How intelligent do you think you are?

I'd like to try and avoid this turning into a discussion on exactly what it means to be intelligent, so for the purposes of this thread I'd like to use this definition of intelligence as given by Mainstream Science on Intelligence:

Quote:

---

A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience.

---

So, how intelligent would you rate yourself, and on what basis do you believe this? This can be anything you wish, whether it's an IQ score, the level of education you've attained, personal observation, or even just gut feelings.

Answers can be as vague or specific as you like. For example "I believe I'm reasonably intelligent" or "I think I'm in the top 5 percent".

I think it could also be interesting to discuss how you perceive a person's intelligence and how that differs from the author of the post in question, but only if they give permission.


A few links of relevance:
Dunning–Kruger effect
Illusory superiority
Intelligence
IQ Scores and their percentile

Ninetieth percentile.

That's what all of the professional IQ tests said.

I am more "intelligent" than ninety percent of all people... or something like that.

I think it's way more fluid and complicated than that, though.
I'm terrible at math.
I'm bad at geography.

i spent 3 min tryn to think of something clever to say

WAY more intellegent that i act :D

All my teacher say I can comprehend complex ideas and write EXTREMELY WELL! I am good at math and I am VERY GOOD at science. I am AWESOME at Arts and I suck at geo, dance, algebra, and chemistry.

Well, I know my intelligence exceeds my social skills. Though I probably shouldn't venture into a discussion on exactly what that might imply.

I'd say top 2%... you're always going to sound exceedingly arrogant when you put yourself so high, but based on my academic performance that seems pretty fair. I went to a school that only takes the top quartile of the population (based on a test taken at age 11), and I got the highest grades by quite a margin in my year of about 150 people. I need to take a proper IQ test some time, all the online ones seem to be bunk. People are allowed to discuss me if they want. ;V

I'd very tentatively suggest that IQ and similar tests do measure something objective and crucial; namely your ability to recognise patterns, and create and manipulate several symbols for those patterns, which is what I think intelligence fundamentally is. There's a lot of politically correct dilly dallying about these days, always insisting that intelligence is multi-faceted and people who appear less intelligent are actually just 'gifted in different ways'. In my opinion that's a bit patronising really; at any rate it isn't borne out by studies, which show that people with higher IQs actually tend to be good at pretty much everything, not just more logical subjects. I was just as good at English, and I'm also artistic and musical; I just didn't pursue those career paths because I thought I could do something more altruistic and utilitarian with my allotted time via science. If intelligence is what I suggest it is, you can see why this is the case: recognising patterns and forming symbols are clearly indispensable to mathematics; in fact, that basically is mathematics. However, when reading a work of literature, this ability is just as central, even if not so ostensibly obvious; understanding metaphor for example, basically means identifying some kind of symbol for a pattern that you've recognised across the text. Manipulating these symbols well means understanding deeper and more complex meaning.

I have just changed my IQ. I am now in the top 103%. :imslow:

Well, I mastered tying my shoes before I was 12, but I still have to look into my wallet and find my I.D. to know who I am most of the time. So, I would say, I am neither here nor there. But, if I were to pretend a bit, I would imagine that the sole characteristic called intelligence would have to comply with the definition of the human mind, that definition hidden in the puzzle of the name of the Beast 666. "To regulate one's behavior so as to turn the past into the future and to bring the future to pass." In that regard, I don't think there are any of us who fit the bill with any remarkable brilliiance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Manipulating these symbols well means understanding deeper and more complex meaning.

---

Indeed

I don't think I'm above average intelligence in most ways.

... I'm just different. That's all

I think my intelligence might be slightly above average. I'm not sure though. I've never taken a real IQ test, just online ones, which I don't trust too much. I base this on the intelligence of the people I know, judging from their behaviour and conversations I have with them. Most seem like they don't have many deep thoughts or contemplate their lives on a larger scale. They have different interests and don't seem to care very much about the things that matter to me. Sometimes when I mention something interesting I read that sounds a bit complicated, they look at me like I'm Einstein or something. I don't think they're stupid, I just think they're too busy living their every day lives to care about things like science or philosophy. I'm not sure if they represent the general public everywhere though.

I have no idea, I haven't take an IQ test and I am just in highschool...
I do believe out of my peer group I am more intellectually capable, but I don't act that way around them because they are a lot more immature then me and I'm not like them.
I do excell in science, I always get the best grades on my tests, I usually ace them all, and I don't think I have had below a 90 this or last year in science (any science class for that matter)
my favorite thing to do is have long, drawn out conversations about complexities, while all my other friends would rather go to the mall. They don't understand a lot of the things I talk about...
all in all I would say I'm a bit more intelligent than most people my age (though I don't show it very outwardly, I am more of an introvert. I like solitude more than being with people.)I just need to apply myself more Dx that's my problem

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khh

Well, I know my intelligence exceeds my social skills. Though I probably shouldn't venture into a discussion on exactly what that might imply.

---

wouldn't extreme social skills still imply a form of intelligence? if you're good with people, that's some form of intelligence, at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by no-Name

wouldn't extreme social skills still imply a form of intelligence? if you're good with people, that's some form of intelligence, at least.

---

It certainly would. What I meant to say by that, however, is that my intelligence is higher than my "social intelligence". It was meant as a funny shout-out to the common notion that intelligence is inversely proportional to social skills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khh

It certainly would. What I meant to say by that, however, is that my intelligence is higher than my "social intelligence". It was meant as a funny shout-out to the common notion that intelligence is inversely proportional to social skills.

---

I laughed heartily at your witty joke. You are welcome any time in my house, as a gentleman.

