Topic: Why don't people learn the distinction between reason and emotion in schools?
Anonymous A started this discussion 3 weeks ago #137,247
I don't mean complicated logic, just what each means and how to distinguish them?
One mistake I've seen some make (niganon has made this same mistake 2-3 times on here) is thinking that "being emotional" means that you have emotions, as opposed to being an unfeeling robot. It's such an elementary thing to know, but many people don't get it. It makes me wonder if they even have a conception of internal feelings vs. outward expression.
Rationality can be complex, but it's not hard to understand whether someone can even furnish a reason for a belief, vs someone who just acts out an insults another when asked what their reason is. Getting into whether those reasons are sound or fallacious is a whole different matter, I'm strictly speaking about the ability of a person to know why having reasons matters.
One mistake I've seen some make (niganon has made this same mistake 2-3 times on here) is thinking that "being emotional" means that you have emotions, as opposed to being an unfeeling robot. It's such an elementary thing to know, but many people don't get it. It makes me wonder if they even have a conception of internal feelings vs. outward expression.
Rationality can be complex, but it's not hard to understand whether someone can even furnish a reason for a belief, vs someone who just acts out an insults another when asked what their reason is. Getting into whether those reasons are sound or fallacious is a whole different matter, I'm strictly speaking about the ability of a person to know why having reasons matters.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later[^] [v] #1,454,410
Cool story bro.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 19 seconds later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,411
Now that I think about it, maybe they do have an understanding of internal feelings and outward expression, but they can't conceieve of a person that can control their emotions, so they assume people that can do that are simply emotionless.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 32 seconds later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,412
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 22 seconds later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,413
I think your definition of "logic" is just whatever you think, and if anybody ever disagrees with you, then they’re being irrational.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,414
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 32 seconds later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,415
@1,454,413 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
No, I just explained my definition at the simplest level.
Being able to furnish a reason, rather than just getting mad and insulting people.
No, I just explained my definition at the simplest level.
Being able to furnish a reason, rather than just getting mad and insulting people.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 46 seconds later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,416
@previous (A)
Your theory is that people don’t understand emotion and reason but you’re the only one who understands how thinking works. Have you ever considered that if everyone in the world has a brain, if you can’t understand what’s going on in everybody else’s head, you might be the weirdo?
Your theory is that people don’t understand emotion and reason but you’re the only one who understands how thinking works. Have you ever considered that if everyone in the world has a brain, if you can’t understand what’s going on in everybody else’s head, you might be the weirdo?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 11 seconds later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,417
@1,454,413 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
It can go deeper than that, of course, some people will use fallacies, and other will avoid them.
But at the most surface level, rationality is being able to justify a belief.
It can go deeper than that, of course, some people will use fallacies, and other will avoid them.
But at the most surface level, rationality is being able to justify a belief.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 50 seconds later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,418
@1,454,416 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
No, that's a strawman, I never said I was the only one.
I've met many, many people who understand this. There are just many people who don't as well.
And it's not my definition, you can look these words up.
No, that's a strawman, I never said I was the only one.
I've met many, many people who understand this. There are just many people who don't as well.
And it's not my definition, you can look these words up.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 second later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,419
Like one time you told me I have no idea how human instincts work. But that’s a stupid thing to say, because I’m also a human and I have the same instincts as everybody else. I was just saying what I genuinely feel, which is different than what you felt.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 39 seconds later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,420
@1,454,418 (A)
I’m using words right now, if I don’t understand the meaning of words how am I talking to you right now? Have you ever considered that the problem might be you?
I’m using words right now, if I don’t understand the meaning of words how am I talking to you right now? Have you ever considered that the problem might be you?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,421
I can obviously think. If I couldn’t think, then how would I survive? If you think I don’t think, or I can’t use logic, that means you don’t understand me. That doesn’t mean there’s nothing going on inside my head, there’s obviously stuff happening inside my head. You just don’t understand it, that’s your own problem.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 14 seconds later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,422
@1,454,420 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
We're talking about the meanings of words like rationality and emotion.
I don't have personal definitions for them, just the standard dictionary definitions.
I explained the distinction and you still decided to say I just thought it meant whoever agreed or disagreed with me, which is clearly not what I just said.
I've met people who disagree, and still approach it rationally. I've met people I agree with but they can't approach it rationally and just take everything personally and are unable to ever explain their beliefs.
We're talking about the meanings of words like rationality and emotion.
I don't have personal definitions for them, just the standard dictionary definitions.
I explained the distinction and you still decided to say I just thought it meant whoever agreed or disagreed with me, which is clearly not what I just said.
I've met people who disagree, and still approach it rationally. I've met people I agree with but they can't approach it rationally and just take everything personally and are unable to ever explain their beliefs.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 47 seconds later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,424
@previous (A)
You take everything way too literally. Sometimes I genuinely wonder if you’re autistic.
You take everything way too literally. Sometimes I genuinely wonder if you’re autistic.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 8 seconds later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,425
@1,454,421 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I didn't say you couldn't think, that's the second strawman so far.
Why are you unable to respond to what I actually said, and keep pretending I said something else?
Emotional people think, but thinking isn't the same thing as approaching things rationally.
I didn't say you couldn't think, that's the second strawman so far.
Why are you unable to respond to what I actually said, and keep pretending I said something else?
Emotional people think, but thinking isn't the same thing as approaching things rationally.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 41 seconds later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,426
@1,454,424 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I have to speak with you literally, because you redefine words to avoid admitting your mistakes.
I have to speak with you literally, because you redefine words to avoid admitting your mistakes.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 20 seconds later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,427
@1,454,425 (A)
Well you have never explained a single thing I’ve done or said that’s irrational. It really seems like you’re just using this as an excuse to dismiss things I say that you don’t like.
Well you have never explained a single thing I’ve done or said that’s irrational. It really seems like you’re just using this as an excuse to dismiss things I say that you don’t like.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 34 seconds later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,428
@1,454,426 (A)
Isn’t it amazing how nobody else except for you has that problem when they speak with me?
Isn’t it amazing how nobody else except for you has that problem when they speak with me?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,429
Like take this thread for example. I haven’t said a single thing in this whole thread that isn’t rational and you’re over here yapping to yourself about how you think I can’t use logic. You look stupid.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,430
@1,454,427 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I already did, in the first post of this thread.
People who can't provide a reason are irrational. Claiming they have a secret reason they won't share doesn't count.
You do this all the time. You argue until you get to the critical mistake underlying the rest, and you immediately resort to insults, or games, or anything else to avoid giving a simple answer.
How many times do I need to say it? First you say it's about agreeing/disagreeing with me, and no, that's not at all what I said. And second you say I didn't provide an explanation, when I did in ny first comment. If you usnerstand how to read, why do you keep acting like you can't?
I already did, in the first post of this thread.
People who can't provide a reason are irrational. Claiming they have a secret reason they won't share doesn't count.
You do this all the time. You argue until you get to the critical mistake underlying the rest, and you immediately resort to insults, or games, or anything else to avoid giving a simple answer.
