His name is Chris Langan and he's IQ is between 190-210, I was interested and did some research and found this videos about him.
He did have some interesting points but some others i dont agree with. What you guys think?
Forum Index > General Forum |
ilj.psa
Peru3081 Posts
His name is Chris Langan and he's IQ is between 190-210, I was interested and did some research and found this videos about him. He did have some interesting points but some others i dont agree with. What you guys think? | ||
zdd
1463 Posts
| ||
A3iL3r0n
United States2196 Posts
| ||
Capulet
Canada686 Posts
On January 19 2008 12:09 A3iL3r0n wrote: He seems more bluster than actual intelligence. Maybe he's got a super fast computer, but all he's got in there is minesweeper. Beautiful metaphor for this case. The guy needs to install Starcraft. If he had been able to continue his education, he probably could have pursued Hawking's or Einstein's work. | ||
Spike
United States1392 Posts
| ||
pat777
United States356 Posts
| ||
Energies
Australia3225 Posts
| ||
jimminy_kriket
Canada5466 Posts
| ||
Eskii
Canada544 Posts
| ||
dronebabo
10866 Posts
| ||
MenzieK
United States123 Posts
| ||
ilj.psa
Peru3081 Posts
| ||
Tien
Russian Federation4447 Posts
A Donald Trump type tycoon businessman with 110-130 IQ is more of a genius than someone working in a bar with 200 IQ. | ||
Eskii
Canada544 Posts
| ||
ilj.psa
Peru3081 Posts
On January 19 2008 12:30 Tien wrote: Geniuses don't work in bars as bouncers. A Donald Trump type tycoon businessman with 110-130 IQ is more of a genius than someone working in a bar with 200 IQ. i think he addressed that part already, he said he doesn't want to do it. but he does it for economic reasons | ||
Dr.Dragoon
United States1241 Posts
| ||
Luddite
United States2315 Posts
| ||
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On January 19 2008 12:03 zdd wrote: Having a bigger head doesn't mean being smarter, look at elephants, whales, and other big headed creatures versus monkeys and ravens, who are clearly more intelligent. He was referring to brain size, which often equates to head size He's brilliant and I agree with his understanding of intelligence, but his gloomy outlook is justifiable when you consider his personal background. I would, however, expect him to realize that his upbringing and dealings in education have affected his view point and he should make light of that rather than being so matter of fact about things. I disagreed with a lot of what he said, especially regarding a lack of intelligent people in high offices and he really has no credibility when it comes to those assertions because he's a distant outsider. I also wonder why he hasn't done more than CTMU and criticizes academia for "using up all the money for research" when we've got DND nerds building nuclear reactors in their parents' basement. His Wikipedia page is pretty interesting. In conjunction with his ideas, Langan has claimed that "you can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics." Asked about creationism, Langan has said: "I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible."[14] Langan has said he does not belong to any religious denomination, explaining that he "can't afford to let [his] logical approach to theology be prejudiced by religious dogma."[14] He calls himself "a respecter of all faiths, among peoples everywhere." The last line is a bit phony to me. I also think it's a load of crap when he says he thinks intelligent people are equally as important/good as regular people, but they have more responsibility. EDIT: I don't think he ever says IQ=intelligence. He calls it something like the ability to understand and interconnect ideas. | ||
ManaBlue
Canada10458 Posts
Instead he babbled on for one of the most pretentious and narcissistic speeches I have ever heard. There's a reason no one knows who he is, and why he's contributed nothing to science or anything else productive. From his wiki article: "Langan is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID),[20] a professional society which promotes intelligent design,[21] and has published a paper on his CTMU in the society's online journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design in 2002.[22] Later that year, he presented a lecture on his CTMU at ISCID's Research and Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference.[23] In 2004, Langan contributed a chapter to Uncommon Dissent, an essay collection of works that question Darwinian evolution edited by ISCID cofounder and leading intelligent design proponent William Dembski.[24]" That's all I needed to read to know this guy is a douche. | ||
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On January 19 2008 12:03 zdd wrote: Having a bigger head doesn't mean being smarter, look at elephants, whales, and other big headed creatures versus monkeys and ravens, who are clearly more intelligent. I found his centipede example to be particularly amusing. Apparently, centipedes don't exhibit much intelligence because of their head size, and it has nothing to do with their incredibly simple nervous system. | ||
liosama
Australia843 Posts
For a high iq, this man needs to spend more time thinking of better social theories. People with high iq's aren't special since one can train their IQ, it doesn't really say much about a persons intelligence it's a mere false. read more, study harder that's how you get smarter & how you can develop a high IQ. If you want to be able to see patterns in numbers play around with them, more neuron paths will grow in your brain and you'll be able to see these patterns. To become intelligent by my definition, is to spend more time thinking, philosphising about a theory of 'something'. By the way Langan speaks in the video its quite clear that he spent some time about it, but he hasn't really thought about the ethics of breeding a perfect genome society, and there were many more things he pointed out about his 'version' of society. Last time i did a proper pen/paper IQ test was in primary school it was 144 at that time now I'd be lucky to beat 120. Why? because my numeracy skills died after i was given a calculator, only thing i really love doing are the image/spacial problems, vocabulary.. haha after engineering at uni and barely any side-reading that all vanished. and terrance tao tutored a subject at my uni! :D too bad he left a year before i came in >_< | ||
SonuvBob
Aiur21548 Posts
| ||
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
I have a high IQ, but Im not a genius. If I ever want to use intelligence, I will need to study and learn to do that. Unfortunately, while I believe this person has ability, he doesnt have the necessary foundation to use it. | ||
skindzer
Chile5113 Posts
| ||
SilenTLurker
United States250 Posts
Thanks for the laugh. | ||
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
But at the same time this guy is a proponent of Intelligent Design, an idea with no merit. And he is also a human. But at the same time he also supports the theory of evolution. Also, I think many people here are taking his ideas too shallow or misunderstanding him. And it's true that EQ shows a correlation between relative brain size and intelligence. It's just a very odd one with a lot of exceptions. Just having a high IQ doesn't make you understand things. It just makes you understand things easier or faster. On January 19 2008 12:27 ilj.psa wrote: the eugenics part was completely crazy, reminded me of Hitler or something It will safe suffering in the end. Especially getting rid of genetic diseases. It's also true that we all can't claim the right to have as many children as we want. Think about it. If we all did that we would be screwed over. Well, we are getting screwed over by that right now. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On January 19 2008 12:30 Eskii wrote: Is Eugenics really that crazy? And hes NOT talking about breeding smarter or better looking people, hes talking about taking out the genetic problems such as downs syndrome etc... It's a slippery slope. The same justification for breeding "genetically healthy" people can be applied for breeding smarter and more beautiful people; all three are for the purpose of making human beings more "successful." | ||
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
| ||
ilj.psa
Peru3081 Posts
On January 19 2008 12:42 skindzer wrote: What a dumbass. ???? at least elaborate | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On January 19 2008 12:43 SilenTLurker wrote: "I'm closer to absolute truth than any man has been before me." ..etc Thanks for the laugh. It might be true, but it probably just means he's 1/100000000000...th of the way there. | ||
Eskii
Canada544 Posts
On January 19 2008 12:47 Jibba wrote: Show nested quote + On January 19 2008 12:30 Eskii wrote: Is Eugenics really that crazy? And hes NOT talking about breeding smarter or better looking people, hes talking about taking out the genetic problems such as downs syndrome etc... It's a slippery slope. The same justification for breeding "genetically healthy" people can be applied for breeding smarter and more beautiful people; all three are for the purpose of making human beings more "successful." Ah but I dont believe that intelligence breeds intelligence, I know people that have grown up in seperate houses that are brothers and never interacted, one is extremely smart and the other is a twit. I believe its a matter of environment, although you can have negative genetic traits which will influence it in a negative way. | ||
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On January 19 2008 13:01 Eskii wrote: Show nested quote + On January 19 2008 12:47 Jibba wrote: On January 19 2008 12:30 Eskii wrote: Is Eugenics really that crazy? And hes NOT talking about breeding smarter or better looking people, hes talking about taking out the genetic problems such as downs syndrome etc... It's a slippery slope. The same justification for breeding "genetically healthy" people can be applied for breeding smarter and more beautiful people; all three are for the purpose of making human beings more "successful." Ah but I dont believe that intelligence breeds intelligence, I know people that have grown up in seperate houses that are brothers and never interacted, one is extremely smart and the other is a twit. I believe its a matter of environment, although you can have negative genetic traits which will influence it in a negative way. its definitely both. There is some inherent talent along with environment | ||
MarklarMarklar
Fiji1823 Posts
But anyone who thinks this guy is dumb is automaticly an idiot themselves | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On January 19 2008 13:01 Eskii wrote: Show nested quote + On January 19 2008 12:47 Jibba wrote: On January 19 2008 12:30 Eskii wrote: Is Eugenics really that crazy? And hes NOT talking about breeding smarter or better looking people, hes talking about taking out the genetic problems such as downs syndrome etc... It's a slippery slope. The same justification for breeding "genetically healthy" people can be applied for breeding smarter and more beautiful people; all three are for the purpose of making human beings more "successful." Ah but I dont believe that intelligence breeds intelligence, I know people that have grown up in seperate houses that are brothers and never interacted, one is extremely smart and the other is a twit. I believe its a matter of environment, although you can have negative genetic traits which will influence it in a negative way. Maybe so, but assuming there is some way to breed intelligence, eventually people will try and take advantage of it and will start customizing their children. I think we're opening up a brand new can of worms though and should call it quits. :x | ||
Raithed
China7077 Posts
| ||
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
'I wrote a new theory about computing that is amazingly complex, but then a fight broke out and I lost it, and have no idea what it is that I actually wrote.' What a douche. | ||
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On January 19 2008 13:07 Jibba wrote: Show nested quote + On January 19 2008 13:01 Eskii wrote: On January 19 2008 12:47 Jibba wrote: On January 19 2008 12:30 Eskii wrote: Is Eugenics really that crazy? And hes NOT talking about breeding smarter or better looking people, hes talking about taking out the genetic problems such as downs syndrome etc... It's a slippery slope. The same justification for breeding "genetically healthy" people can be applied for breeding smarter and more beautiful people; all three are for the purpose of making human beings more "successful." Ah but I dont believe that intelligence breeds intelligence, I know people that have grown up in seperate houses that are brothers and never interacted, one is extremely smart and the other is a twit. I believe its a matter of environment, although you can have negative genetic traits which will influence it in a negative way. Maybe so, but assuming there is some way to breed intelligence, eventually people will try and take advantage of it and will start customizing their children. I think we're opening up a brand new can of worms though and should call it quits. :x Why? Wouldnt you have liked to be born more intelligent? | ||
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
On January 19 2008 13:12 fusionsdf wrote: Show nested quote + On January 19 2008 13:07 Jibba wrote: On January 19 2008 13:01 Eskii wrote: On January 19 2008 12:47 Jibba wrote: On January 19 2008 12:30 Eskii wrote: Is Eugenics really that crazy? And hes NOT talking about breeding smarter or better looking people, hes talking about taking out the genetic problems such as downs syndrome etc... It's a slippery slope. The same justification for breeding "genetically healthy" people can be applied for breeding smarter and more beautiful people; all three are for the purpose of making human beings more "successful." Ah but I dont believe that intelligence breeds intelligence, I know people that have grown up in seperate houses that are brothers and never interacted, one is extremely smart and the other is a twit. I believe its a matter of environment, although you can have negative genetic traits which will influence it in a negative way. Maybe so, but assuming there is some way to breed intelligence, eventually people will try and take advantage of it and will start customizing their children. I think we're opening up a brand new can of worms though and should call it quits. :x Why? Wouldnt you have liked to be born more intelligent? GATTACA...nuff said. | ||
MarklarMarklar
Fiji1823 Posts
On January 19 2008 13:10 Lemonwalrus wrote: Holy crap, I want to gouge his eyes out with a soldering iron. 'I wrote a new theory about computing that is amazingly complex, but then a fight broke out and I lost it, and have no idea what it is that I actually wrote.' What a douche. I can relate to the process as I myself can think in highly abstract threedimensional symbols that mean things that are more complex than what words can describe, and these appear at random and has enormous amounts of information connected to eachother. And If concentration is broken I cannot recall the exact combination and therefor the general idea is broken and cannot be retrieved. I believe that any highly intelligent person would relate to what he said to a degree or another, but the idea they lost might not have been as complex. But the process he speaks of is of course real, yet to someone without the ability it might seem arrogant and completely fuckheadish, but it's not. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On January 19 2008 13:12 fusionsdf wrote: Show nested quote + On January 19 2008 13:07 Jibba wrote: On January 19 2008 13:01 Eskii wrote: On January 19 2008 12:47 Jibba wrote: On January 19 2008 12:30 Eskii wrote: Is Eugenics really that crazy? And hes NOT talking about breeding smarter or better looking people, hes talking about taking out the genetic problems such as downs syndrome etc... It's a slippery slope. The same justification for breeding "genetically healthy" people can be applied for breeding smarter and more beautiful people; all three are for the purpose of making human beings more "successful." Ah but I dont believe that intelligence breeds intelligence, I know people that have grown up in seperate houses that are brothers and never interacted, one is extremely smart and the other is a twit. I believe its a matter of environment, although you can have negative genetic traits which will influence it in a negative way. Maybe so, but assuming there is some way to breed intelligence, eventually people will try and take advantage of it and will start customizing their children. I think we're opening up a brand new can of worms though and should call it quits. :x Why? Wouldnt you have liked to be born more intelligent? I haven't come to a moral conclusion on the whole idea yet. I was just saying it would happen. I believe that any highly intelligent person would relate to what he said to a degree or another, but the idea they lost might not have been as complex. But the process he speaks of is of course real, yet to someone without the ability it might seem arrogant and completely fuckheadish, but it's not. Now everyone in here is going to claim to understand what he's talking about. :x | ||
geometryb
United States1249 Posts
| ||
verysadday
Canada1 Post
i think this guy will lose horribly on 1 vs 100 ^_^ | ||
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
On January 19 2008 13:17 MarklarMarklar wrote: Show nested quote + On January 19 2008 13:10 Lemonwalrus wrote: Holy crap, I want to gouge his eyes out with a soldering iron. 'I wrote a new theory about computing that is amazingly complex, but then a fight broke out and I lost it, and have no idea what it is that I actually wrote.' What a douche. I can relate to the process as I myself can think in highly abstract threedimensional symbols that mean things that are more complex than what words can describe, and these appear at random and has enormous amounts of information connected to eachother. And If concentration is broken I cannot recall the exact combination and therefor the general idea is broken and cannot be retrieved. I believe that any highly intelligent person would relate to what he said to a degree or another, but the idea they lost might not have been as complex. But the process he speaks of is of course real, yet to someone without the ability it might seem arrogant and completely fuckheadish, but it's not. So basically, I'm too stupid to understand, and I should just believe him unquestioningly, and hope that one day I can wrap my infantile mind around his beautiful theories. Thanks, o wise one, for showing me the light. + Show Spoiler + I'd apologize for the crudeness of this reply, but you basically called me a dumbass. | ||
zdd
1463 Posts
| ||
SonuvBob
Aiur21548 Posts
On January 19 2008 13:25 zdd wrote: I think intelligence is not about solving 300 problems on some test, but rather about solving one problem 300 different ways How to get laid? | ||
drug_vict1m
844 Posts
On January 19 2008 13:33 SonuvBob wrote: Show nested quote + On January 19 2008 13:25 zdd wrote: I think intelligence is not about solving 300 problems on some test, but rather about solving one problem 300 different ways How to get laid? that's one way to use it | ||
Romance_us
Seychelles1806 Posts
| ||
intrigue
Washington, D.C9931 Posts
| ||
Rev0lution
United States1805 Posts
oh and IQ is on par with penis size. | ||
dybydx
Canada1764 Posts
its what they do that counts. George W Bush is the US President and hes an idiot!! | ||
MarklarMarklar
Fiji1823 Posts
| ||
Rev0lution
United States1805 Posts
Holy shit with and IQ of 200 one would at least expect something from this man. Seriously who the fuck says that Intelligence = IQ? and the size matters thing got me laughing. Plus a genius isn't born out of thin air for god's sake. Geniuses are raised in a group of like minded individuals. This man has been a loner for most of his life and thinks he can accomplish miraculous equations in his head, what a waste of IQ. | ||
samso..
