/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.8108576]

When do you consider a person smart ?

[Anonymous No.8108578]

When they wear a tie

[Anonymous No.8108586]

When they can learn things on their own. This can mean literally on their own, as in no help from outside sources, or in their own interest whether it's a book they read or a class they took. Anyone you meet who you would consider smart has this ability, and has likely practiced it or else you wouldn't find them smart.

[Anonymous No.8108638]

Independent thinking. The usual signs are:
1) They are cultural hermits, like no TV, no Cinema etc
2) Absence of precise knowledge of mainstream culture, because they don't consume mainstream media
3) Deep knowledge of history from a global perspective
4) Detachment from traditional culture - most but not all are (old) atheists or agnostics
5) A general emotional detachment from things, sometimes paired with a seemingly brutal pragmatism
6) Unusual knowledge not based on their career, transcending the STEM-Humanities separation
7) Unusual political views not always falling into the left-right spectrum
8) Sometimes a high, non-clinical asspie factor due to limited exposure to other people, though even those can navigate the social area on a superficial level

[Anonymous No.8108642]

>>8108638
Ahahahah I'm all but second, I listen to a lot of mainstream music.

[Anonymous No.8108649]

>>8108638

I disagree with this.

To me, the biggest marker is omnipresence ('Cultural Omnipresence', specifically). That is, the ability to be 'without' and 'within'. So for example,

1) They can immerse themselves in TV/Cinema/etc, without getting vested in it.
2) They have good a wealth of general knowledge, and so can 'fit in' just as readily with 'Pop Culture' enthusiasts, as with literati patricians (although naturally they will have a preference)
3) Again, good general knowledge of world history; however, they will realize, as Schopenhauer said, that the subject of history is too vast to fully study. Ergo, they will instead familiarize themselves with the general Zeitgeist of a given time/place/people
4) Detachment in general, I agree. Aloof.
5) Again good.
6) Yep.
7) Yep, although I'd say the marker for this is the possession of political beliefs, or even an entire political outlook, that is unpopular.
8) Yes.

Overall, to adapt a Biblical metaphor, I would say the hallmark of an intelligent and independent mind is the ability to walk through the metaphorical valley of the shadow of death, without making yourself at home there.

[Anonymous No.8108653]

>>8108576
>ask a bunch of precocious 20 somethings who don't know shit
>they define smart as 'precocious 20 something who doesn't know shit'
that's all you'll get out of this board, different poorly-disguised variations of that response

[Anonymous No.8108665]

I hate this board so much.

[Anonymous No.8108666]

>>8108638
>Detachment from traditional culture
That's how you spot a moron though.

[Anonymous No.8108673]

>>8108666
Being completely shaped by tradition frequently creates a cultural horizon. Detachment does not mean they don't consume it, but they can also transcend it.

[Anonymous No.8108680]

>>8108638
Kek that's reddit

[Anonymous No.8108685]

By what they do and not what they say. Thats the only real measure

[Anonymous No.8108692]

>>8108666
Go to Afghanistan, enter a tribal village, and look around if you can. Tell them the universe is not geocentric. Enjoy your stoning. That's people being shaped by traditional culture alone. When they sent OLPC devices to some south-easian villages, the village elders confiscated them some weeks later because the kids started to ask unusual questions, which was considered detrimental to the social order.

[Anonymous No.8108694]

>>8108680
Kek, that's not an argument

[Anonymous No.8108709]

>>8108576
When they can teach me.

[Anonymous No.8108711]

when they abuse me and call me a retard for having a different opinion on something

[Anonymous No.8108718]

>>8108711

>this shit "opinion"

fuck off retard

[Anonymous No.8108720]

>>8108718

Teach me

[Anonymous No.8108721]

>>8108692
>which was considered detrimental to the social order
Might have been so. In any case societies can be willfully ignorant without traditionalism, just look at the west today.
>>8108673
You can't transcend traditionalism, only build upon it.

[Anonymous No.8108722]

>>8108711
>>8108718

[Anonymous No.8108728]

>>8108576
When they're "sharp". That's pretty much the only requirement for being smart, everything else usually follows. "Sharp" people typically have insightful, smart opinions on most things, they grasp things very quickly, and have a broad range of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.8108731]

>>8108721
I think the western ignorance we have just now is a transitional state. It would be too lethal as a long-term solution, at will break down in the near future. Real traditional societies are in an Apollonic hell, we are on a Dionysian battlefield.

[Anonymous No.8108737]

>>8108731
>Real traditional societies are in an Apollonic hell
What about Japan or China? Saudi Arabia? (sure it has economic problems but it is far from facing a disaster)

[Anonymous No.8108751]

>>8108737
China and Japan are changing with high speed (and in the case of Japan the transition was actually completed 50 years ago) because their traditional foundation is not broadly inhibiting change, though they have probably removed some parts of the foundation. But let the Saudi oil run out and they will probably be a desert again.

[Anonymous No.8108754]

I have an IQ of 160+, so I'm technically smart, for what technicalities are worth, and I'll say which of these things relate to me. A disclaimer - I'm only 19, and currently majoring in Chemical and Materials Engineering with Minors in English and Philosophy, so I can't say I know much about anything. I'm kind of a pussy in that I majored in something I know I can be (relatively) successful in and minored in areas where I don't believe I'll achieve succes.

>>8108586
100% yes, although believing you don't require guidance is a fool's belief.

>>8108638
Mostly accurate, except for 1, 2, and a bit of 7. Recently, I've tried to get more into what could be considered "serious" or "relevant" music and cinema, because I'm interested in becoming as cultured in those areas as I am in others. Also, regarding 7- I was always very moderate because of my mixed opinions on different issues that don't conform well to the left-right spectrum, but now I'm starting to rethink all of my positions and avoid any certainty because I've come to recognize my lack of understanding in political science.