I don't have very many people to compare myself to in terms of intelligence, and I have a habit of being lazy, but most of the time I find concepts people seem to struggle with easy to pick up. So I have no idea how intelligent I actually am, generally speaking. It doesn't seem to matter a whole lot anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erible

I have no idea, I haven't take an IQ test and I am just in highschool...
I do believe out of my peer group I am more intellectually capable, but I don't act that way around them because they are a lot more immature then me and I'm not like them.
I do excell in science, I always get the best grades on my tests, I usually ace them all, and I don't think I have had below a 90 this or last year in science (any science class for that matter)
my favorite thing to do is have long, drawn out conversations about complexities, while all my other friends would rather go to the mall. They don't understand a lot of the things I talk about...
all in all I would say I'm a bit more intelligent than most people my age (though I don't show it very outwardly, I am more of an introvert. I like solitude more than being with people.)I just need to apply myself more Dx that's my problem

---

Well in that case I hope This Post was like a joke or something.



Being lonely and incoherent isn't the same thing as being intelligent.

Time for my answer I guess.

I believe I'm in the top percentile, though I've never taken a formal IQ test to my knowledge. I'm basing this off my education (one of the most intelligent students in what I believe was one of the top 25% schools in the country), getting into one of the top 10 universities in the country (studying for a masters degree in Chemistry) with very little effort (and completing a year's work in a fraction of the time), and generally being able to comprehend stuff quicker and at a deeper level than most of the people I've come into contact with.

I'm also extremely lazy.

Quote:

---

I'd say top 2%... you're always going to sound exceedingly arrogant when you put yourself so high, but based on my academic performance that seems pretty fair.

---

I personally would rate you higher than the top 2%; at the very least in the top 1%. And yes, it does sound very arrogant when one rates their intellect so highly, in a way that doesn't seem to be the case for almost every other characteristic.


Edit: Anyone's welcome to comment on my beliefs by the way, and tell me that I suffer from delusions of grandeur.

Two tests I've taken say top 0.5% and top 2% so perhaps top 1-2%. I agree it does sound arrogant to say such a thing, seeing as so many people here have said top 2% already. You have to really observe a person for a long period of time to get a full picture but IQ tests do a pretty good job of an estimate. I was moved ahead a year in science and 3 years in maths, I also tend to get good grades in the related subjects (poor grades in art but very high in maths/science based subjects) so academically I'm above average. I'll say above average is a pretty safe bet to make, but how far above I don't know.

Top 99.17% (of Coders).

So everyone thinks they're intelligent. How quaint.

surprising*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmind

So everyone thinks they're intelligent. How quaint.

---

I'd rather say "Everyone who posts in this thread thinks they're intelligent". Which isn't all that strange, cause if you don't believe you're smart why would you stick your neck out?

This is from an old thread:
"... My [IQ] results showed I'm slightly "retarded" when it comes to things spatial and mathmatical. But my overall score was "average/slightly above average"...
I just bought an online IQ test which gives me a similar overall score (111)
My weakest score was geometric at 94/111. My spelling rules at 132/111.

... [I play a game on my iPod] like the electronic game of Simon Says where 4 designs light up and play a tune at different times and you have to remember the sequence. Unless it's a simple and slow sequence (top, right, bottom, left for instance) I usually can't remember anything above 4 moves."

SO, academically, I think I'm borderline stupid. When it comes to creativity, I think I'm average. When it comes to emotional maturity, and mediating/interacting with others etc, I don't care what tests say, I think I'm in the ruling percentile though I'm by no means charismatic :D

It's hard to just give one answer because I seem a lot more intelligent than others in some areas, but am mentally deficient in others. I seem to be able to come up with ideas and solve problems and be creative better than most people, so in that way it seems I'm in the top 5%. But I'm much below average in speed of thought, below 50%. It's difficult for me to follow along for 2 hours with what a teacher is explaining. If I get lost once, I'll be lost for the rest of the class. I'm also terrible at multitasking. If a professor makes us write down notes, and explains the material simultaneously, I can't do it. I can't concentrate on writing down the notes, comprehending the notes, and listening to the teacher at the same time. I have to choose one. Other students don't seem to have as much of a problem with this (although I'm not sure, since I haven't talked to anyone about this before). But again, I'm generally good at solving problems, and at thinking generally, given enough time. I'm also pretty rational and good at thinking critically. I think the evaluation needs to be kept at that, and not averaged out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

I can't concentrate on writing down the notes, comprehending the notes, and listening to the teacher at the same time. I have to choose one. Other students don't seem to have as much of a problem with this (although I'm not sure, since I haven't talked to anyone about this before).

---

Bear in mind that most people are full of shit.

There were some guys in my sixth form who always made sure to copy down exactly what was on the board word for word and line for line, listen to the teacher attentively, etcetera, and always tried to project academic confidence. But whenever I talked to these people about whatever we were learning about, they literally had no clue. They could refer to words in their notes and recite the sentences, but really they had no conceptual grasp of what the teacher was talking about, or really any thorough understanding of anything in the subject.

I never took notes because we had textbooks that covered exactly what we covered in lessons, so it was utterly pointless. I just sat and listened and tried to understand, and whenever something came up where it conflicted with something else or anything, I'd ask about it. The annoying thing was my teachers would get pissy at me for not taking notes (so I ended up just doodling on some paper to look busy; I never worked out why they spent so much money buying the textbooks in the first place), and my school reports would usually say something about my being lackluster or whatever, basically for not asking dumbass, obvious questions every five minutes so as to appear knowledgeable. Irritatingly no matter how many exams I aced, especially in biology, I'd still be the lackluster guy, whilst the loudmouth projectors were still the future dazzling doctors who'd just had a bad day on that test (and every other).

Unfortunately now I'm at uni you kinda have to take notes because there isn't a single book, and photocopying your friends' notes afterwards just makes you look like a bit of a jerk somehow. Every now and then you'll get a pro lecturer who hands out printed lecture notes, but you're right, the rest of the time it is a distraction.

Socially smart and an academic moron.