United States53 Posts
I've read quite a few of Langan's technical articles, and have spent the last several months doing a whole lot of study and research into his theories and their mathematical and philosophical foundations. I can definitely attest to the fact that he shows incredible insight into many of the most plaguing problems in philosophy and mathematics. He definitely seems to be pretentious guy though; So I'm not standing up for him in that respect. But I feel obligated to share my perspective and help give Langan the credit he deserves. The guy really is cool. As for his views on Intelligent Design, I would urge anyone who's argued against Langan's views here to read his articles on ID where he specifically qualifies his position and makes clear exactly what he thinks about it. He is definitely not a typical ID'er. His ideas on ID are very sophisticated and carefully refined in my opinion (and this is coming from me, a former Christian-theist-and-ID'er-turned-atheist/agnostic). | ||
Rev0lution
United States1805 Posts
the universe exist blah blah so who created the universe? haha LOL I g0t j00 there huh? therefore god exist. | ||
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
| ||
Rev0lution
United States1805 Posts
On January 19 2008 14:40 BlackStar wrote: lol at some of the people in this topic. You definitely proved one of the the points he made which I had some doubts about. that most people are jealous of his humongous IQ? well he should be jealous of my 18 inch penis too... | ||
decafchicken
United States19900 Posts
oh please if you have a fucking IQ of 200 you can find a higher paying job where you can do a shitload more. | ||
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
| ||
Tien
Russian Federation4447 Posts
Nothing to see here. | ||
skyglow1
New Zealand3962 Posts
| ||
Tien
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On January 19 2008 14:34 samso.. wrote: Hello, fellow TeamLiquidians. I've only posted a few times here, but I've been lurking the boards for quite a while But this thread caught my attention, so I figured I could share my thoughts: I've read quite a few of Langan's technical articles, and have spent the last several months doing a whole lot of study and research into his theories and their mathematical and philosophical foundations. I can definitely attest to the fact that he shows incredible insight into many of the most plaguing problems in philosophy and mathematics. He definitely seems to be pretentious guy though; So I'm not standing up for him in that respect. But I feel obligated to share my perspective and help give Langan the credit he deserves. The guy really is cool. As for his views on Intelligent Design, I would urge anyone who's argued against Langan's views here to read his articles on ID where he specifically qualifies his position and makes clear exactly what he thinks about it. He is definitely not a typical ID'er. His ideas on ID are very sophisticated and carefully refined in my opinion (and this is coming from me, a former Christian-theist-and-ID'er-turned-atheist/agnostic). Good post. I am very monetarily biased. | ||
BlackSphinx
Canada317 Posts
I'll take the Edward Witten kind of genius any day. | ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
Almost as if, rather than determining intelligence through the abstract puzzles they use, the tests determine preference for and focus on abstract puzzles over practical matters or social interaction. Hmm... but that couldn't be, could it? | ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On January 19 2008 15:04 skyglow1 wrote: Some people in this thread shouldn't be making such comments on this guy based just on a youtube video and a wikipedia article :/ Do a bit more reading of the stuff hes done before slamming him down so hard. And what stuff is that? | ||
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
On January 19 2008 15:06 BlackSphinx wrote: I'll take the Edward Witten kind of genius any day. Until string theory turns out to be a waste of time? Well, at least he's famous. | ||
ilj.psa
Peru3081 Posts
On January 19 2008 14:52 decafchicken wrote: "im working in a bar because i need money" oh please if you have a fucking IQ of 200 you can find a higher paying job where you can do a shitload more. inteligence does not imply economic sucess nor fame nor power | ||
ilj.psa
Peru3081 Posts
On January 19 2008 14:38 Rev0lution wrote: he believs in the god of the gaps, what is more to say? the universe exist blah blah so who created the universe? haha LOL I g0t j00 there huh? therefore god exist. Do you even read what he said on the videos or did any research WHATSOEVER? | ||
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
| ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On January 19 2008 15:16 ilj.psa wrote: Show nested quote + On January 19 2008 14:52 decafchicken wrote: "im working in a bar because i need money" oh please if you have a fucking IQ of 200 you can find a higher paying job where you can do a shitload more. inteligence does not imply economic sucess nor fame nor power Why doesn't it, for you? Intelligence comes from the Latin for "choosing between". It is the capacity of rational discrimination, the ability to think clearly and make good choices. He whines and grumbles about having to work as a bouncer. Does that sound like somebody who makes good choices? There's a fine line between the power of rationality, and the power of rationalization. One aids, one hinders. One is intelligence, one is a self-indulgent love of artificial consistency. To solve puzzles, one only needs the power to find consistency. To solve problems, one needs the power to find truth. I hereby move that the Intelligence Quotient be renamed the Abstraction Quotient. There are too god damned many high-IQ failures at life for what they have to deserve to be called "intelligence." (This is the Committee of Naming Everything, right?) | ||
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
| ||
MarklarMarklar
Fiji1823 Posts
On January 19 2008 15:40 Funchucks wrote: Intelligence comes from the Latin for "choosing between". It is the capacity of rational discrimination, the ability to think clearly and make good choices. This guy made it clear however that he could perform all his neccessary mental work doing this specific job, so is his job really relevant? | ||
MarklarMarklar
Fiji1823 Posts
On January 19 2008 15:41 Mindcrime wrote: This guy may be incredibly intelligent, but he's far less knowledgeable than he thinks he is. this little short piece didnt even scratch the surface of his knowledge, i'd rather see him go insanely detailed about some specific thing instead of just messing around like he did in this vid. | ||
Tadzio
3340 Posts
His ideas on how the world should be run are not new, and in many respects it's how the world is currently run. There is a popular belief among western intelligentsia and policy planners that the average man is an idiot who, once given proper democratic control over his own life, would destroy himself and his society as well. "...the common interests very largely elude public opinion [...] and can be managed only by a specialized class" --Walter Lippmann, 1921. This view, I think, is ridiculous and is merely a rationalization of power protecting itself. While it is true that your average man won't be tinkering around with unification theory, its also true that the vast majority of the world's most dangerous problems can be solved without any special technical thought. What are the current threats to the species? Were that the US had a functioning democracy, the "dunce" filled masses would've voted to be part of the Kyoto Protocol, which would help to mitigate global warming. They'd also have voted to dismantle much of the Pentagon system, as well as most of the US' massive nuclear arsenal, which would reduce the threat of global nuclear war significantly, and would make blatant militarism much less common-- while we may've still invaded Iraq, we'd also have left after the Iraqis had elected their new government. The US masses would overwhelmingly believe we should work within the confines of international law, which would further limit US militarism and would probably have prevented the invasion of Iraq altogether. Etc etc. To whatever extent pollution is a third threat to the species, by and large the most threatening pollution is created through industrial waste. Given the opportunity to vote on environmental regulations, the common man would, without a doubt, severely hamper industry's ability to pollute without consequence. If not banning the pollution outright, they would ask industry to shoulder the responsibility (and cost) for cleanup in the very least, which would have much the same effect as an outright ban. The average person won't perform a research project to discover that the ozone layer is failing or pursue the causes, that's true, but once told the causes and the potential fallout, they will gladly work to correct the problem, if given the opportunity. Democracy can handle the problem, we just need more of it. | ||
skyglow1
New Zealand3962 Posts
On January 19 2008 15:14 Funchucks wrote: Show nested quote + On January 19 2008 15:04 skyglow1 wrote: Some people in this thread shouldn't be making such comments on this guy based just on a youtube video and a wikipedia article :/ Do a bit more reading of the stuff hes done before slamming him down so hard. And what stuff is that? Samso's post for instance. He's obviously done some work, so you could doa bit of research on what he's done and stuff. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
The average person won't perform a research project to discover that the ozone layer is failing or pursue the causes, that's true, but once told the causes and the potential fallout, they will gladly work to correct the problem, if given the opportunity. Oh, and whose job is it to inform everyone about the causes, fallout, likelihood, etc.? Because there's probably at least a hundred million people who would like to give you their unique opinion and 1) we don't know who is correct 2) being correct isn't enough to convince people. Not to mention you've just created a hierarchy by relying on intellectuals to supply data (that will surely be manipulated) for the masses, thus destroying your perfect democracy where everyone is equal. There's a lot of problems with politics in the US, but the representative republic format is the least of them. | ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On January 19 2008 15:58 skyglow1 wrote: Show nested quote + On January 19 2008 15:14 Funchucks wrote: On January 19 2008 15:04 skyglow1 wrote: Some people in this thread shouldn't be making such comments on this guy based just on a youtube video and a wikipedia article :/ Do a bit more reading of the stuff hes done before slamming him down so hard. And what stuff is that? Samso's post for instance. He's obviously done some work, so you could doa bit of research on what he's done and stuff. Why should I do research on a smug, ridiculous bouncer who believes in intelligent design? samso didn't post any of his stuff, he just expressed admiration. You'll notice he didn't give so much as a quote. Apparently, he didn't find a single original idea worth repeating. Apparently, you didn't either. A: "Hey, this random nobody is incredibly smart and important!" B: "Bullshit! He's a random nobody!" A: "Hey, you can't just make a judgement like that. Go and spend days or weeks seeking out and reading all of his stuff! Then if it turns out you were right, you wasted all that time, you can come back and tell me I'm wrong. Don't expect any help from me! You have to make all of the investment in disproving my outlandish claim, or else acknowledge my point. Don't expect any more from me, I already asserted my viewpoint to be correct! Get to it!" B: "LOL STFU" Ergo: LOL STFU | ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On January 19 2008 16:07 Jibba wrote: There's a lot of problems with politics in the US, but the representative republic format is the least of them. Don't worry! They'll all be solved by unilateral disarmament and the Kyoto Protocol! | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
Tadzio
3340 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Your idea completely oversimplifies the way politics work. There's about a million competing factors for every decision, most of which are unknown to the public so we just assume "so and so" politician hates the environment. The reality is "so and so" politician has their morals, the well-being and prosperity of their constituency, local, national and global concerns to consider and there is no correct answer. If Mr. so and so did a shitty job, then you remove them from office. Unfortunately, only about 30% of the general public, those who would CARRY our new democracy, have any interest in voting. Bureaucracies are designed to be inefficient to provide stability. "Pure" democracies are much, much less efficient and are notoriously unstable. Honestly, why would you choose a distracted idiot to make a decision for you when there's a devoted smart person who could make it? | ||
A3iL3r0n
United States2196 Posts
| ||
NoName
United States1558 Posts
The great minds that make history require some smarts, but most importantly it requires a single minded focus and dedication for a lifetime. Without focus, all that smarts are divided and dissipated, and result in good, perhaps even great results in multiple fields, but won't be world changing. | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
| ||
skyglow1
New Zealand3962 Posts
On January 19 2008 16:19 Funchucks wrote: Show nested quote + On January 19 2008 15:58 skyglow1 wrote: On January 19 2008 15:14 Funchucks wrote: On January 19 2008 15:04 skyglow1 wrote: Some people in this thread shouldn't be making such comments on this guy based just on a youtube video and a wikipedia article :/ Do a bit more reading of the stuff hes done before slamming him down so hard. And what stuff is that? Samso's post for instance. He's obviously done some work, so you could doa bit of research on what he's done and stuff. Why should I do research on a smug, ridiculous bouncer who believes in intelligent design? samso didn't post any of his stuff, he just expressed admiration. You'll notice he didn't give so much as a quote. Apparently, he didn't find a single original idea worth repeating. Apparently, you didn't either. A: "Hey, this random nobody is incredibly smart and important!" B: "Bullshit! He's a random nobody!" A: "Hey, you can't just make a judgement like that. Go and spend days or weeks seeking out and reading all of his stuff! Then if it turns out you were right, you wasted all that time, you can come back and tell me I'm wrong. Don't expect any help from me! You have to make all of the investment in disproving my outlandish claim, or else acknowledge my point. Don't expect any more from me, I already asserted my viewpoint to be correct! Get to it!" B: "LOL STFU" Ergo: LOL STFU Wow way to overreact and stuff words into my mouth. I wasn;t even the one claiming he was incredibly smart or important. Whatever I won't bother to continue replying. | ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On January 19 2008 16:45 skyglow1 wrote: Show nested quote + On January 19 2008 16:19 Funchucks wrote: On January 19 2008 15:58 skyglow1 wrote: On January 19 2008 15:14 Funchucks wrote: On January 19 2008 15:04 skyglow1 wrote: Some people in this thread shouldn't be making such comments on this guy based just on a youtube video and a wikipedia article :/ Do a bit more reading of the stuff hes done before slamming him down so hard. And what stuff is that? Samso's post for instance. He's obviously done some work, so you could doa bit of research on what he's done and stuff. Why should I do research on a smug, ridiculous bouncer who believes in intelligent design? samso didn't post any of his stuff, he just expressed admiration. You'll notice he didn't give so much as a quote. Apparently, he didn't find a single original idea worth repeating. Apparently, you didn't either. A: "Hey, this random nobody is incredibly smart and important!" B: "Bullshit! He's a random nobody!" A: "Hey, you can't just make a judgement like that. Go and spend days or weeks seeking out and reading all of his stuff! Then if it turns out you were right, you wasted all that time, you can come back and tell me I'm wrong. Don't expect any help from me! You have to make all of the investment in disproving my outlandish claim, or else acknowledge my point. Don't expect any more from me, I already asserted my viewpoint to be correct! Get to it!" B: "LOL STFU" Ergo: LOL STFU Wow way to overreact and stuff words into my mouth. I wasn;t even the one claiming he was incredibly smart or important. Whatever I won't bother to continue replying. No, you were just the one claiming that people who didn't invest a lot more time and effort looking into him (after already watching a half-hour show on him) shouldn't dismiss him as not worth looking into. | ||
lololol
5198 Posts
On January 19 2008 16:44 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: IQ is not an effective measure of intelligence. Hello Captain Obvious! | ||
XCetron
5225 Posts
On January 19 2008 17:14 lololol wrote: Show nested quote + On January 19 2008 16:44 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: IQ is not an effective measure of intelligence. Hello Captain Obvious! you missed him? | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On January 19 2008 17:14 lololol wrote: Show nested quote + On January 19 2008 16:44 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: IQ is not an effective measure of intelligence. Hello Captain Obvious! Hi? If its so obvious why did the op claim this man was the smartest man in the world because of his IQ when he clearly is not? I agree it should be pretty obvious. But apparently some people were unaware. | ||
Tadzio
3340 Posts
