On 1/15/2014 8:21 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> Oh dear, Patrick. You seem to have become obsessed with justifying your
> original comment by descending to the level of the bullies.
> If you had read my original post post properly, you would have noticed
> my comment about joining Thick As A Brick.
>
Yeah, I had. And, part of being "thick as a brick" for such groups is 
presuming that mostly self selected people, taking special tests, which 
they don't let anyone outside the group verify as being anything but 
another silly, and useless IQ test, but **assert** must work, because, 
its just not possible, unlike everyone else that believes in such tests, 
that their own might have the same bloody flaws...

Kind of reminds me of a recent article, on the subject of intelligence, 
talking about tracking methods used by certain "primitives", or rather, 
by those attempting to maintain their methods, while having other 
alternative they didn't before. After years of studying them the author 
concluded that a) he would never be any where near as good at it, b) 
while it used a lot of speculative prediction, our of necessity, it 
contained the basic scientific principle that hypothesis about what 
animals are doing require revision, if the original expectation was 
wrong, and that c) the skill level of prior generations, who had to rely 
in it far more, was likely even vastly superior to what the "current" 
generation, who have other resources they can rely on, which their 
ancestors didn't. In other words, the people in question probably had a 
snowballs change in hell of passing a Mensa test, but they ***had to*** 
have the same level of logic and cognitive skills, which such tests are 
"supposed to" test for, just to survive in a place where it might take 
days to track an animal, and being able to take limited data, and 
"project", with a high chance of being right, what every track and sign 
they came across really meant, determined life or death. (This being 
apposed to other regions, with things like forests, lakes, and, again, 
other resources, which didn't bloody move around a lot, and where in 
plain sight). It makes a skeptical of all "tests" you might give to take 
such a measurement, in a modern context.

> Secondly, stop using lol as a comment - it's juvenile.
>
Ah, gee.. Sorry for using "internet conventions". You sound like one of 
the people that objects to language on the basis that it isn't long 
winded enough to be inoffensive, even if the long winded version is 
saying the same bloody things. Juvenile.. Apparently "adult" is saying 
"get off my lawn", or rather, "I don't like all these new fangled 
things, which we didn't need back in the day when we used to write 12 
page essays on how we would silly we thought something is."

> Finally, read your responses at least twice before posting. It stops you
> from offending people who have been on the group longer than you.
>
> John
>
Yeah.. No. What society needs, frankly, is more people willing to offend 
people, instead of always lending them automatic respect, based on what 
they are members of. I won't do that with religions, why the hell would 
I with anyone else? And, your evidence that any part of my original 
comment is wrong is.. what? That some of them are actually nice, instead 
of assholes, and *they* think their testing methods are valid? You see 
the same argument from every other group making similar claims, all the 
time, the difference, apparently, being that their "criteria" get 
leaked, and are not "secret".

Post a reply to this message