Intelligence is entirely subjective and a concept by humans. An excuse to obscure the fact that I'm not particularly smarter than anybody else?

I'd say I'm above average intelligence, but then the people who I consider myself "above" will have skills in some areas, that I really wish I had. I'm not thinking social though, more like being able to plan and think ahead. I've been wasting a year of my life just now, because I didn't plan properly.

About average. I guess.

I think your all stupid. I want to eat your knowledge mwahahahahaha

In surveys up to 90% of the people asked are considering themselves above average. um..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dajo

In surveys up to 90% of the people asked are considering themselves above average. um..

---

People are more likely to respond if they're above average, and the below average ones are too stupid to realize they're stupid, and "up to".

"Up to", because I don't actually have the source, yet remember this outcome.
It wasn't based on this thread.

The point remains that only very few people would actually categorize themselves between 90 and 110. Generally people think higher of themselves, but that would just shift the "average score". Someone has to be average and also below. Furthermore you are actually more likely to think of yourself as smarter if, in reality, you're not. And if you are actually intelligent, you are more likely to underestimate your abilities. But I'm not talking to anyone in specific here. If you are successful in a top university - chances are that you're no idiot.

Thanks for the responses so far everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dajo

The point remains that only very few people would actually categorize themselves between 90 and 110. Generally people think higher of themselves, but that would just shift the "average score". Someone has to be average and also below. Furthermore you are actually more likely to think of yourself as smarter if, in reality, you're not. And if you are actually intelligent, you are more likely to underestimate your abilities. But I'm not talking to anyone in specific here. If you are successful in a top university - chances are that you're no idiot.

---

Yeup, it's linked in my original post, and I'd say I've seen elements of it here with people underestimating themselves, but obviously that's just my opinion.

I wasn't sure exactly what to expect, but the answers so far have been more conservative than I would have initially imagined. One factor I didn't take into account beforehand was that this is a public poll. We might all be hidden behind nicknames and have disguised the links to our real identities, but it's still different from anonymously taking a survey, or having test data anonymised and published, because claims made can impact how others perceive us here.

I'm not surprised that almost everyone here considers themselves above average. When you consider the kinds of topics discussed in this forum, it's not exactly representative of the general population. Then there's self-selection bias in answering. Let's also not forget that it's perfectly possible for everyone here to be above average because the sample size is orders of magnitude lower than the general population.

I also wonder if there's an element of self-deprecation here amongst some; "So and so is far smarter than me, so if he rates himself at an IQ of 120 I must be average" or "Reading X's posts, I feel stupid by comparison". Or it could simply be people overestimating differences with no emotional attachment.

Quote:

---

Bear in mind that most people are full of shit.

There were some guys in my sixth form who always made sure to copy down exactly what was on the board word for word and line for line, listen to the teacher attentively, etcetera, and always tried to project academic confidence. But whenever I talked to these people about whatever we were learning about, they literally had no clue. They could refer to words in their notes and recite the sentences, but really they had no conceptual grasp of what the teacher was talking about, or really any thorough understanding of anything in the subject.

---

Ah, the joys of the UK education system, where understanding is not required for good grades. This is where I'm at risk of flying off on a massive tangent.

An excellent case in point is a woman I know who applied for Oxford. On paper she appeared to be excellent; perfect grades and all that. In actuality, she wasn't that intelligent - she wasn't stupid either, I should add - but worked extremely hard at learning the material. Clearly they saw through that in the interview.

Quote:

---

I never took notes because we had textbooks that covered exactly what we covered in lessons, so it was utterly pointless. I just sat and listened and tried to understand, and whenever something came up where it conflicted with something else or anything, I'd ask about it. The annoying thing was my teachers would get pissy at me for not taking notes (so I ended up just doodling on some paper to look busy; I never worked out why they spent so much money buying the textbooks in the first place), and my school reports would usually say something about my being lackluster or whatever, basically for not asking dumbass, obvious questions every five minutes so as to appear knowledgeable. Irritatingly no matter how many exams I aced, especially in biology, I'd still be the lackluster guy, whilst the loudmouth projectors were still the future dazzling doctors who'd just had a bad day on that test (and every other).

---

I was quite lucky. For Chemistry and Biology I had excellent teachers who could explain stuff better than the textbooks, and being in an intelligent class we could often discuss far more advanced concepts than the syllabus required. For instance, we had a lesson at the start of my A-level year in Chemistry where we discussed Molecular Orbital Theory.

I especially despised homework, which was particularly bad in Maths at beating you over the head with a concept until your skull caved in. What could be a bigger waste of time than answering 25 questions when you grasped the concepts after completing the first two?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I never took notes because we had textbooks that covered exactly what we covered in lessons, so it was utterly pointless. I just sat and listened and tried to understand, and whenever something came up where it conflicted with something else or anything, I'd ask about it. The annoying thing was my teachers would get pissy at me for not taking notes (so I ended up just doodling on some paper to look busy; I never worked out why they spent so much money buying the textbooks in the first place), and my school reports would usually say something about my being lackluster or whatever, basically for not asking dumbass, obvious questions every five minutes so as to appear knowledgeable. Irritatingly no matter how many exams I aced, especially in biology, I'd still be the lackluster guy, whilst the loudmouth projectors were still the future dazzling doctors who'd just had a bad day on that test (and every other).

---

It seems like this is a product of living in a society built for extroverts. The louder you shout, the more sense you make. I find it sad being quiet and reserved is always frowned upon in school and the workplace. For some reason, if you don't share every thought that pops into your head, there's something wrong with you. And in order to get anywhere in the world, you're required to climb the social ladder as well as work hard.

