Agnostos said: cupc said: Since when does doing productive things mean you're a mad recluse? All you're doing is putting your own spin on my words. Agnostos said: And to be recognized as a genius, someone has to devote a lot of their time to productive things, as opposed to watching anime or reading forums. So you're saying one can be a genius only, if his hair looks like a bird nest and he spends all of his time in a underground lab pondering for the meaning of life? Uhh no. Or that's when you're not a genius anymore, you're simply being mad. Being intelligent can mean many things; taking care of yourself and having fun, for an example, is one being intelligent too. In order to accomplish something of significance, one would still only have minimal time leftover to spend on recreational activities; thus the most successful ones would be the ones who enjoy their research, since it would be a self-sustaining motive. Ahahahahahahaha... There's no scientifically accurate way to define "genius", just because you believe one has to produce something or be productive to be one, is just your opinion, now honestly. Genius "A genius is a person who displays exceptional intellectual ability, creativity, or originality, typically to a degree that is associated with the achievement of an unprecedented leap of insight. " One can display all of these while not being "productive" or "producing" something. Even on an Anime forums. |
ImmahnoobMay 28, 2014 8:09 AM
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| IMO, having intuition, cognitive ability and logical(skills). |
| "You cannot make the cold colder and the dark darker" |
xEmptiness said: Immahnoob said: Ahahahahahahaha... There's no scientific way to define "genius", just because you believe one has to produce something or be productive to be one, is just your opinion, now honestly. Except there is. Through psychometrics. Because intelligence tests aren't biased and aptitude/skills etc aren't hard to define. The only thing I can see as not too biased is defining someones personality traits, there might be more though, it's just that it's trying to define itself more than it is. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: Agnostos said: cupc said: Since when does doing productive things mean you're a mad recluse? All you're doing is putting your own spin on my words. Agnostos said: And to be recognized as a genius, someone has to devote a lot of their time to productive things, as opposed to watching anime or reading forums. So you're saying one can be a genius only, if his hair looks like a bird nest and he spends all of his time in a underground lab pondering for the meaning of life? Uhh no. Or that's when you're not a genius anymore, you're simply being mad. Being intelligent can mean many things; taking care of yourself and having fun, for an example, is one being intelligent too. In order to accomplish something of significance, one would still only have minimal time leftover to spend on recreational activities; thus the most successful ones would be the ones who enjoy their research, since it would be a self-sustaining motive. Ahahahahahahaha... There's no scientific way to define "genius", just because you believe one has to produce something or be productive to be one, is just your opinion, now honestly. Genius "A genius is a person who displays exceptional intellectual ability, creativity, or originality, typically to a degree that is associated with the achievement of an unprecedented leap of insight. " One can display all of these while not being "productive" or "producing" something. Even on an Anime forums. Okay, then. Confessions. Let's change the dynamics of this thread a bit. Who do you think are the most intelligent users here, would you classify any as internet geniuses, and why? Opinion. |
JustaCratMay 28, 2014 6:54 AM
| I'm a great student with not much studying (and I admit it this is unfair), very hard to be deceived and I think fast so in most situations I act by the best possible way. Sometimes it is annoying because other people have difficulty understanding things which are very easy for me, but generally it feels pretty good to be intelligent. A lot of people admire me and being intelligent and good-looking as well is just the perfect combination, so it makes it easy to form all kinds of relationships. Some say that intelligent people are lonely, but that doesn't necessarily have to do with intelligence. That's just their personality and maybe they even feel like other people are inferior to them, so it's their problem. Intelligent people have feelings like any other person, they need love, friendship, they're not aliens. I guess that in the end the greatest difference being intelligent is the performance in courses and studying. But then again I might think like that because I'm mere intelligent and not a genious :p |
 |