On January 19 2008 16:32 Jibba wrote: Certified scientists disagree all the time. Which one should a layman believe? The one that's most credible in their eyes. For a US citizen, you're incredibly frightened of democracy. And again, you're making the scientist more important. They're not more important, they serve a different purpose. Why not just put them in charge in the first place? Because I believe democracy is the best way for a society to be governed. If the vast majority of people think a prominent scientist is being a nutcase on a particular issue, they shouldn't have to organize a military coup or a series of bloody protests to refuse his "advice" on how to handle the problem. Unfortunately, only about 30% of the general public, those who would CARRY our new democracy, have any interest in taking part in voting. If you only count the voting age population, it's closer to 35-50% depending on the election. But its true that the US has poor turnout compared to other democracies (South American and Asian democracies continue to improve their voter turnout percentages, approaching 80+% in some countries). It's also true that US numbers are dropping as rumors of election fraud become more common. I don't think this is terribly hard to explain. People don't tend to vote when the outcome is predetermined. When you're effectively limited to 2 choices, coke or pepsi, and you prefer mountain due, why should you vote? I infer that you believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, people don't vote because the stupid masses don't give a damn what happens... I'd have to disagree. I think they don't vote because they aren't being asked the right questions. If its a matter of a lack of intellect, education and wealth, why are Asian and South American democracies so much more vocal than the US constituency? I argue its not a problem on the individual level, but a systemic problem. The biggest political choice US citizens are ever asked to make is which rich corporate-supported liar they think will win the election. The media doesn't even characterize elections in terms that illuminate issues or even values, their biggest question is "can this candidate win?" In such a muddied and superficial and disgustingly narrow political climate, how can you expect anyone, let alone the middle and lower classes (those that benefit the least from voting upon a corporate-bought candidate) to much care about the outcome? "Pure" democracies are much, much less efficient and are notoriously unstable. I don't think there are any historical examples of sufficient size you can point to in order to support this assertion, so I'll just assume you're talking out your ass and politely say you're wrong. The only democracies I can think of were either technologically insignificant and absorbed during european expansion and colonialism; or they were crushed militarily shortly after their creation (we're talking within months) to bring them back in line with the rest of the "civilized" world. Short and sweet: we don't know, and at least I don't think we should make any assumptions about it until we've had the opportunity to give it a try. | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On January 19 2008 12:37 ManaBlue wrote: I watched the whole thing and was actually pretty disappointed. I thought he was actually going to display his intelligence and speak on something. Instead he babbled on for one of the most pretentious and narcissistic speeches I have ever heard. There's a reason no one knows who he is, and why he's contributed nothing to science or anything else productive. Show nested quote + From his wiki article: "Langan is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID),[20] a professional society which promotes intelligent design,[21] and has published a paper on his CTMU in the society's online journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design in 2002.[22] Later that year, he presented a lecture on his CTMU at ISCID's Research and Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference.[23] In 2004, Langan contributed a chapter to Uncommon Dissent, an essay collection of works that question Darwinian evolution edited by ISCID cofounder and leading intelligent design proponent William Dembski.[24]" That's all I needed to read to know this guy is a douche. My thoughts exactly. | ||
LazySCV
United States2942 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
I infer that you believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, people don't vote because the stupid masses don't give a damn what happens... I'd have to disagree. I think they don't vote because they aren't being asked the right questions. If its a matter of a lack of intellect, education and wealth, why are Asian and South American democracies so much more vocal than the US constituency? I argue its not a problem on the individual level, but a systemic problem. Any systematic corruption problems the US has are magnified in SA and Asian democracies. We're not voting because people are lazy and they think there's more important things to do, or that others can pick up the slack.They're not more important, they serve a different purpose. No, they are more important. They're informing the public and swaying their decisions. Anyone voting would be doing so based on the knowledge someone else gave them, which really defeats the purpose of giving them a vote in the first place. I'm through with discussing it. It fails on every level from logistics to even usefulness. James Madison put it nicely. A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." | ||
lololol
5198 Posts
On January 19 2008 17:28 LaZyScV wrote: Show nested quote + On January 19 2008 17:21 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: On January 19 2008 17:14 lololol wrote: On January 19 2008 16:44 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: IQ is not an effective measure of intelligence. Hello Captain Obvious! Hi? If its so obvious why did the op claim this man was the smartest man in the world because of his IQ when he clearly is not? I agree it should be pretty obvious. But apparently some people were unaware. at 1:37 in the video, "the smartest man in the world." I understood he was just using that opening as the thread title, not actually claiming/saying anything. Yeah, I thought the same, he just used the catchphrase from the show and IMO it's pretty obvious you can't measure intelligence with a standartised test. Not to mention the test itself is made by people, which are supposedly less intelligent than the guy who took the test, how are they able to even remotely objectively test and measure intelligence above their own? They simply can't. | ||
lOvOlUNiMEDiA
United States643 Posts
| ||
diehilde1
Germany522 Posts
| ||
Eatme
Switzerland3919 Posts
On January 19 2008 12:03 zdd wrote: It's the brain size compared to the body size of the animal that determine how intelligent it is. Roughly said atleast.Having a bigger head doesn't mean being smarter, look at elephants, whales, and other big headed creatures versus monkeys and ravens, who are clearly more intelligent. | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On January 19 2008 17:28 LaZyScV wrote: Show nested quote + On January 19 2008 17:21 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: On January 19 2008 17:14 lololol wrote: On January 19 2008 16:44 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: IQ is not an effective measure of intelligence. Hello Captain Obvious! Hi? If its so obvious why did the op claim this man was the smartest man in the world because of his IQ when he clearly is not? I agree it should be pretty obvious. But apparently some people were unaware. at 1:37 in the video, "the smartest man in the world." I understood he was just using that opening as the thread title, not actually claiming/saying anything. Well either way my point remains the same. Replace op with "makers of the video" | ||
Tadzio
3340 Posts
Madison spent most of his time in congress limiting the power of the federal government to protect private property and increase state autonomy. Yes, Madison initially opposed the creation of the Bill of Rights, but he did so because he felt that naming some rights would imply that other rights did not exist. Eventually he succumbed to political pressure and accepted the task of integrating proposed rights into a bill he felt reasonably described his idea of democracy. The ninth amendment was a safeguard against government restricting the unnamed freedoms of its citizenry. These are the actions of a man trying to protect and possibly increase the republicanism (or, as I like to think of it, the larval form of liberal democracy) that existed at the time, not of one that regretted his part in authoring the Constitution and hoped democracy would weaken and be overcome by the privileged and moneyed sectors of society. Though Madison's authoring of the constitution suggests that he was in agreement with John Jay, who once wrote, "The people who own the country ought to run it (for their benefit alone)." He had a closer relationship with Thomas Jefferson, who said, "I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but people. And if we think them not enlightened enough, the remedy is not to take the power from them, but to inform them by education." Before the creation of the US republic, there'd only been sparse few documented examples of republics in history. One in Athens, which had only survived for a few decades. Another in England, called the Commonwealth which lasted from 1650-1660. There are few other experiments in republicanism (prior to the creation of the US) that I'm aware. Still, despite the lack of successful precident, the US experiment was begun, and it worked spectacularly in blatant opposition to earlier concerns about republicanism that, "They have cast all the mysteries and secrets of government ... before the vulgar (like pearls before swine) ... They have made the people thereby so curious and so arrogant that they will never find humility enough to submit to a civil rule." --Clement Walker, 1661. In the beginning, as laid out in the Constitution, only adult white male property owners could vote for their representatives. Today, any human being over the age of 18 can vote for representatives. That's progress towards democracy fought for through popular struggle. Why should the progress toward democracy stop there, though? IMO, the only things that need be safeguarded from democracy is property and individual rights. People should be allowed to maintain ownership over resources they own, and they should be protected from harm both in the form of physical violence and coercion and in the form of censorship. What's required to protect those things? Limiting choice? Maybe a little, but not to the extent that currently exists. "Congress shall make no law" can just as easily be amended "the people shall make no law" and minorities would be protected from the "tyranny of the mob." But go ahead and throw another quote at me. | ||
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
On January 19 2008 14:16 MarklarMarklar wrote: i guess you dudes would find this smart guy more fun That was immensely interesting. | ||
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On January 19 2008 19:09 Eatme wrote: Show nested quote + It's the brain size compared to the body size of the animal that determine how intelligent it is. Roughly said atleast.On January 19 2008 12:03 zdd wrote: Having a bigger head doesn't mean being smarter, look at elephants, whales, and other big headed creatures versus monkeys and ravens, who are clearly more intelligent. Brain size compared to the spine length is usually what they use. Btw, mathematically the worlds smartest man should have roughly 260 IQ, and any IQ test going over ~140 is inaccurate since then you usually have a to small sample size to calc how many the testers are smarter than. With an IQ of 200 this guy is just smarter than ~99,9993% of the population.(In a puzzle solving way) | ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On January 19 2008 19:11 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: Show nested quote + On January 19 2008 17:28 LaZyScV wrote: On January 19 2008 17:21 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: On January 19 2008 17:14 lololol wrote: On January 19 2008 16:44 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: IQ is not an effective measure of intelligence. Hello Captain Obvious! Hi? If its so obvious why did the op claim this man was the smartest man in the world because of his IQ when he clearly is not? I agree it should be pretty obvious. But apparently some people were unaware. at 1:37 in the video, "the smartest man in the world." I understood he was just using that opening as the thread title, not actually claiming/saying anything. Well either way my point remains the same. Replace op with "makers of the video" I think the title was ironic. Errol Morris specializes in documentaries of interesting people you can feel superior to, no matter who you are or how much you've fucked up your own life. The theme of this show was, "Here's a guy who thinks he's the smartest man in the world. How many things do YOU see him getting obviously wrong or doing poorly?" | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
IQ tests also measure only a specific type of intelligence. I feel that being too strong in one area and too weak in others will, in the end, only hurt you ability to be "successful" in the normal sense of the word. I'm sure this man may be an amazing analytical mathematician, but he would be an absolutely horrid lawyer. And if you cannot articulate and share your ideas with others in a logical verbal way, you are at a great disadvantage over someone who can. No matter how intelligent you may be. I still feel Stephen Hawking is one(well really the most, that I've had significant amount of exposure to) of the most intelligent people I've ever read. | ||
Jim
Sweden1965 Posts
one of those smart but dumb people | ||
BlueRoyaL
United States2493 Posts
On January 19 2008 20:39 Jim wrote: lol at that guy. one of those smart but dumb people i couldn't have said it better myself. it doesn't matter what your IQ is, and i hope whoever came into this thread believing in that bullshit would have had their disillusionment corrected by now. even if he was that intelligent, who cares? what has he contributed to science, to humans, to society? this guy is a jokeeee | ||
Maenander
Germany4919 Posts
He may be a very smart guy, but a lot of people in the world are. Einstein was a genius of physics, but still David Hilbert said that he is a lousy mathematician compared to the people in Göttingen. Do you know that a lot of the mathematics behind the general relativity was developed before Einstein´s work? Noone could relate it to physics though. Now were those mathematicians even more ingenious than Einstein? The answer is they were geniuses of a different kind. | ||
ManaBlue
Canada10458 Posts
This man taints himself and his opinions by associating himself with such groups. Ironic that he would come down on academics who he feels do no real work and hog resources, when he himself is affiliated with an extention of a polical lobbiest group, rendering everything and anything he writes suspect. How can he go on and on about how the high IQ community is a group of rouge geniuses that we should all trust our lives with when he's nothing but a whore for the American religious right? | ||
Frits
11782 Posts
| ||
Muirhead
United States556 Posts
On January 19 2008 20:00 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: I'm sure this man may be an amazing analytical mathematician, but he would be an absolutely horrid lawyer. And if you cannot articulate and share your ideas with others in a logical verbal way, you are at a great disadvantage over someone who can. No matter how intelligent you may be. Don't insult mathematicians. Show me some "amazing analytical math" this guy has done. | ||
alias
114 Posts
See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant Marilyn vos Savant has an IQ of 228. I am not sure how recent this is though, so things might have changed, but she's still got an IQ higher than 200. yup... I am abit bias. | ||
ManaBlue
Canada10458 Posts
I couldn't believe the answer when I saw it for the first time either. | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On January 19 2008 17:26 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: Show nested quote + On January 19 2008 12:37 ManaBlue wrote: I watched the whole thing and was actually pretty disappointed. I thought he was actually going to display his intelligence and speak on something. Instead he babbled on for one of the most pretentious and narcissistic speeches I have ever heard. There's a reason no one knows who he is, and why he's contributed nothing to science or anything else productive. From his wiki article: "Langan is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID),[20] a professional society which promotes intelligent design,[21] and has published a paper on his CTMU in the society's online journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design in 2002.[22] Later that year, he presented a lecture on his CTMU at ISCID's Research and Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference.[23] In 2004, Langan contributed a chapter to Uncommon Dissent, an essay collection of works that question Darwinian evolution edited by ISCID cofounder and leading intelligent design proponent William Dembski.[24]" That's all I needed to read to know this guy is a douche. My thoughts exactly. None of us ManaBlue? I quoted you and said "my thoughts exactly" lol. | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On January 19 2008 23:25 Muirhead wrote: Show nested quote + On January 19 2008 20:00 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: I'm sure this man may be an amazing analytical mathematician, but he would be an absolutely horrid lawyer. And if you cannot articulate and share your ideas with others in a logical verbal way, you are at a great disadvantage over someone who can. No matter how intelligent you may be. Don't insult mathematicians. Show me some "amazing analytical math" this guy has done. I should have clarified/picked my words more carefully. What I really meant was, he has the mental capacity to be an amazing analytical mathematician if properly educated because IQ is a strong measurement of such qualities. Not that he currently his one. Of course he isn't, hes a bar tender with no accomplishments at all in mathematics | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On January 19 2008 23:26 alias wrote: I think the world's smartest woman is still smarter than the world's smartest man. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant Marilyn vos Savant has an IQ of 228. I am not sure how recent this is though, so things might have changed, but she's still got an IQ higher than 200. yup... I am abit bias. Hmmm interesting. I'm guessing thats where all the "savant" terms came from (Autistic/Idiot/Genius Savant for example). Never knew | ||
