The Woman-hating Seems To Have Been Dialled Down A Notch Here, And That's A Good Thing

CaptainForehead

CaptainForehead

Senior Member
Reaction score
4,302
D

DHTpolice

Banned
My Regimen
Reaction score
949
Stanx22 said:
WTF?? I was 15 years old when this photo was taken. Have it started that early ??
Click to expand...
It's possible. Also you had facial hair at 15, so it seems your puberty started very early.
 
Rudiger

Rudiger

Banned
My Regimen
Reaction score
6,504
zircon said:
I've always had a dickish streak but I agree I might have dialled it up a bit too far recently. In my defense you can get mobbed in these forum fights so it's always tempting to lash out with low blows or name-calling to get one person off your scent for a bit.
Click to expand...

We all have dickish streaks but you really do come off as pompous and it's pretty consistent, as well as that your fleeting dismissal or others or certain ideas, I don't know if you realise how bromidic of a character you're becoming and dull it is (eg your fairly unfounded Bateman "dissection" earlier). It's constantly posturing yourself above others in a somewhat passive aggressive way too.

People tend to get mobbed for a reason, for example I didn't want to reply here as others are already dealing with it, however once a person crosses a line of annoyance, people will jump in as well. When you're consistently acting douchey it sticks in people's heads and they can't help but jump at opportunities to have a further dig at you.

Calling it "mobbing" or "bullying" is often cope for not being able to deal with the fact you aren't acting correctly. In this instance I think it does take a few people to get some self-reflection out of you, otherwise you'd just put your "faults" down to other people getting obsessive etc. Not your problem of course.
 
Stanx22

Stanx22

Banned
My Regimen
Reaction score
2,776
CaptainForehead said:
You have less hair now? I wouldn't have thought so from the pictures.
Click to expand...
MbSCInGr.jpg

IW7q54Kr.jpg

xsY555wr.jpg
 
T

tjnpdx

Banned
Reaction score
377
RegenWaiting said:
Hi,

From my experience in reading various litterature on the subject, I can't say that I have this impression.

You see, very much of our knowledge about the development and genetics about human kind come
directly from studies of other vertebraes (animals with a spine - central nervous system) as there is
extremely many similarities.

For example; when you look at the expansion of a fetus during it's embryonic stage, it's almost like
seeing evolution play out in those first 8 weeks (development of organ systems). In the beginning
we're really not so much different than the simplest species, but our cells keep dividing and
differentieting more, to add other organs and systems in order to make....us.

So, in these studies we have observed some very interesting things, like the fact that the most
deciding factor to an organism' intelligence are the level and suitability of the stimulus at the time of
ones earliest stages. The has been shown to extremely affect the speed, connectivity and placement
of synapses (junction between two nervous cells) that in the end results in transformation from
short term memory to long term memory - ability to learn and process.

There is also much evidence of children growing up in isolation focusing on the simplest of tasks
concerning only biological needs end up with signinficant mental and physical retardation.

I'm not saying that there isn't a genetic component to the complex, but I'm sceptical of you
percetage estimation though, as it's likely to be very much off the mark.
Click to expand...

I should specify that I'm primarily concerned with the whole IQ thing in regards to the possibility of increasing it in later years, by means of your own attempts (if at all possible). Although important and good to know about early stage development, you can't really do much for yourself in the early stages of development; you're essentially helpless to the environment your'e born into. Of course stimulus in young age would be a prerequisite to intellectual development; just like sensory stimulation is necessary for the brain to develop your eyesight, inadequate social interactions would result in mental destitution. I still think what you're reaching for, mainly, when you mention proper stimulus in early development and its relation to overall intelligence, is the attainment of the genetically determined IQ ceiling. It's obvious that there are many ways to make IQ worse, but not at all for the reverse.