| @Heredity "Typically" Heredity. @Autocrat Well Autocrat, I am biased when it comes to all this, considering how I act in my own regards, I will always claim myself better than all others yet I know that there has to be someone over me, I guess it's the bias of a narcissist. Anyway, I don't like classifying people by intelligence, I don't believe that which I see as a good trait even needs that much of it in the first place. Do you believe logic needs you to have more than "average" intelligence? I don't. Reasoning is also heavily based on knowledge. I claim everyone here is between average and high intelligence, sorry, I'm biased like that. @Emptiness Bias isn't a dichotomy, it's not like there is or there is no bias. I'm claiming that intelligence tests are highly biased. Text games aren't funny. Actually, you're not funny. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
xEmptiness said: Autocrat said: Who do you think are the most intelligent users here, would you classify any as internet geniuses, and why? Off the top of my head: Ckan, Daconator, DeicidiumZero, Katsucat, RandomChampion and Tachii. Internet genius? Is that different from a normal genius? In both cases, we can define it as: xEmptiness said: The less someone resembles Lupadim, the higher the probability that he's a genius. Seriously though, don't know. I'd agree that a few of them are sharp enough to reasonably justify themselves in most situations. I haven't seen enough of DeicidumZero, and Ckan hasn't caught my eye so much. There are a few others I could name as one's who I think are reasonably intelligent, but I don't think I'd say anyone here is exceptional at presenting themselves as flawlessly as possible. An internet genius is someone who excels at showcasing intelligence on internet forums and such. They have large vocabularies, a solid knowledge and understanding of logical fallacies, and a strong will to use both. Among their contemporaries, they particularly stand out to people in general. |
| I remember the days when people were arguing with me for different reasons... Ugghhhh... I never claimed it's not science, it doesn't mean it's right though. As we know, science can be proven wrong, and when it is proven wrong they will change their theories accordingly. And I told you what traits the geniuses share, I know for sure geniuses exist too, but the way they test for these traits AND measure them for me (yes, for me) is not enough for us to define a genius Actually, this goes further, I don't believe we can measure intelligence properly for us to be able to make a difference between intelligent individuals that are on the same level, which most of you seem to want to have so much. (maybe I should have put these in a different order, oh well) Pfffttt, personality is way easier to define and studying an individual can show us how his personality is and works. There is a possibility to have a bigger chance of error because of all the variables though. Heredity said: i dun give no shit about the word typically, i wanna know how you shows it without producing something - anything. do you just gotta look 'geek chic'? Can you stop talking like you're a dumb fuck? I don't remember you being one, so why force it now? What does "produce" mean to you anyway? |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
xEmptiness said: Look, first of all actually read what I write. Look, first of all actually read what I wrote, I only speak from my opinion here and several articles I've read on the matter. Can you explain why Australian Aboriginals have such a low IQ? Or why black people have such low IQ themselves? I don't believe in "everyone is equally intelligent", but I don't believe that a normally functioning human being has the IQ of a rock. Thus, I have taken the stance that IQ tests are biased. It's simple as that. Heredity said: noes, i talk like this all the damn time online except when debating~. to me, something produced is something shown. 'george is a genius because of that 'totes awesome presentation on the rising popularity of cotton apparel in the clothing industry.' Fine, whatever. Evidence of absence. It's unknown, it's not "It's not there because it isn't proved.", that's why debates about religion go into the land of "fuck this" really fast. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| it feels like you have an appreciation for fine jazz music 8) |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
| Oh, I should have edited that out, I meant "scientifically accurate", considering there is still debate if "genius" has any real meaning. Just look at Francis Galton for instance. They also claim that a genius must have at least 125 IQ (or to become one). "What is obvious is that geniuses have a high degree of intelligence, but not outrageously high—there are many accounts of people in the population with IQs as high who have not achieved anything like the status of genius. Indeed, they may have achieved very little; there are large numbers of Mensa members who are elected on the basis of an IQ test, but whose creative achievements are nil. High achievement seems to be a necessary qualification for high creativity, but it does not seem to be a sufficient one." Hans Eysenck They seem to claim, just like you do, that a genius primarily has an IQ of around 125 (which isn't necessarily high), but what if the IQ tests are indeed inaccurate? What do you make of them then? Just like Hans Eysenck says, there are a lot of individuals with high IQ tests that did not produce anything of importance, that means they lack something a real genius does, so what is it that the real genius has in plus anyway? Australian Aboriginals have an average IQ of 62, do you know where they put the limit to mental retardation? At 70 IQ. Under that you might have signs of mental retardation. I don't find this correct in any way. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