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
Some people in IQ make a magazine, make their own test, a janitor solves them, and he is "the world's smartest man". (at least I think that is right, I heard about this guy a long time ago and didn't rewatch the videos) All IQ tests are not equal. Is that much better than some of the online IQ tests out there? As far as any professional credibility of the test, I don't think so. | ||
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On January 20 2008 00:04 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: Show nested quote + On January 19 2008 23:26 alias wrote: I think the world's smartest woman is still smarter than the world's smartest man. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant Marilyn vos Savant has an IQ of 228. I am not sure how recent this is though, so things might have changed, but she's still got an IQ higher than 200. yup... I am abit bias. Hmmm interesting. I'm guessing thats where all the "savant" terms came from (Autistic/Idiot/Genius Savant for example). Never knew I'm 90% sure it is just a coincidence :O | ||
ManaBlue
Canada10458 Posts
On January 19 2008 23:59 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: Show nested quote + On January 19 2008 17:26 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: On January 19 2008 12:37 ManaBlue wrote: I watched the whole thing and was actually pretty disappointed. I thought he was actually going to display his intelligence and speak on something. Instead he babbled on for one of the most pretentious and narcissistic speeches I have ever heard. There's a reason no one knows who he is, and why he's contributed nothing to science or anything else productive. From his wiki article: "Langan is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID),[20] a professional society which promotes intelligent design,[21] and has published a paper on his CTMU in the society's online journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design in 2002.[22] Later that year, he presented a lecture on his CTMU at ISCID's Research and Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference.[23] In 2004, Langan contributed a chapter to Uncommon Dissent, an essay collection of works that question Darwinian evolution edited by ISCID cofounder and leading intelligent design proponent William Dembski.[24]" That's all I needed to read to know this guy is a douche. My thoughts exactly. None of us ManaBlue? I quoted you and said "my thoughts exactly" lol. Haha, sorry dude. | ||
abandonallhope
Sweden563 Posts
| ||
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
This analogy has already been used in this discussion but its soo true. You could have a supercomputer, but if you just fill it up with shit, then its still a waste of time. | ||
lololol
5198 Posts
On January 20 2008 00:10 Servolisk wrote: Summary: Some people in IQ make a magazine, make their own test, a janitor solves them, and he is "the world's smartest man". (at least I think that is right, I heard about this guy a long time ago and didn't rewatch the videos) All IQ tests are not equal. Is that much better than some of the online IQ tests out there? As far as any professional credibility of the test, I don't think so. I strongly disagree, all IQ test ARE equal, because none of them can really measure intelligence. P.S. ManaBlue, ofc we read your post. | ||
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
| ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On January 20 2008 00:11 Servolisk wrote: Show nested quote + On January 20 2008 00:04 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: On January 19 2008 23:26 alias wrote: I think the world's smartest woman is still smarter than the world's smartest man. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant Marilyn vos Savant has an IQ of 228. I am not sure how recent this is though, so things might have changed, but she's still got an IQ higher than 200. yup... I am abit bias. Hmmm interesting. I'm guessing thats where all the "savant" terms came from (Autistic/Idiot/Genius Savant for example). Never knew I'm 90% sure it is just a coincidence :O At first I thought the same thing, and was going to make a post commenting on the irony of her last name. Then I thought that it was probably more likely that the terms originated from her famous and incredibly high IQ. *shrug* | ||
MarklarMarklar
Fiji1823 Posts
On January 20 2008 00:37 {88}iNcontroL wrote: whats the big deal? Isnt the average IQ of a TL.net poster around 190 anyways? my guess is 116-120 | ||
NoDDiE
Poland170 Posts
| ||
drift0ut
United Kingdom691 Posts
| ||
lololol
5198 Posts
On January 20 2008 00:51 MarklarMarklar wrote: Show nested quote + On January 20 2008 00:37 {88}iNcontroL wrote: whats the big deal? Isnt the average IQ of a TL.net poster around 190 anyways? my guess is 116-120 There was a thread where a lot of people posted screenshots of their results in some IQ test and it was unexpectably high on average, I guess that's what incontrol is reffering to. | ||
drift0ut
United Kingdom691 Posts
On January 19 2008 22:31 Frits wrote: Haha, I guess the smartest man on earth is a total douche. I want a south park episode | ||
MarklarMarklar
Fiji1823 Posts
On January 20 2008 00:58 lololol wrote: Show nested quote + On January 20 2008 00:51 MarklarMarklar wrote: On January 20 2008 00:37 {88}iNcontroL wrote: whats the big deal? Isnt the average IQ of a TL.net poster around 190 anyways? my guess is 116-120 There was a thread where a lot of people posted screenshots of their results in some IQ test and it was unexpectably high on average, I guess that's what incontrol is reffering to. ya i know, just wanted to take a guess but people who did the test and werent pleased with their result probably skipped the posting it part in that thread | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Thanks for the history lesson of things which are irrelevant and I already know! Rome was the first dominant republic and it affected many modern countries, including the US. I'm glad you know how to look up "list of republics" on Wikipedia, but the Commonwealth of England was closer to an absolute monarchy than any of the actual monarchies that followed, which are actually republics because Parliament maintained power over the country besides the one little scoff with James II. Maybe a little, but not to the extent that currently exists. "Congress shall make no law" can just as easily be amended "the people shall make no law" and minorities would be protected from the "tyranny of the mob." Oh I see. We need an amendment that says ... "shall make no law which hurts minorities" and everything is covered. Thanks.Today, any human being over the age of 18 can vote for representatives. That's progress towards democracy fought for through popular struggle. Popular struggle? Take a look at all the different civil rights movements. That every US citizen over 18 can vote today is absolutely not due to popular rule.Why should the progress toward democracy stop there, though? Because people don't have enough time, knowledge or rationality to be directly involved in political decisions. People are stupid - you heard it here first. Masses of people are easily coerced and manipulated, and opening things up entirely would turn into a shitfest free for all. You cite the "mistakes" of our government as reason for change, but there's absolutely zero reason to believe "the people" would've made a better choice regarding war and education and the environment, especially given they have an extremely incomplete grasp of the issues and are reliant on more intelligent people (there's your hierarchy again) to inform their judgments.The funny thing is that direct democracy IS implemented in the US through Initiatives and Referendums, and they're barely used because 1) people have other things to do 2) they realize someone more informed should make the decision. | ||
Tadzio
3340 Posts
On January 20 2008 01:07 Jibba wrote: Popular struggle? Take a look at all the different civil rights movements. That every US citizen over 18 can vote today is absolutely not due to popular rule. Uh, that's exactly what I meant when I said popular struggle. What do you think civil rights is? Martin Luther King Jr. and the intelligentsia-crew? What do you think popular struggle is? Lenin creating a nation of atheists? Civil rights, women's suffrage, et al. is a lot of regular folk making sure their message is heard by the powers that be and demanding change. Its illegitimate democracy. Its popular struggle. I can't fucking believe that was something you decided was worth nit-picking over. there's absolutely zero reason to believe "the people" would've made a better choice regarding war and education and the environment, According to Noam Chomsky (maybe you think he's a liar, I don't, but take it with that grain of salt, I haven't personally done studies on public opinion and not everyone thinks Chomsky's analysis is fair), everything I said in my first post (that people would support the kyoto protocol, would work to disarm, would be internationally law abiding, would institute penalties for industrial polluters) has been indicated in polls of the general population. That, to me, is a positive indicator that "the people" would do exactly what they need to do to ensure their future. It seems to me it's quite evident that those currently in power will drag their feet until the end of the earth if it means a few more bucks today. | ||
ilj.psa
Peru3081 Posts
On January 19 2008 23:26 alias wrote: I think the world's smartest woman is still smarter than the world's smartest man. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant Marilyn vos Savant has an IQ of 228. I am not sure how recent this is though, so things might have changed, but she's still got an IQ higher than 200. yup... I am abit bias. i have nothing against woman but She took that IQ test when she was 8. Later she did the test again and scored 180 as an adult i believe. So its misleading to say that she scored a higher IQ than this guy | ||
GoldenSun
21 Posts
On January 19 2008 12:09 A3iL3r0n wrote: He seems more bluster than actual intelligence. Maybe he's got a super fast computer, but all he's got in there is minesweeper. Actually it does. I'm taking AP stat and it's a widely known fact that humans and dolphin's log(brain size) vs body weight is higher than the average | ||
ilj.psa
Peru3081 Posts
On January 19 2008 17:28 LaZyScV wrote: Show nested quote + On January 19 2008 17:21 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: On January 19 2008 17:14 lololol wrote: On January 19 2008 16:44 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: IQ is not an effective measure of intelligence. Hello Captain Obvious! Hi? If its so obvious why did the op claim this man was the smartest man in the world because of his IQ when he clearly is not? I agree it should be pretty obvious. But apparently some people were unaware. at 1:37 in the video, "the smartest man in the world." I understood he was just using that opening as the thread title, not actually claiming/saying anything. Yes it isn't my personal opinion, i was just copying pasting what the media labeled him in some sites. Imo this guy has poor judgment but its in fact very smart, not the smartest/intelligent in the world tho Intelligence is far more complex and detailed definition than just a good score on an IQ test pd: btw anyone know who scored the highest IQ test here on the online thing? im just curious | ||
fanatacist
10319 Posts
On January 20 2008 02:08 ilj.psa wrote: Show nested quote + On January 19 2008 17:28 LaZyScV wrote: On January 19 2008 17:21 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: On January 19 2008 17:14 lololol wrote: On January 19 2008 16:44 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: IQ is not an effective measure of intelligence. Hello Captain Obvious! Hi? If its so obvious why did the op claim this man was the smartest man in the world because of his IQ when he clearly is not? I agree it should be pretty obvious. But apparently some people were unaware. at 1:37 in the video, "the smartest man in the world." I understood he was just using that opening as the thread title, not actually claiming/saying anything. Yes it isn't my personal opinion, i was just copying pasting what the media labeled him in some sites. Imo this guy has poor judgment but its in fact very smart, not the smartest/intelligent in the world tho Intelligence is far more complex and detailed definition than just a good score on an IQ test pd: btw anyone know who scored the highest IQ test here on the online thing? im just curious Even those are capped at a certain IQ, and it's easy to cheat or lie to try to look like you're smart, because it's the internet and people are conceited fucks. | ||
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On January 20 2008 01:54 ilj.psa wrote: Show nested quote + On January 19 2008 23:26 alias wrote: I think the world's smartest woman is still smarter than the world's smartest man. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant Marilyn vos Savant has an IQ of 228. I am not sure how recent this is though, so things might have changed, but she's still got an IQ higher than 200. yup... I am abit bias. i have nothing against woman but She took that IQ test when she was 8. Later she did the test again and scored 180 as an adult i believe. So its misleading to say that she scored a higher IQ than this guy They took completely different tests. Marilyn vos Savant took one that was credible, as far as IQ tests go. The bouncer in this video took a test from a magazine, with no credibility besides that of the people who made it. I believe IQ scores are supposed to keep 100 as the middle of the bell curve, not something derived from a formula from test answers. Savant's test was like that, I'm pretty sure. The magazine test I am pretty sure wasn't, and probably did not even have enough people take it to make a bell curve. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On January 20 2008 01:36 Tadzio00 wrote: The Civil Rights movement would have been crushed under direct democracy. Show nested quote + On January 20 2008 01:07 Jibba wrote: Popular struggle? Take a look at all the different civil rights movements. That every US citizen over 18 can vote today is absolutely not due to popular rule. Uh, that's exactly what I meant when I said popular struggle. What do you think civil rights is? Martin Luther King Jr. and the intelligentsia-crew? What do you think popular struggle is? Lenin creating a nation of atheists? Civil rights, women's suffrage, et al. is a lot of regular folk making sure their message is heard by the powers that be and demanding change. Its illegitimate democracy. Its popular struggle. I can't fucking believe that was something you decided was worth nit-picking over. Show nested quote + there's absolutely zero reason to believe "the people" would've made a better choice regarding war and education and the environment, According to Noam Chomsky (maybe you think he's a liar, I don't, but take it with that grain of salt, I haven't personally done studies on public opinion and not everyone thinks Chomsky's analysis is fair), everything I said in my first post (that people would support the kyoto protocol, would work to disarm, would be internationally law abiding, would institute penalties for industrial polluters) has been indicated in polls of the general population. That, to me, is a positive indicator that "the people" would do exactly what they need to do to ensure their future. It seems to me it's quite evident that those currently in power will drag their feet until the end of the earth if it means a few more bucks today. What knowledge does the public have about the Kyoto protocol? Just because they're correct on a 50/50 issue doesn't mean they have way to accurately determine things they haven't studied. Oh, but I guess because the media has sensationalized it and adequately convinced the public that it's needed, the Kyoto protocol is the 100% correct decision. Now if only those damned scientists would agree. EDIT: And before someone says it, I'm not trying to argue against the Kyoto protocol. I'm showing that there's hardly an educated consensus on anything, trying to use an uneducated consensus would be even worse. | ||
Tadzio
3340 Posts
I don't see how a direct democracy would've harmed the civil rights movement. It may've made the civil rights movement unnecessary... but harmed it? No. Whatever the case, direct democracy today will not undo the progress of the past. By the way, the Commonwealth was a republic. You might not like how parliament and Oliver Cromwell executed it, but there ya go. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
I don't know about you, but I like making informed decisions. That's not really possible in this case. Congress may fuck up and trust the wrong informants but it doesn't happen the majority of the time, and it's still better than having a layperson, even more unsure of who to trust, make a hurried decision. The civil rights movement would've been damaged because the majority of the country was racist for at least 150 of our country's 200~ years. | ||
samso..
United States53 Posts
| ||
fanatacist
10319 Posts
On January 20 2008 00:51 MarklarMarklar wrote: Show nested quote + On January 20 2008 00:37 {88}iNcontroL wrote: whats the big deal? Isnt the average IQ of a TL.net poster around 190 anyways? my guess is 116-120 Fiji -> Romania. Change plz. | ||
ParasitJonte
Sweden1768 Posts
| ||
DragoonPK
3259 Posts
| ||
samso..
