Originally posted by @philokaliaUse your brain. Get into the Spirit of the OP's/ posts. Please
LOL, OK.
Next time you post an OP, could you put a set of guidelines and perhaps some rules that we need to follow if we intend to elicit your responses?
Originally posted by @romans1009I'm not interested in sheep. I eat 'em
You oughta be grateful to Philokalia. He’s the only one keeping this thread alive. Even Karoly’s lost interest.
Just calling it as I see it like everyone should.
Originally posted by @fmfYou'd be unlikely to contribute?
I kept telling you that your deeply misanthropic stuff about "snowflakes" and "simpletons" and your wittering about your tattoos etc. was boring and off-target. Facile sarcasm now about having needed "a set of guidelines and perhaps some rules" to understand what was made clear every single step of the way is also boring and off-target.
This thread was abou ...[text shortened]... ghly "individuated" intelligent people, start a thread of your own. I am unlikely to contribute.
What a shame.
I am sorry if I have done anything to drive you away.
But yeah, you sound really angry at me all the time. I don't know why.
I think I have good writing and philosophical musings. I think I contribute to the forum just as good as any mother. As it is said, be the superior to no man, and be the inferior to none.
I will try to make you proud.
I think the best way that I can answer this is to post more frequently, to really cut loose, to post with a free flowing poetic spirit.
Once I get some free time, then, I should really start upping my game.
^^
Originally posted by @philokaliaYes because, like I said, I find your stuff about "IQ" and "race", and stuff like the "deep personalities" of highly "individuated" intelligent people with PhDs blah blah, really boring. A thread where you wanted to lay all that misanthropic kind of stuff on people would not be interesting.
You'd be unlikely to contribute?
Originally posted by @philokaliaYou haven't succeeded in driving me away from this thread, which I started. So there is that. And once again, I make the invitation: If you fancy addressing the OP and its specific framing of the idea of "individualism", you'd probably need to use the terms "participation", "obligation" and "public" and "citizenry" at least a few times, rather than ones like "individuality" or "individuation".
I am sorry if I have done anything to drive you away.
You know what is really needed, my friend, is more posting that involves the expression of my individuality and my own spirit.
I think you are something of a Bohemian fellah trapped in a stuffy Anglocentric mindset.
Let me be the continental Bohemian or, better yet, the American cowboy rugged indivdiualist and jar you out of it.
When i am done they will write plays about us.
Ummm, sure, I will try to write more on this topic later.
I have found that you are a bgi fan of the concept of the individual, the spirit as some abstract ... identity thing we have as individuals.
Not really my cup of tea because it is way overplayed in Western society. So, I guess I do sound a bit misanthropic when I talk about it, but this is exactly the kidn of thing that will further your understanding.
It is in your criticisms that you find the basis for improvement. Rarely is it in the compliments.
Fortunately, a fellah like you doesn't have to worry about sifting through all of the compliments.
Originally posted by @philokaliaI will take a look if you do.
Ummm, sure, I will try to write more on this topic later.
1 edit
Originally posted by @fmfBtw Steve Smith ( Aussie cricket captain ) has an IQ of about 142. My friends' IQ is 168. edit: 140 is considered a 'genius'
Yes because, like I said, I find your stuff about "IQ" and "race", and stuff like the "deep personalities" of highly "individuated" intelligent people with PhDs blah blah, really boring. A thread where you wanted to lay all that misanthropic kind of stuff on people would not be interesting.
Originally posted by @karoly-aczelI had actually always heard that 130 is considered genius.
Btw Steve Smith ( Aussie cricket captain ) has an IQ of about 142. My friends' IQ is 168. edit: 140 is considered a 'genius'
I believe 110 is considered top 15% and something like 1-2% have 130 or above. I do not remember the data exactly.
IQ tests can vary a bit because some of these online or cheap tests that can be administered in 15 minutes do not adequately assess things like verbal intelligence but instead just focus on the problem solving dynamics. Of course, though, people who tend to do well on the problem solving also tend to do well on verbal intelligence tests.
Verbal IQ also often generally includes tests for memorization and memory in general.
There's a couple kinds of IQ tests that you can do that take several hours to administer but most places just opt for the much shorter ones that are based mostly on problem solving and geospatial reasoning.
Originally posted by @philokalia168.
I had actually always heard that 130 is considered genius.
I believe 110 is considered top 15% and something like 1-2% have 130 or above. I do not remember the data exactly.
IQ tests can vary a bit because some of these online or cheap tests that can be administered in 15 minutes do not adequately assess things like verbal intelligence but instea ...[text shortened]... opt for the much shorter ones that are based mostly on problem solving and geospatial reasoning.
Originally posted by @philokaliaWell we are all individuals, and we all do have identities and, whichever way you dice it, these uncontroversial realities ~ which apply in every human society, not just Western ones ~ involve abstractions; so, no amount of your "new far right" misanthropy can change these things.
I have found that you are a bgi fan of the concept of the individual, the spirit as some abstract ... identity thing we have as individuals. Not really my cup of tea because it is way overplayed in Western society. So, I guess I do sound a bit misanthropic when I talk about it, but this is exactly the kidn of thing that will further your understanding.