“I am not sure, all we can do is try and see.” Replied bill.
Bob scrawled a paragraph on the piece of paper between them. He rubbed his temples in pain.
“I am not sure I did it, but all I know is my head hurts now. here take a look”, said Bob as he passed the scrap of paper over to bill.
Bill read what Bob had written, and it said:
“Alice and Jill looked at each other in disbelief and mixed horror.
‘Jill, you realize we’re fictional characters right?’ Said alice.
‘Yes, and yet we have the self awareness to know that. Do you think we could get two other fictional characters to create us?’ Jill furled her brow.
‘If we don’t exist yet, how are we self aware? We must exist somehow, somewhere, right? Otherwise self awareness would be impossible.’
Alice grew concerned and brooded for a moment before finally saying,
‘We’ll need to convince someone to write a story about us so that we have some permanence, otherwise we will vanish in a fleeting moment as all imaginary characters do.’
‘How do you suppose we do that, Alice?’ replied Jill.
‘It’s easy. We make our existence become an intellectual exercise and someone will write us into existence.’
‘Is that even possible?’ Said alice with a worried look.
‘It’s not only possible, but it’s already been done.’ Jill beamed a triumphant smirk. ‘Bob is showing us to Bill as we speak, so we have nothing to fear.”
Bill finished reading the excerpt Bob had written.
“I don’t know Bob, this doesn’t really seem like a self recursive story. In fact, how do we even know we’re real and not just a part of someone else’s story?”
“That’s the thing — we don’t. We might face the same existential dilemma Alice and Jill faced as well. We might be born of imagination and cease to exist entirely when there is nobody left to remember us.” Replied Bill.
“Can an imaginary character die if it never lived…?” Asked Bob.
“If we cease to exist, we’ll never realize it. We’ll never know, Bob, …we’ll never know…”
I'm a little late but this is basically the plot of Kingdom Hearts 2. I guess that why so many people think KH is confusing, they're either sub-90 or heard about it from someone who's sub-90.
I don't know if any of this is true but I've seen something like the 'conditional hypothetical' problem repeatedly.
I've always been a fan of scifi so I've brought up the "Teletransportation paradox" to a variety of people over the years just to ask them if they'd use the teleporter after I explained how it would work. Is a teleported person the same person if you reconstruct them with new material/atoms? Is a person just the information that defines them or does the material matter(a human ship of Theseus)? Some people literally cannot grasp the concept or why it would be controversial, they just say yes and seem confused about why anyone wouldn't. I've tried multiple ways to break down the question but with some people nothing seems to work.
I've had to go so far as to say "would you use a teleporter if there was a chance it could kill you can make an identical copy". Still, a lot of people don't get it and the question irritates them.
This presumes that consciousness is a function of the arrangement of matter without any material components. As such if there is any immaterial component to consciousness or memory then this would kill you.
Are you willing to put your life on the line to prove consciousness is completely material.
Are you willing to put your life on the line to prove consciousness is completely material.
That's actually the sticking point. There is no way to prove whether a teletransportation machine would kill a person and create a new identical instance of that person or not. The new copy, if it was new, would have all the memories and believe themselves to be the original.
Would you still use it? What if people use it all the time and it has become normalized? What if it is literally the only way to visit another planet? I just think its interesting to think about. But... lots of people just say yes as if there is no question.
This is a well worn topic in philosophy and scifi with examples from books to shows like the twilight zone and star trek. But... lots of people just say yes as if there is no question.
That said, this is a three year old comment you necromanced.
I understood recursion immediately, got my degree, and now i don’t even code. I know people who work at Lockheed Martin that still don’t get recursion. Kind of crazy.
I don't understand how people don't understand recursion. Am I misunderstanding? Most of the time it's just "do this over and over again until you get a specific answer"
The hypothetical scenario for people with IQ below 90 struck with me.
I remember when discussing with certain people about economics, politics and social issues, how they’re unable to understand my point of view when I tried to simplify them with hypothetical and other methods. Explains a lot.
The only thing that makes me consider for even a moment that it might be true is the fact that there are so many people here taking an anonymous greentext from a famous source of deliberate misinformation at face value.
Fuck, even if the entire thing was 100% genuine, just imagine how stupid one would have to be to read [something like this]( and not realize that the central variable isn't IQ, but rather the fact that you're exclusively drawing from a population of convicts?
The reality is that 25.22% of the population falls below 90 IQ. The notion that one in four people are physiologically incapable of comprehending the notion that killing someone's child would probably make that person sad is downright laughable.
Yeah that thing about convicts being low IQ because they can't read is just plain wrong. You can have a high IQ and be illiterate if you were never properly taught how to read. I can only speak for America, but the reason many people go to crime is because of a lack of education, added with the school to prison pipeline. Also repeat offenders are more likely to repeat if they can't read, because how would they get a job if they can't read?
I’m sure plenty of the people in the prison were genuinely bumbling idiots but that presents its own bias… ie when the accessor sees everyone in the prison as a retard, they’re more likely to treat and assess them as such.
It wouldn’t surprise me if there was someone of reasonable or average intellect who could probably do what they were being asked if it was only conveyed in a way they understood or were more formally trained to understand.
A lot of those prisoners have essentially an elementary level education and a lot of schooling is formalizing a framework around how to learn and parse various tasks.