xEmptiness said: No, I did not change my position, I've already explained what your problem is.In the end of the day, you changed your position. That of taking everything literally, actually, that's more of a problem of nitpicking, it's impossible to be completely accurate, Emptiness. Which makes your case a Nirvana fallacy. xEmptiness said: Just because a test has limited applicability has absolutely nothing to do with whether the metric it's measuring is true. Or maybe they are actually mentally retarded on average, who knows. So this test can only be used in specific cases? What's the point of it then? Yes, they're most likely mentally retarded on average. Lovely deduction, Emptiness. Because of a difference in culture and life style now we deduced that aboriginals are mentally retarded. |
ImmahnoobMay 28, 2014 8:33 AM
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| Where is the equivocation? I simply didn't add "accurate", I said it's my bad, what are you on about changing the whole argument to this? It is a nirvana fallacy, we had my "scientific" without "accurate" beforehand, it's not the "perfect" situation yet you wanted it to be, I'm sorry, I made a mistake, I'm not a perfect god. You're no scientist, and one has the right to correct oneself when he makes language mistakes, what's your problem? @2nd post It is not, tests can be universal and not be perfect anyway, striving for perfection is not a nirvana fallacy. "They're most likely" is also not "They are retarded". I wrote it in the second part as "They are retarded" because we have the first part AND it's also a way to emphasis your unlikely hypothesis. |
ImmahnoobMay 28, 2014 8:50 AM
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| I feel like I'm always noticing and putting things together that no one else is. I feel like I can see the natural progression of things because I'm always thinking ahead and considering the results of actions. Sometimes something seems so obvious and simple to me and I get impatient when I have to explain something that took me seconds to understand to someone for several minutes. But don't get me wrong, I'd rather be wise than intelligent. I wise man knows he doesn't know everything. I'm very capable of admitting when I don't understand something. Intelligent people who arrogantly pretend to always know everything, or even form an opinion on something they know very little of, are the bane of my existence. |
Heredity said: Immahnoob said: assumes one must be scientist to comment on science. you're also not a scientist. naught point. abort thread.You're no scientist, and one has the right to correct oneself when he makes language mistakes, what's your problem? And how does that have to do with what I said? He's not a scientist, he claims that in the world of science these mistakes are not acceptable/accepted, so I can make mistakes because we're not in the world of science/scientists, actually, I doubt it's true, even in the "world of science", nobody is going to shove down your throat "Urgghhh, you can't correct your mistakes because you don't do mistakes in the scientific world.". Medamn it, do I have to draw you guys a picture? xEmptiness said: Immahnoob said: You're no scientist, and one has the right to correct oneself when he makes language mistakes, what's your problem? Technically I am, where I'm studying it's a degree given to me for free. 1+1=3 is NOT a language mistake after you change 3 into 2. It's a conceptual misunderstanding. Just as you misinterpreted what scientific is supposed to mean. P.S. "accurate scientific" is the most ambiguous term you've used to date. What makes a concept accurate scientific as opposed to just scientific? In the end of the day you just want to brush this all off by trying to appeal to more ambiguity. Did you get the degree? Are you yet an expert? 1 + 1 = 3 can be a typo considering 2 is quite near the number 3 though. I've told you on the post on the top of what I meant by inaccuracy, I won't repeat myself. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| Red herring? In no way, the nirvana fallacy is also called the perfectionist fallacy. Striving for perfection is indeed NOT a nirvana fallacy and it has to do with how you diverted the argument, it's not my fault you're committing the red herring right now. Now you're attacking my language some more, ohohohoho, this is ridiculous. After all the claims I made you're still going on with your nitpicking. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Heredity said: I had known some people once upon a time. One lived in the slums he was named instinct and another live in an urban city named process. Instinct had a talent in painting and music while Process had learned infinite knowledge laying at his feet. Instinct didnt have the natural education a normal person acquires through their life and could be socially called an "idiot" for having a low IQ. Even though Instinct doesnt have proper knowledge of "social common sense" and good education but, through painting and music he still had talent that only "natural" geniuses have. Process was different from Instinct, he had the knowledge pour into him from books and prestigious instructors. People hailed Process as a genius for he had capabilities. FORGET THIS IM DONE WITH THIS STORY. k so like process has high IQ and is an intelligent genius then we got instinct blah blah blah ehem. abort thread. *crowd cheers* random person: wantz ur babiez ermigad *random people fainting n reachng d climax of d event* neways dunt rlly understand thread nemore #IQ2low or smth |
