My Deep Sayunce Of The Day

[Super Polymath]

The definition of intelligence is choosing happiness over intelligence. Consequently, what seems like stupidity on the surface is sometimes actually evidence of intelligence.

 

Because that was far too "happy" to put on my Facebook wall. I mean, wouldn't want anyone coming to the erroneous conclusion that I'm "as straight as a curve".

 

A paradoxical reiteration of the ole "happiness is blitz" spiel followed by some clever lingo with a comedic twist. How's that for philosophizing?

Edited January 8, 2017 by Super Polymath

[DrKrettin]

The definition of intelligence is choosing happiness over intelligence. .... How's that for philosophizing?

 

That is the only text I actually understand, and I'm not impressed. Why do you feel the need to invent words for concepts which already have names? 

[exchemist]

The definition of intelligence is choosing happiness over intelligence. Consequently, what seems like stupidity on the surface is sometimes actually evidence of intelligence.

 

Because that was far too "happy" to put on my Facebook wall. I mean, wouldn't want anyone coming to the erroneous conclusion that I'm "as straight as a curve".

 

A paradoxical reiteration of the ole "happiness is blitz" spiel followed by some clever lingo with a comedic twist. How's that for philosophizing?

Terrible. 

 

The opening statement doesn't bear a moment's examination, rendering the rest moot. 

 

Even leaving the issue of intelligence aside, it is questionable whether anyone can "choose" happiness and, if they could, whether it would be an intelligent thing to try to "choose. I should have thought most thoughtful people would try to seek (I don't say "choose" as it may not be a matter of choice for them) fulfilment rather than "happiness". 

[Super Polymath]

Why do you feel the need to invent words for concepts which already have names?

It's either laziness or illiteracy.

 

It's A. I know when I'm not using a real word so B can be crossed out. I'm too lazy to think of the right word so I just make one up. I think that's how slang got started, either they a made a word up or b were too illiterate to pronounce a word properly. People with an atypical thought process actually have more extensive use of language because they pick up on every use of their language that they're exposed to whereas neurotypicals not so much, so much so that they can forget simple terms but remember complicated ones and vice versa. Meaning that my writing style will steal your writing style and splice it with many others.

 

Keep in mind there're these things called cognitive trade-offs, that's why it's pervasive learning as oppossed to enhanced learning.

 

I will also use contractions for some words while not using them for others, convey a point mid-discussion by telling a story that starts out as a seemingly unrelated and erradic addition to the topic of discussion (making it appear as if I'm trying to change the subject), and use extremely odd metaphors. My use of language is sometimes like a riddle to solve, so what.

 

I have seen someone here use pig latin to bypass the swear-word filter and kudos to him.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

Terrible.

 

The opening statement doesn't bear a moment's examination, rendering the rest moot.

 

Even leaving the issue of intelligence aside, it is questionable whether anyone can "choose" happiness and, if they could, whether it would be an intelligent thing to try to "choose. I should have thought most thoughtful people would try to seek (I don't say "choose" as it may not be a matter of choice for them) fulfilment rather than "happiness".

Intelligence is simply the capacity for more accurate intuition than a less intelligent fellow. By that logic knowledge and wisdom aren't the same as intelligence, so if we're happier ignoring the facts it doesn't make us unintelligent, just uneducated.

 

You can be fulfilled simply by attaining joy, if that's your subjective criteria. I believe that criteria is called utilitarianism, the idea that, to maximize everyone's quality of life, one must start by maximizing one's own quality of life.

 

Now why would that last part be relevant to a reiteration of the ole' ignorance is bliss trope? Perhaps because the author of that reiteration is not only an extrapian, but also a utilitarianist? Good God he's messed up.

 

PS, why do I feel like two people with an idealogically opposing disposition to mine are following me around in some forum?

 

I'm a think-tank, so you're telling me what interests you specifically by your expressed opposition to my way of thinking. Or as a very wise and noble man named Ben Stiller once said "the dudes are emerging". And they're apparently two highly opinionated atheists, this isn't utilitarianism, perhaps Platonism. And I say that with all the indifference in the world. Because as the late Marlon Brando once said, "it is judgment that defeats us".

 

The difference in personality emerging from our core philisophies is, I postulate, as simple as that you wakeup with a goal and I don't. Maybe I'm a hyper realist pondering the notion of futility at its deepest darkest depths. Perhaps I'm too well-adjusted to fit the conventional criteria for being well-adjusted. You neurotypicals and your goals, do I really look like a guy with a plan?

 

And I quote the dark knight because it highlights that goals just equate to predictability and therefore a level of credulity that can be exploited by someone with an atypical thought process given the right setting, which is characteristic of great scientists, but they didn't ignore the science just because they were wrong a lot, that is why they were great scientists. At the end of the day, whether you're the joker or the batman, relentlessness will prevail.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Super Polymath

[DrKrettin]

PS, why do I feel like two people with an idealogically opposing disposition to mine are following me around in some forum?

