In the excellent film, "Waking Life", a charcter says this (paraphrase):

There is more difference between Neitsche or Plato and the average human being than there is between the average human being and a chimpanzee.

Now, I realize that physically this does not hold up, but it is really true?

As I browse around Sciforums and read the threads, it seems that a lot of bright people take the time to argue with really stupid people out of.....boredom? I'm not talking about threads on how sexy male underarm hair is, either, but rather ones about religion and politics.

Another great quote from Star Wars : "The ability to speak does not make you intelligent."

Is there really THAT vast of a gamut at work in the human condition? Are we sitting at our computers having conversations with chimpanzees? Should we break Sciforums into groups with an I.Q. test?

" There is more difference between Neitsche or Plato and the average human being than there is between the average human being and a chimpanzee. "


The average person does not have a ceaseless curiosity, is not at
all inspired enough to perspire and work at understanding what it
is that holds his attention at that time and in some cases doesn't
have the computational power required to make significant progress
in a reasonable amount of time. That, my friend, is the difference
between the average man and the men of genius...

Originally posted by SoLiDUS
The average person does not have a ceaseless curiosity, is not at
all inspired enough to perspire and work at understanding what it
is that holds his attention at that time and in some cases doesn't
have the computational power required to make significant progress
in a reasonable amount of time. That, my friend, is the difference
between the average man and the men of genius...

Yes, but is he smart enough to write a concise, easily understandable sentence? JK. So what you are saying is that you agree with the assertion?

Originally posted by filibuster
Should we break Sciforums into groups with an I.Q. test?
No, but I do recommend that you depart for Nicarague with all due alacrity and then take privately funded military strides in order to hamper the legislative system with your hopefully sarcastic propositions.
This is a thread of pretentiosness, and it disheartens me.

This is a thread of pretentiosness

I believe you mean "pretentiousness".

I do recommend that you depart for Nicarague

Nicaragua

and it disheartens me.

only if you want it to

Buddy, I wasn't making an attempt to insult you.

Filibuster, if you feel impelled to point out insignificant grammatical transgressions in order to make your dick gain the appearance of sudden augmentation, do it to yourself.
I for one am not prepared to write slowly and meticulously in order to provide you with flawless posts.

I would have understood your aim had my remarks been more pejorative than they were.

The true sign of genious is the absent mind.

Wow, you really ae gifted!

This is a thread of pretentiosness

I wasn't making an attempt to insult you.

Are you thinking, then, that you succeeded?

Originally posted by filibuster
Wow, you really ae gifted!

Since you simply must take umbrage at my careless typing, I'll nitpick as well. "Ae" means what exactly?

Hehehe.

So which of you are the chimps, and which the normal humans?

(stir stir)

Since you simply must take umbrage at my careless typing, I'll nitpick as well. "Ae" means what exactly?

Can't you wait until you're spoken to?

So are you going to point out the obvious error of Guthrie's post as well, Filibuster?

Originally posted by filibuster
Can't you wait until you're spoken to?

I'm afraid that's incorrect sentence structure, Filibuster. A preposition like "to" must never be placed at the end of a sentence. It's improper and base.

You should have written the following.

Can't you wait until someone has spoken to you?

There are other viable variations. Here is one.

Can't you wait until you've been addressed?


Filibuster, I promise you that my initial comment was not an attempt to insult, though it did criticize the thread. :D

Originally posted by Redoubtable
to make your dick gain the appearance of sudden augmentation, do it to yourself.

Now we're talking. I checked out that South American real estate you mentioned. It turns out they have some "dick" issues down there that are worse than ours. No thanks.

I'm afraid that's incorrect sentence structure, Filibuster. A preposition like "to" must never be placed at the end of a sentence.

Sigh....An archaic reference that is no longer relevant. It's not like I left my participle dangling. This thread is getting nepotistic.

Originally posted by filibuster
Now we're talking. I checked out that South American real estate you mentioned. It turns out they have some "dick" issues down there that are worse than ours. No thanks.
Ok, Filibuster, you've stumped me. What is that intended to mean?:confused:

Originally posted by filibuster
An archaic reference that is no longer relevant. It's not like I left my participle dangling. This thread is getting nepotistic.

How has this principle become irrelevant? I had thought the rule was alive and well, though not routinely exercised.

Additionally, how does the word "nepotistic" describe this thread?

I just realized that you spelled "genius" incorrectly when you wrote the subject for this thread.

How has this principle become irrelevant? I had thought the rule was alive and well, though not often exercised.