>>8108649
Definitely agree with your stance on 2 and 3.

In my opinion, intelligence is having a mind that can respond - a brain that will act independently.

[Anonymous No.8108757]

>>8108751
>let the Saudi oil run out and they will probably be a desert again.
They're taking steps to be less dependent on oil.
>because their traditional foundation is not broadly inhibiting change
This is an interesting point. I used to wonder why certain highly traditional cultures can succeed while others fail but I guess it's due to reasons other than traditionalism.

[Anonymous No.8108760]

>>8108757
It's also genetic. Asians are statistically smarter, though that's not something you should say these days and you only will read it in books from the 50s.

[Anonymous No.8108763]

>>8108760
Asians are also less-likely to be extremely intelligent and have a harder time utilizing critical-thinking skills.

[Anonymous No.8108766]

>>8108760
>you only will read it in books from the 50s.
There's a reason for that and it's not "muh jewish politically correct propaganda." And I doubt its genetic considering that Qataris and Saudi Arabians managed to achieve success beyond drilling oik.

[Anonymous No.8108777]

>>8108763
That's an interesting question, is it better to have a mean IQ of 100 with 4 or 5 people reaching 180 or is it better to have 105 with a bunch of people on 160 ? It's assumed Newton may have been around 200, and look what this single person did.

[Anonymous No.8108782]

>>8108754
>>8108649
you guys should check out Taoism if you didn't already

[Anonymous No.8108783]

>>8108766

>There's a reason for that and it's not "muh jewish politically correct propaganda."

Let's hear it, pal.

>inb4 "We are all equal! How can you possibly believe that Humans would have meaningful genetic differences with various races/ethnicities having spent millennia entirely apart from one another?! Oh, and by the way, genetics determine who we are attracted to; but nothing else, I swear...

[Anonymous No.8108788]

>>8108777
I think it would realistically be better to have fewer incredibly smart people, but that is based on the structure of our modern society. I believe that below a certain level (IQ) there isn't enough unique thought to view that intelligence as useful, because a majority of the people will use their intellect in an identical manner to those of an average intellect.

Now, if there were no societal confines - I have no idea what would be better.

Also, is there any decent studies or descriptions of why Asians have a harder time applying what they've learned or generating unique thought?

[Anonymous No.8108791]

>>8108766
There may be more recent results, but they won't be made public outside closed scientific groups. People can't deal with statistics and the results would harm social cohesion in multi-ethnic societies. That's probably the only reason.

[Anonymous No.8108798]

>>8108576

When they are humble, kind, and yet have an imposing air of knowingness about them. They might not have read anything , or maybe they have read it all.

[Anonymous No.8108800]

>>8108783
>Let's hear it, pal.
Unless I see a bunch of research papers published in respectable journals that support theories about racial inferiority based purely on genetics then I will continue to believe in racial equality based on anecdotal evidence.
>inb4 scientists are prevented from saying the truth by the liberal media.
That's your word against mine.

[Anonymous No.8108812]

>>8108798
So they are smart if they subscribe to Judeo-Christian slave-morality ?

[Anonymous No.8108813]

>>8108782
>Muh exotic oriental philosophy
Why are westners so stupid lah?

[Anonymous No.8108815]

>>8108800

>respectable journals

>based purely on genetics

Who's talking about purely genetics? Partially isn't unreasonable.

>I will continue to believe in racial equality based on anecdotal evidence.

Hey, it's your funeral chump.

[Anonymous No.8108818]

When they're wearing well fitting, properly washed and ironed clothes with shiny shoes.

[Anonymous No.8108822]

>>8108815
>Partially isn't unreasonable.
Ok fine. Partially too.
>>respectable journals
What's wrong with this? Just as long as it's peer-reviewed.

>Hey, it's your funeral chump.
Hey, I'm not saying we should push for diversity or anything like that. I prefer relative homogeneity and believe that the only immigrants that should be allowed into a country are the very very best of immigrants who can pass a very rigorous test for cultural fit and who are very skilled workers who can contribute to the country's economy/academic world.

[Anonymous No.8108824]

>>8108800
>inb4 scientists are prevented from saying the truth by the liberal media.
I'm not the guy you just talked to, but I remember a bunch of cases. They even were on BBC news. One is James Watson, the guy who decoded the structure of the DNA. Don't remember the other names, but they were usually competent scientists losing their jobs because they talked about politically incorrect scientific results.

[Anonymous No.8108825]

>>8108812
Beyond simply the Protestant morality, I feel like it might have something to do with the understanding of true intellectual thought vs pseudo intellectual insight. As I got to understand more, I definitely came to recognize the error in believing or discussing certain things without knowing enough to make a truly informed decision.

[Anonymous No.8108830]

>>8108800
>Unless I see a bunch of research papers published in respectable journals
You mean that unless it becomes politically correct to examine racial differences. That's like not believing smoking to be unhealthy unless the payola confirms it.

[Anonymous No.8108836]

>>8108812

No, and I don't know how you arrived there

[Anonymous No.8108837]

>>8108825
Ok, then humility. Not necessarily kindness. Joseph Priestley comes to mind.

[Anonymous No.8108838]

>>8108638
You'd know that
>4) Detachment from traditional culture - most but not all are (old) atheists or agnostics
is a meme if you knew:
>3) Deep knowledge of history

[Anonymous No.8108842]

Genuine curiosity is an important aspect

[Anonymous No.8108843]

>>8108692
Based village elders

Tech is clearly of the devil

[Anonymous No.8108852]

>>8108838
How is being a product of a single culture a positive trait ? Detachment does not mean you don't know anything about it or that you don't take anything from it. But you don't depend on it solely either.

[Anonymous No.8108854]

>>8108777
>he swallowed the Newton meme
Leibniz was the guy Anglos ripped off (because Anglos are on average psychopaths as Americans are narcisstic)

[Anonymous No.8108857]

>>8108854
They developed differential mathematics independently.