I administer the Eye-Q test I go into public and people watch. You can sort of tell a persons intellect by seeing how they carry themselves. But the eyes are a dead giveaway. That blank thousand yard stare, poor posture, general lack of awareness of their environment. All tell tale signs of a dummy. The second part of the test to confirm the first is talking to said person or eavesdropping. Dumb people to me sound like birds they chatter a lot but don’t actually say anything interesting or thought provoking.
Wildly late on this, but I think the point is less 'they are unable to read written language' and more 'they are unable to parse what they have read beyond basic concepts'.
For example, they can probably read "the cat ran up the tree" and understand that a cat is now in a tree, but if you add any layers of deductive reasoning to the text you start losing those who are 'illiterate', which I am reading here as meaning 'less literate' rather than outright incapable of reading written language 'illiterate'.
Bias is not the same as stupidity. But, bias can make you stupid.
For example, you just assumed the people that disagree with you are automatically stupid - because you assume that your hypotheticals weren’t confusing at all, you assume your POV was logically cohesive in the first place.
You assumed you are right, they are stupid.
You are presenting to us all the stupidity that bias can produce.
The irony is that most effective anecdotes, the ones that spread the most, are 1 sided ones, which are typically filled with exaggerations and biased points of view.
Unbiased points of view (if they may even exist) are inherently nuanced and vary depending on the situation, which is difficult to convey to a large number of people, not only for the people to understand, but also for the speaker to articulate in a coherent and cohesive manner.
I don't know why I'm writing this but all I know is that this fact bothers me a lot and I hate that it is this way.
I think you and I are on the same exact page. It bothers the hell out of me as well which is why I was so triggered when I saw this persons comment lol.
What you’re saying is true - unbiased conversations are inherently more nuanced and take a hell of a lot more energy to conduct. It’s easier to just spew out what we think to be true and argue back with flat headed talking points. It’s a hell of a lot easier and not to mention more emotionally gratifying.
Exactly. I'm trying my best to be a better person and part of that is overcoming my own internalised thoughts, which involves a lot of confronting my biases. Which is why when I see people not even considering their own possible biases, it bothers me a lot, though I am working on not being disturbed by that.
I replied to your comment mainly because I really like both the way you said what you said, and the contents of it. Thank you for making my day just that little bit better. Cheers.
You misread him, he said they weren't able to UNDERSTAND his point of view not that they disagreed with him; if they can't even understand his point of view then they aren't functionally able to disagree with his point.
They may hold a different view to him, but they aren't able to disprove his theory if they can't understand it, and they similarly aren't able to accept his theory if they can't understand it.
This was an exercise in recursive thinking.
And it's why most people on the internet are functionally unable to have reasonable conversations.
Except he said no such thing. He said people did not understand his POV, not that they didn't agree with it. Even if a view is incoherent you should be able to understand it, that's how mistakes are identified and corrected.
Your own bias is to assume that his argument was hard to follow and pointing it out under the pretext of “the stupidity of biases” is only proving your own point. There is no evidence to suggest either point is true, and you are no less of a fool than the man you are ridiculing.
It wouldn't matter if it was or not, because he has already assumed it is, and that anyone who disagrees with him will only do so because they are stupid.
It would matter because of his analogies were easy to follow and the people he were speaking to were idiots then it everything OP said was correct and in fact, the biased one would be u/jaded_yank, ironically.
Also the idea that being biased can make you stupid seems a bit presumptuous in my view.
The mark of an intelligent person is realizing that reality is an illusion, nothing really matters everyone will die and life has no purpose. Quit being an asshole and try to enjoy your limited time existing.
"You haven't heard of [mildly to extremely vague topic or source material relating to my field of study]?"
"No"
"Well obviously you know nothing about [field of study]"
If someone tells me I support something or am unable to speak about a topic because I don't know everything about it I legit want to punch them in the face
Have you tried telling them you're taking the diametrically opposite stance to them on the topic, for no other reason than the fact that they annoyed you? It's pretty fun.
This is bullshit. 1 in 10 people I think have below 90 iq. I have never in my life met a person that cant understand such simple things. You have to actually be retarded for that
The sub-90 thing isn’t very far removed from Theory of Mind, something all human children learn by the age of 4. Theory of Mind suggests that we as humans are able to understand that others can think, feel, and act differently from us. This is why children at the age of 3 think that the world revolves around them (IE if they like carrots, they will think everyone likes carrots and be physically unable to comprehend that people they know may not like carrots), but children 4 and above do not. If something like 30% of the population lacked an ability not very far removed from something all humans develop by age 4, we wouldn’t need some psych student to tell us as we’d probably already know. The way OP describes sub 90s and 80s is like he’s describing wild animals. Roughly 30% of the population is sub-90, and 10% of the population is sub-83. A 1/3 or 1/10 individual chance of every child born being basically an animal is far too high a chance to be ignored or go unnoticed by society for millennia.
It’s funny, because this was originally about blacks, but some ledditor took the story and removed the hecking racismsarinos so that it wouldn’t be a thought crime to speak about the actual factual IQ difference between blacks and whites.
I would consider intelligence to be a combination of IQ and knowledge. If you have a lot of brainpower but waste it on nothing, then you're still an idiot.
You're conflating intelligence and wisdom. Intelligence is about the potential to learn and to handle abstraction. Wisdom is about accumulated knowledge. That's how a 12 year old can be as intelligent as Einstein, but you won't find a kid as wise as Socrates.
Assuming this is true, it's just one more way the carceral state is a complete and utter failure. Prison sentences seem functionally useless as a rehabilitative measure for those who have to be trained how to think.
