Print

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

[RedWarrior0]

Orlando Bloom x Orlando Bloom?

I was going to say the exact same thing, you know.

[Descan]

Link me, mahgot.

[MaximumZero]

Orlando Bloom x Orlando Bloom?

I was going to say the exact same thing, you know.

So, ninja'd?

[Darvi]

Orlando Bloom x Orlando Bloom?

I was going to say the exact same thing, you know.

So, ninja'd?

That would explain the pirates.

[Forums User Meat Wizard]

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.

This is all true. An IQ or SAT test does not, however, judge or rank people on personality or social aptitude. They're tests of problem solving, pattern recognition, and the capacity to retain information, which you can certainly test objectively for given the fact that they're tests with right-or-wrong answers, and at least attempt to be consistent.

[RedWarrior0]

Orlando Bloom x Orlando Bloom?

I was going to say the exact same thing, you know.

So, ninja'd?

Sort of? I read Darvi's post, thought your post, looked at a different topic, and then came back to see that the post I had thought was already posted. Does that count as a ninjaing?

[Xantalos]

Here is thing.

[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.

This is all true. An IQ or SAT test does not, however, judge or rank people on personality or social aptitude. They're tests of problem solving, pattern recognition, and the capacity to retain information, which you can certainly test objectively for given the fact that they're tests with right-or-wrong answers, and at least attempt to be consistent.

You're not judging people, then. You're judging small parts of a greater system. It's the same principle as examining someone by way of documenting the condition of their liver tissue; you're getting data, sure, but it doesn't tell you anything about the person. Intelligence is far more than what the SAT and IQ tests cover. For IQ tests, see Howard Gardner re: types of intelligence. They also fail to measure adaptability and mental resilience. The SAT has been shown to be measurably biased in terms of the test taker's cultural background. See "Unfair Treatment? The Case of Freedle, the SAT, and the Standardization Approach to Differential Item Functioning" from the Harvard Educational Review for more information on that.

In short, IQ tests measure a small component of intelligence, while the SAT is a markedly subjective test that varies based on factors irrelevant to intelligence. Neither is an acceptable measure of intelligence, even as a stopgap. If someone scores, say, 160 on an IQ test, concluding that they are highly intelligent is akin to concluding that someone is a master-level martial artist after watching them run up a flight of stairs without breathing heavily. This is a perfect example of why Holism is at least partially useful as a mode of thought.

[TheBronzePickle]

Because of society, what we consider 'intelligence' has partially conformed to what the standardized tests like IQ and SAT measure (although that's starting to come to an end as we enter a more 'enlightened' period with more and more people going into college and such). IQ is an objective measure of our mathematical and logical abilities. I'd imagine that soon we'll be seeing objective measures of some of the other 'intelligences'.

[dei]

One word: Tumblr.

Three more words: Pony thread simulator.

[Flying Dice]

Hah, you noticed those? Some of the best laughs I've had in the past few years were derived from them.

[misko27]

Hehe, while preparing for Frankenstorm, I spoke with the head of my rite-aid. What he said regarding The storm:

"There's been a run on water, booze, and chips. Some food too, but mostly water, booze, and chips".

I checked myself, they have NO chips, no booze, and 1 6-waters pack. I took the pack. There are people in the street with booze. 6-packs, wine bottles. Nice to realize what NYC's priorities are. I'm expecting a influx of babies in 9 months.

[RedWarrior0]

This storm is very ill-timed. Imagine what it would be like a month and a half from now!

[Hanslanda]

I drank the warlock into a stupor so he couldn't do evil that night.

Alcohol: the cause and the solution to all of life's problems.

He's a paladin of Steve, god of Drinking, Wenching, and Debauchery. No, seriously.

His Paladin's Oath is called the Bro Code.

"Do you, _____, swear to not be a douche, to uphold the Precepts of Steve to the best of your like, ability, and to totally take this shot with me? Sweet, you're in bro."

[kaijyuu]

I'll gladly sign up for Hans's religion