[Anonymous No.8108860]

>>8108854
>Leibniz was the guy Anglos ripped off
It is widely acknowledged that they each developed it independently.

[Anonymous No.8108862]

when they smash that mf like button

[Anonymous No.8108865]

>>8108576
Tuesdays around 3

[Anonymous No.8108866]

>>8108852
Pardon I was particularly referring to the atheist/agnostic part, which is very recent meme if you look at history any further back than the Renessaince.

Whatever your current stance is on religion, and whether you like it or not, there's no doubt that religion got us out of mud and off the trees. To claim otherwise is idiotic

[Anonymous No.8108870]

>>8108852
>How is being a product of a single culture a positive trait ?
How is it not?

[Anonymous No.8108874]

>>8108866
There IS a positive correlation between atheism and intelligence though.

[Anonymous No.8108876]

>>8108874
>there's a positive correlation between illogical belief and positive logical performance
k, i think i see why we missed mars

[Anonymous No.8108879]

>>8108860
>According to the Anglo historians
All of Leibniz ideas are more inherently cohesive and tied to each other, much easier to pin him as the originator

Newtown left more pages of insane "Alchemist" babble than any math afaik

[Anonymous No.8108888]

>>8108874

[Anonymous No.8108893]

>>8108888
Not an argument and you know that. Why don't you just say the statistics are faked ?

[Anonymous No.8108901]

>>8108893
why don't you recognise his quads or respond to the poster who outlined the obviously argument against you before him >>8108876

oh right, because you argue like a girl with emotional problems.

[Anonymous No.8108902]

>>8108638
This reads like an earnest attempt to delineate pop-culture depictions of 'smartness'. Or like a Martian tried to reverse-engineer a concept of intelligence based on marathoning House and Sherlock.

>>8108576
The question is oddly phrased. If you want me to define 'intelligence' that's a famously tough cookie, but I quite like 'the ability to learn how to learn'.

If you're asking me what criteria I apply when forming my opinion of a person's intelligence, I consider manner, affect, behaviour in various contexts etc. Deep or broad knowledge correlates well but is obviously neither fully predicted nor predictive. In my experience, one of the more reliable predictors is the ability to be funny. Not that I haven't known any funny people who weren't that smart, or any smart people who weren't that funny, but it's a trend I've noticed.

[Anonymous No.8108903]

>>8108893
Not at all, but correlation is not the same as causation. Secularism and fedoraism are the ways of conformity today. If you would examine the ages when the faith was dominant you would find that the reverse was true back then. The intelligentsia are not inherently religious nor atheistic, they're simply a product of the current system.

[Anonymous No.8108906]

>>8108901
Correlation is not causation. Atheism correlates with intelligence positively. That does not necessarily mean one causes the other. Also, why should atheism be "illogical belief" ?

[Anonymous No.8108910]

>>8108906
>Atheism correlates with intelligence
uh, no, it doesn't.
>atheism is a logical belief
m8, you can't even logical notation
>correlation does not causation
babby, that you think the correlation is there at all is hilarious and means you've been reading some really dumb shit when your mum's not there to give you buttrubs

[Anonymous No.8108911]

>>8108866
>there's no doubt that religion got us out of mud and off the trees

This is a too-strong formulation of a very plausible premise. You can't just point to the fact that religiosity was formerly ubiquitous and claim that demonstrates religiosity was the major cause, or a significant part of a complex of causes, that led to human development.

There are anthropological hypotheses supporting the idea that religion played a role in making 'civilisation' possible, but 'religion dragged us off the trees' is just silly.

[Anonymous No.8108913]

>>8108903
>Secularism and fedoraism are the ways of conformity today.

Where do you live that you think this is even remotely true? France? Scandinavia?

[Anonymous No.8108914]

>>8108911
>those cave paintings are just about hybrid human animals, not religious experience

[Anonymous No.8108922]

>>8108914
I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that cave paintings are the direct, sine-qua-non cause of 'civilisation'? That seems a bit silly, so you probably don't mean that. But then I don't know what you might mean.

[Anonymous No.8108924]

>>8108922
no, i'm suggesting the religious experiences which caused us to make cave paintings are the causal factor in not just the paintings but in basic human tribal formation.

[Anonymous No.8108925]

>>8108906

[Anonymous No.8108928]

>>8108903
That's why I did not use the world causation, dummy. Also, atheists could be non-conformists, especially those you will meet on /lit, please keep that in mind. As for the conformity, we are currently moving back to faith, believe it or not. Kids are more conservative these days, because their parents were an extreme product of 70s secularity. Their kids will be fedora again, this will probably happen a bunch of times. There is nevertheless a constant rise of atheism for the last 200 years, and that can not be described as vogue, it's based on the underlying scientific revolution we entered with the Renaissance and the decay of Metaphysics. The result is that people who are aware of these developments tend to go for atheism, maybe with exception of Platonist Mathematicians.

[Anonymous No.8108934]

>>8108578
I love you

[Anonymous No.8108936]

>>8108910
>uh, no, it doesn't.

Not him, but it definitely does. I mean, to 'correlate' means only to share a statistical distribution trend. Deaths by drowning correlate with ice-cream sales is the classic example. The fact that ice-cream doesn't make people drown, and that drowning doesn't make people thirsty, doesn't mean that the two things don't correlate - they definitely do, by simple virtue of the fact that when ice-cream sales increase, one can reliably predict an increase in the rate of deaths by drowning.

When we survey the population, we find that atheism correlates with a number of other features, such as wealth and education. That these themselves correlate with IQ indicates that atheism will indeed correlate with IQ, albeit weakly and perhaps even indirectly.

>>8108924
Right, but what's your evidence for that? How does that even form a coherent hypothesis? As I said, there are hypotheses that suppose a role played by religion in the formation of civilisation. But you seem to be asserting, with no apparent basis, that religion didn't simply play a role, but played THE role, so to speak. Why do you think that?

