If there is one thing I can say, with certainty, it is that as human being, you will never see the territory, in a metaphorical sense. We are ill equipped to percieve reality in its full detail. A human being is incapable of understanding the big picture and the tiniest detail simultaneously, we are limited in too many ways.
We are limited in our apparatus. Try this, close your eyes, and try to pinpoint and name every sound that you hear.
Done? Don't tell me what you did hear, that's irrelevant, what you didn't hear is far more important. What about the multitudes of insects creeping around merrily in the room around you? Why not go smaller, the gentle flap of baterial flagellum as they propell themselves across your skin?
Nope?
Hopefully you can see that many of the tiny details of reality are lost in transition from the physical to the mental, our sensory apparatus is designed to deal with macro situations, not micro ones. Even with our quickly advancing technology we still seem to hit a brick wall when trying to reconcile the micro with the macro (here I am referring specifically to quantum phenomena).
Simply put, we are ill equipped to observe a pure reality, in a purely mechanical sense.
But this is all foreword really, our observation is further skewed by our own personality, our experiences and beliefs. Ever been home and felt a comforting warmth even on a cold day? I'd bet that comforting warm, fuzzy feeling probably isn't contained within the bricks or the mortar.
So what do we see, what do we percieve, if not the territory itself? Well, I guess we all know where this is going:
The Map.
In this particular iteration of this tired old metaphor I am using the map to refer to our perception of reality which is incomplete, and stylised due to biological limitations, and further skewed by our personal outlook.
What is the purpose of the map then? Well, simply put, the map allows us to function. If we truly percieved every detail of reality simultaneously we would be overwhelmed by its chaotic complexity. Somewhere along the line, humans started to play round with the map, we started reappropriating. We took our simple little maps that once upon a time just helped us function and stay alive, and we started to embellish them.
This is the nature of belief.
A belief, in fact and subjective view point, is a way of altering your personal map, to (hopefully) something more helpful or more appealing. Of course there are some beliefs that simply do not work, why? Because all beliefs are built on the map, so if they alter the map so much it no longer reflects a stylised version of reality we begin to have trouble functioning.
So what makes a successful belief?
One that enhances the map, adds detail in areas that are lacking, removes unessecary detail, or just makes it more appealing. You can cover the map in pretty stars if thats what floats your boat but there's no point in replacing a lake with a mountain, that's just going to get you into trouble.
In conclusion, I find that beliefs have very little to do with true or false, and surprisingly little to do with right or wrong, but a hell of a lot to do with finding a personal niche.
Finding a perfect map.
____________________________________
I've been talking to my friend about Discordianism, and trying to define it as loosely and truthfully as I can, which as you can imagine is proving difficult. But I think I got something here, maybe, very loosely, Discordianism is recognising that the map can be redefined, and whether you act on that knowledge is just personal preference?
x
edd
p.s. this is definitely the sort of piece that you've all heard before, but iits you know, one of those pieces for that thing that I've been working on forever :p
:mittens:
I liked it. Especially the conclusion about beliefs not being right or wrong, but aesthetically pleasing, as that is a point which is generally understated and can be easy to forget.
Trying to talk to others about your beliefs? Dangerous territory!
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on October 19, 2009, 02:02:19 PM
If there is one thing I can say, with certainty,
Soapbox! How off-putting.
Quoteit is that as human being, you will never see the territory, in a metaphorical sense. We are ill equipped to percieve reality in its full detail.
In other words, you're missing something. Which is why you shouldn't be certain.
Also: "metaphorical"? No one understands metaphors. Hence the map/territory analogy.
QuoteA human being is incapable of understanding the big picture and the tiniest detail simultaneously, we are limited in too many ways.
We are limited in our apparatus.
Big words plus jargon. I guess I am incapable of... um, what?
QuoteTry this [...]
No.
QuoteNope?
No, I said "No."
QuoteHopefully you can see
GODDAMN I'M SICK OF ALL THIS HOPE SHIT!! POLITICAL ACTIVIST, CHANGE THYSELF!