Introversion is often mistaken for shyness. When I was younger, I was very shy. I would only talk to close friends, never ask questions in class and would shake like mad whenever I had to speak publicly. Now that I'm older, my shyness has faded away. I don't have a problem talking to people and I don't think a public speech would bother me much. But I still prefer to spend my time alone rather than with other people. I hate parties and large crowds, and try to avoid them if I can. This isn't because I'm shy, it's because I like solitude. I enjoy the time alone with my thoughts. But other people seem to think I have a problem because I don't go out partying or socializing. Oh well. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

I find it sad being quiet and reserved is always frowned upon in school and the workplace. For some reason, if you don't share every thought that pops into your head, there's something wrong with you. And in order to get anywhere in the world, you're required to climb the social ladder as well as work hard.

---

Well that makes sense, what use in the workplace is somebody that doesn't share ideas and give feedback. Most good jobs require teamwork and leadership skills as well. Introverts will never climb to managerial positions or positions of authority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Well that makes sense, what use in the workplace is somebody that doesn't share ideas and give feedback. Most good jobs require teamwork and leadership skills as well. Introverts will never climb to managerial positions or positions of authority.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

I find it sad being quiet and reserved is always frowned upon in school and the workplace. For some reason, if you don't share every thought that pops into your head, there's something wrong with you.

---

Say what needs to be said, nothing more, and you're fully capable of climbing to those managerial positions or positions of authority you mentioned.
-----
@ Photolysis: That's exactly how it was with me in high school. My test scores were great, usually among the highest marks in the class, but my grades took a big hit because I didn't want to spend hours on something so remedial trivial. I hated the big projects the most, they made us spend days focusing on one thing, then regurgitating everything you learned via pretty powerpoint presentations. We may as well just hand in our notes or just have more quizzes/tests. I understand that may be the best way to teach some students, but it certainly isn't the best way to teach everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Well that makes sense, what use in the workplace is somebody that doesn't share ideas and give feedback. Most good jobs require teamwork and leadership skills as well. Introverts will never climb to managerial positions or positions of authority.

---

I'm sure an introvert would share their ideas with their colleagues, just like anyone else. Probably just not in the team brainstorming kinda way. What's the point in working on something if you don't hand the work over in the end? It's not the sharing of ideas part I have a problem with. It's obvious why that's an important thing in the workplace. It's that you're often expected to be talkative with all of your fellow employees and suck up to your boss if you want to be respected.

I went toe to toe with a 15 watt lightbulb for almost 3 min one time. I was impressed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

Introversion is often mistaken for shyness. When I was younger, I was very shy. I would only talk to close friends, never ask questions in class and would shake like mad whenever I had to speak publicly. Now that I'm older, my shyness has faded away. I don't have a problem talking to people and I don't think a public speech would bother me much. But I still prefer to spend my time alone rather than with other people. I hate parties and large crowds, and try to avoid them if I can. This isn't because I'm shy, it's because I like solitude. I enjoy the time alone with my thoughts. But other people seem to think I have a problem because I don't go out partying or socializing. Oh well. :P

---

This is my exact situation - almost. I do still have some social anxiety around people, but it's nothing compared to what it was when younger and that isn't the main reason that keeps me away. People will label me shy and some, especially my parents, will think there's something wrong with me. I have no desire at all to make friends and regularly hang out with them, but my parents, even though I've told them this, often try to urge me to go to events, join clubs, etc. They obviously view me as pathetic and lonely.

I agree with some other things said, but don't want to look back for the posts to quote. When people started telling me that to be successful I'd have to learn to work well with people and learn to make friends with everyone, I was upset by it and thought I was inferior in some way for not being naturally inclined to do that. Now being successful doesn't matter much to me, or it isn't high on my list of priorities, so it doesn't matter much to me.

And about working in groups. I'm terrible at 'group brainstorming'. I understand why it might be beneficial for some people. If everyone is able to keep a clear head, and no one is very good at thinking on their own, it might work. But when I've been forced to do it, two things have gotten in the way of any real progress. First, I can't think as clearly while around other people, so my ideas aren't as good as they would be on my own. Second, in groups people are less likely to delve very far into any particular insight. While on my own, I might come up with a good idea and continue to think about it, my thoughts branching off if I think it's important enough. But in groups, if I happen to think of an idea that I think is good, and I mention it, people will usually nod along, maybe give 1 or 2 more pieces of input, then someone will go onto something else. The conversation tends to go in the direction that the most social, loud people in the group decide it should go.

According to online IQ tests, I range from 130-140. But I read an article once and this guy took most of the even semi-ok looking online IQ tests and his results varied wildly.
So I tend to not trust it too much.

I probably am just of average intelligence, but I have an addiction to knowledge. Which makes people I talk to (rare nowadays lol) think I'm smarter than I am.
I also tend to just think about things more than most people do, which probably helps a bit. But I'm fairly lazy so my knowledge hasn't been put to good use yet really, I'm working on it though.

I agree with what some people were saying about school. I honestly think that the schools I went to fucked me up big time. I could have been a lot smarter by now if I had have gone to better schools.
We went over shit about 90 fucking times when it was so god damned simple. Then suddenly the teachers decide to speed through 90% of the curriculum in a month or two towards the end.
Because they realised they were running out of time.

All I learned in primary school was the alphabet, colours and numbers and a tiny bit of maths, and Italian numbers and colours. I picked up spelling and reading etc. by myself pretty much, I could spell pretty much perfectly by grade 1, just had a knack for it, it made sense. Then for the next 6-7 years we did the same shit over and over again. Literally.

People wonder why Chinese people are so smart on average, it's because their schools are actually teaching them, and teaching them to learn. It's not a mystery. Our schools teach us to pass tests, that is all.
That's why you have all these people who can do complicated maths etc. but have no idea why they use a certain formula etc. There's usually 1 or 2 people who understand it in a class, sometimes none.
So that is also why they repeat shit over and over again. Instead of getting you to understand what you're doing, they just get you to memorise it. Which is fucking useless because you forget it within a few months.