And let me just put this out there: I think (and have already said) that it's quite plausible religiosity played some part in developing human civilisation. I've been disputing the simplistic and exaggerated version of that claim you (appear to be) defending.

[Anonymous No.8108939]

>>8108928
>Kids are more conservative these days

What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.8108954]

>>8108939
America, some trends in Europe as well, they are more likely to be religious in puberty. In traditionally conservative western societies it's the other way round. What matters is that kids during puberty re-assert their individuality from their parents and tend to go the other way. It's typical homo Sapiens YA psychology. If their parents specifically forbade them to stick a soldering iron in their sphincter they would do this as well.

[Anonymous No.8108956]

>>8108913
Fedoraism is the rule among the aristocrats and the intelligentsia, secularism is the rule for the middle class. Just take a look at the education systems or the political landscape.

[Anonymous No.8108961]

>>8108954
>America, some trends in Europe as well, they are more likely to be religious in puberty.

Really?

I mean, I understand the theory you're referring to, I'm just not sure the data supports the conclusion you've reached from it.

>>8108956
Or I could take a look at the demographics and see that atheism remains the minority position it's always been. But really, you're making such absurdly broad claims about poorly-defined cohorts that you're in danger of not even meaning anything.

[Anonymous No.8108972]

>>8108936
>it's quite plausible religiosity played some part in developing human civilisation
Civilization is not possible without religion, for many reasons. Social cohesion, unity, faith, stability and so forth all require religion. It's not necessarily THE thing which is behind civilization but it is an integral part of it.

[Anonymous No.8108976]

>>8108961
At least when you look at the mentality of 70s-80s compared with 90s and millenials, there seems to be a trend. It's about peer pressure and being different from what the parent are. Not clear whether it's really cyclic. Below that there seems to be a very slow increase in "real/old" atheism for 200 years, the one Nietzsche and others became aware of.

[Anonymous No.8108978]

>>8108972
>Social cohesion, unity, faith, stability and so forth all require religion.

I doubt this, except maybe for 'faith', which I'm not sure what it means if not 'religious faith'. It may be true, for instance, that religion facilitated the development of these features, but that doesn't mean it's required to maintain them.

>>8108976
So you're really just spitballing. OK.

[Anonymous No.8108986]

>>8108879
>I can just deny the opinion of most historians because it doesn't fit with my opinion

>All of Leibniz ideas are more inherently cohesive and tied to each other, much easier to pin him as the originator
>Newtown left more pages of insane "Alchemist" babble than any math afaik
Why don't you provide us with some examples rather than some unsubstantiated bs?

[Anonymous No.8108989]

>>8108978
60s: edgy hippies move away from their parent's christianity into some esoteric drug-fuelled bullshit
80s: hippies have kids, those turn out to be edgy wannabe atheist punkrockers
90s: said edgy punkrockers have kids, and they turn out to be "spiritual" again
2000s: spirituals, agnostics and some religious kids, voting for Trump
It's not spitballing, during their 20s they are mostly just products of their era

[Anonymous No.8108991]

>>8108936
>it definitely does
No, it does not correlate. There are many things which do correlate, such as height, wealth, or even race, to IQ measurements of "intelligence" but atheism is not one of them.
Of course, if we take IQ to define intelligence in that quandry, we've already answered OP's question, and probably in ways that are uncomfortable to anyone with a SD to look up to. The problem is that even if we did accept that as the definition of intelligence, it in no way correlates with atheism; the only way to make it correlate with atheism is if you ignore the even greater number of people with equal scores who are theists. You need to data torture to produce that result, because the correlation between a 125+ IQ in and of itself is not with atheism. Essentially what's produced this meme is that atheists don't know the difference between the population of atheists and the population of smart people in terms of stats. It doesn't have the correlation socio-economic or even physiological signs do, it has a negative correlation with idiocy at best, which is definitely not the same thing as a positive correlation with intelligence. It's as right as saying epilepsy is correlated with high IQs, because there's a small population of them, who, unlike the majority of epileptics who are functionally retarded by the disorder, achieve better results on the test than normals.
It's such bad math anyone who spouts it probably bought the MMR-Autism study as a good population to study correlation in too.

>what's your evidence for that
The people who kept up the practices, like the Saan,
>how does that even form a coherent hypothesis
ikr, it's like it's all these archaeologists and anthropologist and neuroscientists jobs to actually do something like test it piece by piece against evidence, who even does that? next they'll be testing the Saan to see if their DNA really does go back that far into civilization's history, and their rock paintings to make sure they're millennia older than prehistory, and running tests to see if those hallucinations are inevitable under the same circumstance for everyone. Bastard scientists and their hypotheses, I don't know how they live with themselves.

[Anonymous No.8108995]

>>8108978
What you doubt is of very little importance

Man is essentially a religious animal. It twists the atheist jimmies but this really is the case

Praying/meditation works, it enlightens and improves people's lives. Atheism on the other hand leads to nihilism and anti-natalism and suicide

[Anonymous No.8108996]

>>8108989
>no hard data
>no terms defined
>"this is just what makes sense to me based on what i assume is true"

OK yeah definitely not spitballing and you've actually completely convinced me, well done.

[Anonymous No.8109000]

>>8108576
There's a nice quote from Socrates about this, "The mark of an educated mind, is that it is able to entertain a thought without accepting it ", an intelligent person is able to recognize and become familiar with a wide array of topics, always ready to change and adapt on new information.

