EPTWho is the smartest poster at TL.net? - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
LogaiN
Sweden1073 Posts
| ||
|
LogaiN
Sweden1073 Posts
On May 04 2005 17:18 YoUr_KiLLeR wrote: oh yea, baal, definitely, the guy who was arguing that when there's a prize behind 1 of 100 doors, after you pick one and reveal 98 of them without the prize, you should change your pick to the other door remaining because that door has a 99/100 probability of being correct. Are you being sarcastic or what? I agree with him completely. | ||
Refrain[FriZ]
Canada4337 Posts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- um wtf? no it doesn't... | ||
|
Sp2Hydradized
United States60 Posts
Smart guy, a little bit too out spoken for his own good, lives on my floor. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28695 Posts
| ||
|
ihatett
United States2289 Posts
On May 04 2005 17:18 YoUr_KiLLeR wrote: oh yea, baal, definitely, the guy who was arguing that when there's a prize behind 1 of 100 doors, after you pick one and reveal 98 of them without the prize, you should change your pick to the other door remaining because that door has a 99/100 probability of being correct. your door has a 1% chance of being correct 99% of the time it is one of the other doors, so if all but one of the other doors are discarded, the remaining one has a 99% chance | ||
|
Gryffindor_us
United States5606 Posts
I consider Daaman to be very smart and especially intelligent. | ||
|
maleorderbride
United States2916 Posts
On May 04 2005 15:22 camooT wrote: Intellect is a measure of your ability to solve problems, do things. Accomplishment is the measure of how well you put that ability to use. Asking how intelligent people are is like asking a writer how many reams of blank paper does he have. Not one of you is really intelligent here, not one of you have contributed anything significant to human knowledge. You can speculate on the most distinguishing attributes of intelligence outside of accomplishment (like ihatett), or testify to your own overwhelming intelligence (you know who you are), but the more you post here, the less chance you'll actually accomplish anything. I also believe that intelligence is relative. There are cultures in the world (I can't remember specifics...) whose word closest to our "intelligence" actually refers to their social ability or their understanding of human nature. People who would rank high on this measure of intelligence might be men like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, or Hitler. Goes to show that intelligence can't neccessarily be judged on the criteria most commonly used on this forum (omg i can capitalize better than you can//i can post reams of ignorant shit for longer than you can//i can thesaurus whore better than you can). p.s. my previous posts on this thread were a joke. You started out with some definitions then proceeded into unsupported generalizations about the 'fact" that anyone who posts here has no "intelligence". You, of course, are speaking in regards to your own pet definitions. However; although you portray them as accepted definitions, they are not. Here are more precise definitions grabbed from dictionary.com 1. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. 2. The faculty of thought and reason. 3. Superior powers of mind. While these incorporate what you said they differ from your definitions namely because they allow for the "faculty" of thought or "superior powers of the midn" to qualify as intelligence. It is cute that you base your "intelligence" on actions and then differentiate between non-action thinking, but it is simply inaccurate. There possession of thought and reason is a quantifiable measure of intelligence. The application of it is secondary. Your second paragraph again starts out with some semi-solid points. However, again, you degenerate into seperating yourself from what you seem to see as an inferior forum. Again, your take other concepts and force them into "intellgience". Social ability is not intelligence. It can be one facet of it, but they are not the same. The same goes for your loose description of "understanding human nature". These are all qualities that an intelligent person might posses, but they are not what makes that person intelligent. Intelligence is not decided how you comport yourself. It is a quantifiable process in your brain. I know I repeated my points twice, but I simply wanted to address your two paragraphs fully. Obviously, intelligence can not be tested on this forum. This forum would only test peoples linguistic skills and to some degree their social reasoning. Pick some more if you want, but you get the drift. I know you did not start this thread, but it is a very very pointless thread. All things aside, I think badteeth has a keen intellect  edit--while i was typing i noticed that you posted again. You said some similar things to my summary. | ||
|
Gryffindor_us
United States5606 Posts
| ||
|
camooT
United States1354 Posts