Quotethat many of the tiny details of reality are lost in transition from the physical to the mental, our sensory apparatus is designed to deal with macro situations, not micro ones. Even with our quickly advancing technology we still seem to hit a brick wall when trying to reconcile the micro with the macro (here I am referring specifically to quantum phenomena).
Simply put, we are ill equipped to observe a pure reality, in a purely mechanical sense.
What? Too many words, not enough meaning. Cut to the chase. Eschew fancy linguistics in favor of clarity. Say what you want to say
in a way they can understand.Also: "quickly advancing technology" is yet another dog whistle. Honestly, are you trying to convince someone to join us, or massacre us?
QuoteBut this is all foreword really, our observation is further skewed by our own personality, our experiences and beliefs. Ever been home and felt a comforting warmth even on a cold day? I'd bet that comforting warm, fuzzy feeling probably isn't contained within the bricks or the mortar.
What? No, really; what? Our emotions aren't made of bricks?
QuoteSo what do we see, what do we percieve, if not the territory itself? Well, I guess we all know where this is going:
The Map.
I think we should give up this analogy. My first thought was, "You mean, like on Dora?" Besides, most people don't know how to read maps. Add to that the macho stereotype of not asking for directions, and this analogy quickly sounds like a dog whistle -- "ain't that just college-educated-gay-liberal propaganda?"
QuoteIn this particular iteration of this tired old metaphor I am using the map to refer to our perception of reality which is incomplete, and stylised due to biological limitations, and further skewed by our personal outlook.
BORING!
QuoteWhat is the purpose of the map then?
[...]
Zzzz...
QuoteThis is the nature of belief.
Sorry, wasn't listening. You an amurrica-hating atheist, or an amurrica-hating terrorist?
QuoteA belief, in fact and subjective view point, is a way of altering your personal map, to (hopefully) something more helpful or more appealing. Of course there are some beliefs that simply do not work, why? Because all beliefs are built on the map, so if they alter the map so much it no longer reflects a stylised version of reality we begin to have trouble functioning.
Y'know, if I wanted to be lost, I'd watch Lost.
QuoteSo what makes a successful belief?
JAYZUS!!!!QuoteOne that enhances the map, adds detail in areas that are lacking, removes unessecary detail, or just makes it more appealing. You can cover the map in pretty stars if thats what floats your boat but there's no point in replacing a lake with a mountain, that's just going to get you into trouble.
Wow. Forget the dog whistles. Just say "I'm here, I'm Discordian, get used to it!"
QuoteIn conclusion,
About damn time!
QuoteI find that beliefs have very little to do with true or false, and surprisingly little to do with right or wrong, but a hell of a lot to do with finding a personal niche.
So, you're an immoral devil-worshiping atheist child molester who
doesn't care about right and wrong?
QuoteFinding a perfect map.
Yea,
a map straight to hell!QuoteI've been talking to my friend about Discordianism,
Why?
Quoteand trying to define it as loosely and truthfully as I can,
We're a bunch of cynical absurdists who like to make fun of people because they're stupid. Oh, and there is no hope for humanity. Have a nice day.
Quotewhich as you can imagine is proving difficult.
I like this quote, but only out of context.
QuoteBut I think I got something here, maybe, very loosely, Discordianism is recognising that the map can be redefined, and whether you act on that knowledge is just personal preference?
"Personal preference" is conservative jargon for "duck fuckers."
Quoteone of those pieces [...] that I've been working on forever :p
And it still sucks. :p
-toa,
just trying to help
I suggest answering his questions with memebombs instead. He might 'get it' rather than just think he does.
QuoteSoapbox! How off-putting.
fair 'nuff
QuoteIn other words, you're missing something. Which is why you shouldn't be certain.
pardon? I said we are ill equipped biologically to percieve reality in its "fullness" are you really trying to say I'm wrong?
QuoteBig words plus jargon. I guess I am incapable of... um, what?
learn to dictionary.
QuoteNo.
unwilling to try? all I was doing was trying to demonstrate a point, that you "refuted" earlier, but were unwilling to attempt to prove it yourself.