United States53 Posts
If I were to make a new thread where I presented Langan's ideas on Reality and such in a kind-of summary/bullet-form presentation, would you guys be interested in taking a look at it and/or discussing it? If I were to make a new thread where I presented Langan's ideas on Reality and such in a kind-of summary/bullet-form presentation, would you guys be interested in taking a look at it and/or discussing it? | ||
wo0py
Netherlands922 Posts
On January 19 2008 12:03 zdd wrote: Having a bigger head doesn't mean being smarter, look at elephants, whales, and other big headed creatures versus monkeys and ravens, who are clearly more intelligent. The head doesn't indeed. But some parts of the brain from a human brain are larger then an elephants brain. Animals tend to have larger brain parts of instinctive behavior and human are more trained to have speech and such. I don't admit with the guy on the video that we are smarter. We're just different then animals. | ||
Eskii
Canada544 Posts
Lets not forget that whales and elephants and all of the larger creatures have tiny brains in comparison to us(when their size is taken into account) The Sperm Whale has about a 9kg brain and it weighs about 140 tonnes, we have a 1.35 kg brain with about 140 pounds. BUT then there are animals that have an extremely high brain weight to body weight ratio, shrews for instance. Yet their brains are much smaller than ours... This debate is a simply ridiculous one, nobody will ever win it | ||
ilj.psa
Peru3081 Posts
On January 20 2008 03:13 samso.. wrote: If I were to make a new thread where I presented Langan's ideas on Reality and such in a kind-of summary/bullet-form presentation, would you guys be interested in taking a look at it and/or discussing it? If I were to make a new thread where I presented Langan's ideas on Reality and such in a kind-of summary/bullet-form presentation, would you guys be interested in taking a look at it and/or discussing it? If I were to make a new thread where I presented Langan's ideas on Reality and such in a kind-of summary/bullet-form presentation, would you guys be interested in taking a look at it and/or discussing it? yes, im interested to know whats his definition of intelligence too and about the head discussion his obviously not talking about the literal "Head" his talking about the size of the brain since clearly there are big animals with big heads but small brains, i may be wrong tho but cmon even a kid would know that | ||
MarklarMarklar
Fiji1823 Posts
so yeah bigger brain is not automaticly smarter but the probability that a big head causes larger intelligence seems possible | ||
Liquid`Nazgul
22426 Posts
arent iq tests supposed to be objective.. so a guy with an iq of 120 would score 100 on this hard test? lol annoying guy.. if iq is the apm in SC he's the heaven[30dom] | ||
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
On January 20 2008 02:55 samso.. wrote: If I were to make a new thread where I presented Langan's ideas on Reality and such in a kind-of summary/bullet-form presentation, would you guys be interested in taking a look at it and/or discussing it? I would. | ||
Dr.Dragoon
United States1241 Posts
On January 20 2008 03:13 samso.. wrote: Yes, I'd be quite interested to know more on his views. Of course, I'd want a lot of info on his CTMU and his religious position. Just curious as to how someone with such a high IQ comes to those conclusions and how he defends them.If I were to make a new thread where I presented Langan's ideas on Reality and such in a kind-of summary/bullet-form presentation, would you guys be interested in taking a look at it and/or discussing it? If I were to make a new thread where I presented Langan's ideas on Reality and such in a kind-of summary/bullet-form presentation, would you guys be interested in taking a look at it and/or discussing it? If I were to make a new thread where I presented Langan's ideas on Reality and such in a kind-of summary/bullet-form presentation, would you guys be interested in taking a look at it and/or discussing it? | ||
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On January 20 2008 03:32 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: how the fuck did he make the hardest iq test in the world arent iq tests supposed to be objective.. so a guy with an iq of 120 would score 100 on this hard test? lol annoying guy.. if iq is the apm in SC he's the heaven[30dom] heaven hahahaha | ||
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
| ||
samso..
United States53 Posts
Yes, I'd be quite interested to know more on his views. Of course, I'd want a lot of info on his CTMU and his religious position. Just curious as to how someone with such a high IQ comes to those conclusions and how he defends them. Okay cool. On his website he has a 'CTMU primer' meant to summarize his ideas, but it's still thoroughly riddled with technical mathematical and philosophical terms. So I'm taking the primer and giving each part a good [one or two-paragraph] re-wording so that it'll be a whole lot more intelligible to readers. It'll probably take me a good part of the day to finish it up though. Or, knowing me, I might never finish it and you'll never hear from me again. We'll see. | ||
Saracen
United States5139 Posts
IQ means absolute shit since he is 50-ish, the fact that he scored a 200 on an intelligence test means that he is as smart as the average 100-year-old or, since IQ tests scores have almost no relevance for adults, we could assume the more logical possibility that he scored a 200 when he was a kid, which says shit about how smart he is now. | ||
Drowsy
United States4876 Posts
On January 19 2008 12:09 A3iL3r0n wrote: He seems more bluster than actual intelligence. Maybe he's got a super fast computer, but all he's got in there is minesweeper. Yeah, I've only watched the last one, but he just sounds extremely idealistic. I'd think somebody with that high of an IQ would probably understand that there's not much he can do for mankind. I really like the fact that he equates the sophistication of a person's worldview with intelligence rather than IQ. As far as I'm concerned, a 150+ IQ person who belongs to any mainstream judeo-christian religion and honestly believes that's the way the world functions is still a dumbass. | ||
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
On January 20 2008 03:32 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: how the fuck did he make the hardest iq test in the world arent iq tests supposed to be objective.. so a guy with an iq of 120 would score 100 on this hard test? lol annoying guy.. if iq is the apm in SC he's the heaven[30dom] A normal IQ test is optimized for people in the 80-120 range. An IQ test for the 140-180 range would have harder questions. | ||
sanftm00d
Austria73 Posts
| ||
Chef
10810 Posts
| ||
samachking
Bahrain4949 Posts
On January 20 2008 04:48 PsycHOTemplar wrote: "I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing." I guess this guy fails Socrates test It doesnt really matter how much inteligence you have, its what you do with it that counts, even if the IQ test is a correct method of testing inteligence, which I doubt it is, this guy Fails at life. | ||
Eskii
Canada544 Posts
On January 20 2008 04:52 samachking wrote: Show nested quote + On January 20 2008 04:48 PsycHOTemplar wrote: "I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing." I guess this guy fails Socrates test It doesnt really matter how much inteligence you have, its what you do with it that counts, even if the IQ test is a correct method of testing inteligence, which I doubt it is, this guy Fails at life. And by what standard do you say he fails life? He doesent live up to your expectations of what a Genius is? Do you think he should be out curing cancer instead of bouncing a bar? | ||
samachking
Bahrain4949 Posts
On January 20 2008 05:03 Eskii wrote: Show nested quote + On January 20 2008 04:52 samachking wrote: On January 20 2008 04:48 PsycHOTemplar wrote: "I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing." I guess this guy fails Socrates test It doesnt really matter how much inteligence you have, its what you do with it that counts, even if the IQ test is a correct method of testing inteligence, which I doubt it is, this guy Fails at life. And by what standard do you say he fails life? He doesent live up to your expectations of what a Genius is? Do you think he should be out curing cancer instead of bouncing a bar? Lets put it this way, if you want to boast about how smart you are, atleast do something useful, not ramble random BS. | ||
Glider
United States1345 Posts
| ||
DragoonPK
3259 Posts
| ||
DragoonPK
3259 Posts
On January 20 2008 05:11 Glider wrote: How come no one talks about his unfortunate childhood and all bashing his arrogance. I find his childhood story sad There are a lot of people in this world that have much more sad stories. Why do they even care about his story, wait does it add anything to what he is claiming?! Or is it some mombo jombo crap?! | ||
samachking
Bahrain4949 Posts
On January 20 2008 05:11 Glider wrote: How come no one talks about his unfortunate childhood and all bashing his arrogance. I find his childhood story sad One word Propaganda | ||
Rev0lution
United States1805 Posts
On January 19 2008 22:24 ManaBlue wrote: Since none of you are reading my post on the first page, I find it necessary to reiterate that this guy is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, which is a society of whores for every creationist group in America. This man taints himself and his opinions by associating himself with such groups. Ironic that he would come down on academics who he feels do no real work and hog resources, when he himself is affiliated with an extention of a polical lobbiest group, rendering everything and anything he writes suspect. How can he go on and on about how the high IQ community is a group of rouge geniuses that we should all trust our lives with when he's nothing but a whore for the American religious right? I agree wholeheartedly. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On January 20 2008 05:11 Glider wrote: How come no one talks about his unfortunate childhood and all bashing his arrogance. I find his childhood story sad I'm not sure but you're right. If people think he's an asshole and his outlook on humanity is disgusting, look no further than the humanity he was brought up in. Being intelligent doesn't preclude you from psychological issues. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On January 19 2008 22:24 ManaBlue wrote: Since none of you are reading my post on the first page, I find it necessary to reiterate that this guy is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, which is a society of whores for every creationist group in America. This man taints himself and his opinions by associating himself with such groups. Ironic that he would come down on academics who he feels do no real work and hog resources, when he himself is affiliated with an extention of a polical lobbiest group, rendering everything and anything he writes suspect. How can he go on and on about how the high IQ community is a group of rouge geniuses that we should all trust our lives with when he's nothing but a whore for the American religious right? ID is separate from creationism and makes no reference to what type of God there is. It's based around mathematics and probability, although it makes some poor assumptions and I disagree with it. Just thought it's worth pointing out that Creationism != Intelligent Design. Also, he claims no religious affiliation for the reason you stated above. He simply believes it's mathematically impossible for a God (not Christian God, just an outside mover) not to exist. | ||
BlueRoyaL
United States2493 Posts
and he's a bouncer at a bar? LOLLLLLL what a joke LOL that guy looks like an overweight faggot; what drunken middle age guy couldn't overpower a weaksauce man like him | ||
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On January 20 2008 06:27 Jibba wrote: Show nested quote + On January 19 2008 22:24 ManaBlue wrote: Since none of you are reading my post on the first page, I find it necessary to reiterate that this guy is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, which is a society of whores for every creationist group in America. This man taints himself and his opinions by associating himself with such groups. Ironic that he would come down on academics who he feels do no real work and hog resources, when he himself is affiliated with an extention of a polical lobbiest group, rendering everything and anything he writes suspect. How can he go on and on about how the high IQ community is a group of rouge geniuses that we should all trust our lives with when he's nothing but a whore for the American religious right? ID is separate from creationism and makes no reference to what type of God there is. It's based around mathematics and probability, although it makes some poor assumptions and I disagree with it. Just thought it's worth pointing out that Creationism != Intelligent Design. Also, he claims no religious affiliation for the reason you stated above. He simply believes it's mathematically impossible for a God (not Christian God, just an outside mover) not to exist. Do a little reading about Of Pandas and People, the wedge strategy, and the Dover trial. Pushing ID is only the first step. That he has allowed himself to become a pawn of religious fundamentalists does not speak well of him. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On January 20 2008 06:33 Mindcrime wrote: Religious fundamentalists can turn virtually anybody into a pawn of theirs. Granted he walked head first into it but I'm still curious about the mathematics to support his theories. Listening to people go on about bacteria flagellum over and over again gets a bit old.Show nested quote + On January 20 2008 06:27 Jibba wrote: On January 19 2008 22:24 ManaBlue wrote: Since none of you are reading my post on the first page, I find it necessary to reiterate that this guy is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, which is a society of whores for every creationist group in America. This man taints himself and his opinions by associating himself with such groups. Ironic that he would come down on academics who he feels do no real work and hog resources, when he himself is affiliated with an extention of a polical lobbiest group, rendering everything and anything he writes suspect. How can he go on and on about how the high IQ community is a group of rouge geniuses that we should all trust our lives with when he's nothing but a whore for the American religious right? ID is separate from creationism and makes no reference to what type of God there is. It's based around mathematics and probability, although it makes some poor assumptions and I disagree with it. Just thought it's worth pointing out that Creationism != Intelligent Design. Also, he claims no religious affiliation for the reason you stated above. He simply believes it's mathematically impossible for a God (not Christian God, just an outside mover) not to exist. Do a little reading about Of Pandas and People, the wedge strategy, and the Dover trial. Pushing ID is only the first step. That he has allowed himself to become a pawn of religious fundamentalists does not speak well of him. | ||
Rev0lution
United States1805 Posts
On January 20 2008 06:27 Jibba wrote: Show nested quote + On January 19 2008 22:24 ManaBlue wrote: Since none of you are reading my post on the first page, I find it necessary to reiterate that this guy is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, which is a society of whores for every creationist group in America. This man taints himself and his opinions by associating himself with such groups. Ironic that he would come down on academics who he feels do no real work and hog resources, when he himself is affiliated with an extention of a polical lobbiest group, rendering everything and anything he writes suspect. How can he go on and on about how the high IQ community is a group of rouge geniuses that we should all trust our lives with when he's nothing but a whore for the American religious right? ID is separate from creationism and makes no reference to what type of God there is. It's based around mathematics and probability, although it makes some poor assumptions and I disagree with it. Just thought it's worth pointing out that Creationism != Intelligent Design. Also, he claims no religious affiliation for the reason you stated above. He simply believes it's mathematically impossible for a God (not Christian God, just an outside mover) not to exist. ID = Creationism if you want to follow on that you can make a new thread or we can discuss through PM. | ||
-_-
United States7081 Posts
On January 20 2008 06:38 Rev0lution wrote: Show nested quote + On January 20 2008 06:27 Jibba wrote: On January 19 2008 22:24 ManaBlue wrote: Since none of you are reading my post on the first page, I find it necessary to reiterate that this guy is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, which is a society of whores for every creationist group in America. This man taints himself and his opinions by associating himself with such groups. Ironic that he would come down on academics who he feels do no real work and hog resources, when he himself is affiliated with an extention of a polical lobbiest group, rendering everything and anything he writes suspect. How can he go on and on about how the high IQ community is a group of rouge geniuses that we should all trust our lives with when he's nothing but a whore for the American religious right? ID is separate from creationism and makes no reference to what type of God there is. It's based around mathematics and probability, although it makes some poor assumptions and I disagree with it. Just thought it's worth pointing out that Creationism != Intelligent Design. Also, he claims no religious affiliation for the reason you stated above. He simply believes it's mathematically impossible for a God (not Christian God, just an outside mover) not to exist. ID = Creationism if you want to follow on that you can make a new thread or we can discuss through PM. Actually ID does not = Creationism. Or at least not creationism as it is usually described. | ||
Sadist
United States6977 Posts
On January 20 2008 06:27 Jibba wrote: Show nested quote + On January 19 2008 22:24 ManaBlue wrote: Since none of you are reading my post on the first page, I find it necessary to reiterate that this guy is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, which is a society of whores for every creationist group in America. This man taints himself and his opinions by associating himself with such groups. Ironic that he would come down on academics who he feels do no real work and hog resources, when he himself is affiliated with an extention of a polical lobbiest group, rendering everything and anything he writes suspect. How can he go on and on about how the high IQ community is a group of rouge geniuses that we should all trust our lives with when he's nothing but a whore for the American religious right? ID is separate from creationism and makes no reference to what type of God there is. It's based around mathematics and probability, although it makes some poor assumptions and I disagree with it. Just thought it's worth pointing out that Creationism != Intelligent Design. Also, he claims no religious affiliation for the reason you stated above. He simply believes it's mathematically impossible for a God (not Christian God, just an outside mover) not to exist. ID is a joke, its pushed on by Christian Creationists as real science when it is not. COMPLETE joke, its obvious what those people are trying to do when they bring up ID. | ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
The proper justification for Occam's Razor is not that the simpler explanation is more likely to be correct, but more directly that it is easier to remember and work with. The simplest model which is consistent with the facts is the best compression of the data of those facts. The more easily our minds can work with a model, the more easily we can use it to make predictions, and therefore the more easily we can evaluate its power to make accurate predictions. Preference for the simplest model makes the best use of our limited intelligence and information, despite (and also because of) the fact that simple models often prove to have been too simple when more data becomes available. However, preference for a more appealing model can have the best effect on our emotional state. It is not always beneficial to be correct, especially since our logical faculties often find themselves in a subordinate role to our instinctive drives. I think it is no coincidence that powerful societies tend to be strongly religious. Atheism makes best use of our intelligence (for good or for ill), but religion is more powerful and versatile in mastering our emotions (for good or for ill). The true philosopher recognizes that we can have no evidence to guide us in our choice between solipsism, consensus reality, theism, and atheism. The genuine pragmatist recognizes that each has its own value and proper context, regardless of truth. Anyway, ID needs advocates. It is not hard to imagine conclusive evidence of pre-human intelligence (whether the aliens might be extradimensional or merely extraterrestrial is a relatively minor point). Somebody ought to be looking for it, just in case it's there, in the true spirit of science, just like SETI. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, especially when serious people aren't looking very hard, and preference for the simpler model is not a decisive argument, just a good guideline for making progress. Religion's defenders are not wrong when they claim that many of evolution's advocates are motivated by their desire to attack religion. Both sides could generally benefit from being more civil and openminded. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
But in general I agree with your post. As much as people like to deny it, extremists play an important role in society. | ||
asdflkjh
Brazil15 Posts
The true philosopher recognizes that we can have no evidence to guide us in our choice between solipsism, consensus reality, theism, and atheism. The genuine pragmatist recognizes that each has its own value and proper context, regardless of truth. (...)Both sides could generally benefit from being more civil and openminded. Just wanted to voice my support. Wholeheartedly agree with that. Don't want to add anything else because discussions over religion (or lack thereof) lead absolutely nowhere and just manage to get people pissed off on both sides. It's not even much of a debating exercise because pretty much all arguments are beaten up, worn down, and older than everything. | ||
Chef
10810 Posts
The only reason to believe that our universe is not a computer simulation or a bottled ant farm in a much larger universe is the preference for minimalistic explanations of the world, also known as Occam's Razor. There can be no evidence against the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient god who wishes to hide himself from us; lack of evidence for his existence can be interpreted equally as evidence of his competence. "Slartibartfast: Perhaps I'm old and tired, but I think that the chances of finding out what's actually going on are so absurdly remote that the only thing to do is to say, "Hang the sense of it," and keep yourself busy. I'd much rather be happy than right any day. Arthur Dent: And are you? Slartibartfast: Ah, no. [laughs, snorts] Slartibartfast: Well, that's where it all falls down, of course. " You'll believe whatever you want to believe. What makes you a more capable (of surviving) human being, is if what you believe can be used to accurately predict the future. That's where the whole God thing falls down IMO God explains what has happened, and let's you sleep at night (fine and dandy), but it doesn't exactly help you predict anything (like weather, nature, people etc.) Bob Ross used to say "If it makes you happy, and it doesn't hurt anybody, then it's right." I personally like to take that stance on all religion/spiritual beliefs. PS: Yeah, that was my random 2 cents :X | ||
poppa
United States329 Posts
and all i can say is that he certainly has indepth point of views on many things... but he who talk the talk does not exactly walk the walk perhaps his childhood affected his way through the academic field.... anyway interesting nonetheless | ||
Wizard
Poland5055 Posts
This is the most ridiculous and boring thing I have seen in a while. | ||
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On January 20 2008 08:04 Funchucks wrote: Atheism makes best use of our intelligence (for good or for ill), but religion is more powerful and versatile in mastering our emotions (for good or for ill). Despite what you may think, atheism is not equivalent to irreligion. Theravada Buddhism, for example, is a religion, but it is an atheistic one. | ||
samso..