| Whats That? You think my username is Pretty?! Me too!!....... until I found out it was the name of a JAV actress whom I dont even know. |
xEmptiness said: Immahnoob said: Did you get the degree? Yes. It seems that to be a scientist one also has to be an expert in area or more. That's what the definition claims a scientist to be. So yes, it is relevant if you are an expert or not. The thing is, even if you are a scientist, I am not one, thus I am not in the world of scientists, so I can still technically make that mistake, considering a mistake is not intentional. Yes it is relevant, humans make mistakes, one would have wanted to write 1 + 1 = 2, but he misstyped and wrote 3. Just like I didn't check my post once more and I forgot to add "accurate". You didn't prove that though. xEmptiness said: Immahnoob said: Red herring? In no way, the nirvana fallacy is also called the perfectionist fallacy. Striving for perfection is indeed NOT a nirvana fallacy. 1. You used the nirvana fallacy which I directly quoted for irony. To claim there is no point to something because it can't be used on everyone is indisputably the nirvana fallacy. "An intelligence quotient, or IQ, is a score derived from one of several standardized tests designed to assess intelligence." "Any test in which the same test is given in the same manner to all test takers is a standardized test." IQ tests seem to contradict themselves. 2. I did not use the nirvana fallacy. To claim your language is imprecise, therefore incorrect and misleading, is not the nirvana fallacy as I am simply comparing to an attainable correct use of language, NOT an unobtainable ideal. It is still a nirvana fallacy as you claim I have to be perfectly accurate. Have you seen the bullshit you need to go through to get your article published? What did you think it was, college creative writing? One can still make a mistake even in such types of articles, they are able to correct themselves after with another article. |
ImmahnoobMay 28, 2014 9:08 AM
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Heredity said: if that gets published, it's totes mine because it has my name on it. k me gots d whole 8 chapters copied down n rdy to sell n amazon. den ur gnna b d most genius writer evur. best 2 liek put n d cover dat ur work is intelligent since it makes it look gud. |
| Whats That? You think my username is Pretty?! Me too!!....... until I found out it was the name of a JAV actress whom I dont even know. |
| You were arguing I changed my position, not that I made a mistake. But I've already said that I meant that which I edited in and not what you continue arguing. You still took it literally and made out of it a 3 pages long debate for no reason, so yes, you still have that problem and you still continue to have it, I have claimed several times I do not talk in absolutes. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| Is it now? Why is that statement wrong? It can't be achieved, mistakes are accidents but they can still happen, so it's impossible for it to be perfectly accurate. It is your fault, I told you already, you took it literally and made an argument out of it when I already explained what my position was later and I even implied it way before all that. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| You mean difference between scientifically accurate and inaccurate. You've took it literally again, good job. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Observations can be inaccurate, errors exist and can be of different magnitudes even in science. Irrelevant. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| If Science can have inaccuracies then you can claim something is scientifically accurate or inaccurate. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Heredity said: whoaw 8 chapters? you're a creative genius to write that much. no wait, i mean i am a genius becus i totally wrote it. ^^ 'intelligence story from mal: 8 chapters, super intelligent :)' yesh since ur 2genius4ppl u haz liek d ability n skillz 2 liek make tree books from liek weird stuff but ppl dunt pprciate ur intellimagence since u has 0s/failed ur maths n numbers stuff. But do not fret; soon your work will fuel revolutions, aspire leaders, and make its name eternally and people shall inquire the Genius Boo-I mean Heredity as one who triumphs the world with words accumulated from the hearts and minds of the intelligence called man. Then you shall be called upon the masses as one who created magic(science) neways staph quoting meh. cant handlez d intelligence levels u gat. actually deeper motives but its futile or more precise an idiotic attempt so yesh staph or smth |