QuoteOur emotions aren't made of bricks?
bircks are made of brick, emotions are not contained within bricks.
Quote
So, you're an immoral devil-worshiping atheist child molester who doesn't care about right and wrong?
Morality is relative.
QuoteAnd it still sucks.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=20538.0
thanks.
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on October 20, 2009, 01:43:26 AM
pardon? I said we are ill equipped biologically to percieve reality in its "fullness" are you really trying to say I'm wrong?
I'm not saying you're right. Depends on your definition of "fullness."
Quotelearn to dictionary.
Most people know few words. When you try to talk to them, you must use few words.
Quoteunwilling to try? all I was doing was trying to
... talk to others about Discordia. Intellectually laziness must be expected from the proles.
Quotebircks are made of brick, emotions are not contained within bricks.
So, our emotions are not made of bricks?
Quote
Morality is relative.
So,
you admit you're an immoral devil-worshiping atheist child molester who doesn't care about right and wrong?
Quote
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=20538.0
tl;dr
-toa,
doesn't pay attention anymore
QuoteI'm not saying you're right. Depends on your definition of "fullness."
Ok, I don't really want to be rude about this, since I imagine some of your crit is both genuine and constructive, but... you are actually wrong about this, not even like one of those things which you are subjectively wrong about, as in, we just disagree. Actually wrong.
QuoteMost people know few words. When you try to talk to them, you must use few words.
your are incapable of understanding "simultaneously" with your apparatus?
QuoteSo, our emotions are not made of bricks?
yes, i know its obvious but i was using it as an example of how our brain can alter our perception of reality. And if you still don't believe me about maybe you should look up some stuff about how our vision works, there's a neat trick with blind spots which gets the point across pretty well.
QuoteSo, you admit you're an immoral devil-worshiping atheist child molester who doesn't care about right and wrong?
I only object to child molester.
Quotetl;dr
just skip to the last few pages and look at the pretty pictures.
I thought this was a pretty good basic summary of a number of concepts. Or I'm just delirious.
TOA, I don't know what the fuck you are on. Or is this one of those noobs that has pissed someone off so I'm supposed to be mean to them?
I was wondering the same thing myself.
I give the OP a B-, but only because I don't think I'm the target audience.
It was well written and well articulated, but doesn't add anything to the map/territory metaphor. Could use some new energy, or some fresh metaphorical language.
overall, I enjoyed it, but didn't feel like I was provoked or educated
Same. Not BAD, just meh.
You aim it at someone on PD and there's no new info. You aim it at someone not on PD and they probably won't get anything out of it, I don't think.
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on October 20, 2009, 11:20:27 AM
Ok, I don't really want to be rude about this, since I imagine some of your crit is both genuine and constructive, but... you are actually wrong about this, not even like one of those things which you are subjectively wrong about, as in, we just disagree. Actually wrong.
You'll never convince anybody like that! Where did you learn to debate?
Quoteyour are incapable of understanding "simultaneously" with your apparatus?
I don't think with my apparatus. (zing!)
I am quite capable, but your stated goal was to talk to others. Remember that, by definition of 100, half the world has a two-digit IQ.
Quoteyes, i know its obvious but i was using it as an example of how our brain can alter our perception of reality.
If our brains can alter our perceptions of reality, then how can anything be considered obvious?
QuoteAnd if you still don't believe me about maybe you should look up some stuff about how our vision works, there's a neat trick with blind spots which gets the point across pretty well.
I don't disagree with you. I'm being intentionally antagonistic so you can strengthen your argument.
QuoteQuoteSo, you admit you're an immoral devil-worshiping atheist child molester who doesn't care about right and wrong?
I only object to child molester.
So, you admit you're an immoral devil-worshiping atheist furry who doesn't care about right and wrong?
Quotejust skip to the last few pages and look at the pretty pictures.
Tried that once. My mom caught me.
Quote from: Kai on October 20, 2009, 02:44:15 PM
TOA, I don't know what the fuck you are on. Or is this one of those noobs that has pissed someone off so I'm supposed to be mean to them?