How many times do I need to say it? First you say it's about agreeing/disagreeing with me, and no, that's not at all what I said. And second you say I didn't provide an explanation, when I did in ny first comment. If you usnerstand how to read, why do you keep acting like you can't?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,432
@1,454,428 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Many people don't want to bother. Most rational people I know just don't see the point, but I like the exercise.
@1,454,429 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I'm obviously talking about how you act in other threads. I've already said that.
Many people don't want to bother. Most rational people I know just don't see the point, but I like the exercise.
@1,454,429 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I'm obviously talking about how you act in other threads. I've already said that.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 38 seconds later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,433
@1,454,430 (A)
So why do you care exactly? If you’re a racist and you think I’m incapable of logic because there’s melanin in my brain (you sound retarded by the way), why are you even arguing with me?
So why do you care exactly? If you’re a racist and you think I’m incapable of logic because there’s melanin in my brain (you sound retarded by the way), why are you even arguing with me?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 38 seconds later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,434
@1,454,432 (A)
Well if I’m not rational, then what are you going to do about it? Like, okay, if I accept what you’re saying that I’m not rational then like, fuck you, I guess? Idk.
Well if I’m not rational, then what are you going to do about it? Like, okay, if I accept what you’re saying that I’m not rational then like, fuck you, I guess? Idk.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 22 seconds later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,435
This is the most autistic shit ever btw.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,436
@1,454,433 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
@1,454,434 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
To start a discussion, with whoever, about why such a simple distinction isn't taught or widely known.
It's not my idea, this dictinction predates me. There's a clear importance for rationality over emotion.
@1,454,434 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
To start a discussion, with whoever, about why such a simple distinction isn't taught or widely known.
It's not my idea, this dictinction predates me. There's a clear importance for rationality over emotion.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 second later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,437
Like hypothetically, let’s say you’re right and I admit that I am in fact irrational. Now what. What do you gain exactly? You’re still poor, your life is still trash. The fact you even care is irrational.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 53 seconds later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,438
@1,454,436 (A)
Is the fact that I’m not rational hurting you in some way? Are you going to make more money if I stop being irrational? Is that what this is about? Because I don’t really like you so if me being irrational makes your life worse, then I’ll be even more irrational just to spite you.
Is the fact that I’m not rational hurting you in some way? Are you going to make more money if I stop being irrational? Is that what this is about? Because I don’t really like you so if me being irrational makes your life worse, then I’ll be even more irrational just to spite you.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 25 seconds later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,439
@1,454,435 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
This is a thought-terminating cliche.
The meanings of words matters, and forming beliefs for good reasons matters.
It's not "autistic" to care about truth or communication, that's just a refrain from people that use unseriousness as a defense whenever their mistakes are pointed out.
This is a thought-terminating cliche.
The meanings of words matters, and forming beliefs for good reasons matters.
It's not "autistic" to care about truth or communication, that's just a refrain from people that use unseriousness as a defense whenever their mistakes are pointed out.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,440
@previous (A)
Well yeah, you are sort of going on an autistic rant about nothing that nobody cares about and doesn’t advantage you in any way. So yeah, maybe we should terminate this thought process in your brain because it’s not doing you any good.
Well yeah, you are sort of going on an autistic rant about nothing that nobody cares about and doesn’t advantage you in any way. So yeah, maybe we should terminate this thought process in your brain because it’s not doing you any good.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 44 seconds later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,441
@1,454,437 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
@1,454,438 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
It matters if people in society are rational. Not any one particular person specifically, but we are all affected by it.
The people that say it doesn't matter often become leftists and keep repeating failed policies. The people that know it matters are able to make decisions that lead to better outcomes.
The wealth and security of a society depend on it.
@1,454,438 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
It matters if people in society are rational. Not any one particular person specifically, but we are all affected by it.
The people that say it doesn't matter often become leftists and keep repeating failed policies. The people that know it matters are able to make decisions that lead to better outcomes.
The wealth and security of a society depend on it.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 50 seconds later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,442
@previous (A)
Why are you bringing up politics? I didn’t say a damn thing about politics. Being left or right wing has nothing to do with rationality, that’s just showing your political bias for no reason.
Why are you bringing up politics? I didn’t say a damn thing about politics. Being left or right wing has nothing to do with rationality, that’s just showing your political bias for no reason.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 24 seconds later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,443
What kinda brain damage do you have?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 43 seconds later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,444
@1,454,440 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Every leftist uses autism as either a personality trait or insult, but autism doesn't mean that someone cares about societal issues.
You once said that college matters because of non-vocational learning for society, but now you are saying the exact opposite, that people shouldn't care about truth because it's not immediately advantageous? Do you not see the hypocricy?
Every leftist uses autism as either a personality trait or insult, but autism doesn't mean that someone cares about societal issues.
You once said that college matters because of non-vocational learning for society, but now you are saying the exact opposite, that people shouldn't care about truth because it's not immediately advantageous? Do you not see the hypocricy?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 37 seconds later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,445
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 17 seconds later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,446
What?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 8 seconds later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,447
@1,454,442 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
It's very related. Beliefs influence policy, and policy affects life.
Leftists dismiss rationality and discourse, and right-wingers emphasize it. Not universally, but that's the general divide.
It's very related. Beliefs influence policy, and policy affects life.
Leftists dismiss rationality and discourse, and right-wingers emphasize it. Not universally, but that's the general divide.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 27 seconds later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,448
@1,454,445 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I think you're left wing because you constantly parrot left wing talking points.
I think you're left wing because you constantly parrot left wing talking points.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 12 seconds later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,449
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,450
You know at the beginning I said that your view of what’s rational is just whatever you happen to agree with and you’re probably just calling me irrational because I said something you disagree with?
You just disagree with my politics so you want to rant that I’m irrational so you don’t have to think about anything that I said. That’s pretty sad, from an intellectual perspective, it’s pretty pathetic.
You just disagree with my politics so you want to rant that I’m irrational so you don’t have to think about anything that I said. That’s pretty sad, from an intellectual perspective, it’s pretty pathetic.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 6 seconds later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,451
@1,454,449 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
You don't believe in IQ remember? You said IQ wasn't real science many times.
You don't believe in IQ remember? You said IQ wasn't real science many times.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,452
That’s why you’re brining up politics, that’s the real issue you have, not anything about rationality. And I’m sorry you feel that way man, I really am. It’s so shameful that I disagree with you, on politics. That’s awful. Anyway, if you’re butthurt you can rub some of this anal cream on your asshole.Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 6 seconds later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,453
@1,454,450 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
No, I gave my dictinction for what's rational and emotional. It's very simple, you just keep ignoring it. You said I didn't explain it, after I already had.
I do notice that certain behaviors and values, like discourse and providing reasons, have political associations too.
I'll respect a left-winger who can calmly share their reasons over a right-winger who can't.
No, I gave my dictinction for what's rational and emotional. It's very simple, you just keep ignoring it. You said I didn't explain it, after I already had.
I do notice that certain behaviors and values, like discourse and providing reasons, have political associations too.
