect but that’s off-topic). However, there is the key unaccounted for factor of muscle mass, which can lead to a lot of false positives for actual problem obesity as well as probably less false negatives. FloatingIdiot said: If the basis is the truth, then the basis isn’t inherently wrong, but how we treat the truth can lead to a wide variety of sociological effects. And I am speaking in purely hypothetical if there was one number that actually could define a person’s intelligence or another quality in totality. IQ does NOT define a person's intelligence entirely. I don't know where you get this misconception. It's just a valid predictor for intelligence with a very high correlation. Like BMI and obesity. It’s hard to figure out where you got a misconception that you never had in the first place. |
|
| I always found modesty and open-mindedness to be a common virtue in intelligent people I know |
 |
Bernkastel said: FloatingIdiot said: I’m not talking about what you do. I’m talking about the attitude that you promote, and the larger effects that attitude has on society. If only everyone was as kind, benevolent, and helpful as yourself -but they aren’t. Even without your so called "intellectual elitism" people are still nice or not nice. I fail to see how this "attitude" promotes more or less bad behavior. If anything I argue it's more positive to society than your whole "if I think they're smart they are" reasoning. Maybe if your IQ was higher, you would be able to understand it more fully, and also understand that my idea of intelligence includes original ideas and new perspectives, rather than solely in the intellectual sense of rational deductions based on concrete information. FloatingIdiot said: About BMI alone, BMI is probably about as good you can do with height and weight alone (I don’t think the exponent is perfect but that’s off-topic). However, there is the key unaccounted for factor of muscle mass, which can lead to a lot of false positives for actual problem obesity as well as probably less false negatives. Everyone knows what the disadvantages and problems with BMI are, same with IQ. Nobody said either tests were perfect. How many times have I seen in real clinical practice that someone's BMI was significantly misleading? Only once or twice out of hundreds. Why? Because it's quite accurate for everyone except those hardcore bodybuilders or people with very unique body morphology. Are you one of them? Probably not. So BMI will predict your health quite well. In fact, BMI dunks medical students all day long in the ability to predict health outcomes. A layperson such as yourself understand much less about health than a medical student, so how is your judgement remotely worth anything? Bern’s mobile goalposts Now you’re just stating something I completely agree with and never denied as if it were proving some kind of point. Except from the BMI thing, which I already qualified with “probably”. Have there been studies where people have looked at naked people as an obesity judge, which also happened to underperform BMI judgment? I am not a medical student, but I am curious what these studies say. The same applies to IQ predicting intellectual success. Then why even bother bringing up BMI? Your analogy was so superfluous, when you could’ve just stated that. For the record, I never said anything about “intellectual success” so we are not even on a dispute over that. I can’t talk to someone and know how much “intellectual success” they will achieve nor would I ever claim such a thing, but I guess you buy them in bulk. FloatingIdiot said: It’s hard to figure out where you got a misconception that you never had in the first place. Then why are you arguing against a strawman? If you interpret that a strawman, you really are more clueless than I thought. I just stated clearly an assumption I was making on a hypothetical which actually was more ideal than IQ, and made my statement for the sake of clarity. |
HalkenburgNov 26, 2015 11:21 PM
|
Bernkastel said: I get how they work. Im just not sure how many studies you are talking about, the sample sizes, and if that was the result of the studies all the same or if you added up the results together in your own average.traed said: I guess I'd have to see the procedure and conditions of the study/studies. If you're interested in how heritability studies are done, Wikipedia has a good article on the basic methodology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_study Either way 25% of an IQ is enough to make a significant change. Is it not? |
Bernkastel said: FloatingIdiot said: Bern’s mobile goalposts Now you’re just stating something I completely agree with and never denied as if it were proving some kind of point. If you agree with me then discussion over? I've always said the exact same thing, so why exactly did you challenge me if you agreed and never denied from the very beginning? You challenged me, with your "to be fair" comment. You are defining intelligence as "intellectual success" which is where our rift came from. There are many people I would consider "intelligent" who don't necessarily think in an "intellectual" manner. |
|