I'm just trying to help.
-toa,
is one of the good guys... for subjectively relativistic definitions of "good"
Quote from: Kai on October 20, 2009, 02:44:15 PM
I thought this was a pretty good basic summary of a number of concepts. Or I'm just delirious.
TOA, I don't know what the fuck you are on. Or is this one of those noobs that has pissed someone off so I'm supposed to be mean to them?
afaik, TOA's shtick is to make remarks that are so bad, actively seeking out rock-bottom and then digging deeper. in fact, the living proof that postcount/being around for quite a time,
does let you get away with a lot of things a n00b would be roasted for.
but I dunno, for some reason I like him. even if I wish he wouldn't do stuff like this.
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 20, 2009, 05:46:37 PM
afaik, TOA's shtick is to make remarks that are so bad, actively seeking out rock-bottom and then digging deeper. in fact, the living proof that postcount/being around for quite a time, does let you get away with a lot of things a n00b would be roasted for.
but I dunno, for some reason I like him. even if I wish he wouldn't do stuff like this.
I represent humanity at its finest. :lol:
Quote
If our brains can alter our perceptions of reality, then how can anything be considered obvious?
re-read OP.
QuoteI don't disagree with you. I'm being intentionally antagonistic so you can strengthen your argument.
I don't need to, you are living proof that my argument is correct, deal with it.
QuoteSo, you admit you're an immoral devil-worshiping atheist furry who doesn't care about right and wrong?
I feel this may be a dead end, so I guess that will have to do.
@Kai 'n' Cram:
Thanks and yes, it is pretty middle of the road stuff, but its an introductory kinda thing I guess, and I has cool illustrative ideas for it :)
And as fas as being a tired metaphor, hey look, it says that right up there in the OP :p again, from an introductory point of view the map/territory analogy is used quite frequently by PDers and probably other discordians too. So don't worry, I wasn't expecting people to go "holy shit this is mindblowing/provoking etc."
@Enki, as far as PDers are concerned its old hat, but this "essay" did arise basically from a series of conversations with my friend in which I tried to explain Discordia, as far as explanations go, this one seemed to work well, even if its ideas weren't particularly agreed with.
Quote from: the other anonymous on October 20, 2009, 04:39:14 PM
Remember that, by definition of 100, half the world has a two-digit IQ.
This actually makes me want to die.
I try to never think about it. I am not OK with this on a pretty major level. I am not a big believer in IQ testing per se, because I think it is massively flawed. But the fact that so many of the "humans" I share a planet with are about as smart as a goddamn chinchilla really depresses me.
Quote from: Nigel on October 20, 2009, 06:36:31 PM
Quote from: the other anonymous on October 20, 2009, 04:39:14 PM
Remember that, by definition of 100, half the world has a two-digit IQ.
This actually makes me want to die.
I try to never think about it. I am not OK with this on a pretty major level. I am not a big believer in IQ testing per se, because I think it is massively flawed. But the fact that so many of the "humans" I share a planet with are about as smart as a goddamn chinchilla really depresses me.
wow, you go from being dismissive of IQ testing, and in the next breath you say that people with a below average IQ are barely human?
(which is what I took from putting human in quotes)one of the problems with IQ testing is that it only tests one type of intelligence. There are a lot of people with IQs in the 90s who are perfectly passable human beings. Many of them have enormous talent or creativity. Likewise there are people with higher IQs that seem dumb as posts. I'm reminded of a good buddy of mine who is a brilliant fine-art photographer, but probably has a low IQ due to his dyslexia and general disdain for written tests. So don't be so hasty to compare people to chinchillas. :p
also, the way IQ works is that the average is always 100. If we lived in a culture of Einsteins and Hawkings, the average IQ would still be 100. So saying that half the world has an IQ below 100 is like saying "half the people are below average, the other half are above average"... not exactly that depressing.
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on October 20, 2009, 06:35:45 PM
re-read OP.
The point I'm trying to make is: I didn't read it the first time.
QuoteI don't need to, you are living proof that my argument is correct, deal with it.