| Whats That? You think my username is Pretty?! Me too!!....... until I found out it was the name of a JAV actress whom I dont even know. |
xEmptiness said: Immahnoob said: If Science can have inaccuracies then you can claim something is scientifically accurate or inaccurate. If something is found to be scientifically inaccurate, it gets removed and can no longer be called "scientific". For all practical purposes, scientific, scientifically accurate, scientifically supported, etc, mean the same thing. Then the Bohr method wasn't scientific, right? |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| All I see are two idiots going at each other to see who has the bigger ego. Just so you know, they're both equally big. You can stop now. |
| Just need to find out how to quote this every time so I can dodge the stupid 30-character limit. |
xEmptiness said: iSheep said: All I see are two idiots going at each other to see who has the bigger ego. Just so you know, they're both equally big. You can stop now. If only your opinion mattered even the slightest. No, it doesn't really matter. But I do think you two should get a room. |
| Just need to find out how to quote this every time so I can dodge the stupid 30-character limit. |
xEmptiness said: iSheep said: xEmptiness said: iSheep said: All I see are two idiots going at each other to see who has the bigger ego. Just so you know, they're both equally big. You can stop now. If only your opinion mattered even the slightest. No, it doesn't really matter. But I do think you two should get a room. And I think you should do the same. In the end of the day, if all you got from reading all that was "ego", then perhaps you shouldn't have commented anything at all. Oh, but I just did. Your ego might be bigger. |
| Just need to find out how to quote this every time so I can dodge the stupid 30-character limit. |
xEmptiness said: iSheep said: Oh, but I just did. Your ego might be bigger. Thank you. Yours is pretty big yourself. Coming into a discussion, dropping insignificant and petty observations without understanding anything, then expressing your opinion in respect to what others ought do. That takes some serious ego. So does explaining everything that I just did. Congratulations. |
| Just need to find out how to quote this every time so I can dodge the stupid 30-character limit. |
| That exchange back there was just embarrassing to read. |
Autocrat said: That exchange back there was just embarrassing to read. I really don't care. I'm just waiting for class to end. |
| Just need to find out how to quote this every time so I can dodge the stupid 30-character limit. |
| Can't we all just be friends and get along? |
xEmptiness said: How do you even type like that... do you use a computer program to generate it?... wat? y ppl ask meh tins like dis it hurts meh...Literally. Its like asking me how "do" am I able breathe oxygen. u guise r rlly obssve bout hvin bouts bout weird stuff dats 2intellemagent4meh rlly must b boring 2 b intellimajestic if u had 2 go n try 2 appease self wit a prson of low status like me :C *give u most intelligent badge* neways hf kayz or smth |
NanakomoriMay 28, 2014 1:58 PM
| Whats That? You think my username is Pretty?! Me too!!....... until I found out it was the name of a JAV actress whom I dont even know. |
| I do not know I wish I did T-T |
iSheep said: Autocrat said: That exchange back there was just embarrassing to read. I really don't care. I'm just waiting for class to end. I was actually referring to the way in which Immahnoob made a fool out of himself in the previous debate. However, don't get me wrong. I also agree with xEmptiness that your comment was witless. That being said, he nor his opponent showed showed anything impressive back there. If anything, I'd be more annoyed at how people may perceive me as intelligent from such a pitiful display. |
Autocrat said: iSheep said: Autocrat said: That exchange back there was just embarrassing to read. I really don't care. I'm just waiting for class to end. I was actually referring to the way in which Immahnoob made a fool out of himself in the previous debate. However, don't get me wrong. I also agree with xEmptiness that your comment was witless. That being said, he nor his opponent showed showed anything impressive back there. If anything, I'd be more annoyed at how people may perceive me as intelligent from such a pitiful display. Oh, I agree. My whole exchange was also witless. But it was better that than listening to my classmates in the front ask about how to do a project that was due two weeks ago. |
| Just need to find out how to quote this every time so I can dodge the stupid 30-character limit. |
More topics from this board
» You witness someone stealing food at the supermarket, do you snitch on them?fleurbleue - Today |
42 |
by Zakatsuki_
»»
7 minutes ago |
|
» How Has MAL’s Forums Affected Your Social Lives?BrendanIsCool - 2 hours ago |
5 |
by Zakatsuki_
»»
8 minutes ago |
|
» How knowledgeable are you about anime/manga?DesuMaiden - Yesterday |
19 |
by Zakatsuki_
»»
9 minutes ago |
|
» On a scale ⚖️ of 1-10 ,how much do you wanna find love?GoonLyfeVes - Yesterday |
7 |
by Zakatsuki_
»»
10 minutes ago |
|
» How good of a liar are you?TheBlockernator - Sep 30 |
16 |
by Zakatsuki_
»»
10 minutes ago |