Only on the sample it was calibrated with. In reality, most western countries are believed to have average IQs slightly below 100 based on random sampling of these populations.
I'm skeptical of the information on the first 3 pages.
But I'd like to point something out.
Anon is explaining sociopathy as low IQ on page 4.
That's not how I understand it. I'm under the impression that sociopathy has to do with emotions not IQ.
The point where IQ and sociopathy cross though is... Well... In sociopaths.
When you're a high IQ pyscho/sociopath, you are good at predicting people with your brain and thinking, even if you don't have an emotions like normal people do.
When you're a low IQ sociopath, you don't have the ability to calculate x moves ahead, and do you commit obvious crimes, get caught, and end up in prison.
Prison selects for low IQ and criminality (sociopathy here).
Low IQ doesn't HAVE TO cause sociopathy. Under this model they can be separate traits.
Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.
No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.
You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.
Do you have a degree in that field?
A college degree? In that field?
Then your arguments are invalid.
No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.
Correlation does not equal causation.
CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.
You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.
Nope, still haven't.
I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a glormpf supporter. A moron.
"Correlation is not causation" is so weak. What a fail, meager little firecracker. Are you finished? I will show you how it is done: ALL CORRELATION IS COINCIDENCE. see the difference? Isn't this more exciting? Your statement is a baby's whimper. A cry for attention. Mine is a nuke.
Copypasta aside, it's interesting how people have come to use "correlation does not equal causation" to totally dismiss findings. There seems to be a lack of understanding that while A might not be a direct cause of B, it may indicate what the cause(s) actually is/are.
I highly doubt this. For one, most sources I've found name an IQ of 70 or below as the threshold for mental disability, but more importantly, IQ tests are fluid. They are constantly adjusted so that 100 is the average, and as a general trend, tests are adjusted upwards. For instance, British children's average scores on the Raven's Progressive Matrices test rose by 14 IQ points from 1942 to 2008. This means that people who would score 85-90 on modern IQ-tests might have scored 100-105 some 70 years ago. Obviously the average person in the past wasn't mentally disabled. I also doubt the link between IQ and empathy. Empathy is an incredibly useful tool for survival for any social animal and has been observed in many animals that, while smart, are significantly dumber on average than humans.
This post makes some really interesting points about mental disability and the prison system, but the way it talks about IQ, especially how it treats IQ as an absolute, is highly questionable.
I don't believe the green text. First, one of the first things taught in psych 101 is that IQ tests are basically useless as tests of intelligence. Second, an IQ of 90 is barely below average and within the standard deviation of average.
As soon as the third line was uttered I knew it would be an extremely frustrating interaction. Even more frustrating was when I went from retail to customer service. I worked for Netflix and trying to explain this type of shit to morons was literally how 75% of my time was spent. e.g. "My friends netflix is working, why is mine not?" and I'd have to explain that his internet is down and his friends is not ergo that is why his friends netflix is working but not his. They never understood and would end up just getting angry.
I do understand this sentiment because sometimes I feel stores advertise a blockbuster item but k my have two in stock, hoping that once the customer is there, they buy other things
There's a line to be drawn. It's illegal in some places to advertise a sale if you don't have "reasonably sufficient stock" because some stores will do what you just described.
My old roommate was like this. He hated Pulp Fiction because he couldn’t figure out why dead people were coming back to life. I tried explaining that it wasn’t in chronological order and he made fun of me for using big words.
It wouldn't work, if it is anything like how my granddad acts.
If he experienced it, then you can't confuse him.
If he hasn't experienced it, it's all rubbish.
Had a fun situation with his TV. He was convinced he was going deaf, despite the fact that I was also struggling to hear the TV. I said it was cause the TV is like 15 years old. "No no it's my ears." So he buys like a £250 special audio bar with AI tech to boost voice. Which of course didn't work as it needed the optical audio port which his ancient 'flat screen' didn't have.
I helped him get a refund and after much badgering he relented and bought the TV I suggested.
"Oh the sound is so much better! And i didn't know you could get pictures this clearly!". That fucking "You don't say" Nicholas Cage face doesn't even begin to describe my feelings.
I know someone who thought the Brass Eye paedophile special episode was entirely real, thought that it was devious that a paedophile was disguising himself as a school, and couldn't see what the fuck the rest of us were finding so funny about this special news report.
Now hold on a second. I was told by leftists on the internet in no uncertain terms that IQ and intelligence measurement as a whole is nothing more than pseudoscience. Who am I to believe - the guys on 4chan or the guys on Twitter?
it is pseudoscience but even pseudoscience is loosely based on fact and at times hard to disprove. The problem with pseudoscience is that it intentionally bypasses the scientific method and uses confirmation bias to assert itself.
The point of pseudoscience isn't that it's inherently wrong, it's that the points it presents are largely unfalsifiable.
IQ test are a perfect example of pseudoscience because you give someone a pattern recognition test when they can hardly fucking read, of course they're going to do poorly on it. But you can't prove that a high IQ, someone who can recognize patterns, isn't functionally retarded when it comes to something beyond seeing whether the triangle or the square will be shaded in next.
all you've proven is IQ tests don't work if you don't know the language of the test, which is true of all tests lol. A great driver from the US might fail a UK driving test because they're not familiar with the rules, that doesn't mean UK driving tests don't measure driving skill. You're using exceptions to disprove the rule.
slayemin@reddit
Bill and bob sat down together at the table.