Rant over. Maybe...

Painfully average/Not intelligent enough.

Well, I'd love to say I'm some kind of genius compared to everyone else, but I'll admit that I'm probably not. People want to believe they're "special" and "different" somehow, but more often than not they're the same as everyone else. Sure, you might be better at one thing than most people, or maybe even be stronger or faster, but you can't be everything all at once. I'll give myself a little pat on the back for being in general a good student and a relatively good writer, but I wouldn't say that qualifies me to call myself "above average". No, I've never shown any incredible academic achievement, innovation or other distinction from my peers. I'm going to an average college, I have average thoughts on the world, often make myself look like an idiot in conversation... yea, that's average.

I'll admit it. We can't all be geniuses, most of us have to be the mindless masses. ;[

Well, that was actually refreshing. thank you.

Yes, very well put.

By reading this thread I have discovered that most people's intelligence is above average, according to them.
This means that the average intelligence level is above average.
See how smrt I am?

I think average is pretty stupid

I think average has more friends.

I was in the top 2% of people taking the SATs (one of the two primary aptitude tests for US college admissions) 15 years ago, and tested somewhere above 140 IQ 20+ years ago, but can't seem to do my taxes properly and am terrible at video games, so I don't know what to think.

It is actually possible for most people to have an above average IQ. For example, if you have 5 people who take an IQ test and they get 80,80,120,120,160. What is the average IQ of the group? The average would be 112, meaning that most people are above average. Or what if we had 8 people with 70,80,90,110,110,110,110,120. The average is 100, yet 5 out of 8 people are above average.

IQ tests are supposed to be a perfect bell curve, with an equal number of really smart people to really stupid people. However if this isn't actually true, you can get results where the average person is above average IQ. Basically people on the bottom, score further below average than the people on top, score above the average. So they drag the average score down below what the average population would score. Also when you factor in that people with really low IQ probably don't use computers, that helps explain part of the reason why many people on here think they are more educated or more intelligent.

Right. Any distribution which is not perfectly symmetrical will have an unequal proportion of data above and below the mean. (Hint: it's the median, not the mean, which by definition perfectly splits the data from the distribution in half.) But this trivial statistical fact doesn't apply to IQ scores because they are deliberately calculated so as to have a perfectly normal distribution. This standardization is easily accomplished no matter what the actual underlying distribution of true "intelligence" scores looks like. That information gets washed out. You simply calculate the quantile for the original score, match that with the corresponding theoretical quantile from the standard normal distribution, multiply by 15, and then add 100.

Uhh.... so you're in the top 1% right, DuB? :lol:

A lot of people don't take 'official' IQ tests however. Usually people who take IQ tests take them online and we all know how that works. I think IQ tests really do get a bad rap because so few people take them, and because of the internet versions of them. And of course when they are determine the results for a test, they are just using a small sample of the general public.

I think I'm very smart. I can figure shit out pretty damn good. On my good days, I am very optimistic about my future being a rich, successful man; I have the answer to everything, I give insightful opinions and information, and I have really good social skills. I'm pretty sure I will get very rich at a young age, which takes quite a bit of intelligence in my opinion if you're going to come up with something extraordinary on your own and have the majority of the world's consumers find it to be useful and enjoyable.

On the other hand, I also have a few off days from time to time. Those days involve social inadequacy, overall negativity, and the inability to grasp the complex topics I usually think about. But for the most part, I'm pretty sharp. I can bounce back quickly if I set my mind to it.


I like that somebody pointed out the social factor of intelligence. In no way does intelligence only mean that you can solve complex math equations and memorize the periodic table of elements. It also means understanding the complexities of social interactions, cultural tastes, the arts, and abstract thinking. You must have excellent creativity and ingenuity. I discovered these things among others on my own, and have been striving to better myself as a person for quite a while. I think that if you're intelligent enough to see the importance of growing and developing yourself simply for the sake of it, then you must be pretty smart. Only in that way will you surpass your peers in every way, and positively stand out from the rest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

A lot of people don't take 'official' IQ tests however. Usually people who take IQ tests take them online and we all know how that works. I think IQ tests really do get a bad rap because so few people take them, and because of the internet versions of them. And of course when they are determine the results for a test, they are just using a small sample of the general public.

---

I've been thinking about taking the MENSA test, but probably only when I have money to waste, since it will be a waste coz there's no way I'll get 140 lol

I sometimes wish there was an anonymous dislike button.

Just like it and then unlike it lol

What do you dislike?

I've reconsidered my analysis of my intelligence after watching the news for a little bit.
People generally are really fucking stupid and I sometimes over-estimate them.
Although I suspect that some people just do not use their intelligence for some reason or another, probably extreme mental laziness. But we'll likely never know their true intelligence, so going by how intelligent people in general seem to be, I'm probably fairly above average. But that's no great feat.

If we all considered where the average of human intelligence falls, we would be less concerned with how our own scores rate and more worried about someone setting the ocean on fire.

Too right young chap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

I sometimes wish there was an anonymous dislike button.

---

do you think even modern computers could handle the response I would get with that one? Hell no.

I have no way to accurately answer such a question. I am pretty sure everyone would like to claim themselves intelligent. So self evaluation of such a thing is pointless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ish

I have no way to accurately answer such a question. I am pretty sure everyone would like to claim themselves intelligent. So self evaluation of such a thing is pointless.

---

Oh, you're not aware it is actually a vanity pole?

Question for the geniuses:

I can't help wondering why one with such intelligence would bother spending their time here at DV, arguing with others about science, math, and philosophy...when it seems rather apparent that you're knowledge on such things is more extensive than the average DV member. Why not frequent forums tailored for geniuses such as yourselves, where the playing field is more advanced, and the members more capable of effectively challenging you? Personally, if I ever started believing that I was one of the smartest individuals on a forum, then I would hopefully leave that forum and search for more intelligent discussion elsewhere. I mean, how do we learn without raising the bar?