[Anonymous No.8109004]

>>8108986
>Anglo detected
Newtown publishes after Lebnitz
Royal Society's campaign to destroy Leibniz almost works except nobody can make progress with Newtown's maths
Leibniz calculus is improved and developed
Britfags finally accept defeat not before doing a massive disservice to the world
>Brits on par for sheer evil they're capable of

You can check on these things yourself buuuud

Look into what Gödel thought about it while you're at it

[Anonymous No.8109012]

>>8108813
wew lad

[Anonymous No.8109014]

>>8109000
i do this all the time, does that make me smurt

[Anonymous No.8109015]

>>8108991
>No, it does not correlate. There are many things which do correlate, such as height, wealth, or even race, to IQ measurements of "intelligence" but atheism is not one of them.

Yes, yes it does correlate. All anyone's ever seriously disputed about that is whether the correlation is at all interesting.

>The people who kept up the practices, like the Saan

Your evidence for the role of those practices in forming civilisation is that a culture that remains based on hunter-gatherer models to this day still maintains them? That seems questionable at best, and I'm being polite here.

Beyond that, while your sarcasm is charming af, it hasn't actually answered my question. What evidence do you have to support the notion that religious impulses led to 'tribe formation'?

[Anonymous No.8109018]

>>8108995
>i have no evidence for any of the claims i've just made

Cool beans.

[Anonymous No.8109025]

>>8109015
so smart people are in countries that are 10-20% atheist, but not completely atheist?

[Anonymous No.8109028]

>>8109025
There are no 'completely atheist' countries.

[Anonymous No.8109030]

>>8108995
Indeed.
>>8108978
>but that doesn't mean it's required to maintain them
No but that is the case, once you abandon God for relativism you no longer have a civilization.

[Anonymous No.8109031]

>>8109015
It doesn't correlate with intelligence, unless you mean it has a negative correlation with idiocy, which is again, not the same as a positive correlation with intelligence. That's what that little chart is trying to tell you- not that atheists fall into the smart category more often than theists, but that they fall into the dumb category less often than theists. When you look for a positive correlation, theists womp atheists on numbers in the intelligence stakes, just like they do in the dumb stakes. A negative correlation with idiocy is not the same thing as a positive correlation with intelligence.

What you're doing is this
>Sam does not get Bus 1, the loser bus
>Sam does get Bus 2
>Therefore Sam is the only person, or the majority of people, on Bus 2, since he is definitely not on the loser Bus 1
If you can't see how retarded that logic is, please get Bus 1.

>>8109015
>Your evidence for the role of those practices in forming civilisation is that a culture that remains based on hunter-gatherer models to this day still maintains them? That seems questionable at best, and I'm being polite here.
>he thinks I'm a whole anthro/archaeological/neuro cross disciplinary team
How sweet. It must be easy to be sweet when you never have to understand what the difference between a positive and negative correlation are because nobody expects shit from you.

[Anonymous No.8109041]

When they are either no longer content with their lives in stasis or supremely enthralled by the facet of living.

[Anonymous No.8109042]

>>8109031
>A negative correlation with idiocy is not the same thing as a positive correlation with intelligence.

This is like saying that a negative correlation with darkness is not the same thing as a positive correlation with light. 'Idiocy' is not an actual property, it's descriptive of a level of intelligence below some arbitrary point.

Past that point, I can only conclude that your hostility stems from an inability to defend the claims you've been making, and an attendant resentment at the prospect of your word not being treated as law. Dunno what you can do about that m8, but it's a problem. Get it sorted.

[Anonymous No.8109050]

>>8109042
>'Idiocy' is not an actual property, it's descriptive of a level of intelligence below some arbitrary point.
Whereas "intelligence" was fine even when you defined it as 110IQ, which is within a SD of subnormal? kek

I'm trying to teach you basic logic and stats here m7, it's not like those disappear when I die, so the problem ain't going even if this gets to a throwdown.

[Anonymous No.8109078]

>>8109050
>Whereas "intelligence" was fine even when you defined it as 110IQ

I personally didn't define it as that. But it remains an actual property, which 'idiocy' is not. This renders your breathtakingly condescending attitude quite ridiculous, I must say. Understandable you'd want to change the subject, that's made you look pretty foolish. That's the opposite of how you're trying to look! Disaster!

>I'm trying to teach you basic logic and stats

No, you're trying to disguise the fact that you have little to nothing that supports your claim. You are not succeeding, hate to tell you. I kinda have stuff to do, so I won't be responding to any more substance-free burblings from you, but a tip to consider going forward: Don't treat requests for explanation and clarification the way a teenager treats being asked to clean his room. It doesn't even matter if you're right, it's just not a good look.

[Anonymous No.8109092]

>>8108862
What the fuck is "Niggas Still Willin"? Also, why is a white guy spraying it?

[Anonymous No.8109093]

>>8109078
Idiocy is defined by IQ, just as genius is: it's how bell curves work. Below a certain IQ most places will not consider you legally responsible for yourself, and it's how medical and legal professionals usually use IQ tests. Saying that you don't want there to be a cut off for idiot, genius or normal, I'm thinking is not going to mean much to most people who use the tests to diagnose mental incapacity. Tough shit, the test has a cut off for idiot, and it's usually around 70 to correspond with the genius cut off around 130 in the other side of the curve. It's almost like math and science and medicine don't care about your opinions compared to logarithms. =/ Ohnoes
>you have little to nothing to support your claim
Well, I don't want to do the mean thing and point out if you look at the distribution of the curve in your chart here >>8109015 atheists on the other side of the 110 cut off as "intelligent" bahahahahahahaha that's normal should follow the same sharp logarithmic decline into genius. it means the math in your chart says that atheists have about as much chance of being a genius as they do of being a retard, which is, according to the math you provided, next to nil.

Jej, I think I'm going to have a coffee and have a small chuckle to myself again over the fact you think IQ tests don't have a point where you're a legal idiot.

[Anonymous No.8109108]

>>8109093
I'm an illegal idiot, fite me.

[Anonymous No.8109115]

Instead of "cringe" or "autism", they laugh.