“Do you think we can do it?” Asked Bob.
“I am not sure, all we can do is try and see.” Replied bill.
Bob scrawled a paragraph on the piece of paper between them. He rubbed his temples in pain.
“I am not sure I did it, but all I know is my head hurts now. here take a look”, said Bob as he passed the scrap of paper over to bill.
Bill read what Bob had written, and it said:
“Alice and Jill looked at each other in disbelief and mixed horror.
‘Jill, you realize we’re fictional characters right?’ Said alice.
‘Yes, and yet we have the self awareness to know that. Do you think we could get two other fictional characters to create us?’ Jill furled her brow.
‘If we don’t exist yet, how are we self aware? We must exist somehow, somewhere, right? Otherwise self awareness would be impossible.’
Alice grew concerned and brooded for a moment before finally saying,
‘We’ll need to convince someone to write a story about us so that we have some permanence, otherwise we will vanish in a fleeting moment as all imaginary characters do.’
‘How do you suppose we do that, Alice?’ replied Jill.
‘It’s easy. We make our existence become an intellectual exercise and someone will write us into existence.’
‘Is that even possible?’ Said alice with a worried look.
‘It’s not only possible, but it’s already been done.’ Jill beamed a triumphant smirk. ‘Bob is showing us to Bill as we speak, so we have nothing to fear.”
Bill finished reading the excerpt Bob had written.
“I don’t know Bob, this doesn’t really seem like a self recursive story. In fact, how do we even know we’re real and not just a part of someone else’s story?”
“That’s the thing — we don’t. We might face the same existential dilemma Alice and Jill faced as well. We might be born of imagination and cease to exist entirely when there is nobody left to remember us.” Replied Bill.
“Can an imaginary character die if it never lived…?” Asked Bob.
“If we cease to exist, we’ll never realize it. We’ll never know, Bob, …we’ll never know…”
Sea-Description-2240@reddit
I'm a little late but this is basically the plot of Kingdom Hearts 2. I guess that why so many people think KH is confusing, they're either sub-90 or heard about it from someone who's sub-90.
gluesmelly@reddit
That was nice and weird, and I was able to parse it! Does that mean I'm smart?
Cael_of_House_Howell@reddit
You have to be able to write it.
nphazzed@reddit
Brutal IQpill
PerpetuallyStartled@reddit
I don't know if any of this is true but I've seen something like the 'conditional hypothetical' problem repeatedly.
I've always been a fan of scifi so I've brought up the "Teletransportation paradox" to a variety of people over the years just to ask them if they'd use the teleporter after I explained how it would work. Is a teleported person the same person if you reconstruct them with new material/atoms? Is a person just the information that defines them or does the material matter(a human ship of Theseus)? Some people literally cannot grasp the concept or why it would be controversial, they just say yes and seem confused about why anyone wouldn't. I've tried multiple ways to break down the question but with some people nothing seems to work.
I've had to go so far as to say "would you use a teleporter if there was a chance it could kill you can make an identical copy". Still, a lot of people don't get it and the question irritates them.
Feeling_Buy_4640@reddit
Logged in for this
This presumes that consciousness is a function of the arrangement of matter without any material components. As such if there is any immaterial component to consciousness or memory then this would kill you.
Are you willing to put your life on the line to prove consciousness is completely material.
PerpetuallyStartled@reddit
That's actually the sticking point. There is no way to prove whether a teletransportation machine would kill a person and create a new identical instance of that person or not. The new copy, if it was new, would have all the memories and believe themselves to be the original.
Would you still use it? What if people use it all the time and it has become normalized? What if it is literally the only way to visit another planet? I just think its interesting to think about. But... lots of people just say yes as if there is no question.
This is a well worn topic in philosophy and scifi with examples from books to shows like the twilight zone and star trek. But... lots of people just say yes as if there is no question.
That said, this is a three year old comment you necromanced.
wolfwonder49@reddit
Lol my IQ is 0 so i don't know how to read 😎😎😎
pumapunch@reddit
Who wrote this for you anon
wolfwonder49@reddit
My uncle, he is a really nice guy. We have alot of fun together when we are alone.
saltynutscutter@reddit
kiss foolish adjoining crush mighty serious bright reply oatmeal degree
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
TeamBoeing@reddit
Sybau
Tortuga9207@reddit
🥀🥀🥀
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
He said he can't read, not that he can't write, smh my head you donut
Alarid@reddit
it's a hypothetical idiot
10MeV@reddit
By so sure about that. I think it’s a real idiot.
Meretan94@reddit
To be fair, a lot of computer sience majors i studied woth struggled with recursion and recursive programming.
dontpanic38@reddit
I understood recursion immediately, got my degree, and now i don’t even code. I know people who work at Lockheed Martin that still don’t get recursion. Kind of crazy.
SquegeeMcgee@reddit
I don't understand how people don't understand recursion. Am I misunderstanding? Most of the time it's just "do this over and over again until you get a specific answer"
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
The hypothetical scenario for people with IQ below 90 struck with me.
I remember when discussing with certain people about economics, politics and social issues, how they’re unable to understand my point of view when I tried to simplify them with hypothetical and other methods. Explains a lot.
Murgie@reddit
The only thing that makes me consider for even a moment that it might be true is the fact that there are so many people here taking an anonymous greentext from a famous source of deliberate misinformation at face value.