Your second paragraph again starts out with some semi-solid points. However, again, you degenerate into seperating yourself from what you seem to see as an inferior forum. Again, your take other concepts and force them into "intellgience". Social ability is not intelligence. It can be one facet of it, but they are not the same. The same goes for your loose description of "understanding human nature". These are all qualities that an intelligent person might posses, but they are not what makes that person intelligent. There are many that would disagree with you. See my previous post. Gandhi was not a particularly intelligent man, nor hitler, but both had an ability to invoke the best and worst of people that went beyond simply being able to speak out loud in front of a crowd. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
 There's quite a few people who have good things to say now and then: Obsoletelogic Arbiter Baal (unfortunately he behaves like a dumbass more often than not) Carnac Hulkmania Ironmentality (although most of what he says is hackery) hmm some other people I can't think of atm. Gandhi was not a particularly intelligent man, nor hitler, but both had an ability to invoke the best and worst of people that went beyond simply being able to speak out loud in front of a crowd. both Gandhi and Hitler were pretty intelligent :/ | ||
|
camooT
United States1354 Posts
On May 04 2005 17:44 Gryffindor_us wrote: See male, that is what happens when you drink and drive. You lose.  | ||
|
camooT
United States1354 Posts
On May 04 2005 17:47 MoltkeWarding wrote: Much easier to post a list of dumbasses imo There's quite a few people who have good things to say now and then: Obsoletelogic Arbiter Baal (unfortunately he behaves like a dumbass more often than not) Carnac Hulkmania Ironmentality (although most of what he says is hackery) hmm some other people I can't think of atm. both Gandhi and Hitler were pretty intelligent :/ I meant intelligence in the western sense, oops, and: Gandhi was a mediocre student in his youth at Porbandar and later Rajkot, barely passing the matriculation exam for the University of Bombay in 1887, and joining Samaldas College. He did not stay there long, however, as his family felt he must become a barrister if he were to continue the family tradition of holding high office in Gujarat. Unhappy at Samaldas College, he leapt at the opportunity to study in England, which he viewed as "a land of philosophers and poets, the very centre of civilization. He would've been no einstein, is what I meant. oh, and that's from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhi#Early_life | ||
|
YoUr_KiLLeR
United States3420 Posts
On May 04 2005 17:33 ihatett wrote: your door has a 1% chance of being correct 99% of the time it is one of the other doors, so if all but one of the other doors are discarded, the remaining one has a 99% chance you can't be serious...but anyway, this is off-topic. the people who agree with that probability argument shouldn't be listed in this topic. | ||
|
Sp2Hydradized
United States60 Posts
[QUOTE]On May 04 2005 15:22 camooT wrote: Intelligence is not decided how you comport yourself. It is a quantifiable process in your brain. [/QUOTE] I can't help but disagree with that. It's not like IQ testing is analogous to hooking up electrodes to your brain and measuring wattage. I think it's becoming obvious to many educators and testers now that IQ tests are fundamentally flawed and only give at the very best a partial understanding of the human mind. Even though it's been said and by some denied, I think it stands to be repeated that there is much more to intelligence to the "logic tests" administered and created by other humans. I think most would agree with me that Mozart was a genius, but it's not as if he ever established himself in the realm of "logic". And in the biographies of Gary Kasparov I've read, an arguable master of one form of logic, chess, was never measured with exceptional IQ (Could be wrong but given the number of flattering things some people have said about him I'm sure this would have been thrown out there too). Just because a person excells or does not excel in one form of "intelligence", I think, does not show "quantifiable" rating as you put it. But please inform me if you think there's something I'm missing in you're statement. | ||
|
camooT
United States1354 Posts
On May 04 2005 17:50 YoUr_KiLLeR wrote: you can't be serious...but anyway, this is off-topic. the people who agree with that probability argument shouldn't be listed in this topic. I don't get it. Elaborate please | ||
|
LogaiN
Sweden1073 Posts
| ||
|
SCFraser
Canada1534 Posts
ok thats getting old, its still 50/50. | ||
|
ihatett
United States2289 Posts
On May 04 2005 17:50 YoUr_KiLLeR wrote: you can't be serious...but anyway, this is off-topic. the people who agree with that probability argument shouldn't be listed in this topic. you are a dumbass, what I said was 100% correct, explain how it wasn't... I'm not even gonna try and argue because I said it as simple as possible already | ||
|
LogaiN
Sweden1073 Posts
| ||
| ||
, *pet pet pet* *bad kitty!*