Bernkastel said: FloatingIdiot said: You are defining intelligence as "intellectual success" which is where our rift came from. There are many people I would consider "intelligent" who don't necessarily think in an "intellectual" manner. Don't you think you're misusing the term then? What you mean is "I am impressed by them", it has nothing to do with intelligence. Creativity is typically associated with intelligence, and that can't be judged in a test with a right-or-wrong answer. New perspectives are also not highly valued in academia unless there is proof, which leads to a bunch of discarded thoughts of great value which will never be heard. I know people who may not be prone to score high on IQ tests or ace school, but they come up with really cool ideas. I consider them intelligent. Maybe you don't, but then that's just semantics. I would rather not chase in circles over semantics. |
|
Bernkastel said: FloatingIdiot said: Creativity is typically associated with intelligence, and that can't be judged in a test with a right-or-wrong answer. New perspectives are also not highly valued in academia unless there is proof, which leads to a bunch of discarded thoughts of great value which will never be heard. I know people who may not be prone to score high on IQ tests or ace school, but they come up with really cool ideas. I consider them intelligent. Maybe you don't, but then that's just semantics. I would rather not chase in circles over semantics. You see, the person who's playing a semantic game is you. Why can't you just accept that they're not necessarily intelligent, they might not even be creative, all you can say is "to me, they are creative". You're the one who seems to be advocating for a universal acceptance of your definition. I'm not. All I'm doing is answering the OP. Those whom surround me that I consider intelligent exceed not only in black-and-white analysis, but also in subjective interpretation of the grays, as well as creativity and profound insight. I think a lot is lost in the pursuit of objectives. Even with your idea of intellectual success, a high IQ score just represents a predictor and the best guess that objective means can offer. |
|
Bernkastel said: FloatingIdiot said: You're the one who seems to be advocating for a universal acceptance of your definition. I'm not. All I'm doing is answering the OP. Those whom surround me that I consider intelligent exceed not only in black-and-white analysis, but also in subjective interpretation of the grays, as well as creativity and profound insight. I think a lot is lost in the pursuit of objectives. Even with your idea of intellectual success, a high IQ score just represents a predictor and the best guess that objective means can offer. You've said at the start that you don't consider people with high IQ intelligent, but you consider creative people and people who impress you intelligent. Are you trying to say creativity is synonymous to intelligence? After all IQ tests a lot of other abilities that people would consider strongly related to intelligence. If you want to define intelligence like you did, nobody can stop you. But don't you think that's extremely irrational to reject evidence in favor of subjective judgement? I think my personalized version of intelligence is the most rational for my own use. If I value what someone's brain produces in terms of insights, deductions, emotional understanding, etc, then they are intelligent to me, at least at something. If someone scored extremely high on an IQ test but was always wrong about interpreting real-life events, what would you start to think about them? |
|
Bernkastel said: I did not know significant had that meaning in scientific terminology. Unfortunately even though I was always into various sciences I had many things not learned. Either way you still know what I meant to say. I meant it should be enough of a factor they can raise their IQ enough it would be noticeable.traed said: I get how they work. Im just not sure how many studies you are talking about, the sample sizes, and if that was the result of the studies all the same or if you added up the results together in your own average. Either way 25% of an IQ is enough to make a significant change. Is it not? Significance in scientific terminology is used to mean p values. When you say the result is significant you're saying you're sure the results are true, not that the effect size is big... so in that case it is significant. |
Bernkastel said: FloatingIdiot said: I think my personalized version of intelligence is the most rational for my own use. If I value what someone's brain produces in terms of insights, deductions, emotional understanding, etc, then they are intelligent to me, at least at something. If someone scored extremely high on an IQ test but was always wrong about interpreting real-life events, what would you start to think about them? For someone who talked about shifting the goalpost, how did you go from creativity and insight to "wrong about interpreting real-life events"? As if creativity is about predicting real life events? They are all different things that cannot be measured easily, and as such they are not included in objective "measures of intelligence". A lot of IQ proponents like to look the other way with regards to them. |
|