I'll respect a left-winger who can calmly share their reasons over a right-winger who can't.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 28 seconds later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,454
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 17 seconds later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,455
@1,454,452 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
You're doing your usual bit, you can't respond to the actual point so you distract with shock humor.
You're doing your usual bit, you can't respond to the actual point so you distract with shock humor.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 18 seconds later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,456
@1,454,453 (A)
Yeah you did, you think being right wing is rational and being left wing is irrational, which shows you’re an ideologue who doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
Yeah you did, you think being right wing is rational and being left wing is irrational, which shows you’re an ideologue who doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 19 seconds later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,457
@1,454,455 (A)
Actual point? you don’t even know what you’re yapping about.
Actual point? you don’t even know what you’re yapping about.
(Edited 5 seconds later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,458
I’m sure every woman who doesn’t want to sleep with you is irrational too. I have noooooooooo idea why they don’t like you, that’s crazy man, that’s really crazy…
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,459
Anyway, if you’re butthurt crying over me holding a different political view than you, wait until you find out there are whole countries that have different political views than you. You’re going to go insane!
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 8 seconds later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,460
@1,454,454 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
You did both.
Do you really need me to link the threads?
You did both.
Do you really need me to link the threads?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 47 seconds later, 37 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,462
@previous (A)
I really don’t give a shit at this point. Link to your favorite porn site for all I care.
I really don’t give a shit at this point. Link to your favorite porn site for all I care.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,463
@1,454,456 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> Yeah you did, you think being right wing is rational and being left wing is irrational
I said that right wingers tend to approach issues rationally, and left wingers openly dismiss things like discourse and providing reasons.
Usually it's the right winger saying let's discuss the issue calmly, and the left winger saying discussion doesn't matter and they don't have to give a reason.
> which shows you’re an ideologue who doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
I already said I'd respect a left winger who can use the rational approach more than a right-winger who can't, so how is that ideological?
> Yeah you did, you think being right wing is rational and being left wing is irrational
I said that right wingers tend to approach issues rationally, and left wingers openly dismiss things like discourse and providing reasons.
Usually it's the right winger saying let's discuss the issue calmly, and the left winger saying discussion doesn't matter and they don't have to give a reason.
> which shows you’re an ideologue who doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
I already said I'd respect a left winger who can use the rational approach more than a right-winger who can't, so how is that ideological?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,464
@1,454,457 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Rationality over emotionality is important. That's my point.
You have spent this whole thread acting like rationality is a synonym for being right, even though I gave a distinction that could be verified if you look up the words.
Rationality over emotionality is important. That's my point.
You have spent this whole thread acting like rationality is a synonym for being right, even though I gave a distinction that could be verified if you look up the words.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 42 seconds later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,465
@1,454,463 (A)
OH MY GOD 2 + 2 IS 4 BECAUSE IF YOU THINK IT’S 3 YOU’RE A FUCKING MORON! IF YOU THINK 2 + 2 IS 3 YOU’RE LITERALLY HITLER AND WE SHOULD KILL YOUR WHOLE FAMILY!!!
OH MY GOD 2 + 2 IS 4 BECAUSE IF YOU THINK IT’S 3 YOU’RE A FUCKING MORON! IF YOU THINK 2 + 2 IS 3 YOU’RE LITERALLY HITLER AND WE SHOULD KILL YOUR WHOLE FAMILY!!!
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 47 seconds later, 41 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,466
You see that how you say something has literally nothing to do with whether it’s true or false? It doesn’t matter how liberals or conservatives say something, how someone says something has nothing to do with whether it’s true or false.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 11 seconds later, 41 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,467
@1,454,462 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> I really don’t give a shit at this point.
In other words, it wasn't a strawman, you did dismiss IQ altogether.
You never could say why the study was flawed. Once you called the people who did the study racists, and when I pointed out it was conducted by thousands of people and asked how they could coordinate, you just avoided the question.
If IQ is real, which is how you are acting now, then why did the NLSY show a racial bias?
> I really don’t give a shit at this point.
In other words, it wasn't a strawman, you did dismiss IQ altogether.
You never could say why the study was flawed. Once you called the people who did the study racists, and when I pointed out it was conducted by thousands of people and asked how they could coordinate, you just avoided the question.
If IQ is real, which is how you are acting now, then why did the NLSY show a racial bias?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 19 seconds later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,468
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 24 seconds later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,469
For a guy yapping about logic and rationality all the time, you sure say a lot of illogical things.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 51 seconds later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,470
@1,454,466 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I didn't say it was "how" they said it, ai pointed out that one side is willing to discuss the issues and the other side always looks for an out.
If those ideas we sound, why is there a pattern of people on the left doing anything to stop the conversation?
I didn't say it was "how" they said it, ai pointed out that one side is willing to discuss the issues and the other side always looks for an out.
If those ideas we sound, why is there a pattern of people on the left doing anything to stop the conversation?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 20 seconds later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,471
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 17 seconds later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,472
@1,454,470 (A)
> I didn't say it was "how" they said it, ai pointed out that one side is willing to discuss the issues and the other side always looks for an out.
“It wasn’t how they said it, it was actually how they said it."
> I didn't say it was "how" they said it, ai pointed out that one side is willing to discuss the issues and the other side always looks for an out.
“It wasn’t how they said it, it was actually how they said it."
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 33 seconds later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,473
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 50 seconds later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,474
The most baffling thing about you is how you don’t see how retarded you are.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 48 seconds later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,475
@1,454,472 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Running away from a conversation isn't the same thing as tone.
Running away from a conversation isn't the same thing as tone.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 22 seconds later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,476
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,478
@1,454,473 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I said I could link to the thread proving you did dismiss it, and you immediately stopped pushing.
That's obviously because we both know what we'd find. You dismissed IQ in those threads abput the NLSY study.
I said I could link to the thread proving you did dismiss it, and you immediately stopped pushing.
That's obviously because we both know what we'd find. You dismissed IQ in those threads abput the NLSY study.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 55 seconds later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,479
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 seconds later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,480
@1,454,476 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Yes it does. If one side can explain their evidence, and one side does anything to sabotage conversation, it's obvious who's correct and who's bullshitting.
Yes it does. If one side can explain their evidence, and one side does anything to sabotage conversation, it's obvious who's correct and who's bullshitting.
(Edited 10 seconds later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,481
@previous (A)
No it doesn’t you fucking moron. It does not matter whether you can provide an explanation for something. Things are true or false regardless of what we say about them. It doesn’t matter if you can explain why atoms exist, it doesn’t make the statement that atoms exist false.
No it doesn’t you fucking moron. It does not matter whether you can provide an explanation for something. Things are true or false regardless of what we say about them. It doesn’t matter if you can explain why atoms exist, it doesn’t make the statement that atoms exist false.
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 51 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,482
@1,454,479 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)Here's you dismissing IQ because you say intelligence can't be measured.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 57 seconds later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,483
@previous (A)
That’s not what I said. You provided a screenshot of what I said. I didn’t dismiss IQ, I explained how the scale works.