That is a sign of understanding post modern and avante garde humor. They appreciate the ridiculousness of daily life instead of calling it "cringe" or "autistic" or even worse, "weird" like some normalfag.

This is why I consider /lit/ to be the smartest, their post-ironic meta humor is one of my favorite parts of this board.

[Anonymous No.8109143]

>>8109078
actually, there maybe an easier way to show you why it's a test of negative correlation, not positive correlation.
See the IQ number going up the side? Why do you think they are testing a group of people where the highest IQ is a normal IQ, and the lowest IQ is a legally retarded one? Is it because they are trying to find out about people who have normal and low IQs, or because they are trying to tell you something about people with 130 IQs?
The reason why they don't have IQs at 120, which is the "bright-normal" range, is because it looks bad for atheists. They wanted to prove that normal people are more likely to be atheists than subnormal people, because that makes it sound like atheists might be smart. 110IQ is not smart, 120IQ isn't even all that smart. The problem is if they included the same range above normal IQ as they included from the retarded ranges, it would show that atheists are mediocre, and less likely to be a genius than a theist
I'm really trying to bring this down to your level, but I'm used to people who have a rudimentary understanding of statistics.
>>8109108
you're too cute to fight, plus the cafe will close soon, sorry bubba

[Anonymous No.8109209]

this is a fucking awful thread

all of you uneducated plebs please take a babby discrete-math course and come back when you can actually prove things

until then stay cucked, faggots

[Anonymous No.8109222]

>>8108638
Intriguing. I see myself in some of these but I don't consider myself "smart", or at least not well schooled or anything like that. School always felt easy but dull more than anything, I never had the desire to practice or learn anything. I like to blame my upbringing for my shortcomings with the school.

1. Nope. Love the movies. Favourites are some high fantasy and scifi films, good example would be the Matrix. A very thought provoking film in itself
2. Check, except for movies
3. Fairly general knowledge of global history. Nowhere near professional level
4. Agnostic theist because atheism is a belief and I believe humanity still has much to learn. Anything is possible, try to keep an open mind
5. Fair detachment from things. I see little value in wealth, much value in knowledge and its applications
6. Fair general knowledge. No specific field with deep knowledge
7. No political party in democracy has ever reflected my views of the world. Personal ideal world would be one with no currency
8. Definitely an introvert but wouldn't call myself an aspie

[Anonymous No.8109271]

>>8108665

Same.

[Anonymous No.8109361]

>>8108866
You need a system for strong social order to form a relatively stable society when dealing with the bottom 2/3 of the bell curve.
Then the top 1/3 can help push them toward progress while the top few percent innovate and discover.

[Anonymous No.8109518]

>>8109093
>>8109143
>a bunch of irrelevancies unsuccessfully trying to mask your presentation of 'idiocy' as some actual extant entity

The problem is this: You have an emotional attitude towards the proposition and you're fundamentally dishonest in your approach to the issue. Anyone unfortunate enough to still be following the exchange knows both how badly you embarrassed yourself with the 'idiocy' thing and nobody is going to be impressed with your blustering attempts to disguise it.

As soon as I politely asked you what you meant, and your first response was sarky greentext, I should have known you weren't even worth acknowledging. My mistake.

[Anonymous No.8109599]

>>8109222
>matrix
>good

why do I get the feeling that you're a 22 year old acne-plagued aspie jostling his bits in mum's basement?

[Anonymous No.8109613]

>>8108576
Someone who wouldn't bother with this thread.

[Anonymous No.8109641]

>>8108576
when they can differentiate between 'smart' and 'intelligent' and make a conscious decision to be the latter.

[Anonymous No.8109662]

>>8109518
Look up "retard", retard. Intellectual disability is a real thing, medically speaking, and most jurisdicitions have an IQ number attached to it. Are you actually so retarded you want to maintain that a 70IQ isn't retarded in the same way that a 130IQ is a genius? What, pray tell, do you think those tests are for? So everyone goes home with a participation trophy? Jesus.

Next, you're going to tell me that your chart which goes as far as 60-110IQ shows "smart" people, not the normal range with subnormal retards like yourself added in.

I mean, how the fuck am I supposed to be wrong that idiocy exists? Are you one of those special people who thinks June isn't disabled because she can't work out tying her shoes, she's just more attuned to velcro? Fuck me, if you're really making out that I'm the one ignoring reality, you're not just retarded, you're delusional and retarded which is quite a feat. It's almost up there with having an affinity for velcro and shit eating.

[Anonymous No.8109667]

sorta related but

>"hey man you should read philosophy"
>"No, think your own thoughts and stop being influenced. Stop reading about some random ideas made by random people."

how do you respond to a sentence phrased like this?

[Anonymous No.8109678]

>>8109667
see how they like it when you stop communicating thought in their language because you want new words, your own words, not just random words made up by random people. most of the time the problem goes away, though it's especially effective if you quote Greek at them and pretend it's made up until they cave and then insist they learn Greek

[Anonymous No.8109689]

>>8109662
>Look up "retard", retard. Intellectual disability is a real thing, medically speaking, and most jurisdicitions have an IQ number attached to it.

Look up 'darkness'. I'd tell you to look up 'ontology' but, y'know, baby steps.

[Anonymous No.8109692]

>>8109599
not the anon you´re replying to, but it´s one of my favorite movies as well. i´m in my early 30s and still remember all the hype when it came out

[Anonymous No.8109696]

>>8109667
Tell them to stop trying to influence you obvs.

[Anonymous No.8109747]

>>8108638
1. >no cinema
Yeah, no. I do hate TV though.
2. Check.
3. So-so, I still have to work on it.
4. Somewhere between agnosticism and deism.
5. Check, but no pragmatism.
6. Check.
7. Check.
8. Check.

[Anonymous No.8109766]

>>8108576
Generally, when I can have a conversation with them without feeling like I have to hold myself back, and without having to carry the conversation for them entirely.