(I'm not saying I want anyone to leave, I'm just curious about what keeps you here.)

On my good intellectual days, I like feeling smarter than everybody else. ;) That, and pointing out the obvious things that everybody else fails to see.

Some of the topics here are sufficiently thought-provoking. Usually when somebody introduces a new topic for discussion, it leads to a lot of dissenting opinions. But generally smarter people can give more intellectually sound contributions to a discussion, and they usually are the ones who make any real progress in those threads. And when the smarter people here disagree, it makes for even more interesting discussions.

Plus, this is the most popular lucid dreaming forum on the web. Thus there are a lot of fresh new ideas here. I've been to other forums in the past and out of all of them this is the most mature one that I've personally seen.

Last, if I really wanted to develop my intellect, I'd probably be playing brain games, reading, exercising, or learning to play an instrument. I certainly wouldn't look to others on an online message board for that sort of thing.

Quote:

---

I can't help wondering why one with such intelligence would bother spending their time here at DV, arguing with others about science, math, and philosophy...when it seems rather apparent that you're knowledge on such things is more extensive than the average DV member. Why not frequent forums tailored for geniuses such as yourselves, where the playing field is more advanced, and the members more capable of effectively challenging you? Personally, if I ever started believing that I was one of the smartest individuals on a forum, then I would hopefully leave that forum and search for more intelligent discussion elsewhere. I mean, how do we learn without raising the bar?

(I'm not saying I want anyone to leave, I'm just curious about what keeps you here.)

---

What makes you think this doesn't happen already? I myself visit several other forums more suited to these kinds of discussion.

I visit DV because it's a good place to discuss and learn about lucid dreaming, and because I gain access to some interesting viewpoints and topics that aren't raised at other forums I frequent. This part of the site might only comprise a small amount of the DV users, but there's still plenty of thought-provoking stuff here. It can offer some good practice at trying to simplify and communicate ideas too.

I'd also like to think that I can do a little bit of good by correcting a few misconceptions here and there as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aquanina

Question for the geniuses:

I can't help wondering why one with such intelligence would bother spending their time here at DV, arguing with others about science, math, and philosophy...when it seems rather apparent that you're knowledge on such things is more extensive than the average DV member. Why not frequent forums tailored for geniuses such as yourselves, where the playing field is more advanced, and the members more capable of effectively challenging you? Personally, if I ever started believing that I was one of the smartest individuals on a forum, then I would hopefully leave that forum and search for more intelligent discussion elsewhere. I mean, how do we learn without raising the bar?

(I'm not saying I want anyone to leave, I'm just curious about what keeps you here.)

---

For me, it is not a matter of intelligence, it is about finding a kindred spirit. Lucid dreaming is no accident--there are many pretenders here, they could not tell the difference between a lucid dream and a wet dream.

Lucid dreams are for a purpose, and like any language many can only use it by rote, I am looking for someone special. I really do want to help save the world--wooden sword, windmills and all.

It is like walking through muddy water, hell you have no idea what your going to step on.

It varies based on who is active when, but as internets go, I find DV does attract a number of very sharp minds, and many of them atypical thinkers who enjoy engaging in ED-style discussions. Even if you're a 'professional' philosopher, scientist or mathematician, there's likely some appeal to seeing how less informed but reasonably intelligent people approach your field of study. Also, despite the sometimes heated tone of discussion, DV ED is less of an e-peen swordfight than a lot of places on the internet.

I have seen far too many people with a supposedly high IQ make terribly obvious logical errors to put any faith at all in the idea that intelligence can be summed up with a number. What's far more important is a person's overall personality. People with a high degree of intelligence are still susceptible to getting emotional and fucking up.

That said, I don't know my relative rank when it comes to intelligence and I don't particularly care about finding out, but I've always been told by people that I'm different. So I've got that.

I think the Big Five factors (OCEAN) are of relevance here. I agree with black eagle that logical intelligence is of less importance than the personality. Personality also takes other things such as sociability, cultural tastes, and everything else I previously described into account, which could also be viewed as a different form of intelligence.

on an intellectual scale i am borderline genius, leaning towards genius of course. eq is more important to success than iq though, unfortunately i rank pretty low there....oh well.

i feel bad for you. it seems you must always be accomplishing something....even when sleeping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

For me, it is not a matter of intelligence, it is about finding a kindred spirit. Lucid dreaming is no accident--there are many pretenders here, they could not tell the difference between a lucid dream and a wet dream.

Lucid dreams are for a purpose, and like any language many can only use it by rote, I am looking for someone special. I really do want to help save the world--wooden sword, windmills and all.

It is like walking through muddy water, hell you have no idea what your going to step on.

---

i feel bad for you. it seems you must always be accomplishing something....even when sleeping. you are not special. accept the fact that you are part of the same ball of shit as everyone else and youll be better off

I'm intelligent enough to know how little I know.

Then I go out and live real life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GestaltAlteration

Then I go out and live real life.

---

What is this... "real life" you speak of?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poopman

i feel bad for you. it seems you must always be accomplishing something....even when sleeping. you are not special. accept the fact that you are part of the same ball of shit as everyone else and youll be better off

---

So, you think the invention and promotion of toilet paper was a bad idea? You're right, I am not special, however, my nose seems to be just a tad bit more sensistive.

Let me, however, give you something to think about.
Every environmental acquisition system of a living organism must acquire something from the environment, process that which it has acquired, for a product that maintains and promotes the life of that organism.

The human mind is one such system. It performs its task via language, both branches. If it cannot, then by definition of the above, it cannot contribute life to the organism, i.e. the organism dies. And if you look over the systems, death often is not immediate.

So by definition, if we cannot think correctly we are dead. If you understand the defining characteristic of the human mind, it deals with the future, death then awaits man.