That’s not what I said. You provided a screenshot of what I said. I didn’t dismiss IQ, I explained how the scale works.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 56 seconds later, 53 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,484
You are such an idiot. I literally explained why IQ was invented in that screenshot, I didn’t say IQ has no purpose.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 54 seconds later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,485
@1,454,481 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I'm not making a deductive claim that it must necessarily be the case.
It's common sense, anyone observing knows why there's a pattern where one side can take it seriously and one side always looks for an excuse. It's because one side came to their position from reasons, and one is motivated by something else (tribalism, emotionality, pride) and a discussion of the reasons involved would only make the rational side look good.
I'm not making a deductive claim that it must necessarily be the case.
It's common sense, anyone observing knows why there's a pattern where one side can take it seriously and one side always looks for an excuse. It's because one side came to their position from reasons, and one is motivated by something else (tribalism, emotionality, pride) and a discussion of the reasons involved would only make the rational side look good.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 8 seconds later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,486
You do this shit because you’re so arrogant you dismiss everything I say and you don’t fucking read what I actually write so you don’t even know what I think. Fuck you.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 55 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,489
What I said in that screenshot is true. What the fuck is wrong with what I said in the screenshot? Everything I said in that screenshot is true.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 51 seconds later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,491
@1,454,483 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
You said intelligence was immeasurable, and your explanation of the scale was because you were trying to say the scale wasn't normed correctly (which we've been over).
I think I've made my point clear, but maybe we can chat again some other time, bye!
You said intelligence was immeasurable, and your explanation of the scale was because you were trying to say the scale wasn't normed correctly (which we've been over).
I think I've made my point clear, but maybe we can chat again some other time, bye!
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 27 seconds later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,492
@1,454,489 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
You said intelligence is immeasurable, and IQ exists to measure intelligence.
I can't keep explaining the most basic things, goodbye
You said intelligence is immeasurable, and IQ exists to measure intelligence.
I can't keep explaining the most basic things, goodbye
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 14 seconds later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,493
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 16 seconds later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,494
Intelligence and IQ are not the same thing.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,495
My whole point is you were treating IQ scores like you can say somebody with a 50 IQ is half as smart as somebody with a 100 IQ, but that’s not how it works. IQ is simply a measure of what percentage of the population you scored better than. You can’t use it to say how many n times smarter one person is than another person. That’s true. I didn’t say anything false there.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,496
@1,454,494 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Right, IQ is the way you measure intelligence.
Holy fuck you are the stupidest person here. And we're full of trannies and people making fart jokes.
Right, IQ is the way you measure intelligence.
Holy fuck you are the stupidest person here. And we're full of trannies and people making fart jokes.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 31 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,497
If you don't believe intelligence can be measured you are dismissing measures of intelligence.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 12 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,499
@1,454,496 (A)
IQ isn’t a measure of intelligence, it’s a measure of what percentage of people you scored higher than on a test.
IQ isn’t a measure of intelligence, it’s a measure of what percentage of people you scored higher than on a test.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,505
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 18 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,506
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,508
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 26 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,515
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> If you call a sheep’s tail a leg does that make it one?
Ok, so you ARE dismissing it as a measure of intelligence.
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> If you call a sheep’s tail a leg does that make it one?
Ok, so you ARE dismissing it as a measure of intelligence.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,516
@previous (A)
Intelligence can’t be measured directly. I don’t know what’s so hard for you to understand here.
Intelligence can’t be measured directly. I don’t know what’s so hard for you to understand here.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,517
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
The part where you said you weren't dismissing IQ, followed by the part where you dismissed it.
That's what's hard to understand, the basic contradiction.
The part where you said you weren't dismissing IQ, followed by the part where you dismissed it.
That's what's hard to understand, the basic contradiction.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,519
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,520
I don’t see why you think there’s any contradiction, I’m just saying what IQ is. You don’t know what IQ is, that’s why this is confusing for you. IQ isn’t intelligence.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,521
It’s like, hours isn’t distance. That’s not dismissing hours. If you say someone lives an hour away from you, that has an actual meaning, that doesn’t mean hours is distance.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,522
Do hours have some relationship with distance? Yes. Does IQ have some relationship with intelligence? Yes. Is hours distance? No. You get what I’m getting at here? Your problem is you can only think in binary black and white you can’t see nuance and that makes it harder for you to understand me.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quintuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,523
IQ is a measurement of something, that something is how many people you scored higher than on some arbitrary set of questions on a test. Does that have something to do with intelligence? Sure. Hours isn’t distance though.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc sextuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,524
Now the thing is, you can translate time to distance if you have velocity. You just multiply your speed by how much time you were traveling at that speed. Five miles an hour for five hours is twenty five miles of distance. The problem is, what if your speed isn’t constant, what if you don’t know your speed? IQ is like that, it has a relationship with intelligence, but you don’t know how much intelligence is correlated with how many additional IQ points, because intelligence doesn’t have units. It’s a dimensionless metric, so there is no knowable correct way to convert IQ to a fixed amount of intelligence. That doesn’t even really make sense to propose as a thing that could be done in the first place.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,525
@1,454,519 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
You just said it didn't matter what it was called, implying that the "intelligence" in the name doesn't matter.
@1,454,520 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> IQ isn’t intelligence.
We just went over this, and I never said IQ was intelligence, I said it measures intelligence.
If you don't think it does, you're clearly dismissing it as a metric.
@1,454,521 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Then what is it measuring?
You just said it didn't matter what it was called, implying that the "intelligence" in the name doesn't matter.
@1,454,520 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> IQ isn’t intelligence.
We just went over this, and I never said IQ was intelligence, I said it measures intelligence.
If you don't think it does, you're clearly dismissing it as a metric.
@1,454,521 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Then what is it measuring?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,526
There’s also the issue of, intelligence is complex, you can be smart at different things. For example, you could think of intelligence as a vector instead of a scalar. There are probably millions of different things you could be intelligent at, but for simplicity, think of a 2 dimensional vector as a thought experiment. Say you have a score between 0 and 1 where 0 is you don’t know anything at all and 1 is infinite intelligence at some task. Say the two tasks are STEM and liberal arts, vaguely, STEM as x and liberal arts as y. So a vector would be <x, y>. Say Sam has intelligence <0.5, 0> and Bob has intelligence <0, 0.5>. Both vectors have the same magnitude of 0.5, except they don’t point in the same direction. Their intelligences have nothing in common but if you reduce it down to one number as IQ attempts to do, you are saying these two individuals have equal intelligence, but they actually don’t, because if you assign them the same task one will succeed and one will fail. So that’s what I think about IQ, it’s fundamentally inadequate but not useless.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 53 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,527
@1,454,525 (A)
I told you what it’s measuring. It’s measuring how well you did on a test compared to everybody else. It’s that simple. This isn’t complicated.
I told you what it’s measuring. It’s measuring how well you did on a test compared to everybody else. It’s that simple. This isn’t complicated.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,529
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
And then you avoided answering the question: a test of WHAT?
And then you avoided answering the question: a test of WHAT?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,531
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,532
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Do you know why Charles Spearman thought it was measuring intelligence?
