Page 6 of 10
Re: T.B.D.
Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2018 5:41 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:54 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 22, 2018 6:51 pmActually the discoveries are verified by those of a greater intelligence in science.
Well like I said, you haven't shown how that's actually the case. If we specifically define 'being more intelligence' as being able to point out the flaw in another's hypothesis, then sure. However, then you're just re-defining everything to suit your point so that you have one; It still doesn't have any genuine relation to those that made the IQ test.
Shown what exactly? the nature of all proof, that while objective, exists if and only if there is a symmetry between the proof itself and the subjective state of the observer.
Having a community of scientists determine the nature of relativity or put to question newton's laws does not require a series of either intelligent men equal to or greater than the founders of these specific empirical truths?
There is no act of me "redefining anything" as the nature of intelligence is premised in the observation of definition itself. Intelligence observes the boundaries which seperate or connect certain abstract or empirical truths...intelligence is the observation of definition as a form of defintion itself. You say I am redefining everything to suit my point, but that really is the nature of truth isn't it...we believe it is true because of the depth of complexity or definition which gives structure to that "truth".
What exactly are you defining which is not subjective?
Any idiot can potentially point out the flaws in something, though. It doesn't necessarily take someone who's more intelligent to be able to do that. The other day, I was having this sort of computer wizard helping me with my computer, and I pointed out that his mouse wasn't working because he didn't put the USB connector in. Does this simple mistake dilute the quality of his information over mine? Absolutely not, I don't know nearly that much about computers.
But you claimed earlier that genius is not necessary to make the discovery of truth statements....so an "idiot" can determine the nature of the test by sheer "discovery" alone.
However the correlation you make is false considering the test is not a scientific discovery but rather a system of testing.
I've been over this with you. I realize it's not a par-to-par comparison, but I believe the principle is the same; Something true doesn't have to be revealed by the most intelligent person in the respective field.
It is not a par to par comparison and "I believe the principle is the same" is not an argument...we are not arguing religious dogma here.
In regards to truth see the above statement...one does not need an IQ of "x" in order to argue the above points.
Those who make the test effectively have to take the test as a proof of their own intelligence in determining intelligence.
That's just you asserting what has to be the case, without showing it in anyway.
Actually no...if the person forms the standards they are subject to those very same standards they formed as those standards, determined by specifically chosen axioms, are extensions of the test takes themselves.
And what would show it?
The student's are only as good as the teachers.
This is something which clearly has counter-examples; Besides the one I've already given which you seem to think is insufficient, something like a basketball coach has never played a game of professional basketball in his life. Acting tutors don't actually know how to act well, either, they just know how to make someone convey emotions in their performance.
It is certainly not unheard of for students to surpass their teachers.
Actually a basketball player does not have to play basketball in order to teach basketball...this point is irrelevant.
The teacher acts as a median of information...the teacher's inability to mediate information is fundamentally a fault of the teacher that transfers to the student if the student is dependent upon the teacher alone. Those student's who study on their own time, teach themselves, observe the environment around them, while listening to the teacher of course will surpass the teacher...but a student such as this has to do such things as the teacher already failed in providing both questions and answers.
Circularity is self-referentiality....a person making a test about intelligence must be intelligent and this intelligence must be observed through the test.
Well you suggested that they should have had the
highest IQ themselves, not just be intelligent to some degree.
If the test maker has IQ x. The test taker has IQ y. X is Less than Y and the person who has IQ Y has criticisms of the test....should the test be modified, through force of intelligence alone, by the person with IQ Y? Or should the person with IQ x maintain the nature of the test.
We are left with a continually spiraling nature of the person with the highest IQ determining the nature of the test with each proceeding person with a higher IQ forming the test according to their wills.
However if the person without the high IQ is the one determining the test than intelligence is measured by those who are less intelligent.
Re: T.B.D.
Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2018 5:47 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:06 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:18 pmYou do understand I can just take the test over and over again until I get a score I want
...right? If it is 140 or 160 or 180, all I have to do is take the test memorize the answers and click them in until I get 180....I know because I did it before and got a 181.
You do understand, I can just cheat...
right? If I do well you will say cheater....If I do poorly you will say liar.
Why do you say that as though you're asking us if we know this, then assert that we
do know this, and say we would have just accused you of 'cheating'?
You could have gotten a snipped image from the reddit subforum as well. This is why I said it was evidence, and not 'proof.' I realize this sounded like a good excuse in your head, but in reality, it's just really dumb; It's transparent you're someone who is trying to damage control a response, but unfortunately, what you actually end up suggesting,
is that you had nothing to lose. Because you could have taken the test and be called a
liar, or not take it and also be called a
liar, for continuing to live in the delusion of your beyond genius-level IQ. The only thing you did, was pull the only thing that would have put some of this doubt to rest - into jeopardy, for everyone looking in. Now, I actually don't even need you to take the test anymore - because here is the real kicker:
The Standford-Binet IQ test does not go up to 180
https://www.quora.com/What-was-Bobby-Fischers-IQ
https://stanfordbinettest.com/all-about ... ence-scale
https://stanfordbinettest.com/all-about ... st-measure
In fact, most adult IQ tests do not go up that high, in general. Pretty much the only way you can be assigned an IQ that high, is taking a test made for kids, or being estimated to have one that high. Clearly, neither one of those things is the case according to what you have told us, here, so I can confidently conclude that you, sir, are a lying sack of poop. The obvious web of lies you've been maintaining on this forum around your self-infatuated intelligence, has wrapped itself around your neck.
And you do understand I am arguing the test is cultural engineering and according to some developed by Nazis...what are you are racist Nazi supporter?
You do understand the more you push this subject the stupider you look?
Oh yes, in a tangent of desperation, invoke godwin's law in the most ludicrous way imaginable, even make up an argument that you absolutely have not been using anywhere in this discussion, if you have to. You sure are perceptive, and know how people on the internet are going to respond to things.
https://realdoctorstu.com/2011/07/11/th ... t-are-you/
Re: T.B.D.
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 1:42 am
by Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Unfortunately, none of those links include information disputing the fact that you're a flaming fucking liar who's tied his own balls into a knot.
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:06 pmPretty much the only way you can be assigned an IQ that high (181),
is taking a test made for kids, or
being estimated to have one that high.
I especially got a kick out of the 'quora answer,' by the way. I could practically smell the desperation; I imagine a couple of wart-covered hands - hands that you begrudge women for never letting you touch them with - scurrying across a page to open a new tab, to google search for
anything that could be found which helps your case.
I guess it's fortunate for you that 'yahoo answers' stopped appearing in search engines, a few years back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2j9kktDTHI
"well I don't like the test so I'm not taking the test"
*Explains why you need to take the test* "this wasn't even the test I took, the test I took was Standford-binet"
*Shows standford-binet* "Oh well, I could just cheat so it's unreliable, so I might as well not even take it"
"You guys would make fun of me either way"
"I'm not taking the test because it's cultural engineering made by Nazi"
You have constantly moved the goalpost throughout this discussion, you know. Well, you didn't need to shit out a bunch of different excuses about why you won't take the test. All you had to do, was not brag about your made-up IQ in a way that implicates it into the discussion, in the first place. But you did exactly that, and you played even further into my hands when you actually gave me a number. You could have also taken the confident-defensive angle afterwards, and say that you owe me 'fuck-all,' when I asked you to provide evidence by taking the test. Vegetariantaxidermy is a user who is pretty good at playing this angle, like her or hate her. I'm not sure you would be able to pull that off, because you tend to get very defensive of things in a way that clearly shows you're genuinely offended, which just makes you look weak, rather than confident.
