Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Darvi]

Well for one they'd have to be notably smarter than me, who is the only person where I can objectively say that they're not a genius.
However, I (allegedly) also have a higher IQ than the average person. Which kinda implies that either the test is a load of bull or that there's another factor that I don't know of. Personally I think it's the former because despite what people claim, I'm not smart. Smart people don't violate common sense on a regular basis.

Basically what I'm saying is that tests are a bad way to identify genii. Actions are where it's at.

[Loud Whispers]

Just because you don't like someone's music doesn't mean they can't be an intelligent person.

Yep. Though it's not about the music.

[Forums User Meat Wizard]

Well for one they'd have to be notably smarter than me, who is the only person where I can objectively say that they're not a genius.
However, I (allegedly) also have a higher IQ than the average person. Which kinda implies that either the test is a load of bull or that there's another factor that I don't know of. Personally I think it's the former because despite what people claim, I'm not smart. Smart people don't violate common sense on a regular basis.

Basically what I'm saying is that tests are a bad way to identify genii. Actions are where it's at.

Well I'm afraid 'to be a genius you have to be smarter than me' is not a very objective scale and just a little ego-centric, so I guess IQ test and SAT scores work better as a scale in this situation.

Just because you don't like someone's music doesn't mean they can't be an intelligent person.

Yep. Though it's not about the music.

Then what's it about?

[Darvi]

Well as I said, judging by other people is not objectively possible.

[Loud Whispers]

Well as I said, judging by other people is not objectively possible.

Pretty much this.


Hence Bill O.

[Cassandra]

Genius is a very loose term as it is.

[LordNagash]

Well for one they'd have to be notably smarter than me, who is the only person where I can objectively say that they're not a genius.
However, I (allegedly) also have a higher IQ than the average person. Which kinda implies that either the test is a load of bull or that there's another factor that I don't know of. Personally I think it's the former because despite what people claim, I'm not smart. Smart people don't violate common sense on a regular basis.

Basically what I'm saying is that tests are a bad way to identify genii. Actions are where it's at.

An IQ of 140 is higher than roughly 95% of the population. If that doesn't qualify someone as a genius, what does?

I fail to see how your 'allegedy' higher IQ than the average person is really relevant, as the word 'allegedly' would seem to imply you haven't actually had it tested, or don't know the result if your parents had you tested as a child. If you don't know where you are in relation, how can you make a judgement call?

Also as an aside, common sense is neither common or sensible. Unless you're talking about stuff like 'Don't touch hot things with your bare hands' or 'don't stick your face in a blender', I guess.

[Darvi]

An IQ of 140 is higher than roughly 95% of the population. If that doesn't qualify someone as a genius, what does?

I fail to see how your 'allegedy' higher IQ than the average person is really relevant, as the word 'allegedly' would seem to imply you haven't actually had it tested, or don't know the result if your parents had you tested as a child. If you don't know where you are in relation, how can you make a judgement call?

Also as an aside, common sense is neither common or sensible. Unless you're talking about stuff like 'Don't touch hot things with your bare hands' or 'don't stick your face in a blender', I guess.

I said "allegedly" because I don't trust the result that I got. And yes, it was higher than 140.

And yes, I do tend to do stuff like that :<
Hence my absolute distrust at the tests.

[Forums User Meat Wizard]

Well IQ tests are more about pattern recognition and problem solving than anything else, so it's just one scale of potential intelligence. It doesn't necessarily exclude you from being not-that-clever in other aspects of your life. That's what that in combination with a high SAT score - which is an objective scale of knowledge for that particular graduating year - implies that she's smarter than your average bear.

Well as I said, judging by other people is not objectively possible.

I'd say this is very much wrong. You can totally objectively judge people when the judging criteria are set. Sure you probably can't judge things along the lines of 'this painting makes me feel sad' but you can, for instance, judge it along the lines of 'this is not an impressionist painting' because the criteria for that are set and defined. Perhaps you could argue that setting those criteria are subjective, but once they're set, then they become a scale of definites you can rank by.

[Darvi]

Your average bear, of course, not being able to disguise themselves as your average human.
Those that do, of course, are absolutely hilarious.

[Loud Whispers]

Your average bear, of course, not being able to disguise themselves as your average human.

But if a bear was capable... How would you know?

[Darvi]

Well, I think if a random dude starts  shouting that a member of the visiting adventuring party is actually a bear, and nobody believes him, I might try to look harder.

[Flying Dice]

Well as I said, judging by other people is not objectively possible.

I'd say this is very much wrong. You can totally objectively judge people when the judging criteria are set. Sure you probably can't judge things along the lines of 'this painting makes me feel sad' but you can, for instance, judge it along the lines of 'this is not an impressionist painting' because the criteria for that are set and defined. Perhaps you could argue that setting those criteria are subjective, but once they're set, then they become a scale of definites you can rank by.

People are not paintings. You can't objectively judge people because you're trying to judge an unobservable, subjective thing with your own subjective thought processes. The human mind (for our purpose, what constitutes a human being) is inherently subjective, and no one individual can wholly understand the mind of another. We can make guesses based on observed behavioral trends and expressions of the other's opinions, but limited and somewhat untrustworthy data combined with guesses do not an objective, accurate conclusion make.

Even with perfect, unlimited telepathy we still wouldn't be able to do so, as the mechanism by which we would observe the mind of another would still be our own, equally opinionated mind. Let me spell it out for you.

ob·jec·tive/əbˈjektiv/
Adjective:   
(of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

[Xantalos]

Thanks to the happy thread and possibly FD, I found a LOTR/Pirates of the Carribean crossover fanfiction.
BEST
POSSIBLE
THING

[MaximumZero]

Orlando Bloom x Orlando Bloom?