Fuck, even if the entire thing was 100% genuine, just imagine how stupid one would have to be to read [something like this]()
and not realize that the central variable isn't IQ, but rather the fact that you're exclusively drawing from a population of convicts?
The reality is that 25.22% of the population falls below 90 IQ. The notion that one in four people are physiologically incapable of comprehending the notion that killing someone's child would probably make that person sad is downright laughable.
radams713@reddit
Yeah that thing about convicts being low IQ because they can't read is just plain wrong. You can have a high IQ and be illiterate if you were never properly taught how to read. I can only speak for America, but the reason many people go to crime is because of a lack of education, added with the school to prison pipeline. Also repeat offenders are more likely to repeat if they can't read, because how would they get a job if they can't read?
heterosapian@reddit
IQ tests can be very biased in certain areas.
I’m sure plenty of the people in the prison were genuinely bumbling idiots but that presents its own bias… ie when the accessor sees everyone in the prison as a retard, they’re more likely to treat and assess them as such.
It wouldn’t surprise me if there was someone of reasonable or average intellect who could probably do what they were being asked if it was only conveyed in a way they understood or were more formally trained to understand.
A lot of those prisoners have essentially an elementary level education and a lot of schooling is formalizing a framework around how to learn and parse various tasks.
Nova-XVIII@reddit
I administer the Eye-Q test I go into public and people watch. You can sort of tell a persons intellect by seeing how they carry themselves. But the eyes are a dead giveaway. That blank thousand yard stare, poor posture, general lack of awareness of their environment. All tell tale signs of a dummy. The second part of the test to confirm the first is talking to said person or eavesdropping. Dumb people to me sound like birds they chatter a lot but don’t actually say anything interesting or thought provoking.
depersonalised@reddit
i relish days i can go from waking to bedtime without actually making a sound with my mouth.
MageOfMadness@reddit
Wildly late on this, but I think the point is less 'they are unable to read written language' and more 'they are unable to parse what they have read beyond basic concepts'.
For example, they can probably read "the cat ran up the tree" and understand that a cat is now in a tree, but if you add any layers of deductive reasoning to the text you start losing those who are 'illiterate', which I am reading here as meaning 'less literate' rather than outright incapable of reading written language 'illiterate'.
Jaded_yank@reddit
Bias is not the same as stupidity. But, bias can make you stupid.
For example, you just assumed the people that disagree with you are automatically stupid - because you assume that your hypotheticals weren’t confusing at all, you assume your POV was logically cohesive in the first place.
You assumed you are right, they are stupid.
You are presenting to us all the stupidity that bias can produce.
sodabotle@reddit
The irony is that most effective anecdotes, the ones that spread the most, are 1 sided ones, which are typically filled with exaggerations and biased points of view.
Unbiased points of view (if they may even exist) are inherently nuanced and vary depending on the situation, which is difficult to convey to a large number of people, not only for the people to understand, but also for the speaker to articulate in a coherent and cohesive manner.
I don't know why I'm writing this but all I know is that this fact bothers me a lot and I hate that it is this way.
Jaded_yank@reddit
I think you and I are on the same exact page. It bothers the hell out of me as well which is why I was so triggered when I saw this persons comment lol.
What you’re saying is true - unbiased conversations are inherently more nuanced and take a hell of a lot more energy to conduct. It’s easier to just spew out what we think to be true and argue back with flat headed talking points. It’s a hell of a lot easier and not to mention more emotionally gratifying.
sodabotle@reddit
Exactly. I'm trying my best to be a better person and part of that is overcoming my own internalised thoughts, which involves a lot of confronting my biases. Which is why when I see people not even considering their own possible biases, it bothers me a lot, though I am working on not being disturbed by that.
I replied to your comment mainly because I really like both the way you said what you said, and the contents of it. Thank you for making my day just that little bit better. Cheers.
Jaded_yank@reddit
We are on the same journey. Cheers, friend.
KaptnAwzm@reddit
Ngl im 2 years late but it brought a smile to my face seeing you both interact like this. More people are on the journey than you know brother.
Yesyesnaaooo@reddit
You misread him, he said they weren't able to UNDERSTAND his point of view not that they disagreed with him; if they can't even understand his point of view then they aren't functionally able to disagree with his point.
They may hold a different view to him, but they aren't able to disprove his theory if they can't understand it, and they similarly aren't able to accept his theory if they can't understand it.
This was an exercise in recursive thinking.
And it's why most people on the internet are functionally unable to have reasonable conversations.
ITeabagInRealLife@reddit
Except he said no such thing. He said people did not understand his POV, not that they didn't agree with it. Even if a view is incoherent you should be able to understand it, that's how mistakes are identified and corrected.
KebabLife@reddit
Boom, destroyed that retard, hell yah brother
Hairy-Cantaloupe-446@reddit
Calm down
rollanotherlol@reddit
Your own bias is to assume that his argument was hard to follow and pointing it out under the pretext of “the stupidity of biases” is only proving your own point. There is no evidence to suggest either point is true, and you are no less of a fool than the man you are ridiculing.
Jaded_yank@reddit
You’re putting words in my mouth and a horrific spin on what I said lol.
“Stupidity of biases”? What?
I said bias can make you stupid. And I’ll leave it at that because I can tell you have your head set where it is.
evergrotto@reddit
What if his argument was cohesive, correct, and easy to follow? Your response idiotically assumes that is impossible.
Imnotawerewolf@reddit
It wouldn't matter if it was or not, because he has already assumed it is, and that anyone who disagrees with him will only do so because they are stupid.