Do you know why Charles Spearman thought it was measuring intelligence?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,533
Now imagine you had an IQ test with some set of questions. You can’t ask every possible question, so imagine 20% of the questions were on STEM and 80% were on liberal arts (hypothetically). Now Sam would score 0.2 * 0.5 and Bob would score 0.8 * 0.5. So Sam gets 0.1 and Bob gets 0.4. But they’re both equally intelligent, just at different things. This is where cultural bias comes in. What one society deems important may not be skills which are important in another society.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,534
@1,454,532 (A)
Is it because he noticed some students do worse in all subjects when compared with other students?
Is it because he noticed some students do worse in all subjects when compared with other students?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 43 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,535
All I’m saying is you don’t have to be very smart to see why thinking IQ is the end all and be all is really dumb.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,536
@1,454,533 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
That's not how IQ tests work, there are no knowledge questions at all.
@1,454,534 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Some did better at all subjects, even unrelated ones, and some did worse, yes.
A good IQ test has a high correlate with many unrelated intelligence tests.
To say it's just a test of whatever questions are on the test conpletely overlooks that it predicts your score on all those other tests.
Later on it was discovered that it also predicted many life outcomes like income, incarceration, marriage, and many other factors.
If it was just a test of those questions, it wouldn't do that. The fact that it works shows that it measures a general factor of intelligence underlying many different forms of intelligence.
That's not how IQ tests work, there are no knowledge questions at all.
@1,454,534 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Some did better at all subjects, even unrelated ones, and some did worse, yes.
A good IQ test has a high correlate with many unrelated intelligence tests.
To say it's just a test of whatever questions are on the test conpletely overlooks that it predicts your score on all those other tests.
Later on it was discovered that it also predicted many life outcomes like income, incarceration, marriage, and many other factors.
If it was just a test of those questions, it wouldn't do that. The fact that it works shows that it measures a general factor of intelligence underlying many different forms of intelligence.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,537
@1,454,535 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I never said it was the "end all be all" that's something you made up to save face and move goal posts.
I am saying there's a lot of evidence showing a general underlying factor for intelligence, and IQ tests do demonstrably prove that it can be measured.
I never said it was the "end all be all" that's something you made up to save face and move goal posts.
I am saying there's a lot of evidence showing a general underlying factor for intelligence, and IQ tests do demonstrably prove that it can be measured.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 59 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,538
I mean, heck when you buy a computer, you can’t reduce the processing power of a computer down to just one number, if you tried it would miss a lot of nuance. Like if you have a GPU that can do a trillions of operations per second, but you’re doing a task that requires doing a trillion steps in sequence one after the other, it’s actually going to be slow not fast.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 58 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,539
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,540
@1,454,537 (A)
Well you’re obsessed with it to the point where I’m not sure if you’re going to die for IQ in a tragic romantic suicide so you didn’t really have to say it out loud.
Well you’re obsessed with it to the point where I’m not sure if you’re going to die for IQ in a tragic romantic suicide so you didn’t really have to say it out loud.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 31 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,541
You know what? I think you’re retarded. That’s my final assessment here.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,542
@1,454,539 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
If the IQ test isn't measuring g, or if g isn't the cause of all those various things, what is causing it?
Saying "correlation isn't causation" isn't a complete thought. It's not a coincidence that it has predictive value, so if the theory is wrong there has to be some other explanation.
And if you're just dismissing the data because "correlation isn't causation" and don't feel the need to find another cause, congratulations, this same process can be used to dismiss any and all science. There's no research out there that can't be speculatively dismissed as coincidental correlation.
If the IQ test isn't measuring g, or if g isn't the cause of all those various things, what is causing it?
Saying "correlation isn't causation" isn't a complete thought. It's not a coincidence that it has predictive value, so if the theory is wrong there has to be some other explanation.
And if you're just dismissing the data because "correlation isn't causation" and don't feel the need to find another cause, congratulations, this same process can be used to dismiss any and all science. There's no research out there that can't be speculatively dismissed as coincidental correlation.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 29 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,543
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,544
@1,454,540 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
@1,454,541 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
So you can't come up with any explanation for why IQ tests predict scores on many other intelligence tests?
As usual, you lose the debate, and just start with passive aggressive insults and name calling.
Do you really think someone would read this, see you avoid the big question in favor of acting like a child, and think "yeah, niganon really nailed this one"?
@1,454,541 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
So you can't come up with any explanation for why IQ tests predict scores on many other intelligence tests?
As usual, you lose the debate, and just start with passive aggressive insults and name calling.
Do you really think someone would read this, see you avoid the big question in favor of acting like a child, and think "yeah, niganon really nailed this one"?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 17 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,545
Anonymous E replied with this 3 weeks ago, 51 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,546
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 52 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,547
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 16 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,548
@1,454,546 (E)
Do you think anyone reading this wouldn't realize you're a sockpuppet that's also unable to answer that question?
Do you think anyone reading this wouldn't realize you're a sockpuppet that's also unable to answer that question?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 24 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,549
You keep grandstanding like you think I can’t answer a question and then I answer the question and then you do it over again. You’re a really annoying person. I don’t respect you at all.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 42 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,550
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 7 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,551
@1,454,547 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
It's not a knowledge test and it predicts scores and outcomes even as children are starting their education.
The NLSY started testing when kids were very young.
It's not a knowledge test and it predicts scores and outcomes even as children are starting their education.
The NLSY started testing when kids were very young.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 10 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,552
@1,454,547 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> Education.
Apparently you can’t read a one word sentence.
> Education.
Apparently you can’t read a one word sentence.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 28 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,553
@1,454,551 (A)
Look, you can keep saying stupid shit for the rest of your life, I’m never going to agree with you.
Look, you can keep saying stupid shit for the rest of your life, I’m never going to agree with you.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 27 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,554
@1,454,550 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
How does the test know if they will get a lot of education or not? The test itself predicts what level of education they will get later.
Low income students who do well as children do well later in life, and high income children end up with worse results than those lower income children.
How does the test know if they will get a lot of education or not? The test itself predicts what level of education they will get later.
Low income students who do well as children do well later in life, and high income children end up with worse results than those lower income children.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 17 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,555
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 24 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,556
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 35 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,557
@1,454,555 (A)
Well you accused me of not answering after I answered you. You always act like a cunt.
Well you accused me of not answering after I answered you. You always act like a cunt.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 26 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,558
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 21 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,559
You can’t think of a single smart thing to say. I’m amazed by it. You can keep talking and talking and taking and I’ve never thought one thing you’ve said is intelligent.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 16 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,560
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 32 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,561
@1,454,557 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
How is "education" and "socioeconomic" factors the answer if it's at the start of their education, and the tests predicts which poor kids will outperform the rich kids 🤔
How is "education" and "socioeconomic" factors the answer if it's at the start of their education, and the tests predicts which poor kids will outperform the rich kids 🤔
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 28 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,562
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 25 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,563
Now you’re just straight up lying to my face.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 29 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,564
@1,454,560 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I've linked you to the NLSY before that does show the socioeconomic factors recorded.