United States53 Posts
Forget about any of ID's political or religious affiliations, and throw away the superficial stereotypes we've come to associate it with-- Those things are unnecessary and extraneous with respect to ID by definition. If we're really talking about ID, then we're referring to its aspects which distinguish it from all other things. The phrase "Intelligent Design" carries with it a huge amount of extra baggage; It's almost impossible to discuss it now because of the really bad rep its earned on account of the bad press we associate with it. But like I said, ultimately these associations have nothing to do with ID per se, but instead serve only to define the social and scientific contexts from which we approach it. At rock bottom, then, ID is just an idea about the way things might work, as much as is any other theoretical construction. So if we're really talking about ID, then we're really talking about two distinct concepts, both of which are very familiar to us, "Design" and "Intelligence", of which it is the stated goal of ID to unify into a single conceptual framework. At its most basic conceptual foundation, ID tries to explore the relationship between information-rich systems (of all varieties, both concrete as well as abstract) and 'intelligence'-- a generalized notion which itself has no agreed-upon definition, whose terms and conditions are either largely unknown or not understood, and whose relationship to non-intelligent systems is so utterly and completely hidden beneath centuries-worth of sciences', mathematics', and philosophy's trillions of tangled threads, that it's long been agreed-on by virtually everyone that there exists no model (mathematical or otherwise) where the co-existence of physically-determined processes and self-directed intelligent processes can currently be reconciled in a consistent way. There are, of course, other theories and approaches to these problems. But ID justifies its theoretical framework on the observation that all such other approaches are predicated on specific assumptions about the relation between information and intelligence, whose collective presence preclude objectivity by constricting the set of possible explanatory or theoretical models to just those which define 'self-directed intelligent processes' in terms of wholly determined physical processes. Such has been the trend of much of modern thought. But to ID'ers, such thinking is either misconceived or circular, since 'self-directed intelligent processes' have been arbitrarily redefined in terms of 'non-self-directed, non-intelligent processes'. Yes, such reductions are (and have been) commonplace in science, and that is most certainly not a bad thing in itself. In this case, however, the problem is that among theories seeking to explore the nature of intelligence and its relation to non-intelligent, information-rich systems, assumptions are being made about precisely none other-than the nature of intelligence and its relation to non-intelligent, information-rich systems. (In case you missed it, that's the definition of a circular or question-begging model). It should be noted that these assumptions really are very rarely accounted for by current models, the reason being that these assumptions are always philosophical in nature and are generally considered as being, to a large extent, either ambiguous or undecidable. So the point of all this, then, is that ID does in fact have something to offer: Whereas so much of our contemporary theoretical approach to these issues has been constructed by way of a certain, deeply ingrained, "collective-philosophical-consciousness", whose basis is either unjustified or never empirically or methodically explored, ID differs in that it rests on a different set of philosophical and methodological considerations. Note that these considerations have nothing to do with religion or creationism, but instead only with those premises which are fundamentally related to ID's area of investigation-- namely, the nature of intelligence and self-direction, and their specific logical and ontological relations to informational systems of particular varieties. | ||
zdd
1463 Posts
By choosing the alternate path, evolution, we can simply say that random interactions between particles in the universe continued to happen until some process occurred that could recreate itself to become better. Then the recreations of this process would either "live" and recreate themselves to become better, or die. Eventually the best processes became more and more complex, and that is how you get from unicellular organisms to humans. The only thing that remains unexplained is what caused the energy that started the universe, but we are likely to never find out how it happened. | ||
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On January 20 2008 10:52 samso.. wrote: + Show Spoiler + [edit]After posting this I saw it might be a good idea to make clear that I am NOT an ID-supporter. It just seems to me that TL.net has given ID an unjustifiably bad rep, especially considering that very few here have bothered to accompany their extended anti-ID shenanigans with even one good bit of reason or justification. That obviously doesn't apply to everyone, but I just thought that perhaps my perspective could shed a bit of light on a subject that is apparently fairly poorly understood.[/edit] Forget about any of ID's political or religious affiliations, and throw away the superficial stereotypes we've come to associate it with-- Those things are unnecessary and extraneous with respect to ID by definition. If we're really talking about ID, then we're referring to its aspects which distinguish it from all other things. The phrase "Intelligent Design" carries with it a huge amount of extra baggage; It's almost impossible to discuss it now because of the really bad rep its earned on account of the bad press we associate with it. But like I said, ultimately these associations have nothing to do with ID per se, but instead serve only to define the social and scientific contexts from which we approach it. At rock bottom, then, ID is just an idea about the way things might work, as much as is any other theoretical construction. So if we're really talking about ID, then we're really talking about two distinct concepts, both of which are very familiar to us, "Design" and "Intelligence", of which it is the stated goal of ID to unify into a single conceptual framework. At its most basic conceptual foundation, ID tries to explore the relationship between information-rich systems (of all varieties, both concrete as well as abstract) and 'intelligence'-- a generalized notion which itself has no agreed-upon definition, whose terms and conditions are either largely unknown or not understood, and whose relationship to non-intelligent systems is so utterly and completely hidden beneath centuries-worth of sciences', mathematics', and philosophy's trillions of tangled threads, that it's long been agreed-on by virtually everyone that there exists no model (mathematical or otherwise) where the co-existence of physically-determined processes and self-directed intelligent processes can currently be reconciled in a consistent way. There are, of course, other theories and approaches to these problems. But ID justifies its theoretical framework on the observation that all such other approaches are predicated on specific assumptions about the relation between information and intelligence, whose collective presence preclude objectivity by constricting the set of possible explanatory or theoretical models to just those which define 'self-directed intelligent processes' in terms of wholly determined physical processes. Such has been the trend of much of modern thought. But to ID'ers, such thinking is either misconceived or circular, since 'self-directed intelligent processes' have been arbitrarily redefined in terms of 'non-self-directed, non-intelligent processes'. Yes, such reductions are (and have been) commonplace in science, and that is most certainly not a bad thing in itself. In this case, however, the problem is that among theories seeking to explore the nature of intelligence and its relation to non-intelligent, information-rich systems, assumptions are being made about precisely none other-than the nature of intelligence and its relation to non-intelligent, information-rich systems. (In case you missed it, that's the definition of a circular or question-begging model). It should be noted that these assumptions really are very rarely accounted for by current models, the reason being that these assumptions are always philosophical in nature and are generally considered as being, to a large extent, either ambiguous or undecidable. So the point of all this, then, is that ID does in fact have something to offer: Whereas so much of our contemporary theoretical approach to these issues has been constructed by way of a certain, deeply ingrained, "collective-philosophical-consciousness", whose basis is either unjustified or never empirically or methodically explored, ID differs in that it rests on a different set of philosophical and methodological considerations. Note that these considerations have nothing to do with religion or creationism, but instead only with those premises which are fundamentally related to ID's area of investigation-- namely, the nature of intelligence and self-direction, and their specific logical and ontological relations to informational systems of particular varieties. What a load of garbage. | ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On January 20 2008 10:52 samso.. wrote:+ Show Spoiler + Forget about any of ID's political or religious affiliations, and throw away the superficial stereotypes we've come to associate it with-- Those things are unnecessary and extraneous with respect to ID by definition. If we're really talking about ID, then we're referring to its aspects which distinguish it from all other things. The phrase "Intelligent Design" carries with it a huge amount of extra baggage; It's almost impossible to discuss it now because of the really bad rep its earned on account of the bad press we associate with it. But like I said, ultimately these associations have nothing to do with ID per se, but instead serve only to define the social and scientific contexts from which we approach it. At rock bottom, then, ID is just an idea about the way things might work, as much as is any other theoretical construction. So if we're really talking about ID, then we're really talking about two distinct concepts, both of which are very familiar to us, "Design" and "Intelligence", of which it is the stated goal of ID to unify into a single conceptual framework. Translated: Please forget what the words "Intelligent" and "Design" mean. + Show Spoiler + At its most basic conceptual foundation, ID tries to explore the relationship between information-rich systems (of all varieties, both concrete as well as abstract) and 'intelligence'-- a generalized notion which itself has no agreed-upon definition, whose terms and conditions are either largely unknown or not understood, and whose relationship to non-intelligent systems is so utterly and completely hidden beneath centuries-worth of sciences', mathematics', and philosophy's trillions of tangled threads, that it's long been agreed-on by virtually everyone that there exists no model (mathematical or otherwise) where the co-existence of physically-determined processes and self-directed intelligent processes can currently be reconciled in a consistent way. Translated: You know what "intelligence" means? Everybody agrees that nobody does! + Show Spoiler + There are, of course, other theories and approaches to these problems. But ID justifies its theoretical framework on the observation that all such other approaches are predicated on specific assumptions about the relation between information and intelligence, whose collective presence preclude objectivity by constricting the set of possible explanatory or theoretical models to just those which define 'self-directed intelligent processes' in terms of wholly determined physical processes. Such has been the trend of much of modern thought. But to ID'ers, such thinking is either misconceived or circular, since 'self-directed intelligent processes' have been arbitrarily redefined in terms of 'non-self-directed, non-intelligent processes'. Yes, such reductions are (and have been) commonplace in science, and that is most certainly not a bad thing in itself. In this case, however, the problem is that among theories seeking to explore the nature of intelligence and its relation to non-intelligent, information-rich systems, assumptions are being made about precisely none other-than the nature of intelligence and its relation to non-intelligent, information-rich systems. It should be noted that these assumptions really are very rarely accounted for by current models, the reason being that these assumptions are always philosophical in nature and are generally considered as being, to a large extent, either ambiguous or undecidable. Translated: Your problem is that you think you know what "intelligence" means. + Show Spoiler + So the point of all this, then, is that ID does in fact have something to offer: Whereas so much of our contemporary theoretical approach to these issues has been constructed by way of a certain, deeply ingrained, "collective-philosophical-consciousness", whose basis is either unjustified or never empirically or methodically explored, ID differs in that it rests on a different set of philosophical and methodological considerations. Note that these considerations have nothing to do with religion or creationism, but instead only with those premises which are fundamentally related to ID's area of investigation-- namely, the nature of intelligence and self-direction, and their specific logical and ontological relations to informational systems of particular varieties. Translated: We "designed" our own definition of "intelligence", and that's why we can call ourselves smart. | ||
ilj.psa
Peru3081 Posts
On January 20 2008 11:01 zdd wrote: To me intelligent design seems simply the argument that life is so complicated that it could not have appeared on its own, and must have been created by something else. But then, we must consider who created the creator of life, and who created that creator, etc. By choosing the alternate path, evolution, we can simply say that random interactions between particles in the universe continued to happen until some process occurred that could recreate itself to become better. Then the recreations of this process would either "live" and recreate themselves to become better, or die. Eventually the best processes became more and more complex, and that is how you get from unicellular organisms to humans. The only thing that remains unexplained is what caused the energy that started the universe, but we are likely to never find out how it happened. The chance of random interactions between particles and making life is 1/1 trillion, but i dont want to turn this into another religious debate , i wont reply anymore to that matter just wanted to point that out | ||
zdd
1463 Posts
On January 20 2008 11:55 ilj.psa wrote: Show nested quote + On January 20 2008 11:01 zdd wrote: To me intelligent design seems simply the argument that life is so complicated that it could not have appeared on its own, and must have been created by something else. But then, we must consider who created the creator of life, and who created that creator, etc. By choosing the alternate path, evolution, we can simply say that random interactions between particles in the universe continued to happen until some process occurred that could recreate itself to become better. Then the recreations of this process would either "live" and recreate themselves to become better, or die. Eventually the best processes became more and more complex, and that is how you get from unicellular organisms to humans. The only thing that remains unexplained is what caused the energy that started the universe, but we are likely to never find out how it happened. The chance of random interactions between particles and making life is 1/1 trillion, but i dont want to turn this into another religious debate , i wont reply anymore to that matter just wanted to point that out Given the huge amount of circumstances in which life could hypothetically occur and flourish, I think that there are plenty of locations in the universe to satisfy those odds and make life fairly likely. This is what makes the fermi paradox so fascinating to me. (Then again, we may have also already missed thousands of lifeforms in our observations of the universe, because our instruments cannot pick them up.) Suggesting otherwise would be like saying that a royal flush is impossible in poker because of its low probability. But in any case, this is a moot point, because even if we did discover life on another planet, how do we know for certain whether it was intelligently designed or created by evolution? | ||