A way of putting this in metaphor is: Those who do not have the mark of the beast will be killed.
Nothing special there, it is just a biological fact. As I said before, as I have posted and demonstrated, the name of the Beast 666 is only the defining characteristic of the mind. You cannot think correctly, then biological fact, you are not contributing life to your own body. i.e. you are dead.

Now, because you cannot see the same thing, no matter how it is written, suggests that perhaps something is not wrong with me, but with you.

Can you, do you have the ability, to even see how much of enculuration is aimed at getting people not to think? Not to judge, not to perform their job, i.e. to simply die? As, a matter of fact, you do me? You worship death, not me. Intelligence, from scripture to science is rated against the survival of the individual and thus species. The mind has a very real job to do, and thus specific methods of doing it--just like every other system of a living organism. In this regard, no it is not special, but it presently is dysfunctional due to its youth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

The human mind is one such system. It performs its task via language, both branches. If it cannot, then by definition of the above, it cannot contribute life to the organism, i.e. the organism dies. And if you look over the systems, death often is not immediate.

So by definition, if we cannot think correctly we are dead. If you understand the defining characteristic of the human mind, it deals with the future, death then awaits man.

---

It doesn't require much thought to survive, at least in the societies we all live in. It requires thought to hunt, grow food, cook, etc. Those things, if we were wild, or even now to an extent, help our survival. But I doubt that these days someone with an IQ of 130 will be expected to live much longer than someone with an IQ of 100. Someone who has mastered language, thought, etc. won't live longer than someone who hasn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

It doesn't require much thought to survive, at least in the societies we all live in. It requires thought to hunt, grow food, cook, etc. Those things, if we were wild, or even now to an extent, help our survival. But I doubt that these days someone with an IQ of 130 will be expected to live much longer than someone with an IQ of 100. Someone who has mastered language, thought, etc. won't live longer than someone who hasn't.

---

Each environmental acquisition system has a specific task. The human mind is no exception. Did you see the solution to the name of the beast 666? Have you ever understood the syllogism? It is about time. Not for this moment alone, nor for just a year--The Banquet---its about human longevity, immortality--or what we can get. The mind of man is an attempt to establish perm residence in the Universe.

When you can see that what you do now will help your great grandchildren, etc. Time. That is why I have concluded that the depth of a person can be measured against how far into the future their actions are aimed at. like someone who would rather marry and raise a family verses someone who just thinks about getting laid.

What things do we see now, that we can start working to prevent, like say and asteroid impact? Can we add and subtract human will for these projects? or are we too busy raping murdering and pillaging? The lack of depth in most human thought is something that I have always found rather odd.

Why do you really think man gets to see things that happen in the future? Do you think someone is bragging? Or that there is magic? It is an example of what you are, what the mind is suppose to do. Why do you think The Law and the Prophets propheciesed until John? The Book is an example of what the mind is suppose to be doing. We do it with Language.

The fantasies of life after death, immortality of the soul--that is the mind seeing what it cannot do, but what it will one day do.

The big todo in the Scripture that people talk all kinds of myths about--it is a revolution--an evolution, psychological. On a psychological level, you can tell when someone is brain dead when they show no spark of recognition in what they perceieve and what they are.

For normal people, no it does not require much thought to survive--they have not much thought to be given anyway.

I think Philosopher8659 is a prety cool guy. eh maeks seemingly offtopics with biggest words and dosnt afraid of anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Why do you really think man gets to see things that happen in the future? Do you think someone is bragging? Or that there is magic? It is an example of what you are, what the mind is suppose to do. Why do you think The Law and the Prophets propheciesed until John? The Book is an example of what the mind is suppose to be doing. We do it with Language.

---

"supposed to" you fucking moron.

Seriously, I'm too tired to give a real reply now. I may tomorrow if I read it and understand it and have anything to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GavinGill

I think Philosopher8659 is a prety cool guy. eh maeks seemingly offtopics with biggest words and dosnt afraid of anything.

---

Well, it is certainly clear, that what intelligence is, and what it is for, is something entirely different with you. But you are wrong. I have lived a life of fear, fear of people just like you.

I'm intelligentest than yous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Well, it is certainly clear, that what intelligence is, and what it is for, is something entirely different with you. But you are wrong. I have lived a life of fear, fear of people just like you.

---

But dude, I thought we were bro-skies. :[

Fyi it's just an internet meme, I wasn't trying to insult you. irregardlessly, i still think yallz r pretty tight, yo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I'm intelligentest than yous.

---

Surely you jest. Bards sing tales of my feats of wit to passersby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taosaur

i'm intelligentest than yous.

---

no u!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GavinGill

Surely you jest. Bards sing tales of my feats of wit to passersby.

---

Pfft, I'm so intelligent I once blew up the Earth with the power of my mind.

It got better though.

I'm intelligent enough to not give too much of a damn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EspadaInMyCloset

I'm intelligent enough to not give too much of a damn.

---

This is what I would have said if I were in this thread 10 minutes earlier.

I don't get it. If, as scientists say, 3 out of every 10 people are as thick as s**t, what does that make the other 5?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneiro

I don't get it. If, as scientists say, 3 out of every 10 people are as thick as s**t, what does that make the other 5?

---

2 short of a six pack and 4 buds.

Who needs something fleeting and superficial, like intelligence, when you have something that lasts forever, like good looks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Who needs something fleeting and superficial, like intelligence, when you have something that lasts forever, like good looks.

---

That sentiment stands in contrast to your av:
http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/m...llstronaut.png

I reckon I'm average. I got 6 A's and 2 B's on my prelims, but academics don't count for everything. Nah, I have no common sense and sometimes I can't think logically for shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Who needs something fleeting and superficial, like intelligence, when you have something that lasts forever, like good looks.