High IQ, low SES children did outperform low IQ, high SES children.
If it was really just SES it wouldn't be able to predict that.
I've linked you to the NLSY before that does show the socioeconomic factors recorded.
High IQ, low SES children did outperform low IQ, high SES children.
If it was really just SES it wouldn't be able to predict that.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 25 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,565
@1,454,562 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
That's not what I said.
I said the test knew *which* poor kids would outperform rich kids.
That's not what I said.
I said the test knew *which* poor kids would outperform rich kids.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 second later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,566
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 23 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,567
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 48 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,568
You’re trying to say something that’s obviously stupid at face value. It did not predict which poor kids would outperform rich kids because poor kids do not outperform rich kids.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,569
@1,454,566 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
What part are you denying? They recorded SES in the NLSY, are you saying that's not true?
@1,454,567 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Some do, and IQ tests can predict that success long before it happens.
What part are you denying? They recorded SES in the NLSY, are you saying that's not true?
@1,454,567 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Some do, and IQ tests can predict that success long before it happens.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 27 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,570
It doesn’t even matter whether you believe in the nature or nurture argument. It should be obvious to you. If it’s nature, kids with poor parents will grow up to be poor. If it’s nurture, kids with poor parents will grow up to be poor.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 21 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,571
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 49 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,572
If you actually believe what you’re saying, I feel really bad for you.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,573
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 28 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,574
@1,454,570 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
That's on average.
The NLSY recorded a lot of different types of life outcomes.
IQ tests did predict those outcomes, even when you look at scores from childhood.
@1,454,571 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
The data is public, and I've linked you to it before.
You said the people conducting it were racists, you dismissed the science and tried to counter with studies with smaller sample sizes.
Ignoring data you don't like is "bullshit".
I don't think it's a coincidence that IQ tests predicted income, incarceration, and scores on other tests. Even though it's just correlation
That's on average.
The NLSY recorded a lot of different types of life outcomes.
IQ tests did predict those outcomes, even when you look at scores from childhood.
@1,454,571 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
The data is public, and I've linked you to it before.
You said the people conducting it were racists, you dismissed the science and tried to counter with studies with smaller sample sizes.
Ignoring data you don't like is "bullshit".
I don't think it's a coincidence that IQ tests predicted income, incarceration, and scores on other tests. Even though it's just correlation
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 51 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,575
@1,454,572 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
You feel bad that I form my beliefs based on large data sets?
That's called empiricism. What would you suggest instead?
You feel bad that I form my beliefs based on large data sets?
That's called empiricism. What would you suggest instead?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 7 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,577
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 16 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,578
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,579
It’s amazing how you believe in IQ more than God believes in you. That’s really something.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,580
@1,454,577 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
It's public data, and there are many papers that cite it, and books written talking about the findings.
You can pretend it's not there, but that doesn't stop the rest of the world from knowing about it.
@1,454,578 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Same behavior as always when you lose bigly.
It's public data, and there are many papers that cite it, and books written talking about the findings.
You can pretend it's not there, but that doesn't stop the rest of the world from knowing about it.
@1,454,578 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Same behavior as always when you lose bigly.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,581
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,582
I actually looked at the data, African Americans scored 420, Asians scored 69, and whites scored 67.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,583
Now this has really big implications for the future of humanity, because it’s only possible for an even IQ to make a baby with an odd IQ, which means all the women need black men in order to continue the existence of humanity. All of them. The women need me.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 39 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,584
@1,454,581 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Remember when you had me give you the specific year of NLSY I was using, and then you just said you didn't care what the data said after? We've had at least 2 other NLSY megathreads about this.
Remember when you had me give you the specific year of NLSY I was using, and then you just said you didn't care what the data said after? We've had at least 2 other NLSY megathreads about this.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,585
@previous (A)
I understand different races have different IQs. It’s really bad and has terrible social implications. That’s why the women need me. Women are irrational, they don’t want to be with you, they need someone like me who is powerful enough to harness their irrationality with my own irrationality. I can understand women, you can’t, that’s why the women need me.
I understand different races have different IQs. It’s really bad and has terrible social implications. That’s why the women need me. Women are irrational, they don’t want to be with you, they need someone like me who is powerful enough to harness their irrationality with my own irrationality. I can understand women, you can’t, that’s why the women need me.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,586
Now if you’ll just shut up for a minute and listen to me, I can help guide your cock away from irrational women towards strong rational European men with blond hair and blue eyes. You know Mary’s on second? You should go there, I don’t go there but that’s a club for the gays that has really good reviews on yelp. I was talking to chatGPT and my chatGPT said you should go there.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,587
@1,454,585 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Humor to deflect, and then you can distract from the fact that you dismiss the data the moment you get the details.
"Trust the science" people thinking thousands of government workers (many teachers) worked together in secret to make black people look bad 😂
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Humor to deflect, and then you can distract from the fact that you dismiss the data the moment you get the details.
"Trust the science" people thinking thousands of government workers (many teachers) worked together in secret to make black people look bad 😂
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,588
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 32 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,598
Gotta be honest heres my takeaway from this thread: The "rationality vs. emotion" framing in this thread is a red herring. strip away the insults and what actually happened is: OP set up a "some people don't understand reason" premise, steered it into IQ, then cited the NLSY specifically to ask about a racial gap. On a board where terms like "niganon" get used casually, that's not an accident of conversation drift. It's a script. You dress up a predetermined conclusion about racial hierarchy as neutral "logic," so anyone who objects gets cast as the emotional, irrational one.
Lemonade clearly sensed this happening but never said so directly, choosing insults over the actual point, which let the thread spin for 150+ posts without the real disagreement ever getting named.
On the empirical merits, separate from motive:
IQ tests do have real predictive validity. They correlate with performance on unrelated cognitive tasks and predict outcomes like income and education, including in longitudinal data like the NLSY, and this holds even when controlling for socioeconomic status. That's not pseudoscience, it's mainstream psychometrics, and dismissing it with "correlation isn't causation" without offering an alternative explanation isn't a real rebuttal.(unfortunately lol)
But here's the part that actually matters, none of that gets you to a racial hierarchy conclusion. That a group level score gap shows up in the data is a separate question from what causes it. A measured gap is consistent with many explanations: generational wealth, school quality, healthcare and nutrition access, chronic stress from discrimination, test design bias, and more.
The genetic hierarchy explanation doesn't win by default just because a gap exists(also unfortunately lol). It has to actually be argued for and it has to survive contact with evidence like adoption studies and the fact that gaps have narrowed as social and economic conditions have changed. A fixed genetic gap wouldn't be expected to move that way.
So the honest position is: yes, IQ measures something real, and yes, group gaps in the data are real. Neither fact supports the conclusion OP was fishing for. Treating "the gap exists" as the end of the argument, rather than the start of a much harder causal question, is exactly the move that makes this kind of thread bad science dressed up as rationality.
Lemonade clearly sensed this happening but never said so directly, choosing insults over the actual point, which let the thread spin for 150+ posts without the real disagreement ever getting named.