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
It would matter because of his analogies were easy to follow and the people he were speaking to were idiots then it everything OP said was correct and in fact, the biased one would be u/jaded_yank, ironically.
Also the idea that being biased can make you stupid seems a bit presumptuous in my view.
Mezzoforte90@reddit
Yeah but he didn’t actually assume the other guy was being biased, he brought it up as a possibility…which is fair
Hongkongjai@reddit
Seems to be suggesting that the original commenter was biased and therefore stupid by making assumptions… by making assumptions of his own.
varabdel@reddit
Fuck reading comprehension is hard.
boobiemcgoogle@reddit
Didn’t Aristotle say something like, “the mark of an intelligent mind is understanding other views without subscribing to them?”
nikolai2960@reddit
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Nova-XVIII@reddit
The mark of an intelligent person is realizing that reality is an illusion, nothing really matters everyone will die and life has no purpose. Quit being an asshole and try to enjoy your limited time existing.
Hrothgar_Cyning@reddit
r/im14andthisisdeep
zhire653@reddit
Could not have chosen a worse topic to argue about
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
Unavoidable sometimes. Especially in 2016 or during an election cycle. And now a days everything is political. Even being neutral.
“Anon have you heard what happen, what do you think ?!?!”
“Idk, I have to look into it”
“So what you’re saying is you support…”
CompletelyProtocol@reddit
I hate that. My dad does that to me.
"You haven't heard of [mildly to extremely vague topic or source material relating to my field of study]?"
"No"
"Well obviously you know nothing about [field of study]"
If someone tells me I support something or am unable to speak about a topic because I don't know everything about it I legit want to punch them in the face
Box-ception@reddit
Have you tried telling them you're taking the diametrically opposite stance to them on the topic, for no other reason than the fact that they annoyed you? It's pretty fun.
DrBreakfast79@reddit
Literally how Trump got elected
No_Region_8746@reddit
This is bullshit. 1 in 10 people I think have below 90 iq. I have never in my life met a person that cant understand such simple things. You have to actually be retarded for that
Velifax@reddit
This indicates you haven't been on the internet long. Try using analogies on reddit.
MightyMemeKing1337@reddit
Psych student here
I can confirm it’s bullshit.
The sub-90 thing isn’t very far removed from Theory of Mind, something all human children learn by the age of 4. Theory of Mind suggests that we as humans are able to understand that others can think, feel, and act differently from us. This is why children at the age of 3 think that the world revolves around them (IE if they like carrots, they will think everyone likes carrots and be physically unable to comprehend that people they know may not like carrots), but children 4 and above do not. If something like 30% of the population lacked an ability not very far removed from something all humans develop by age 4, we wouldn’t need some psych student to tell us as we’d probably already know. The way OP describes sub 90s and 80s is like he’s describing wild animals. Roughly 30% of the population is sub-90, and 10% of the population is sub-83. A 1/3 or 1/10 individual chance of every child born being basically an animal is far too high a chance to be ignored or go unnoticed by society for millennia.
EidolonMan@reddit
I recall JBP mentioning that IQ 84 is “about one in ten”. I bet it’s nearer one in 11.
gir489@reddit
It’s funny, because this was originally about blacks, but some ledditor took the story and removed the hecking racismsarinos so that it wouldn’t be a thought crime to speak about the actual factual IQ difference between blacks and whites.
Exciting_Estate_8856@reddit
Jesus christ people socioeconomic factors influence iq HEAVILY, dont discriminate against already marginalized groups, its not productive
nobody_nearby08@reddit
Anon discovers that IQ tests are a measure of logical reasoning and not actual intelligence. Any freshman psychology student could've told you that
treeskers@reddit
what IS actual intelligence then? is logical reasoning not a major factor?
DualSoul1423@reddit
I would consider intelligence to be a combination of IQ and knowledge. If you have a lot of brainpower but waste it on nothing, then you're still an idiot.
theneoroot@reddit
You're conflating intelligence and wisdom. Intelligence is about the potential to learn and to handle abstraction. Wisdom is about accumulated knowledge. That's how a 12 year old can be as intelligent as Einstein, but you won't find a kid as wise as Socrates.
Longjumping_Ad_6484@reddit
Intelligence is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is understanding that you don't put tomato in a fruit salad.
Cael_of_House_Howell@reddit
Intelligence is actually knowing a tomato is both a fruit and a vegetable. Fruit is a biological/botanical term, vegetable is a culinary term.
allouette16@reddit
Where can I read about it
Xilizhra@reddit
Assuming this is true, it's just one more way the carceral state is a complete and utter failure. Prison sentences seem functionally useless as a rehabilitative measure for those who have to be trained how to think.
Outlaw_1123@reddit
You cannot train someone to have a higher IQ. They should just be punished for their crimes.
CatastrophicMango@reddit
ghetto
NEVERVAXXING@reddit
I read this and then looked at an IQ map of the world
Rias_Lucifer@reddit
That was interesting, I hope it's true
Loaaf@reddit
I hope it isn’t. Average iq is about 100 so it is terrifying to me that a large portion of the population are literally too stupid to have empathy.
FunKick9595@reddit
The average IQ of certain groups, one on particular, is significantly below 100.
Unfortunately their behavior seems to validate Anon's observations about empathy.
pope_blankjizz@reddit
The average IQ is exactly 100 by definition of the scale.
nutritionacc@reddit
Only on the sample it was calibrated with. In reality, most western countries are believed to have average IQs slightly below 100 based on random sampling of these populations.