The AP newswire ultimately dictates the standards of our language. MLA soon follows suit. Once a word appears in an AP story, for example, it is no longer considered colloquial. This is how "Kleenex" the brand name becomes kleenex, the word.

Additionally, how does the word "nepotistic" describe this thread?

Well, brother, it has been a while since someone not of the family has posted herein.

Ok, Filibuster, you've stumped me. What is that intended to mean?

In a word, machismo. In a recent case in Brazil, it was used as a murder defense. She said he had a little one in front of people, he killed her, and then he walked out of court a free man. Feminism has a long way to go in South America.

Originally posted by filibuster
Well, brother, it has been a while since someone not of the family has posted herein.

As you undoubtedly know, "Nepotistic" means "showing favouritism for one's relatives". I was rather baffled at the thought of a thread displaying this quality. I guess I understand now, though.

Originally posted by filibuster
The AP newswire ultimately dictates the standards of our language. MLA soon follows suit. Once a word appears in an AP story, for example, it is no longer considered colloquial.

Well, I am merely espousing caveats and lessons I learnt in middle school. I tend to think of such things as entrenched and unchangeable.

Idiots and geniuoses are two different names for persons who disregard logic and accepted reasoning.

Wow, you really ae gifted! WHy do you think I chose my name?

Originally posted by Gifted
The true sign of genious is the absent mind.

I am absent minded! Yay!

A genius is one who can do anything except make a living.
- Joey Lauren Adams

Originally posted by 4DHyperCubix
I am absent minded! Yay!

What's intj?

filibuster

what is the first thing you interpret from your name filibuster when you acknowledge it as a reference to yourself

I.Q tests are only constructed to gauge normal people
if you wish to group a certain amount of upper level normal people an I.Q test should give you some rellavent results

however
if you wish to identify who is a geni and who is not
-------------
A person who has an exceptionally high intelligence quotient typically above 140
===
A tutelary deity or guardian spirit of a person or place
A person who has great influence over another
A jinni in Muslim mythology
-------------

i would suggest you start another thread to answer your questions framed more to the nature of

who is above average
and
why should they bother talking to other people who are not

i am not aware of any test that can identify a genius in the common understanding of how the word is percieved

the I.Q test is outdated by many years
is extreemly socio-culturaly biased and serves industry not intellect

maybe that is another thread you could start aswell

keep grooving :)

It's been my personal experience that people who make this type of comparison generally consider themselves to be at or near the top of the 'genius' catagory.

In reality, most people that I've met that ACTUALLY belong in these higher levels of intelligence wouldn't even consider making such a comparison. They're aware that they don't have to put somebody else down in order to prove their own intelligence.
They're also aware that true 'intelligence' doesn't necessarily require high levels of formal education. (Thomas Edison had a third grade education)

I believe that entire thread is moot.

I suppose that disagreeing with your surmise would place me into your 'idiots' category.

I don't think anybody on this board should be insulted or feel slighted by a post like this...

You have no more evidence of anybody's idiocy than any of us have of your genius.

Maybe you should reconsider your original question...

Oh yes, this thread is reeeeally intelligent. :rolleyes:

Well id not say i was an idiot and id not say i was a genius.

A genius is described as 1.8X the average IQ,the average is 100,a genius is 180.

My IQ according to mensa is between 120-130 ive taked several tests,so call it 125,thats not rubbish only 20% of people taking the test get that,but 147 is like 2% 180 is like -0.00005%,
so to be fair theres not really that many true geniuses out there.

filibuster

you spelled geniuses wrong.

my point is its difficult to judge who is smart here and who isn't, we have little to go on from a (possibly) hastily written post.

- Is the poster a bad speller but otherwise brilliant?

- Is English a posters second language?

- Were they drunk when they posted?

- Did they accidentally post in mid argument?

- Maybe they are very well spoken, giving a clever and succinct post but have the common sense of a grapefruit.

judging intelligence from a few thoughts sent intermittently and under unknown circumstances is IMO difficult if not impossible.

Originally posted by filibuster

As I browse around Sciforums and read the threads, it seems that a lot of bright people take the time to argue with really stupid people out of.....boredom?


It's not that intelligent people argue with stupid people, but that reasonably intelligent people argue about stupid nitpicky tiny things that have nothing to do with the original subject, as you are doing now... sad really.

Getting back to the subject; sometimes I am brilliant, talented, quick witted and clever and sometimes, I'm utterly stupid. Work that one out! Maybe it's because I'm a Libra?

can I belong to the monkey group, please? KTHXBI