I think you might be thinking about trying to play such an angle, now - like you did
in this thread when you stopped giving me serious replies, and instead asked 'if I want a cookie and some hello kitty stickers,' as if you were guy with down's syndrome coming up to me in a walmart - since I'm insistent on not dropping this case of having caught you in an obvious lie. However, the thing is, you can't go with the 'I don't give a fuck' angle halfway through the argument; That just makes you look insecure. In order for it to be effective, the angle has to played,
before you start sweating through your keyboard.
Re: T.B.D.
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 3:14 pm
by Lacewing
commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:29 pm
I don’t know about you, but I have seen some shitty posts deposited around the Forum. Complete garbage, gobbledygook and downright insanity
There are some posters who go in the same small circles over and over to feed themselves, and it seems like a very low form of energy that not only clogs up the channels for a greater flow of energy, but it drags everything down to its dense, self-serving level.
As a result, it appears at times that the forum becomes less of a door of exploration -- and more of a window looking onto the madness of some who are spun-up in their repetitive intoxication and who need/seek to spin-up everything else to support that.
Re: T.B.D.
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:10 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 1:42 am
Unfortunately, none of those links include information disputing the fact that you're a flaming fucking liar who's tied his own balls into a knot.
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:06 pmPretty much the only way you can be assigned an IQ that high (181),
is taking a test made for kids, or
being estimated to have one that high.
I especially got a kick out of the 'quora answer,' by the way. I could practically smell the desperation; I imagine a couple of wart-covered hands - hands that you begrudge women for never letting you touch them with - scurrying across a page to open a new tab, to google search for
anything that could be found which helps your case.
I guess it's fortunate for you that 'yahoo answers' stopped appearing in search engines, a few years back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2j9kktDTHI
"well I don't like the test so I'm not taking the test"
*Explains why you need to take the test* "this wasn't even the test I took, the test I took was Standford-binet"
*Shows standford-binet* "Oh well, I could just cheat so it's unreliable, so I might as well not even take it"
"You guys would make fun of me either way"
"I'm not taking the test because it's cultural engineering made by Nazi"
You have constantly moved the goalpost throughout this discussion, you know. Well, you didn't need to shit out a bunch of different excuses about why you won't take the test. All you had to do, was not brag about your made-up IQ in a way that implicates it into the discussion, in the first place. But you did exactly that, and you played even further into my hands when you actually gave me a number. You could have also taken the confident-defensive angle afterwards, and say that you owe me 'fuck-all,' when I asked you to provide evidence by taking the test. Vegetariantaxidermy is a user who is pretty good at playing this angle, like her or hate her. I'm not sure you would be able to pull that off, because you tend to get very defensive of things in a way that clearly shows you're genuinely offended, which just makes you look weak, rather than confident.
I think you might be thinking about trying to play such an angle, now - like you did
in this thread when you stopped giving me serious replies, and instead asked 'if I want a cookie and some hello kitty stickers,' as if you were guy with down's syndrome coming up to me in a walmart - since I'm insistent on not dropping this case of having caught you in an obvious lie. However, the thing is, you can't go with the 'I don't give a fuck' angle halfway through the argument; That just makes you look insecure. In order for it to be effective, the angle has to played,
before you start sweating through your keyboard.
I could respond to each and every point...and may eventually...but it may be more effective to provide a question for you to answer: What exactly is it that you want out of all of this?
Re: T.B.D.
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:11 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 3:14 pm
commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:29 pm
I don’t know about you, but I have seen some shitty posts deposited around the Forum. Complete garbage, gobbledygook and downright insanity
There are some posters who go in the same small circles over and over to feed themselves, and it seems like a very low form of energy that not only clogs up the channels for a greater flow of energy, but it drags everything down to its dense, self-serving level.
As a result, it appears at times that the forum becomes less of a door of exploration -- and more of a window looking onto the madness of some who are spun-up in their repetitive intoxication and who need/seek to spin-up everything else to support that.