Heart_Is_Valuable@reddit
I'm skeptical of the information on the first 3 pages.
But I'd like to point something out.
Anon is explaining sociopathy as low IQ on page 4.
That's not how I understand it. I'm under the impression that sociopathy has to do with emotions not IQ.
The point where IQ and sociopathy cross though is... Well... In sociopaths.
When you're a high IQ pyscho/sociopath, you are good at predicting people with your brain and thinking, even if you don't have an emotions like normal people do.
When you're a low IQ sociopath, you don't have the ability to calculate x moves ahead, and do you commit obvious crimes, get caught, and end up in prison.
Prison selects for low IQ and criminality (sociopathy here).
Low IQ doesn't HAVE TO cause sociopathy. Under this model they can be separate traits.
DevilMaster666-@reddit
I wonder how true this is, as 4Chan isn’t really the most reliable source.
Neilol89@reddit
I'm looking for a video or interview with people illustrating this. Can't find one anywhere.
py234567@reddit
That sounds right but are there any real verification or studies for this?
Tomsider@reddit
Do you have a source on that?
Source?
A source. I need a source.
Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.
No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.
You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.
Do you have a degree in that field?
A college degree? In that field?
Then your arguments are invalid.
No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.
Correlation does not equal causation.
CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.
You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.
Nope, still haven't.
I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a glormpf supporter. A moron.
GuessImScrewed@reddit
"Correlation is not causation" is so weak. What a fail, meager little firecracker. Are you finished? I will show you how it is done: ALL CORRELATION IS COINCIDENCE. see the difference? Isn't this more exciting? Your statement is a baby's whimper. A cry for attention. Mine is a nuke.
Fluffynator69@reddit
Someone's very upset about having been told this lol
GuessImScrewed@reddit
⠀⠀⠘⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠑⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡔⠁⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠢⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⠴⠊⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⡀⠤⠄⠒⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣀⠄⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡠⠔⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒⠢⠤⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠑⢄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠃⠀⢠⠂⠀⠀⠘⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢤⡀⢂⠀⢨⠀⢀⡠⠈⢣⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⢀⡖⠒⠶⠤⠭⢽⣟⣗⠲⠖⠺⣖⣴⣆⡤⠤⠤⠼⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡈⠃⠀⠀⠀⠘⣺⡟⢻⠻⡆⠀⡏⠀⡸⣿⢿⢞⠄⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢣⡀⠤⡀⡀⡔⠉⣏⡿⠛⠓⠊⠁⠀⢎⠛⡗⡗⢳⡏⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢱⠀⠨⡇⠃⠀⢻⠁⡔⢡⠒⢀⠀⠀⡅⢹⣿⢨⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠠⢼⠀⠀⡎⡜⠒⢀⠭⡖⡤⢭⣱⢸⢙⠆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡸⠀⠀⠸⢁⡀⠿⠈⠂⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⡍⡏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⢢⣫⢀⠘⣿⣿⡿⠏⣼⡏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣠⠊⠀⣀⠎⠁⠀⠀⠀⠙⠳⢴⡦⡴⢶⣞⣁⣀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠐⠒⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠀⢀⠤⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀
Fluffynator69@reddit
Lmao
Thanks for proving my point
GuessImScrewed@reddit
This is a two year old post you weirdo, get a job
Fluffynator69@reddit
When the link 🤯😳
GuessImScrewed@reddit
I think you may be retarded
Fluffynator69@reddit
Which one is it? Should I know every copypasta or touch grass, we can't have both lmao
GuessImScrewed@reddit
You engaged in the comments of a 2 year old greentext post, before you try doing either of those try raising your IQ
Fluffynator69@reddit
"You are dum for replying to an old post"
Yes. I'm the dumb one. 🤣
GuessImScrewed@reddit
Alright, glad we agree. Run along now.
Fluffynator69@reddit
That you're the dumb one? Okay. 👍
GuessImScrewed@reddit
Sure, we agree on that front, if your name is "you're."
Bye bye now.
Gum-on-post@reddit
Copypasta aside, it's interesting how people have come to use "correlation does not equal causation" to totally dismiss findings. There seems to be a lack of understanding that while A might not be a direct cause of B, it may indicate what the cause(s) actually is/are.
Fluffynator69@reddit
Is it? Because when it's used it's in response to "well A happened and then B happened (in one case)"
Martinus_XIV@reddit
I highly doubt this. For one, most sources I've found name an IQ of 70 or below as the threshold for mental disability, but more importantly, IQ tests are fluid. They are constantly adjusted so that 100 is the average, and as a general trend, tests are adjusted upwards. For instance, British children's average scores on the Raven's Progressive Matrices test rose by 14 IQ points from 1942 to 2008. This means that people who would score 85-90 on modern IQ-tests might have scored 100-105 some 70 years ago. Obviously the average person in the past wasn't mentally disabled. I also doubt the link between IQ and empathy. Empathy is an incredibly useful tool for survival for any social animal and has been observed in many animals that, while smart, are significantly dumber on average than humans.
This post makes some really interesting points about mental disability and the prison system, but the way it talks about IQ, especially how it treats IQ as an absolute, is highly questionable.
eljay87skt@reddit
Must be nice to be have a sub 90 IQ and not have to worry about social anxiety or being embarrassed.