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On January 20 2008 11:55 ilj.psa wrote: Show nested quote + On January 20 2008 11:01 zdd wrote: To me intelligent design seems simply the argument that life is so complicated that it could not have appeared on its own, and must have been created by something else. But then, we must consider who created the creator of life, and who created that creator, etc. By choosing the alternate path, evolution, we can simply say that random interactions between particles in the universe continued to happen until some process occurred that could recreate itself to become better. Then the recreations of this process would either "live" and recreate themselves to become better, or die. Eventually the best processes became more and more complex, and that is how you get from unicellular organisms to humans. The only thing that remains unexplained is what caused the energy that started the universe, but we are likely to never find out how it happened. The chance of random interactions between particles and making life is 1/1 trillion, but i dont want to turn this into another religious debate , i wont reply anymore to that matter just wanted to point that out Hi Stop making shit up. | ||
Rev0lution
United States1805 Posts
On January 20 2008 10:28 Mindcrime wrote: Show nested quote + On January 20 2008 08:04 Funchucks wrote: Atheism makes best use of our intelligence (for good or for ill), but religion is more powerful and versatile in mastering our emotions (for good or for ill). Despite what you may think, atheism is not equivalent to irreligion. Theravada Buddhism, for example, is a religion, but it is an atheistic one. an atheistic religion . sounds hillariously interesting :D | ||
ilj.psa
Peru3081 Posts
On January 20 2008 12:24 Mindcrime wrote: Show nested quote + On January 20 2008 11:55 ilj.psa wrote: On January 20 2008 11:01 zdd wrote: To me intelligent design seems simply the argument that life is so complicated that it could not have appeared on its own, and must have been created by something else. But then, we must consider who created the creator of life, and who created that creator, etc. By choosing the alternate path, evolution, we can simply say that random interactions between particles in the universe continued to happen until some process occurred that could recreate itself to become better. Then the recreations of this process would either "live" and recreate themselves to become better, or die. Eventually the best processes became more and more complex, and that is how you get from unicellular organisms to humans. The only thing that remains unexplained is what caused the energy that started the universe, but we are likely to never find out how it happened. The chance of random interactions between particles and making life is 1/1 trillion, but i dont want to turn this into another religious debate , i wont reply anymore to that matter just wanted to point that out Hi Stop making shit up. uh | ||
Rev0lution
United States1805 Posts
On January 20 2008 11:55 ilj.psa wrote: Show nested quote + On January 20 2008 11:01 zdd wrote: To me intelligent design seems simply the argument that life is so complicated that it could not have appeared on its own, and must have been created by something else. But then, we must consider who created the creator of life, and who created that creator, etc. By choosing the alternate path, evolution, we can simply say that random interactions between particles in the universe continued to happen until some process occurred that could recreate itself to become better. Then the recreations of this process would either "live" and recreate themselves to become better, or die. Eventually the best processes became more and more complex, and that is how you get from unicellular organisms to humans. The only thing that remains unexplained is what caused the energy that started the universe, but we are likely to never find out how it happened. The chance of random interactions between particles and making life is 1/1 trillion, but i dont want to turn this into another religious debate , i wont reply anymore to that matter just wanted to point that out 1 in 1 trillion? you got any sources to back that up or...? jesus, it seems that everybody today likes to think of themselves as experts in evolutionary biology and cosmology. | ||
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On January 20 2008 12:28 Rev0lution wrote: Show nested quote + On January 20 2008 10:28 Mindcrime wrote: On January 20 2008 08:04 Funchucks wrote: Atheism makes best use of our intelligence (for good or for ill), but religion is more powerful and versatile in mastering our emotions (for good or for ill). Despite what you may think, atheism is not equivalent to irreligion. Theravada Buddhism, for example, is a religion, but it is an atheistic one. an atheistic religion . sounds hillariously interesting :D theravada buddhism is a religion. Its just not a supernaturalist religion | ||
Rev0lution
United States1805 Posts
On January 20 2008 12:31 fusionsdf wrote: Show nested quote + On January 20 2008 12:28 Rev0lution wrote: On January 20 2008 10:28 Mindcrime wrote: On January 20 2008 08:04 Funchucks wrote: Atheism makes best use of our intelligence (for good or for ill), but religion is more powerful and versatile in mastering our emotions (for good or for ill). Despite what you may think, atheism is not equivalent to irreligion. Theravada Buddhism, for example, is a religion, but it is an atheistic one. an atheistic religion . sounds hillariously interesting :D theravada buddhism is a religion. Its just not a supernaturalist religion all religions are supernatural, that is the difference between science and religion dude. the bindings, fire, earth, wind and earth thing are all supernatural. Just not related to a god or divine being. | ||
Eskii
Canada544 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On January 20 2008 12:41 Eskii wrote: I would completly disagre that Theravada Buddhism is a religion, it is a belief system. 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. I agree that many forms of Buddhism are better classified as belief systems rather than religions, but they are still an atheist religion. The original point about it was that people mistakenly equate atheism to disbelief in religion, when it is really just disbelief in god(s). Here's a nice article refuting ID's "irreducible complexity" argument. That's the main "attack" IDers use and like I said before it's unrelated to Christian creationism, but it's still wrong. | ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On January 20 2008 12:51 Jibba wrote: [I agree that many forms of Buddhism are better classified as belief systems rather than religions, but they are still an atheist religion. The original point about it was that people mistakenly equate atheism to disbelief in religion, when it is really just disbelief in god(s). "Religion" is a fuzzy term which often equates to "theism". Some claim science is a religion. Some claim Buddhism is not a religion. This is a pointless semantic quibble. Words have to be interpreted in context, and my meaning was unambiguous. Just because "religion" is sometimes used to refer to non-theistic belief systems doesn't mean it's incorrect to use "religion" to denote "theism". (And no, the dictionary definition won't help. People look at the way words are used and then write dictionaries, they don't read dictionaries and then build languages. A dictionary entry is just a summary of some scholar's considered opinion.) | ||
boghat
United States2109 Posts
This guy is as smart as my cat and by that I mean my cat is as smart as 99.99% of the world but no one GIVES A FUCKING SHIT, including me. | ||
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On January 20 2008 13:20 Funchucks wrote: Show nested quote + On January 20 2008 12:51 Jibba wrote: [I agree that many forms of Buddhism are better classified as belief systems rather than religions, but they are still an atheist religion. The original point about it was that people mistakenly equate atheism to disbelief in religion, when it is really just disbelief in god(s). "Religion" is a fuzzy term which often equates to "theism". Some claim science is a religion. Some claim Buddhism is not a religion. This is a pointless semantic quibble. Words have to be interpreted in context, and my meaning was unambiguous. Just because "religion" is sometimes used to refer to non-theistic belief systems doesn't mean it's incorrect to use "religion" to denote "theism". (And no, the dictionary definition won't help. People look at the way words are used and then write dictionaries, they don't read dictionaries and then build languages. A dictionary entry is just a summary of some scholar's considered opinion.) If you wanted to talk about theism rather than religion then that is what you should have done. The word exists for a reason. | ||
noobienoob
United States1173 Posts
On January 20 2008 13:24 boghat wrote: Agreed.BORING BORING BORING BORING BORING This guy is as smart as my cat and by that I mean my cat is as smart as 99.99% of the world but no one GIVES A FUCKING SHIT, including me. Go and do something with that high IQ or no one's going to give a shit. | ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On January 20 2008 13:26 Mindcrime wrote: Show nested quote + On January 20 2008 13:20 Funchucks wrote: On January 20 2008 12:51 Jibba wrote: [I agree that many forms of Buddhism are better classified as belief systems rather than religions, but they are still an atheist religion. The original point about it was that people mistakenly equate atheism to disbelief in religion, when it is really just disbelief in god(s). "Religion" is a fuzzy term which often equates to "theism". Some claim science is a religion. Some claim Buddhism is not a religion. This is a pointless semantic quibble. Words have to be interpreted in context, and my meaning was unambiguous. Just because "religion" is sometimes used to refer to non-theistic belief systems doesn't mean it's incorrect to use "religion" to denote "theism". (And no, the dictionary definition won't help. People look at the way words are used and then write dictionaries, they don't read dictionaries and then build languages. A dictionary entry is just a summary of some scholar's considered opinion.) If you wanted to talk about theism rather than religion then that is what you should have done. The word exists for a reason. And if you wanted to have a pointless semantic argument based on your faulty understanding of how language works, rather than a meaningful discussion in which people try to understand each others' intended meanings, you should have gone to a random internet forum rather than come to this bastion of enlightened discourse. Oh, wait... Nevermind. | ||
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On January 20 2008 13:31 Funchucks wrote: Show nested quote + On January 20 2008 13:26 Mindcrime wrote: On January 20 2008 13:20 Funchucks wrote: On January 20 2008 12:51 Jibba wrote: [I agree that many forms of Buddhism are better classified as belief systems rather than religions, but they are still an atheist religion. The original point about it was that people mistakenly equate atheism to disbelief in religion, when it is really just disbelief in god(s). "Religion" is a fuzzy term which often equates to "theism". Some claim science is a religion. Some claim Buddhism is not a religion. This is a pointless semantic quibble. Words have to be interpreted in context, and my meaning was unambiguous. Just because "religion" is sometimes used to refer to non-theistic belief systems doesn't mean it's incorrect to use "religion" to denote "theism". (And no, the dictionary definition won't help. People look at the way words are used and then write dictionaries, they don't read dictionaries and then build languages. A dictionary entry is just a summary of some scholar's considered opinion.) If you wanted to talk about theism rather than religion then that is what you should have done. The word exists for a reason. And if you wanted to have a pointless semantic argument based on your faulty understanding of how language works, rather than a meaningful discussion in which people try to understand each others' intended meanings, you should have gone to a random internet forum rather than come to this bastion of enlightened discourse. Oh, wait... Nevermind. I have a faulty understanding of how language works? That's grand. | ||
Rev0lution
United States1805 Posts
| ||
sith
United States2474 Posts
| ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On January 20 2008 03:32 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: how the fuck did he make the hardest iq test in the world arent iq tests supposed to be objective.. so a guy with an iq of 120 would score 100 on this hard test? lol annoying guy.. if iq is the apm in SC he's the heaven[30dom] lol I bet almost no one got this ,but you're right on. Heaven aka the former progamer 400+ apm terran who lost a cc to one tank against Elky because he never noticed it was under attack and never bothered to lift his cc. All that apm/iq and jack shit to show for it. | ||
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
Fact: If you surround yourself with idiots everything you do seems smart. | ||
cz
United States3249 Posts
Also, the 'smartest man' in this thread is just the 'highest scoring man at IQ tests'. I'm not going to give him any credibility beyond simply being great at IQ tests: he's not smart until he proves so in another way. | ||
toopham
United States551 Posts
he talk about having that few genius high scoring IQ ppl run the system and filtering out the bad genes. WHen ask who would faciliate such thing he answer he could do it and smartly say "it could even be you" which make him not seem so cocky but he is. The guy is the next HITLER!! | ||
FirstBorn
Romania3955 Posts
| ||
Prodigy[x]
Canada207 Posts
| ||
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On January 21 2008 02:34 Prodigy[x] wrote: Which just goes to show you it takes more than intelligence to get somewhere in life... maybe it's that thing called "hard work" my parents used to talk about. And hard work comes from ambition. Without ambition all the intelligence in the world would do nothing. Its like buying a 3k $ comp and then just using it for word and browsing the internet. | ||
Amnesty
United States2054 Posts
On January 20 2008 21:04 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: Show nested quote + On January 20 2008 03:32 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: how the fuck did he make the hardest iq test in the world arent iq tests supposed to be objective.. so a guy with an iq of 120 would score 100 on this hard test? lol annoying guy.. if iq is the apm in SC he's the heaven[30dom] lol I bet almost no one got this ,but you're right on. Heaven aka the former progamer 400+ apm terran who lost a cc to one tank against Elky because he never noticed it was under attack and never bothered to lift his cc. All that apm/iq and jack shit to show for it. i bet a lot of people got it. Good analogy, but the guy isnt a loser because hes a bouncer either. Hes happy with his life. | ||
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ Also, if you've 40 minutes to blow and would like a non-age based IQ exam, go here http://onemansblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/iqtest.swf | ||
Amber[LighT]
United States5078 Posts
| ||
BrutalMenace
United States1237 Posts
| ||
koreakool
United States334 Posts
| ||
FieryBalrog
United States1381 Posts
On January 19 2008 15:56 Tadzio00 wrote: Its a shame that guy was abused as a child. Its seems clear how that's shaped his ideology especially in regards to authority. All that intellect and his biggest dream for himself and mankind is to create a rigid caste system where the intelligent (meaning, himself) control the fate of the "dunces" even more than they already do, and in fact institute a compulsory breeding program to remove the "dunces" from the genepool. He doesn't want to challenge or displace the authority that made his youth a hell, he wants to expand its scope and claim control over it. He even holds the belief that freedom should not be a right, but an earned privilege. No wonder he's a bouncer. His ideas on how the world should be run are not new, and in many respects it's how the world is currently run. There is a popular belief among western intelligentsia and policy planners that the average man is an idiot who, once given proper democratic control over his own life, would destroy himself and his society as well. "...the common interests very largely elude public opinion [...] and can be managed only by a specialized class" --Walter Lippmann, 1921. This view, I think, is ridiculous and is merely a rationalization of power protecting itself. While it is true that your average man won't be tinkering around with unification theory, its also true that the vast majority of the world's most dangerous problems can be solved without any special technical thought. What are the current threats to the species? Were that the US had a functioning democracy, the "dunce" filled masses would've voted to be part of the Kyoto Protocol, which would help to mitigate global warming. They'd also have voted to dismantle much of the Pentagon system, as well as most of the US' massive nuclear arsenal, which would reduce the threat of global nuclear war significantly, and would make blatant militarism much less common-- while we may've still invaded Iraq, we'd also have left after the Iraqis had elected their new government. The US masses would overwhelmingly believe we should work within the confines of international law, which would further limit US militarism and would probably have prevented the invasion of Iraq altogether. Etc etc. To whatever extent pollution is a third threat to the species, by and large the most threatening pollution is created through industrial waste. Given the opportunity to vote on environmental regulations, the common man would, without a doubt, severely hamper industry's ability to pollute without consequence. If not banning the pollution outright, they would ask industry to shoulder the responsibility (and cost) for cleanup in the very least, which would have much the same effect as an outright ban. The average person won't perform a research project to discover that the ozone layer is failing or pursue the causes, that's true, but once told the causes and the potential fallout, they will gladly work to correct the problem, if given the opportunity. Democracy can handle the problem, we just need more of it. I don't agree with this at all. Its a very limited perspective on democracy and democratic government. Democracy as we have it in the western world is a highly specific cultural aritifact that dependson civic virtues and values which are decidely not universal. It is not a system that translates directly across different cultures. Also, while its not true that the average person is an idiot, its quite true that the average person has little to no idea about the proper governance or actions of a nation-state conglomerate of millions of people, which again is a cultural artifact that no human being has innate evolved intelligence to deal with, unlike small-scale kin interactions. 100 years ago the "average person" would quite possibly have voted to make Christianity the official religion of the US. That doesnt seem to jibe with your current values. What makes you think that its any better now because some supposedly superior positions of yours might be validated by a mass vote? | ||