 

 

Maybe because we wonder what you are doing on a science forum, and we are too new here to realize that everybody else has long since given up trying to engage with you. By the way, that's the first time I've seen a PS in the middle of an S.

 

I'm a think-tank, so you're telling me what interests you specifically by your expressed opposition to my way of thinking. 

 

 

You say think-tank, but what is the point of generating text which makes little sense to anybody else? 

 

 And they're apparently two highly opinionated atheists,

 

 

We are both accustomed to following logical trains of thought and reasoned arguments, expressed in standard language. Why would you call that opinionated? I don't remember offering any opinion, other than about the quality of your prose.

 

You neurotypicals and your goals, do I really look like a guy with a plan?

 

 

Sorry to disappoint you, but I am most certainly not neurotypical. You know nothing much about me.

 

And I quote the dark knight because it highlights that goals just equate to predictability and therefore a level of credulity that can be exploited by someone with an atypical thought process given the right setting, which is characteristic of great scientists, but they didn't ignore the science just because they were wrong a lot, that is why they were great scientists. 

 

 

 

I get the impression that you are preoccupied with a tiny number of great scientists who were atypical, and thus there must be some credit in being atypical by association.  This is a real non sequitur.

[Super Polymath]

That's good now reread the reply in which I was quoting you.

 

Then reread the second because I edited both of them.

 

And just because you're diagnosed with a condition that doesn't fit the bill for neurotypical doesn't mean you haven't overcome it. Something tells me being neurotypical would be favorable for you, because it suits someone with your subjectively favorable criteria which you've spelled out for me.

 

You also may not be acknowledging where I've been right about y'all.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

I get the impression that you are preoccupied with a tiny number of great scientists who were atypical, and thus there must be some credit in being atypical by association. This is a real non sequitur.

Actually the scientists were supposed to be the credulous and patternistic neurotypical victims in that example. If you know someone is always going to go with the most logical answer as the correct one than you can easily vex them by making the illogical answer the correct one.

 

It is in this world that intuition beats out semantic knowledge. For instance, a straight A student can be sucked into a parasitic relationship with a pretentious succubus whereas a high school dropout didn't want to give her control in the first place and therefore wasn't sucked in by her prettiness.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

It's a postscript because the script, as in subject matter, ends with me, and postscript begins with you. The post script was just longer, I can see how that could throw someone off.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Super Polymath

[exchemist]

Intelligence is simply the capacity for more accurate intuition than a less intelligent fellow. By that logic knowledge and wisdom aren't the same as intelligence, so if we're happier ignoring the facts it doesn't make us unintelligent, just uneducated.

 

You can be fulfilled simply by attaining joy, if that's your subjective criteria. I believe that criteria is called utilitarianism, the idea that, to maximize everyone's quality of life, one must start by maximizing one's own quality of life.

 

Now why would that last part be relevant to a reiteration of the ole' ignorance is bliss trope? Perhaps because the author of that reiteration is not only an extrapian, but also a utilitarianist? Good God he's messed up.

 

PS, why do I feel like two people with an idealogically opposing disposition to mine are following me around in some forum?

 

I'm a think-tank, so you're telling me what interests you specifically by your expressed opposition to my way of thinking. Or as a very wise and noble man named Ben Stiller once said "the dudes are emerging". And they're apparently two highly opinionated atheists, this isn't utilitarianism, perhaps Platonism. And I say that with all the indifference in the world. Because as the late Marlon Brando once said, "it is judgment that defeats us".

 

The difference in personality emerging from our core philisophies is, I postulate, as simple as that you wakeup with a goal and I don't. Maybe I'm a hyper realist pondering the notion of futility at its deepest darkest depths. Perhaps I'm too well-adjusted to fit the conventional criteria for being well-adjusted. You neurotypicals and your goals, do I really look like a guy with a plan?

 

And I quote the dark knight because it highlights that goals just equate to predictability and therefore a level of credulity that can be exploited by someone with an atypical thought process given the right setting, which is characteristic of great scientists, but they didn't ignore the science just because they were wrong a lot, that is why they were great scientists. At the end of the day, whether you're the joker or the batman, relentlessness will prevail.

You do realise, do you, that you have now given two mutually contradictory definition of intelligence in this thread? Unless, that is, you are going to argue that "the capacity for more accurate intuition" is the same thing as "choosing happiness", which seems manifestly untrue.

Edited January 9, 2017 by exchemist

[Super Polymath]

You do realise, do you, that you have now given two mutually contradictory definition of intelligence in this thread? Unless, that is, you are going to argue that "superior intuition" is the same thing as "choosing happiness", which seems manifestly untrue.

It might by your criteria, by mine it obviously doesn't. Both criterias are, as far as we can tell, objectively equitable.

 

Shall we run a test to determine by measuring which of us is smarter and which of us is happier?

Edited January 9, 2017 by Super Polymath

[exchemist]

It might by your criteria, by mine it obviously doesn't. Both criterias are, as far as we can tell, objectively equitable.

 

Shall we run a test to determine by measuring which of us is smarter and which of us is happier?

I think I've just done that, to my own satisfaction.