On the empirical merits, separate from motive:
IQ tests do have real predictive validity. They correlate with performance on unrelated cognitive tasks and predict outcomes like income and education, including in longitudinal data like the NLSY, and this holds even when controlling for socioeconomic status. That's not pseudoscience, it's mainstream psychometrics, and dismissing it with "correlation isn't causation" without offering an alternative explanation isn't a real rebuttal.(unfortunately lol)
But here's the part that actually matters, none of that gets you to a racial hierarchy conclusion. That a group level score gap shows up in the data is a separate question from what causes it. A measured gap is consistent with many explanations: generational wealth, school quality, healthcare and nutrition access, chronic stress from discrimination, test design bias, and more.
The genetic hierarchy explanation doesn't win by default just because a gap exists(also unfortunately lol). It has to actually be argued for and it has to survive contact with evidence like adoption studies and the fact that gaps have narrowed as social and economic conditions have changed. A fixed genetic gap wouldn't be expected to move that way.
So the honest position is: yes, IQ measures something real, and yes, group gaps in the data are real. Neither fact supports the conclusion OP was fishing for. Treating "the gap exists" as the end of the argument, rather than the start of a much harder causal question, is exactly the move that makes this kind of thread bad science dressed up as rationality.
(Edited 26 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 7 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,624
Anonymous F replied with this 2 weeks ago, 17 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,631
@previous (A)
But am I wrong? And if so how?
Also claiming “sockpuppeting” is not a real rebuttal. A lot of users come and go on MC so unless you have solid evidence that alleged sockpuppeting is happening. I suggest you start drafting your response otherwise we’ll just assume you have nothing to counter my statement.
But am I wrong? And if so how?
Also claiming “sockpuppeting” is not a real rebuttal. A lot of users come and go on MC so unless you have solid evidence that alleged sockpuppeting is happening. I suggest you start drafting your response otherwise we’ll just assume you have nothing to counter my statement.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,651
@previous (F)
Honestly I try to make good arguments, but OP never admits he’s wrong and argues to the death. If he says something you tell him why he’s wrong, he can always just make up more questions and then claim you can’t answer them and then when you do, he just makes up more questions. After a certain point I just get bored and stop even trying to make sense because I realize it doesn’t even matter.
Honestly I try to make good arguments, but OP never admits he’s wrong and argues to the death. If he says something you tell him why he’s wrong, he can always just make up more questions and then claim you can’t answer them and then when you do, he just makes up more questions. After a certain point I just get bored and stop even trying to make sense because I realize it doesn’t even matter.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,652
Like when I was saying the study doesn’t support anything he’s saying, I don’t actually know if that’s true or not, I just realized he’s never actually going to cite any real statistics or numbers so I can just say that and he won’t counter it because he’s not actually an expert on anything he’s talking about.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,653
Like when he makes claims that blacks have lower IQs than whites, you’ll notice he never says what the average black or the average white IQ is… because he doesn’t know.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quadruple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,654
It’s also problematic because if he did say what the average IQ of a black person is, he wants to portray it as there being a massive racial difference in intelligence due to genetics instead of environment. Which doesn’t make any sense because black people have a million more genetic variants than any other race since humans originally split off from chimpanzees in Africa 7 million years ago, but Homo sapiens only emerged out of Africa and took over the rest of the world 300,000 years ago. So there’s much more genetic diversity inside Africa, so you would expect intelligence to have the most variance inside Africa if intelligence does have a genetic component. So you would expect the smartest people and the dumbest people to both be African. But that’s a tangent, what I’m really getting at is if he says something like Africans have IQs of 70, I could counter it and say by definition, an IQ of 70 means you scored lower than 98% of people, but Africa has 1.5 billion people so in order from Africa to be 2% of the world population, the world has to have 75 billion people, and then he would have to explain why the IQ results were normalized to try to make it seem like the differences between people are greater than they are in reality, and he can’t do that.
(Edited 34 seconds later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quintuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,655
Like, if he was being honest he would have to say, people in Nigeria generally score in the 90s on IQ tests, people in Japan generally score 100 to 110 on IQ tests, and Americans from a hundred years ago would score 70 on a modern IQ test because education and nutrition improved… but the GDP per capita of Japan is 20x higher than the GDP per capita of Nigeria and yet there are more Nigerian international students in the United States than Japanese international students and 29% of Nigerian immigrants hold graduate degrees compared to 31% of Chinese immigrants, so East Asians and West Africans are actually about equally intelligent.
(Edited 40 seconds later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc sextuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,656
And the IQ within groups varies much more than the IQ between groups. When I was in grade school they gave me an IQ test and I scored near 140, most of the other kids in the gifted program scored around 120, and there were some students who scored 80 who didn’t get into the gifted program. So there were white kids at that school with 120 IQs, white kids with 80 IQs, that’s a bigger gap than you’ll find on any legitimate study of IQ differences between countries. Because there’s regression to the mean, and the mean is 100 by definition.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc septuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,657
The actual truth is that black people in Africa do score lower on IQ tests, but if you account for the disparity in wealth they score way higher than you should expect them to. Which means, their genetics are probably completely fine actually.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc octuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,658
Then the thing is racists will try to combine this with their idea that Europe invented civilization and Africans weren’t advanced and didn’t have any technology. The thing is though, that’s not actually true. West Africans did actually have governments, they had writing, and they actually were Iron Age societies before they had contact with Europeans.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc nonuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,659
They have this whole African tribal hunter gatherer stereotype and it’s true some Africans did live in hunter gatherer tribes, Africa is a big continent. But they never accurately depict west Africans, you can look at west African art, or weapons, or dress. They never accurately portray what west African culture actually was before colonization.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc decuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 21 seconds later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,660
Like the Hausa people in Nigeria for example, this is their traditional dress:Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc undecuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 27 seconds later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,661
Or, Nigerian art, they were known for producing bronze sculptures.Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc duodecuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,662
Or even the whole stereotype that Africans just had stone spears or whatever. The spears that Africans had, first off, spears are actually better weapons than swords because they have more range, and secondly, the spears were made from iron, and they made swords. In Nigeria they had a traditional style of sword called an Ida that was a double-edged curved sword.Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc tridecuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,663
Or they’ll say things like "oh Africans were stupid they lived in mud huts." But it’s baked mud, right. When you bake mud, it has similar properties to concrete. The inside of a building made from mud can look like this:It’s not dirty or primitive, they just used the materials they had in the climate they lived in.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quattuodecuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,664
And the other thing that’s annoying is when racists will try to compare blacks to Asians to make it seem like Asians are better than black people. Part of why it’s annoying is I really don’t want to talk shit about Asians I have nothing against them. But I’ve heard people try and argue culture is genetic somehow or I saw one comment were somebody said "I can’t imagine the Nigerians ever having a society like the Japanese." Which is ironic because Nigerian languages are generally tonal languages and Chinese is tonal. And by coincidence in Nigeria, before colonization when they were still using Nsibidi, in Nsibidi, every word had its own character.I’m not saying there’s any connection there, it’s a pure coincidence, but pretending you can’t find any similarities at all is kind of ridiculous. People are all relatively similar to each other. Even if Africans have a million more genetic variants, humans have 3 billion base pairs which means that’s less than a tenth of a percent of the total DNA humans have. We’re all almost exactly the same.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc sexadecuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,665