CrownRoyal
Vatican City State1872 Posts
And also for the record, the magazine was the first IQ test he took, he has taken others and scored off the charts on them giving him an unclear IQ. Why does it matter that he hasn't done much for society. Why is he forced to be the person to change the world just because he is smarter than everyone else? I dont understand most of you. | ||
CrownRoyal
Vatican City State1872 Posts
| ||
XCetron
5225 Posts
On January 21 2008 07:45 CrownRoyal wrote: You guys are all smarter than 95% of the world, why aren't you changing shit? cause were all busy playing sc and watching vods | ||
Frits
11782 Posts
| ||
Romance_us
Seychelles1806 Posts
| ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On January 21 2008 23:49 Romance_us wrote: How many of you could instinctively know the name of objects around you, or have a complex understanding of syntax at the age of 3? If you instinctively know the names of objects around you, I think you must be the Kwisatz Haderach. Most of us have to hear someone say them first, or at least read them. English! It's in your genes! | ||
lololol
5198 Posts
| ||
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On January 22 2008 01:28 lololol wrote: Funchucks I completely disagree with you, larvae should not have jetpacks. zerg larva current role: Turning into other units. current flaws: doesn't have a jetpack +jetpack? | ||
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
How I missed jetpack dicussions | ||
RiOt-
United States23 Posts
| ||
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
| ||
iSTime
1579 Posts
If you ask me, he's incredibly stupid if this is truly the case. He's been gifted with incredible problem solving, memory, visualization, and so on, and yet, with all these tools, he cannot do anything meaningful with his life, and cannot find a way to make ends meet without bouncing? What a fucking joke. I'm 19, nowhere near 200+ IQ, haven't really ever had any brilliant ideas, and assuming I had no loans to pay off from college and dropped out, I could easily make ends meet without having to work in a violent environment. If he really hates being a bouncer as much as he says, he could easily get a security job anywhere else, for at least as much, if not more, money. And anyone who has ever worked security knows it's probably the easiest job to sit and think about shit and do whatever else you want all day. He's basically just socially inept and jaded, partially due to being extremely arrogant, and partially because of his upbringing. | ||
rpf
United States2705 Posts
On January 19 2008 12:35 Luddite wrote: If his IQ really is that high, than this is more evidence that IQ is meaningless. This, and all other posts in this thread like it only prove that people typically have no idea what IQ is, what it means, or why it's important. IQ is a measure of cognitive development vs. chronological development. An IQ of 200 is incredible. It doesn't mean he's a prodigy, or that he can count grains of sand on a beach in four seconds, or that he can calculate "pi" out to 200 decimal places in his head. It's a ratio between his chronological age and an estimate of where he should be cognitively. | ||
jeddus
United States832 Posts
On January 19 2008 16:32 Jibba wrote: Honestly, why would you choose a distracted idiot to make a decision for you when there's a devoted smart person who could make it? Because people like to make decisions for themselves. | ||
pyrogenetix
United Arab Emirates5090 Posts
I mean he's obviously smarter than an average person but after watching all three videos I really am not feeling the "omg this guy is so smart his intellectual prowess is forcing me to my knees i feel totally useless in his presence" thing. I had a few math teachers who were -in my experience, having lived 19 years- the smartest people i've ever met. I had a math teacher who would be writing on the board then it gets to a point where two double digit numbers needed to be multiplied and he could do it in his head. sometimes even triple digit multiplied by double digit. another teacher was pretty good at chess and would take a look at my chess game and say "5 moves to checkmate" then walk away and this one time i called bullshit cuz i thought no way he could know that then he showed me exactly which moves to make to checkmate the other guy and then went back and explained every other possible move that could have been made and why it would result in checkmate as well. i was literally speechless. this Langan guy didn't even come close to that. he seems like the kind of guy who has too much freetime and just sits and lets his brain churn away. given enough time to think about certain things he gets there but in no way is he a "genius". last two things I would like to point out that have been bugging me and I think is fundamentally the flaw here. 1) the test he did came from a magazine. and EVEN IF he did a "real" IQ test, to me it's still just an indicator of how good someone is at doing the specific "IQ test shit" like number patterns, shapes etc. 2) and this has been reeeeeaally bugging me. how. in a FLYING FUCK could he NOT get ANY other job than a fuckin. bouncer. a bouncer? thats his JOB? sorry but im really not buying it. | ||
iSTime
1579 Posts
On January 22 2008 09:19 rpf wrote: Show nested quote + On January 19 2008 12:35 Luddite wrote: If his IQ really is that high, than this is more evidence that IQ is meaningless. This, and all other posts in this thread like it only prove that people typically have no idea what IQ is, what it means, or why it's important. IQ is a measure of cognitive development vs. chronological development. An IQ of 200 is incredible. It doesn't mean he's a prodigy, or that he can count grains of sand on a beach in four seconds, or that he can calculate "pi" out to 200 decimal places in his head. It's a ratio between his chronological age and an estimate of where he should be cognitively. You're a moron for insulting other people's understanding of what IQ means when you yourself have no clue whatsoever. This meaning of results of an IQ test is the one originally used, and is still used for children. For adults, however, IQ has nothing to do with mental age/chronological age. IQ for adults is an indication of where you sit on a bell curve of adults taking the IQ test. Stop making ignorant as hell statements. | ||
Romance_us
Seychelles1806 Posts
On January 22 2008 08:54 ForAdun wrote: Wait, did that guy just steal me 20 minutes of my life because of a fucken 3-digit number? That retard believes in god and claims himself to be a genius because of a 3-digit number, screw him! I'm pretty sure I once knew a dog who was smarter than him. He doesn't believe in God on a religious level, you clearly did not understand the video or pay any attention to it. The only person who looks dumb here now is you. | ||
kdog3683
United States916 Posts
On January 19 2008 15:19 ilj.psa wrote: Show nested quote + On January 19 2008 14:38 Rev0lution wrote: he believs in the god of the gaps, what is more to say? the universe exist blah blah so who created the universe? haha LOL I g0t j00 there huh? therefore god exist. Do you even read what he said on the videos or did any research WHATSOEVER? I agree. Take a look @ every single one of Revolution's comments in every single post he has made and there should be a trend of empty words. | ||
GeneralZap
United States172 Posts
| ||
dAemon(1]
14 Posts
| ||
rei
United States3593 Posts
I saw an episode of the simpsons featuring him saying he has over 230iq. I think i belief a famous professor who has a 200+ iq, than a bouncer OO found him, he's name stephen hawking. | ||
Coagulation
United States9633 Posts
On January 24 2008 10:35 kdog3683 wrote: Show nested quote + On January 19 2008 15:19 ilj.psa wrote: On January 19 2008 14:38 Rev0lution wrote: he believs in the god of the gaps, what is more to say? the universe exist blah blah so who created the universe? haha LOL I g0t j00 there huh? therefore god exist. Do you even read what he said on the videos or did any research WHATSOEVER? I agree. Take a look @ every single one of Revolution's comments in every single post he has made and there should be a trend of empty words. he will get his. | ||
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
| ||
rei
United States3593 Posts
On January 26 2008 03:43 GeneralStan wrote: Stephen Hawking hasn't taken a test, but the estimate for his IQ is 160. That can't be right, the average TL.neter on the other threat are around 170+. are you telling me everybody here in this forum are smarter than stephen hawkings? | ||
Night[Mare
Mexico4793 Posts
Making money > youtube crap any guy who does like to do scientific research can make good theories, its just a matter of how much time you invest doing research. There are many ways to show smartness. It takes a smart guy to make money after being bankrupt 3 rimes, and become super rich. It takes a smart guy to get the independece of a country without using violence. It takes smartness to actually learn something from school. This guy is just one more.. | ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
Making money is hard. Turning money into more money is easy. | ||
ilj.psa
Peru3081 Posts
On January 26 2008 03:43 GeneralStan wrote: Stephen Hawking hasn't taken a test, but the estimate for his IQ is 160. not true its over 200 | ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On January 26 2008 14:03 ilj.psa wrote: Show nested quote + On January 26 2008 03:43 GeneralStan wrote: Stephen Hawking hasn't taken a test, but the estimate for his IQ is 160. not true its over | ||
pice20
Senegal4 Posts
HELLO My name is priska i saw your profile today at(teamliquid.net)and became intrested in you,i will also like to know you the more,and i want you to send an email to my email address so i can give you my picture for you to know whom i am.Here is my email address (Priskamich@yahoo.com ) I believe we can move from here. I am waiting for your mail to my email address above.(Remeber the distance or colour does not matter but love matters alot in life ) p/r/i/s/k/a/m/i/c/h/@/y/a/h/o/o/./c/o/m | ||
rpf
United States2705 Posts
| ||
rpf
United States2705 Posts
On the other hand, he has the highest measured IQ that I'm aware of. However, the IQ scale is neither accurate, nor significant of much. The IQ scale is nothing more than a scaled grading system of a timed test that tests your chronological age versus your "mental" age. So, if, cognitively, you're expected to be where you are, you'll have an estimated IQ of 100. If you're a bit "ahead," you'll have an IQ of above 100. If you're "behind," your IQ will be below 100. But then again, to the best of my knowledge, there is not a single standardized or widely-accepted test by professionals that is valid, simply because they are racially-biased. In conclusion, this man is not the "smartest" person in the world simply because the terms used to describe him as such are baseless, lack empirical support, and are sensationalized. He may have the highest IQ on record, but that doesn't make him smart. | ||
baal
10486 Posts
I dont judge him for misusing his intelligence but for being an hypocrite | ||
Liquid`Zephyr
United States996 Posts
On January 26 2008 05:37 rei wrote: Show nested quote + On January 26 2008 03:43 GeneralStan wrote: Stephen Hawking hasn't taken a test, but the estimate for his IQ is 160. That can't be right, the average TL.neter on the other threat are around 170+. are you telling me everybody here in this forum are smarter than stephen hawkings? the average iq of nearly any community i think could not be 170, let alone TL -who cares about iq anyways, it only mesures capacity for learning | ||
evanthebouncy!
United States12796 Posts
BOOO! | ||
Bub
United States3517 Posts
gG. | ||
Romance_us
Seychelles1806 Posts
| ||
DamageControL
United States4222 Posts
On February 07 2008 13:27 Liquid`Zephyr wrote: Show nested quote + On January 26 2008 05:37 rei wrote: On January 26 2008 03:43 GeneralStan wrote: Stephen Hawking hasn't taken a test, but the estimate for his IQ is 160. That can't be right, the average TL.neter on the other threat are around 170+. are you telling me everybody here in this forum are smarter than stephen hawkings? the average iq of nearly any community i think could not be 170, let alone TL -who cares about iq anyways, it only mesures capacity for learning I would say average on TL (which is a VERY above average community is around 130ish with a lot of 120s and 140s and a few like me in the 130s | ||
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On February 08 2008 04:47 Romance_us wrote: that harnesses young geniuses and their ideas. lol, why am I doubting that "harnesses" is the right word? :p | ||
rpf
United States2705 Posts
On February 08 2008 01:15 Bub wrote: 200 iq and he's a bartender. gG. Well, it's not like his IQ has any direct bearing on his choice of profession. After making a statement like that, I think it's safe to say you won't be joining his society of intellectually elite. | ||
Bub
United States3517 Posts
On February 08 2008 07:01 rpf wrote: Well, it's not like his IQ has any direct bearing on his choice of profession. After making a statement like that, I think it's safe to say you won't be joining his society of intellectually elite. I take it you're from romania. gG. | ||
Romance_us
Seychelles1806 Posts
On February 08 2008 07:08 Bub wrote: Show nested quote + On February 08 2008 07:01 rpf wrote: On February 08 2008 01:15 Bub wrote: 200 iq and he's a bartender. gG. Well, it's not like his IQ has any direct bearing on his choice of profession. After making a statement like that, I think it's safe to say you won't be joining his society of intellectually elite. I take it you're from romania. gG. Epic fail... | ||
Bub
United States3517 Posts
On February 09 2008 07:33 Romance_us wrote: Show nested quote + On February 08 2008 07:08 Bub wrote: On February 08 2008 07:01 rpf wrote: On February 08 2008 01:15 Bub wrote: 200 iq and he's a bartender. gG. Well, it's not like his IQ has any direct bearing on his choice of profession. After making a statement like that, I think it's safe to say you won't be joining his society of intellectually elite. I take it you're from romania. gG. Epic fail... Wow way to bump up a dead topic gG. | ||
| ||
ESL Pro Tour
Spring 2024 - Europe Round 4
[ Submit Event ] |
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney 34955 Dota 2Calm 3757 GuemChi 1105 Shuttle 792 ggaemo 474 Mini 400 firebathero 366 Soulkey 176 Sea.KH 115 sas.Sziky 73 [ Show more ] Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games singsing2068 hiko1932 Beastyqt1000 Hui .599 Lowko472 B2W.Neo466 ceh9438 crisheroes400 Liquid`RaSZi294 Fuzer 177 Liquid`VortiX100 Trikslyr91 QueenE76 NuckleDu66 KnowMe47 Crank 38 DivinesiaTV 13 Organizations
StarCraft 2 • MindelVK 12 StarCraft: Brood War• Gussbus • Laughngamez YouTube • Poblha • aXEnki • Migwel • intothetv • Kozan • IndyKCrew • LaughNgamez Trovo League of Legends |
ESL Pro Tour
Online Event
ESL Pro Tour
OSC
OSC
ESL Pro Tour
BSL
TerrOr vs Sziky
Nyoken vs Zhanhum
Sparkling Tuna Cup
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
[ Show More ] BSL
Bonyth vs StRyKeR
DragOn vs MiStrZZZ
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
PassionCraft
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
|
|