Topic: Autism test
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo started this discussion 10 years ago #51,692
Put your two index fingers horizontally in front of your face with a small gap between the tips, then stare past them. It it looks like there is a bit of finger floating mid-air, you have autism.
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later[^] [v] #670,233
is there a porn where they do that with dicks
Thermal Aid Zoo Varmint joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #670,234
!MLHqI35Srs joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 34 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #670,239
Very, very barely.
Digit ratio is BS tbh. Very few even among the specturm have extreme masculine values, in my experience.
Digit ratio is BS tbh. Very few even among the specturm have extreme masculine values, in my experience.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #670,241
@previous (!MLHqI35Srs)
> specturm
In my experience only celto-negroidal intellectual frauds botch such simple words.
> specturm
In my experience only celto-negroidal intellectual frauds botch such simple words.
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #670,242
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #670,244
Anonymous E replied with this 10 years ago, 5 seconds later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #670,245
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #670,246
@previous (E)
You had decoded the lexicographs into phonemes, yes. That's not 'reading', which would, in your case incorrectly, infer understanding.
@670,244 (F)
If you were going to make word-salad out of that, a more eloquent way of using adjectives is to use the adjectival-adverb/adjectival-noun-adverbial form: - ally, i.e. Romamically.
You failed to pull off Autphag shtick.
You had decoded the lexicographs into phonemes, yes. That's not 'reading', which would, in your case incorrectly, infer understanding.
@670,244 (F)
If you were going to make word-salad out of that, a more eloquent way of using adjectives is to use the adjectival-adverb/adjectival-noun-adverbial form: - ally, i.e. Romamically.
You failed to pull off Autphag shtick.
Anonymous F replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 53 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #670,247
@previous (!MLHqI35Srs)
A non-qualmatalative fallacy, lined ever so proudly with the proto-Greeco understanding of proof and true objectivity. Clearly, you have begun the steady march into an ultra-leftist reality.
A non-qualmatalative fallacy, lined ever so proudly with the proto-Greeco understanding of proof and true objectivity. Clearly, you have begun the steady march into an ultra-leftist reality.
Anonymous E replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 55 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #670,248
@670,246 (!MLHqI35Srs)
You are not intelligent. Your attempts to put others down do not and will not change this.
You are not intelligent. Your attempts to put others down do not and will not change this.
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #670,249
Anonymous F replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #670,250
@previous (!MLHqI35Srs)
Don't try to get all faux-latin on us now. Your streadfast dismissal of all multipoint unitivity has thoroughly closed that door!
Don't try to get all faux-latin on us now. Your streadfast dismissal of all multipoint unitivity has thoroughly closed that door!
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 4 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #670,298
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 8 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #670,302
@670,239 (!MLHqI35Srs)
You have failed to understand the rules of the test, Mr Gillon. Read the post again, more slowly this time, and say the words aloud as you read them.
You have failed to understand the rules of the test, Mr Gillon. Read the post again, more slowly this time, and say the words aloud as you read them.
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 12 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #670,385
@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
You idiot. It's you who doesn't understand the dynamics of hormonal physiology here. One of the hands being pressed against the other doesn't have as many androgen receptors, hence the taller index finger on it, with the level of testosterone being inversely correlated to the difference between both fingers, such that, in the inverse-exponential of length and T-level, the former increases faster the more the latter decreases, constituting this reduction in difference in non-spectrumites.
Learn basic biology and mathematics. Cheers.
You idiot. It's you who doesn't understand the dynamics of hormonal physiology here. One of the hands being pressed against the other doesn't have as many androgen receptors, hence the taller index finger on it, with the level of testosterone being inversely correlated to the difference between both fingers, such that, in the inverse-exponential of length and T-level, the former increases faster the more the latter decreases, constituting this reduction in difference in non-spectrumites.
Learn basic biology and mathematics. Cheers.
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 32 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #670,387
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 25 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #670,388
@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
Yet it's not even an illusion in a sizable number of these cases, which makes me suspect as to whether this visuo-perceptual difference actually exists.
Yet it's not even an illusion in a sizable number of these cases, which makes me suspect as to whether this visuo-perceptual difference actually exists.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 24 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #670,390
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 26 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #670,398
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #670,419
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #670,421
Anonymous H replied with this 10 years ago, 28 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #670,428
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #670,429
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #670,467
@670,390 (H)
It said one line through "all" of the doors, not "each" of the doors
And technically, we can't draw a single line through the doors in the first place, as the standard mathematical definition of line requires that it not curve, and also pieces of lines are line segments, not lines. The question should be can we draw a single curve.
Do I win the autism
It said one line through "all" of the doors, not "each" of the doors
And technically, we can't draw a single line through the doors in the first place, as the standard mathematical definition of line requires that it not curve, and also pieces of lines are line segments, not lines. The question should be can we draw a single curve.
Do I win the autism
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #670,469
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #670,472
Looks like the Big Daddies Derek win again!Sheila LaBoof replied with this 10 years ago, 9 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #670,714
@670,469 (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
ehh, well it reminded my of the Königsberg bridges problem, so I looked it up to remind myself and there's stuff about how you can't solve it if the number of nodes of odd degree (odd number of connections such as bridges or doors) is neither zero nor two. it appears that there are four nodes (rooms in the drawing, and counting the outdoors as a node) of odd degree
ehh, well it reminded my of the Königsberg bridges problem, so I looked it up to remind myself and there's stuff about how you can't solve it if the number of nodes of odd degree (odd number of connections such as bridges or doors) is neither zero nor two. it appears that there are four nodes (rooms in the drawing, and counting the outdoors as a node) of odd degree