Don't be so judgemental...if you accept the universe for what it is then you must accept the views of other's as extensions of that very same universe. If you do not accept the universe at it is...then don't preach about going with the flow of the universe.
Re: T.B.D.
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:25 pm
by Lacewing
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:11 pm
Don't be so judgemental...if you accept the universe for what it is then you must accept the views of other's as extensions of that very same universe. If you do not accept the universe at it is...then don't preach about going with the flow of the universe.
What is judgmental about acknowledging patterns?
Why do you equate "going with the flow" and "accepting the universe" with having no discernment?
Why do you always seem under the impression that your view is worth imposing over another's, when it is clear that your views are fucked up, toxic crap? Am I being judgmental or observant?
Seriously, you've proven yourself to be a psychotic ass... so fuck off.
Re: T.B.D.
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:32 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:25 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:11 pm
Don't be so judgemental...if you accept the universe for what it is then you must accept the views of other's as extensions of that very same universe. If you do not accept the universe at it is...then don't preach about going with the flow of the universe.
What is judgmental about acknowledging patterns?
Why do you equate "going with the flow" and "accepting the universe" with having no discernment?
Why do you always seem under the impression that your view is worth imposing over another's, when it is clear that your views are fucked up, toxic crap? Am I being judgmental or observant?
Seriously, you've proven yourself to be an ass... so fuck off.
What an angry person.
Re: T.B.D.
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:35 pm
by Lacewing
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:32 pm
What an angry person.
What a stupid person.
You have no clue about me at all. I am laughing while I write... because your ego and nonsense are laughable... and you deserve every bit of this feedback you get.
Re: T.B.D.
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:36 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:35 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:32 pm
What an angry person.
What a stupid person.
You have no clue about me at all. I am laughing while I write... because your ego and nonsense are laughable... and you deserve every bit of this feedback you get.
I am glad I can make you laugh...you know they say the easiest way to get inside of a woman is to make her laugh.
Re: T.B.D.
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:41 pm
by Lacewing
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:36 pm
I am glad I can make you laugh...you know they say the easiest way to get inside of a woman is to make her laugh.
Not when she's laughing at you the way I'm laughing at you.
Re: T.B.D.
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:44 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:41 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:36 pm
I am glad I can make you laugh...you know they say the easiest way to get inside of a woman is to make her laugh.
Not when she's laughing at you the way I'm laughing at you.
Not when he is already fucking you the way I am fucking you.
Re: T.B.D.
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:53 pm
by Lacewing
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:44 pm
Not when he is already fucking you the way I am fucking you.
As usual, you're fucking yourself and imagining it to be someone else. Seriously, fuck off with that. You're too delusional.
Re: T.B.D.
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:54 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:53 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:44 pm
Not when he is already fucking you the way I am fucking you.
As usual, you're fucking yourself and imagining it to be someone else. Seriously, fuck off with that. You're too delusional.
Tell me how you really feel.
Re: T.B.D.
Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2018 1:11 am
by commonsense
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:11 pm
Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 3:14 pm
commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:29 pm
I don’t know about you, but I have seen some shitty posts deposited around the Forum. Complete garbage, gobbledygook and downright insanity
There are some posters who go in the same small circles over and over to feed themselves, and it seems like a very low form of energy that not only clogs up the channels for a greater flow of energy, but it drags everything down to its dense, self-serving level.
As a result, it appears at times that the forum becomes less of a door of exploration -- and more of a window looking onto the madness of some who are spun-up in their repetitive intoxication and who need/seek to spin-up everything else to support that.
Don't be so judgemental...if you accept the universe for what it is then you must accept the views of other's as extensions of that very same universe. If you do not accept the universe at it is...then don't preach about going with the flow of the universe.
For me, it's not so much what someone's view is, nor whether that view coincides with my own, but rather it is unsupported claims that annoy me. I can honestly say that I enjoy genuine conflict of ideas. But when a post employs a convoluted logic, or no logic at all, it gives me that fingernails-on-chalkboard feeling.