I understand that there's more too it than that, and that some people just aren't very good conversationalists, that and some people just don't want to talk. However, I'm very patient and reasonably charismatic, so I'm good at pulling words out of people. Past that, if they can keep up with me and really engage with me on in intellectual level then I generally think they're pretty intelligent.

I know it's kind of a soft sort of test, but over the years I've realized and started to admit to myself that I'm incredibly intelligent, to the point where I don't think I actually know anyone who is as smart as I am personally. Not saying that as a sort of bragging thing or a sort of mladytippingmetrilby sort of thing, but just as one of those uncomfortable facts of life. Like when you have perfect pitch and suddenly realize that almost everyone around you happens to be tone deaf.

You just sort of smile and nods along as they try their best as they accidentally summon ancient eldritch abominations trying to sing whatever pop song is topping the charts this month.

Since then I have found that talking to people is a simple way to figure out how intelligent they are. If you do it right it doesn't matter how well they're educated, or what they've been doing with their life up until that point, regardless of all that you'll just sort of know based on how they carry themselves and their ability to react to certain topics as they come up.

It's not foolproof, obviously, as there are some people who are expert conversationalists who can carry themselves as if they possessed intellect they clearly don't upon a more rigorous inspection, but as far as I'm concerned it's the simplest and most satisfying way to do it. Besides that just talking to people honestly and trying to engage with them a good way to make friends, and that's pretty cool too.

[Anonymous No.8109781]

>>8108721
>You can't transcend traditionalism, only build upon it.

you're fucking retarded
traditionalism hasn't existed since the industrial revolution
your actions are based on ROUTINE, which is totally different

[Anonymous No.8109836]

>>8109689
Oh, if you want to play that game, how are you defining intelligent by IQ (besides, kekekeke, normal)? You're honestly trying to argue that 110IQ is "smart" compared to normal but then want to say retarded doesn't exist on the scale? Kekekekekekekelaughinggirls.jpg

[Anonymous No.8109855]

>>8109836
You either understand the point I've made, or you don't. Neither option allows for you to be worth engaging with further, honestly.

[Anonymous No.8109869]

>>8108638
that's literally noam chomsky except 8) and maybe 7)

[Anonymous No.8109882]

>>8109855
I understand you're wrong and trying to worm your way out of it because you think bell curves respond to you pissing your pants in way other than placing your in the retard category. The funniest part is that the metric I'm rubbing in your face was your choice- if you didn't maintain that a correlation existed on that scale where it didn't, we wouldn't even be using IQ as our measuring stick. But you were retarded and you did, and now you would like bell curves to come out lopsided so you don't have to admit you're a shiteating retard.

[Anonymous No.8109890]

>>8108642

Why? It's junkfood for the ears.

[Anonymous No.8109891]

>>8109882
>in way
*in a way
>placing your in
placing *you in

Sorry this is just too funny to type straight. You brought up the intelligence metric and wanted it to be related to atheism, but when someone explains how it is related, you cry because your mom told you 90IQ was close to smart. I think you're due a wew lad actually, not just keks.

[Anonymous No.8109899]

>>8109689
Look up "dankness"

[Anonymous No.8109926]

>>8108638

...I've notice a trend. I don't know how I haven't realized it earlier.

The neckbeards here will take anything and turn it's characteristics to what they are.

This is stupid as fuck and I feel sorry for your parents. I'm sure mama tried real, real hard.

[Anonymous No.8109958]

>>8109926
Blow you fucking brains out, dumbass.

[Anonymous No.8109968]

>>8108638
>>8109926
neckbeards spend all day watching netflix, crappy movies or anime and browsing sites like 4chan, reddit etc. which are all part of mainstream culture. even their atheism doesn't come from detachment from traditional culture but rather from wanting to revolt against it. and politically, they are mostly right-libertarians or anarcho-capitalists which obviously falls into the left-right spectrum (despite them claiming it doesn't)

[Anonymous No.8109991]

ITT: everybody describes his own traits, knowledge, and personality

[Anonymous No.8110001]

>>8108576
When they admit to not knowing something and wanting to know what they don't know.

[Anonymous No.8110137]

I've found a postitive correlation between people who argue about things on vietnamese watercolor boards and jackassery.

[Anonymous No.8110153]

>>8108576
When they think and act like me

[Anonymous No.8110177]

>intellectualism is defined by intellectuals

[Anonymous No.8110275]

People who do whatever they want but don't get into trouble.

[Anonymous No.8110280]

>>8110275
Hunter Thompson
Donald Trump
Barack Obama
My Uncle Charlie

[Anonymous No.8110326]

>>8110177
>lexicography is defined by lexicographers

[Anonymous No.8110333]

>>8109030
>le spooky relativist boogeyman
Just because you can't conceive of a value system that doesn't include divine decree doesn't mean everyone else is so impaired.

[Anonymous No.8110535]

>>8108813
>Muh East vs West
You have more in common with a modern East Asian than you do with the ancient Greeks or they the ancient Chinese.

[Anonymous No.8110809]

>>8110333
No non-divine morality system has any staying power whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.8110847]

>>8110809
How do you know?

[Anonymous No.8110967]

>>8108694
Same guy?

[Anonymous No.8111160]

>>8109014
more than the average person at least

[Anonymous No.8111198]

>>8108576
when they think something u have never done, at that point he is a bitter smarter than you.. suposing you are smart ;)

[Anonymous No.8111206]

>>8109092
if only you knew

[Anonymous No.8111251]

>>8108649

This is a great edit of the first post, and I think it's because you're touching on something unspoken. When you talk about having a good wealth of general knowledge and the ability of fitting in readily to a variety of modes, I think it's important to note that this is not based on the smart individual's wealth of knowledge (many people who spend time attaining it become jaded and look down on others who don't know what they know), but on their ability to step out of themselves and become a conduit of the thing which lessons tension and allows for all involved parties to reach a greater understanding. What I'm trying to say is that this smart person is able to either constantly combat, or if one is a true genius, relabel the personal characteristic that does not allow for the free flowing communication of information, both factual and experiential.