And I gave that estimation primarily because of work that's been done in an attempt to raise IQ. When social factors--health, education, etc.--are controlled for, which they largely are for huge swaths of people in certain parts of the world, you still see the median IQ rearing its ugly head. I'm not trying to say that we know all there is to know about intelligence--because we obviously don't. But as far as fluid intelligence--which of primary importance on IQ tests--is concerned, I've seen no reason to believe (though I would merrily welcome one) that you can improve yourself beyond your genetic limit, no matter what you do in your environment. No matter how healthy you become, how hard you study, how well you were raised, there will be someone just naturally endowed with a greater ability to recall, reason, draw connections, etc., and there seems to be nothing you can do to really improve yourself in any drastic way.

I'm not a psychologist, but the IQ thing has really bothered me a fair deal. I'm studying computer science, and when you look towards the increasingly complex technological future, the fact that we have no means by which to increase intelligence in any significant way in later years is a big f*****g problem.
 
E

Exodus2011

Banned
My Regimen
Reaction score
5,624
tjnpdx said:
I should specify that I'm primarily concerned with the whole IQ thing in regards to the possibility of increasing it in later years, by means of your own attempts (if at all possible). Although important and good to know about early stage development, you can't really do much for yourself in the early stages of development; you're essentially helpless to the environment your'e born into. Of course stimulus in young age would be a prerequisite to intellectual development; just like sensory stimulation is necessary for the brain to develop your eyesight, inadequate social interactions would result in mental destitution. I still think what you're reaching for, mainly, when you mention proper stimulus in early development and its relation to overall intelligence, is the attainment of the genetically determined IQ ceiling. It's obvious that there are many ways to make IQ worse, but not at all for the reverse.

And I gave that estimation primarily because of work that's been done in an attempt to raise IQ. When social factors--health, education, etc.--are controlled for, which they largely are for huge swaths of people in certain parts of the world, you still see the median IQ rearing its ugly head. I'm not trying to say that we know all there is to know about intelligence--because we obviously don't. But as far as fluid intelligence--which of primary importance on IQ tests--is concerned, I've seen no reason to believe (though I would merrily welcome one) that you can improve yourself beyond your genetic limit, no matter what you do in your environment. No matter how healthy you become, how hard you study, how well you were raised, there will be someone just naturally endowed with a greater ability to recall, reason, draw connections, etc., and there seems to be nothing you can do to really improve yourself in any drastic way.

I'm not a psychologist, but the IQ thing has really bothered me a fair deal. I'm studying computer science, and when you look towards the increasingly complex technological future, the fact that we have no means by which to increase intelligence in any significant way in later years is a big f*****g problem.
Click to expand...
good recall is much less important nowadays what with ubiqutous smart phones and internet - you can google whatever you want. but actual intelligence i.e. critical thinking and logical reasoning is even more important what with all the shitty blogs and pseudoscience on the internet. also just taking the things that we can all look up and making coherent ideas out of it
 
T

tjnpdx

Banned
Reaction score
377
Exodus2011 said:
good recall is much less important nowadays what with ubiqutous smart phones and internet - you can google whatever you want. but actual intelligence i.e. critical thinking and logical reasoning is even more important what with all the shitty blogs and pseudoscience on the internet. also just taking the things that we can all look up and making coherent ideas out of it
Click to expand...

Well, exactly. Not to mention the deleterious effects that the let-me-check-google cognitive substitute has on overall mental function. IQ is a dismal, dismal thing. Essentially like hairloss: so easy to make worse; so f*****g difficult to make even slightly better.
 
E

Exodus2011

Banned
My Regimen
Reaction score
5,624
tjnpdx said:
Well, exactly. Not to mention the deleterious effects that the let-me-check-google cognitive substitute has on overall mental function. IQ is a dismal, dismal thing. Essentially like hairloss: so easy to make worse; so f*****g difficult to make even slightly better.
Click to expand...
if you're using google to explore the internet and constantly work out your mind, it will only help you though
 
JohnsonDDG

JohnsonDDG

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
4,891
Dontwannabeabetabob said:
That takes some balls to post full frontal pics of yourself on a public forum, especially this one where it may be used against you in the future. Watch out Stan.
Click to expand...
Stan's well liked - besides, I don't think you can do anything that bad with a picture.

I suppose you can post it on twitter and hastag it but I don't think anyone will do that unless they really angered someone.
 