Insufficient! What good is truth if it gets you hanged? Convince them! Lead them!
Rule them!Quoteagain, from an introductory point of view
Again: I wasn't properly introduced! You got to make the Map say "Hi, toa! let's be friends!" Instead, all it said was, "Fuck you, toa, Ima poomp on you!"
Quote@Enki, as far as PDers are concerned its old hat,
I like old hats. They smell funny.
Quoteas far as explanations go, this one seemed to work well, even if its ideas weren't particularly agreed with.
Exactly! Good to hear you admit I'm right. ;)
-toa,
one hundred is skewed by a self-selection bias...
Damn, TOA. I forgot what a fucking jackass you are.
Quote from: LMNO on October 20, 2009, 06:55:53 PM
Damn, TOA. I forgot what a fucking jackass you are.
That's the point! He's writing an essay to explain The Map to outsiders. By being as obnoxious as possible, I prepare him for the worst of the outsiders'
response.
What good is communication if the other party doesn't understand the message? Speak the audience's language! For most humans*, this is hate, fear, and God.
* No quotes, because I'm superman!
-toa,
professionally obnoxious
It doesn't come across as trying to be helpful, with a veneer of obnoxion.. but the other way around.
Quote from: the other anonymous on October 20, 2009, 07:00:21 PM
Quote from: LMNO on October 20, 2009, 06:55:53 PM
Damn, TOA. I forgot what a fucking jackass you are.
That's the point! He's writing an essay to explain The Map to outsiders. By being as obnoxious as possible, I prepare him for the worst of the outsiders' response.
What good is communication if the other party doesn't understand the message? Speak the audience's language! For most humans*, this is hate, fear, and God.
* No quotes, because I'm superman!
-toa,
professionally obnoxious
So rereading it with that in mind... not bad... Reading it the first time, you came off like an ass. Yay perception!
Maybe next time put a <devils advocate> tag in there somewhere ;-)
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on October 20, 2009, 07:07:25 PM
So rereading it with that in mind... not bad... Reading it the first time, you came off like an ass. Yay perception!
Maybe next time put a <devils advocate> tag in there somewhere ;-)
That would be telling! Known unknowns, y'know? Throw 'em a curve ball! Inoculate them! They can't learn to control the debate if it never tries to escape!
-toa,
not quite sure what he's saying, but is saying it a lot
Quote from: Nigel on October 20, 2009, 06:36:31 PM
Quote from: the other anonymous on October 20, 2009, 04:39:14 PM
Remember that, by definition of 100, half the world has a two-digit IQ.
This actually makes me want to die.
I try to never think about it. I am not OK with this on a pretty major level. I am not a big believer in IQ testing per se, because I think it is massively flawed. But the fact that so many of the "humans" I share a planet with are about as smart as a goddamn chinchilla really depresses me.
one tiny glimpse of light is that the 100 standard was set a long time ago and hasnt been updated since (citation needed, but I heard it somewhere), and that the current average is actually a bit higher than 100. check wikipedia for stats, i suppose.
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 20, 2009, 07:32:49 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 20, 2009, 06:36:31 PM
Quote from: the other anonymous on October 20, 2009, 04:39:14 PM
Remember that, by definition of 100, half the world has a two-digit IQ.
This actually makes me want to die.
I try to never think about it. I am not OK with this on a pretty major level. I am not a big believer in IQ testing per se, because I think it is massively flawed. But the fact that so many of the "humans" I share a planet with are about as smart as a goddamn chinchilla really depresses me.
one tiny glimpse of light is that the 100 standard was set a long time ago and hasnt been updated since (citation needed, but I heard it somewhere), and that the current average is actually a bit higher than 100. check wikipedia for stats, i suppose.
... so, still about as smart as a chinchilla, is what you're saying. Check.
Quote from: Cramulus on October 20, 2009, 06:52:06 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 20, 2009, 06:36:31 PM
Quote from: the other anonymous on October 20, 2009, 04:39:14 PM
Remember that, by definition of 100, half the world has a two-digit IQ.