And of course people will say the whole thing about junk DNA. Personally, I don’t really believe in that, I think they just don’t know what all of our DNA does. Like the appendix for example, I believe in evolution, but people used to think the appendix was useless, it’s actually not useless.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc sedecuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,666
I’m also not an expert on this, so this could be wrong, but from what I’ve seen looking on the internet, Yoruba is a tonal language and it doesn’t have conjugation for changing the tense of words based on past/present/future, instead they use particles to denote tense, which coincidentally is how Chinese works.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc septuadecuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,667
Nigerians also traded with Europe before Nigeria was colonized so Nigerians knew about guns before Nigeria was colonized and they depicted guns in their artwork.Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc octadecuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 10 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,668
Now the actual reason why Africa was colonized, is because of mosquitoes and the Industrial Revolution. Malaria has killed millions of people. Africa has a tropical climate, so there are more mosquitoes. Tropical diseases like malaria kept Africa’s population lower than Europe, about 1/2 or 1/3rd the population of Europe depending on the exact century you’re talking about. But Europe couldn’t colonize Africa because they didn’t have the technological means to deal with that either. Until the Industrial Revolution which happened because Europe became much wealthier after the colonization of the Americas which was possible because smallpox killed 90% of the Native Americans. Africans aren’t stupid, Africa was just underpopulated. But that’s changing. Africa caught up to Europe in terms of population in the 1990s, and now there are twice as many Africans as Europeans. By 2100, due to the declining birth rates in Europe and the high birth rates in Africa, the UN projects that about 40% of people will be African up from 18% today. So the power dynamic between Africa and the west could be very different in the future than it was in the past, because in the future the population disparity will be more severe than it was in the past but the other way around.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc just kept on posting this 2 weeks ago, 58 seconds later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,669
That’s also why Russia and China are both interested in expanding influence in Africa. Which makes cutting foreign aid to Africa even more stupid in the long term.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc just kept on posting this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,670
Right now the largest city is Tokyo, but in 2100, it will probably be Lagos.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 59 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,684
@OP
> I don't mean complicated logic, just what each means and how to distinguish them?
>
> One mistake I've seen some make (niganon has made this same mistake 2-3 times on here) is thinking that "being emotional" means that you have emotions, as opposed to being an unfeeling robot. It's such an elementary thing to know, but many people don't get it. It makes me wonder if they even have a conception of internal feelings vs. outward expression.
>
> Rationality can be complex, but it's not hard to understand whether someone can even furnish a reason for a belief, vs someone who just acts out an insults another when asked what their reason is. Getting into whether those reasons are sound or fallacious is a whole different matter, I'm strictly speaking about the ability of a person to know why having reasons matters.
A lot of schools no longer teach structured argument and logical reasoning. Kids often don’t get it at home. Therefore you have adults who argue like toddlers and employ every bias and reasoning flaw they can’t even name (confirmation, strawman, ad hominem).
> I don't mean complicated logic, just what each means and how to distinguish them?
>
> One mistake I've seen some make (niganon has made this same mistake 2-3 times on here) is thinking that "being emotional" means that you have emotions, as opposed to being an unfeeling robot. It's such an elementary thing to know, but many people don't get it. It makes me wonder if they even have a conception of internal feelings vs. outward expression.
>
> Rationality can be complex, but it's not hard to understand whether someone can even furnish a reason for a belief, vs someone who just acts out an insults another when asked what their reason is. Getting into whether those reasons are sound or fallacious is a whole different matter, I'm strictly speaking about the ability of a person to know why having reasons matters.
A lot of schools no longer teach structured argument and logical reasoning. Kids often don’t get it at home. Therefore you have adults who argue like toddlers and employ every bias and reasoning flaw they can’t even name (confirmation, strawman, ad hominem).
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 31 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,694
@previous (H)
Did they teach it in the past? I got started in dialectics and logic from a few people I knew outside school, and then did my own reading from libraries and online university resources.
I had a thought that this follows from the feminization of schools, many female teachers would tell the class that "truth is relative", dismiss contrary ideas as "just opinion" (which never applied to what they taught funny enough), and would be much more likely to reprimand someone who corrected a fact than someone who stated misinformation without so much as a source.
But it was just a thought, I haven't actually heard older people say that the schools actually taught it.
Did they teach it in the past? I got started in dialectics and logic from a few people I knew outside school, and then did my own reading from libraries and online university resources.
I had a thought that this follows from the feminization of schools, many female teachers would tell the class that "truth is relative", dismiss contrary ideas as "just opinion" (which never applied to what they taught funny enough), and would be much more likely to reprimand someone who corrected a fact than someone who stated misinformation without so much as a source.
But it was just a thought, I haven't actually heard older people say that the schools actually taught it.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,696
@1,454,651 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> Honestly I try to make good arguments, but OP never admits he’s wrong and argues to the death. If he says something you tell him why he’s wrong, he can always just make up more questions and then claim you can’t answer them and then when you do, he just makes up more questions. After a certain point I just get bored and stop even trying to make sense because I realize it doesn’t even matter.
If you can't answer simple questions about your position, you clearly don't have a coherant argument.
You avoid questions because you can't get caught in a contradiction if you refuse to elaborate, and you can't get caught using a faulty premise or a definition that doesn't match any recorded if you refuse to be clear.
And we've seen from repeated threads you will avoid the same questions the next time, very specific errors in your line of reasoning where you stop the conversation and start spamming walls of irrelevant text, insulting, or trolling because you know the moment you answer your central point is refuted.
> Honestly I try to make good arguments, but OP never admits he’s wrong and argues to the death. If he says something you tell him why he’s wrong, he can always just make up more questions and then claim you can’t answer them and then when you do, he just makes up more questions. After a certain point I just get bored and stop even trying to make sense because I realize it doesn’t even matter.
If you can't answer simple questions about your position, you clearly don't have a coherant argument.
You avoid questions because you can't get caught in a contradiction if you refuse to elaborate, and you can't get caught using a faulty premise or a definition that doesn't match any recorded if you refuse to be clear.
And we've seen from repeated threads you will avoid the same questions the next time, very specific errors in your line of reasoning where you stop the conversation and start spamming walls of irrelevant text, insulting, or trolling because you know the moment you answer your central point is refuted.
(Edited 17 seconds later.)
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,698
You got my initials
Photographic memory
Ask if I'm emotional
Fuck yeah
Photographic memory
Ask if I'm emotional
Fuck yeah
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 18 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,454,817
I love that the inane question I asked that was so stupid niganon flatly refused to answer was "how can education be responsible for IQ if they are tested before their education".
I'd like to imagine he is such a believer in the power of education that it breaks the arrow of time 😂
I'd like to imagine he is such a believer in the power of education that it breaks the arrow of time 😂
(Edited 25 seconds later.)