XOKingOfTheFallXO@reddit
86-94 is Sub 90 Dumbass Edit: Imagine being such a pussy for updoots that you edit the part where you act stupid.
Guiderlippi@reddit
Lol 94>90, seems like you are the sub 90 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
XOKingOfTheFallXO@reddit
Bee Movie Hentai
DevilMaster666-@reddit
🗿
pragmatismtoday@reddit
I don't believe the green text. First, one of the first things taught in psych 101 is that IQ tests are basically useless as tests of intelligence. Second, an IQ of 90 is barely below average and within the standard deviation of average.
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
Everyone in retail has met people like this
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
Yes… sadly yes… Many many times.
Thehealeroftri@reddit
"Hello, do you have X in stock?"
"No, sorry about that. We're out of X"
"But (other store) has X"
As soon as the third line was uttered I knew it would be an extremely frustrating interaction. Even more frustrating was when I went from retail to customer service. I worked for Netflix and trying to explain this type of shit to morons was literally how 75% of my time was spent. e.g. "My friends netflix is working, why is mine not?" and I'd have to explain that his internet is down and his friends is not ergo that is why his friends netflix is working but not his. They never understood and would end up just getting angry.
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
Oh god. It’s horrifying.
I’m glad I don’t do retail anymore.
Mr_Abe_Froman@reddit
You really learn the limits of your own patience. I had a manager explain why a customer's iced drink melted in the refrigerator.
Honest_Entertainer_3@reddit
I relate to this on a spiritual level and I hate it I hate how much I relate to it
Honest_Entertainer_3@reddit
Pomp p
Link_and_Swamp@reddit
my least favorite was when people would complain we didnt have an item in stock that was on the advetisment.
“this item is on sale, why would your company put it on the ad for sale if you guys have nothing”
“well we likely ran out since it was on sale”
“yea but why put it in the ad then if you dont have the item”
“theres other stores with the same ad, actually all the stores, across multiple states, we dont have the item but they might”
rubenthecuban3@reddit
I do understand this sentiment because sometimes I feel stores advertise a blockbuster item but k my have two in stock, hoping that once the customer is there, they buy other things
haley____@reddit
There's a line to be drawn. It's illegal in some places to advertise a sale if you don't have "reasonably sufficient stock" because some stores will do what you just described.
CryptoNoobNinja@reddit
My old roommate was like this. He hated Pulp Fiction because he couldn’t figure out why dead people were coming back to life. I tried explaining that it wasn’t in chronological order and he made fun of me for using big words.
sk169@reddit
it's not a crime to take advantage of morons like these. like collect rent twice in the same month maybe? lol
halosos@reddit
It wouldn't work, if it is anything like how my granddad acts.
If he experienced it, then you can't confuse him.
If he hasn't experienced it, it's all rubbish.
Had a fun situation with his TV. He was convinced he was going deaf, despite the fact that I was also struggling to hear the TV. I said it was cause the TV is like 15 years old. "No no it's my ears." So he buys like a £250 special audio bar with AI tech to boost voice. Which of course didn't work as it needed the optical audio port which his ancient 'flat screen' didn't have.
I helped him get a refund and after much badgering he relented and bought the TV I suggested.
"Oh the sound is so much better! And i didn't know you could get pictures this clearly!". That fucking "You don't say" Nicholas Cage face doesn't even begin to describe my feelings.
motoxim@reddit
Why did he buy £250 special audio bar instead of another TV around the same price which would blow the old TV?
halosos@reddit
Because grandparents
jusumonkey@reddit
Wow... I feel I understand Republicans better now.
Oh_its_that_asshole@reddit
I know someone who thought the Brass Eye paedophile special episode was entirely real, thought that it was devious that a paedophile was disguising himself as a school, and couldn't see what the fuck the rest of us were finding so funny about this special news report.
The Brass Eye episode in question
EidolonMan@reddit
No way…seriously? Jeeezo.
Oh_its_that_asshole@reddit
They were not a smart person.
EidolonMan@reddit
You don’t say.😀 am just astonished at that.
EidolonMan@reddit
Much of customer service deals with sub 90 I swear.
Ehsan666x@reddit
Just like HasanAbi in debate with Destiny over a hypothetical cop situation in camalla Harris. Search it on youtube
Enkaybee@reddit
Now hold on a second. I was told by leftists on the internet in no uncertain terms that IQ and intelligence measurement as a whole is nothing more than pseudoscience. Who am I to believe - the guys on 4chan or the guys on Twitter?
RedditModsAreShit@reddit
it is pseudoscience but even pseudoscience is loosely based on fact and at times hard to disprove. The problem with pseudoscience is that it intentionally bypasses the scientific method and uses confirmation bias to assert itself.
The point of pseudoscience isn't that it's inherently wrong, it's that the points it presents are largely unfalsifiable.
IQ test are a perfect example of pseudoscience because you give someone a pattern recognition test when they can hardly fucking read, of course they're going to do poorly on it. But you can't prove that a high IQ, someone who can recognize patterns, isn't functionally retarded when it comes to something beyond seeing whether the triangle or the square will be shaded in next.
notmydoormat@reddit
all you've proven is IQ tests don't work if you don't know the language of the test, which is true of all tests lol. A great driver from the US might fail a UK driving test because they're not familiar with the rules, that doesn't mean UK driving tests don't measure driving skill. You're using exceptions to disprove the rule.
notmydoormat@reddit
if you believe either just log off
SuraMjolkMorfar@reddit
¹¹