This actually makes me want to die.
I try to never think about it. I am not OK with this on a pretty major level. I am not a big believer in IQ testing per se, because I think it is massively flawed. But the fact that so many of the "humans" I share a planet with are about as smart as a goddamn chinchilla really depresses me.
wow, you go from being dismissive of IQ testing, and in the next breath you say that people with a below average IQ are barely human? (which is what I took from putting human in quotes)
Does my dislike of most of humanity really come as a huge surprise to you? Have you been to a mall lately? There's your "average".
Quote
one of the problems with IQ testing is that it only tests one type of intelligence. There are a lot of people with IQs in the 90s who are perfectly passable human beings. Many of them have enormous talent or creativity. Likewise there are people with higher IQs that seem dumb as posts. I'm reminded of a good buddy of mine who is a brilliant fine-art photographer, but probably has a low IQ due to his dyslexia and general disdain for written tests. So don't be so hasty to compare people to chinchillas. :p
also, the way IQ works is that the average is always 100. If we lived in a culture of Einsteins and Hawkings, the average IQ would still be 100. So saying that half the world has an IQ below 100 is like saying "half the people are below average, the other half are above average"... not exactly that depressing.
Yeah, but we don't live in a world of Einsteins and Hawkings. We live in a world of
:mullet:
THERE'S YOUR AVERAGE.
CHIN FUCKING CHILLA. GIVE IT A FUCKING RAISIN AND WATCH IT EAT. AWWWWW.
I'm calling you out, Nigel.
I think that only a small percentage of people have actively abandoned their potential.
The rest never even knew it existed.
so what if they never did well on a test? If Little Orange flunked an "intelligence" test, do you think anyone would be fooled? No, she's smart.
So, It would seem that by you not giving them a chance, you are equally to blame.
Quote from: Nigel on October 21, 2009, 07:27:39 PM
Does my dislike of most of humanity really come as a huge surprise to you?
oh, not at all. I'm just bemused to see a crap measure like IQ be held up as a real indicator of humanity's general fail. Might as well use an e-meter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-meter) or some shit. :lulz:
THIS THREAD IS FULL OF JACKLOVE.
Let's all return our attention to me and what an ass I am. :D
-toa,
jack's thread-jack thread
I don't know that IQ is necessarily a metric for humanity's fail. I figure it's the other way around. If we weren't disappointed with the state of the world, we wouldn't be drawn to discordianism (which after all is, if nothing else, rebellious against status:q). IQ (among other things) is a convenient way of systemizing what we already 'know*' -- that humanity is lame.
* know, believe, assume, figure, hope, fear, whatever.
Quote from: LMNO on October 21, 2009, 07:38:51 PM
I'm calling you out, Nigel.
I think that only a small percentage of people have actively abandoned their potential.
The rest never even knew it existed.
so what if they never did well on a test? If Little Orange flunked an "intelligence" test, do you think anyone would be fooled? No, she's smart.
So, It would seem that by you not giving them a chance, you are equally to blame.
How am
I supposed to give them a chance? Do I go to the mall and invite five of them home with me? Proselytize? Give them jobs? Why don't
you give them a chance? ALL OF THEN LMNO. EVERY SINGLE ONE.
"Give them a chance" is laughable simply because it implies that I have some kind of power to make a change in whether billions of people actualize themselves.
All I can do is try to encourage people I am in direct contact with to realize their potential. My spawn included. Or hopefully make a few people ask questions by jaking. That's as far as my sphere of influence extends.
And, as I said before, it's not that I put a lot of stock in IQ tests... it's that when I think about "average", and then I think about "below average", it makes me depressed. Because that is what the mall is full of. Twelve blocks from my house. You want me to love them? Each and every one? Well, I don't. I love the fragile monkeys that I know directly, and I have a general concern about the welfare of the rest of them because I think this planet is going to shit, but I don't love them and there is no such thing as me "giving them a chance".
GIVE HATING TOA A CHANCE!
I still wanna see the OP rewritten to be more convincing and proselytizingist!