Bernkastel said: FloatingIdiot said: They are all different things that cannot be measured easily, and as such they are not included in objective "measures of intelligence". A lot of IQ proponents like to look the other way with regards to them. Since you said "creativity is typically associated with intelligence", this implies creativity is also associated with the objective quantifiers of intelligence. All you've done is shifted to a less reliable test battery. If this is the case, what is the difference between your subjective creativity test and an IQ test on a logical/scientific level, except that the latter is better? No, I just looked on how Wikipedia said intelligence has been defined. I meant a semantic association with creativity rather than a statistical correlation although I maybe shouldn't have said "typically" because that is a value judgment from my own experience. Still, you must hear all the time that artists are "genius" or "intelligent" for pure abstractions that lack technicality. When did I ever proclaim anything under the pretense of being scientific? If only science was able to explain everything... |
|
Bernkastel said: FloatingIdiot said: No, I just looked on how Wikipedia said intelligence has been defined. I meant a semantic association with creativity rather than a statistical correlation although I maybe shouldn't have said "typically" because that is a value judgment from my own experience. Still, you must hear all the time that artists are "genius" or "intelligent" for pure abstractions that lack technicality. When did I ever proclaim anything under the pretense of being scientific? If only science was able to explain everything... Because if we don't have to be logical, I can define intelligence as your resemblance to the Jabberwocky. I have no clue how you managed to have such harsh criticism for IQ when your definition degrades intelligence into a mere folk concept. If that's how you want to define intelligence for yourself, then go for it! I'm not trying to define it for you. My definition is plenty logical for my own use, just not scientific. |
|
Bernkastel said: FloatingIdiot said: If that's how you want to define intelligence for yourself, then go for it! I'm not trying to define it for you. My definition is plenty logical for my own use, just not scientific. Going back to the original disagreement that sparked this discussion, my position is still exactly the same. I maintain that your definition is simply inferior with evidence considered. Kind of like how some models in physics are worse than others because they don't describe as many phenomena correctly. And my position is that you just aren't very intelligent ;) I understand that you like to like representing infinitely-beyond-our-comprehension complex topics with test scores for the sake of objectivity, but I don't. Then again, I don't really judge people as "intelligent" or not. The word itself tends to imply a reduction that I am not comfortable making. |
|
Bernkastel said: FloatingIdiot said: And my position is that you just aren't very intelligent ;) We'll finish the discussion on this judgement we both share then. Keep in mind that only one of us is right. Well, look at my name! FloatingIdiot said: I understand that you like to like representing infinitely-beyond-our-comprehension complex topics with test scores for the sake of objectivity and scientific backing, but I don't. Then again, I don't really judge people as "intelligent" or not. The word itself tends to imply a reduction that I am not comfortable making. Like I said about 5x now, this is a misconception on your part. Just cause you keep saying something over and over again doesn't make it true. I perfectly understand what you are saying, and it does nothing to change my mind. There is a difference between saying physics describes the universe perfectly and we should use physics. Sadly you are neither, you're in the group that thinks the universe is too complex so we should just ignore physics and rely on our subjective judgement. No I'm not. There you go with your dumb analogies again. If you can't show something with what is in front of you, why try to tie it to something else and make these weak arguments by proxy? I just don't get it. The great thing about physics is that they attempt to explain something at a mechanical level that can be reproduced with 100% certainty because they are, until proven otherwise, the best models of the laws of our surroundings. How you can even tie that into IQ tests without being a troll is beyond my comprehension. Maybe if I could spot patterns of boxes and circles to the tune of 50 IQ points higher, I'd be able to understand. |
|
More topics from this board
» do you like the fandom of your fave musical artists ??ame - Today |
8 |
by cody
»»
12 minutes ago |
|
» 2023-2024 NBA Season Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )deg - Jun 18, 2023 |
646 |
by Hitagi__Furude
»»
18 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » JAPAN?BaronLukis - 10 hours ago |
13 |
by Dumb
»»
20 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » strawberry, chocolate or banana milk?bobbysalmon - 6 hours ago |
13 |
by Maroonedisback
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» What do you think about law enforcement (police) in your country?Sad - Yesterday |
22 |
by cody
»»
2 hours ago |