Stanx22

Stanx22

Banned
My Regimen
Reaction score
2,776
JohnsonDDG said:
Stan's well liked - besides, I don't think you can do anything that bad with a picture.

I suppose you can post it on twitter and hastag it but I don't think anyone will do that unless they really angered someone.
Click to expand...
I changed a lot anyways since that picture. I now look more intimidating, serious, confused, because of hair loss and depression.
 
Chromedome1990

Chromedome1990

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
715
Stanx22 said:
The PC is superior to PS4 in terms of fps and graphics, but the PS4 has far better gameplay.
Click to expand...
Controllers are inferior to mouse/keyboard for pretty much every genre of games. Especially the mess that is the PS4 controller.
 
RegenWaiting

RegenWaiting

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
461
tjnpdx said:
I should specify that I'm primarily concerned with the whole IQ thing in regards to the possibility of increasing it in later years, by means of your own attempts (if at all possible). Although important and good to know about early stage development, you can't really do much for yourself in the early stages of development; you're essentially helpless to the environment your'e born into. Of course stimulus in young age would be a prerequisite to intellectual development; just like sensory stimulation is necessary for the brain to develop your eyesight, inadequate social interactions would result in mental destitution. I still think what you're reaching for, mainly, when you mention proper stimulus in early development and its relation to overall intelligence, is the attainment of the genetically determined IQ ceiling. It's obvious that there are many ways to make IQ worse, but not at all for the reverse.

And I gave that estimation primarily because of work that's been done in an attempt to raise IQ. When social factors--health, education, etc.--are controlled for, which they largely are for huge swaths of people in certain parts of the world, you still see the median IQ rearing its ugly head. I'm not trying to say that we know all there is to know about intelligence--because we obviously don't. But as far as fluid intelligence--which of primary importance on IQ tests--is concerned, I've seen no reason to believe (though I would merrily welcome one) that you can improve yourself beyond your genetic limit, no matter what you do in your environment. No matter how healthy you become, how hard you study, how well you were raised, there will be someone just naturally endowed with a greater ability to recall, reason, draw connections, etc., and there seems to be nothing you can do to really improve yourself in any drastic way.

I'm not a psychologist, but the IQ thing has really bothered me a fair deal. I'm studying computer science, and when you look towards the increasingly complex technological future, the fact that we have no means by which to increase intelligence in any significant way in later years is a big f*****g problem.
Click to expand...
Good reading your post!

I agree of course that eventually everybody is born with a certain limit. For now atleast, afaik.
And it may or may not very well be that there is, in fact, a certain difference between different
subgroups of the human kind.

However, what I was reaching for is that the different studies concerning IQ between human subgroups
often referenced by many, are very misleading in their huge variation of the IQ-curves in the sense that
they don't account for the non-constant factors. This not so infrequently leads to racism because of wrong
interpretations.

Another thing I was hinting to is that; why does this matter so much? I read in another post(this thread) something
like as long as all the people in society are given equal chance of attaining their max, and they contribute,
it's all fair and well. Alternatively; where should the golden line of ''not too stupid'' be really drawn?
What makes their IQ of say 125 good enough? What if the Mensa people say no, you too are like animals,
because you're not over 135. How is that different from saying ''you people are bald, have bad genetics
and should therefore not breed''? It too is (even more)heritable.

The parallel to fetus stages and similarity to all life is not coincidence. It shows us our humble beginnings, and
the need for respect for eachother in order to not fall for the thought of a prime elite homogenous species. Because if
we start looking for the differences between us, it'll never end as these are infinite.

It's actually very appropriate that you mention the increasing complexity of technological future, as that further
highlights what I'm alluding to. In the western world we've seen the trend of falling percentage of people who
participate in the work market for some decades atleast. In some countries it's now in the low 60-ies. AI and
robotics alone will render many people unuseful in the future because of their IQ-limits. This is reality. Maybe
for now those who think themselves safe and above this ''certain limit'' feel safe, but what about a more distant future?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2023 XenForo Ltd.
Top