[Anonymous No.8111314]

>>8109766
>>8109222

this is why 4chan is cancer. none of us fucking idiots who browse this site are smart. and you fucking cunts dare to make fun about Reddit and scientists because they are popular. none of u are any better

[Anonymous No.8111335]

>>8111314

it's easier to let them figure it out for themselves.

[Anonymous No.8111659]

>>8108813
Shut the fuck up, Chinese dog. If you were so fucking smart, your people wouldn't be breathing smog and enslaved to the West capitalism.

[Anonymous No.8111690]

>>8109781
Sure it is, cuckhold.

[Anonymous No.8111732]

>>8108910
>Uh

Ugh, groanzone, Lamecity.

[Anonymous No.8111845]

>>8111690
whelp, you convinced me

[Anonymous No.8111857]

>>8111732
uh, it makes me happy you were uncomfortable enough to type that. uh um uh haha

[Anonymous No.8111872]

I just want to say 4chan is one of the smartest webpages on the internet.

Every board is extremelly smart on their topics, by example: /v/ is extremelly smart about new games, /a/ about anime, /vr/ about older games and so on.

Yes, every board is filled with newfags who have no experience on the topic being dumb, but after some months or weeks of exposure to memes, the oldfags on every board can usually tell you why your newfags or normies opinions on games are dumb or why your favorite anime is garbage.

Compared to other websites on the internet, 4chan is filled with smart people, at least on every board topic.

yes, other boards will contain more interesting opinions on other board topics and better discussions.

but the sheer nature of 4chan means every board topic is discussed to death after some days, and usually the only thing left is shitpost and memes after some weeks.

At least 4chan is the only honest page I've meet IRL.

[Anonymous No.8111875]

>>8109781
>traditionalism hasn't existed since the industrial revolution
It does still exist in the west, just not in the same capacity as before. With that said the industrial revolution was a great mistake.
>your actions are based on ROUTINE
Stop projecting.

[Anonymous No.8111887]

MODS THIS DOESN'T LOOK LIKE LIT TO ME

[Anonymous No.8111893]

not literature

[Anonymous No.8111894]

>>8110847
You can't really have a morality system without a supreme absolute moral authority. Men are not absolute thus we need the divine.

Without God you only have sentimentalism that you can't back up like say humanism.

[Anonymous No.8111903]

>>8108576
when they're smart enough to acknowledge the truly infinite amount of knowledge there is and come to the realization that they don't know shit.

>open mind
>doesn't believe in any absolute truth
>can acknowledge other beliefs yet still retain their own independent thought
>does not believe in IQ

[Anonymous No.8111920]

>>8111893
blue board faggot

[Anonymous No.8111925]

>>8111920
Also a lit board :3

[Anonymous No.8111926]

>>8111920
You're blue pilled but I just gave you a red pill.

[Anonymous No.8111927]

>>8110535
>You have more in common with a modern East Asian than you do with the ancient Greeks
No shit, considering I am one. I just find it funny that westerners has such an hardon for anything eastern because they think it's exotic and better because of that. Like white middle class buddhists. Try to pull your head out of your asshole lah.
>>8111659
>enslaved to the West capitalism.
Good joke.

[Anonymous No.8111928]

>>8111872
I agree. I feel like we really are one of the better internet communities when it comes to intelligence.

I mean, every time one of those threads comes up with IQ tests, everyone scores really highly, even in places like r9k which is just full of aspie retards. Threads like this really highlight the intelligent discussion we are capable of when we get together.

I myself have done a bunch of IQ tests from many different websites and always come up with 130+, and when I see people like the guys around here having all these great discussions about philosophy and stuff it just reassures me that I'm in good company.

And I like your point about memes especially, they are a really great way of telling people apart, almost like a secret code, because so many people use memes slightly incorrectly or not exactly as they were originally intended, which lets us spot the imposters. They are also really great at bringing smart people together, because when a normie sees a meme he doesn't perceive these same things we do, while when a smart person sees a meme, he sees the deeper meaning and can truly communicate with the meme user. This, I think, allows for much deeper levels of communication between people like us who really understand things, which is why 4chan is so great because it's full of smart people.

[Anonymous No.8111933]

>>8111894
>Without God you only have sentimentalism
>compared with humanism
Doesn't god die from his pity for mankind at the start of humanism? It's a bit late to try turning Nietzsche's barbs back on him; I'm pretty sure he's dead too.

[Anonymous No.8111946]

>>8111925
I prefer this in the anime style

[Anonymous No.8111958]

>>8111925
Hi there, anon, I sense you're lonely and desperate for attention which books cannot give you. I'm sorry your life turned out this way, and I'm sure it's not your fault that you can only seek attention by driving people away or because you always throw the board off the table when you're not winning or it's not your turn to play. I'm sure it's society who made you who you are, not you, because if you made you who you are now, you'd be ashamed of yourself. It's a good thing the problem is everybody else so we can go on having this beautiful, deep and fulfilling relationship, society be damned. brb, who could ever stay away from you, sweetie? :3
>>8111946
OMG stop harshing on his taste. He can like 3d even if society doesn't; it's his prerogative after all that's happened to him.

[Anonymous No.8111970]

>>8111958
Nice literature

[Anonymous No.8111980]

>>8111970
I'm so glad you're only holding others to this standard, anon, because you really do need a break. There's just something so sweet in your eyes and it does me so much good, I would hate to see that fade, my child.

[Anonymous No.8112017]

>>8111314
Kinda curious as to why you grouped those two posts together for that reply. What's the common thread between them, besides the dubs? Did you misquote the second one?