-toa,
will stop at nothing to be post-post-pre-re-excommunicated
Quote from: the other anonymous on October 22, 2009, 01:18:41 AM
GIVE HATING TOA A CHANCE!
I still wanna see the OP rewritten to be more convincing and proselytizingist!
-toa,
will stop at nothing to be post-post-pre-re-excommunicated
(http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/Smileys/default/icon_neutral.gif)
:ignore:
Quote from: Nigel on October 22, 2009, 01:16:44 AM
How am I supposed to give them a chance? Do I go to the mall and invite five of them home with me? Proselytize? Give them jobs? Why don't you give them a chance? ALL OF THEN LMNO. EVERY SINGLE ONE.
"Give them a chance" is laughable simply because it implies that I have some kind of power to make a change in whether billions of people actualize themselves.
All I can do is try to encourage people I am in direct contact with to realize their potential. My spawn included. Or hopefully make a few people ask questions by jaking. That's as far as my sphere of influence extends.
And, as I said before, it's not that I put a lot of stock in IQ tests... it's that when I think about "average", and then I think about "below average", it makes me depressed. Because that is what the mall is full of. Twelve blocks from my house. You want me to love them? Each and every one? Well, I don't. I love the fragile monkeys that I know directly, and I have a general concern about the welfare of the rest of them because I think this planet is going to shit, but I don't love them and there is no such thing as me "giving them a chance".
:mittens:
This should be a letter!
IQ is a measure of one's effectiveness in one channel/way/method of thinking, directed by one method of testing said channel/way/method.
There are many channels/ways/methods of thinking. Therefore, IQ does not effectively measure intelligence, only one sort of intelligence that is of interest to certain groups of people/occupations/universities/etc.
After looking at the GATE (Gifted and Talented Education) measurements when my boys took the exam, it seems to me there is not one way of measuring intelligence or talent. So to rely on one methodology is just plain ignorant and disingenuous. The data collected in most of these types of exams has a specific purpose, and assessments are usually designed with this purpose in mind. That's a rather long way of saying Kai is right.
it's also possible that the majority of people are above or below average. allow me too illustrate:
suppose 9 people (or 90 percent of the population) has an IQ of 104 and 1 person (or 10 percent) has an IQ of 70. then the "average" IQ is 100.6 and most people are above average.
or 90% have an IQ of 96 and 10% have an IQ of 135. then most people are below average.
with that said, i wouldn't be surprised if intelligence (regardless of how it is measured) is distributed bimodally (or possibly tri-modally for that matter).
I thought it was assumed to be a normal distribution.
Like I said, it's not the IQ test aspect that depresses me, which is why I dismissed that aspect, it was the reminder that half the population is below average intelligence regardless of how, or even whether, you try to measure it, and average is already depressing.
But there's no real reason you should pay attention to what I actually said. Instead you should continue to reply to what you decided I said, because I quoted Requia's mention of IQ scores before I mentioned I don't hold stock in them.
if it makes you feel better, the other half of the population has above average intelligence.
Quote from: Cramulus on October 22, 2009, 06:37:26 PM
if it makes you feel better, the other half of the population has above average intelligence.
Actually, that does make me feel better. Thank you, Cramulus.
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 20, 2009, 07:32:49 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 20, 2009, 06:36:31 PM
Quote from: the other anonymous on October 20, 2009, 04:39:14 PM
Remember that, by definition of 100, half the world has a two-digit IQ.
This actually makes me want to die.
I try to never think about it. I am not OK with this on a pretty major level. I am not a big believer in IQ testing per se, because I think it is massively flawed. But the fact that so many of the "humans" I share a planet with are about as smart as a goddamn chinchilla really depresses me.
one tiny glimpse of light is that the 100 standard was set a long time ago and hasnt been updated since (citation needed, but I heard it somewhere), and that the current average is actually a bit higher than 100. check wikipedia for stats, i suppose.
actually the 100 standard was set a long time ago and is almost constantly reset. On average the western populations IQ is rising by 6 points every decade, but 100 is an easy number, so the tests get restandardized every so often.