---

If you've got both you can join my exclusive club.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aquanina

Question for the geniuses:

I can't help wondering why one with such intelligence would bother spending their time here at DV, arguing with others about science, math, and philosophy...when it seems rather apparent that you're knowledge on such things is more extensive than the average DV member. Why not frequent forums tailored for geniuses such as yourselves, where the playing field is more advanced, and the members more capable of effectively challenging you? Personally, if I ever started believing that I was one of the smartest individuals on a forum, then I would hopefully leave that forum and search for more intelligent discussion elsewhere. I mean, how do we learn without raising the bar?

(I'm not saying I want anyone to leave, I'm just curious about what keeps you here.)

---

There are plenty of smart people on DV, and even people who wouldn't consider themselves bright can bring up really interesting questions or new perspectives, sometimes because they 'don't know which questions not to ask'. DV has been a very important catalyst for my intellectual development.

Quote:

---

DV has been a very important catalyst for my intellectual development.

---

Interesting. Could you elaborate further?

People being wrong is often very helpful. For example: debates about whether or not God exists. After a while of trying to pin down precisely what's going on, I realise that nobody has actually defined God. People align themselves in one or other camp when there are many totally different camps; people argue with people when the two arguments are about something totally different. This shows that people put too much trust in words. This then leads to questioning what a proper basis of the use of words is, and eventually I realise the answer is that for basic words we learn them as children by hearing a word in a scene with the thing the word refers to, and by repeated application our brains figure out the common element of all of these scenes and sees that the word is assigned to that common situation; more complex words are just based on these atomic words. This adds to the development of my strongly empirical philosophy.

That's what I mean by a catalyst for intellectual development. It's something to feed off and get the ball rolling, though not necessarily the process itself.

May as well get on my soapbox and indicate the rather irrelevant reason as to why I rarely post here.

DV has always been a decent spectacle for arrogance--not always coupled with genuine intelligence, or at least it is impossible to confirm said assertion--and ostentatious displays of "intellectualism," I'll give it that. But, hey, I've harped on that enough in the past. It's nice for quick access to wikipedia/youtube links and repetition of the same unresolved discussion (but, no, they're somehow more civil than base "arguments") year after year after year after year after year, yet taken as if it's somehow important to real life. Unfortunately it rarely is, which is why I just roll my eyes and take a stroll outside. It really doesn't help that most members who openly claim to advocate tolerance and open-mindedness are some of the most close-minded people possible, especially in the realm of both politics and religion (both a subject in and of themselves I could launch into, namely how painfully one-sided this forum community is as a whole on both. Laughable how quiet ED got after Bush was out and Obama was in, even when Obama ****ed up in the same ways. Real open-minded, that).



I could have a massive IQ. I could be below average. I've never taken an IQ test and It doesn't matter. I can still get a job and still function well in society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GestaltAlteration

Bush was out and Obama was in, even when Obama ****ed up in the same ways

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GestaltAlteration

even when Obama ****ed up in the same ways

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GestaltAlteration

Obama ****ed up in the same ways

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GestaltAlteration

in the same ways

---

http://static.screenweek.it/2009/3/1...xar-47_mid.jpg

Yeah, and he's ****ed up in different ways, too.
Hardly the essence of what I was trying to say in the post, though. -.-

Example being the first stimulus package that nearly totaled 1 trillion dollars (and did not help much if any). Looked for a long while for a DV topic on it, seeing as how there were always bitchers on just about everything Bush had done prior: myself included (not a Bush supporter by any stretch). No topics cropped up against Obama at all. Big surprise since most people were liberal at the time.

Point is people were one-sided, and may still be, though I can't be as accurate a judge about today. I'm not trying to drag this into some kind of America politic dispute seeing as how I myself hate Republicans AND Democrats (lol).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

That sentiment stands in contrast to your av:
http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/m...llstronaut.png

---

Yeah... probably should fix that. But I think the rule of cool might apply here.

OH now I remember you! You're that clearly right wing guy who claims he isn't but just constantly argues against the left under the guide of having an open mind.

Was that you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

OH now I remember you! You're that clearly right wing guy who claims he isn't but just constantly argues against the left under the guide of having an open mind.

Was that you?

---

I assume you're talking to me?

I very rarely engage in political or religious debate on DV, and when I do it's no secret I'm right leaning. "Constantly argues against the left" sounds like it came right out of your ass.

I'm really not surprised that I'm defending one little statement I made on Obama over some intellectual honesty that DV has, in fact, a bias towards one viewpoint. But, hey, whatever. I can say what I want because unlike a few years ago I really don't care what members think of me anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GestaltAlteration

I assume you're talking to me?

I very rarely engage in political or religious debate on DV, and when I do it's no secret I'm right leaning. "Constantly argues against the left" sounds like it came right out of your ass.

I'm really not surprised that I'm defending one little statement I made on Obama over some intellectual honesty that DV has, in fact, a bias towards one viewpoint. But, hey, whatever. I can say what I want because unlike a few years ago I really don't care what members think of me anymore.

---

No one is about to crucify you bro, its ok if ya lean to the right. Its just that there are alot of teenagers on DV and we haven't died inside yet (or gotten rich enough) to sympathize with right-wing ideologies.:shadewink:

Unfortunately I've failed on all counts in this thread.

Intended message: Impartial fact that DV has been predominantly made up of people of similar political and religious affiliations. This, in turn, encourages less open-mindedness towards those of opposite or other affiliations than is often advertised.
Message received: Embittered right-wing nut is pissed off and hates Obama.

Good day.

We made a martyr out of him, fuck. Dont get butt-hurt Gestalt. I love you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GestaltAlteration

Impartial fact that DV has been predominantly made up of people of similar political and religious affiliations

---

Last time I checked DV was predominantly non-religious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Last time I checked DV was predominantly non-religious.

---

Semantics. I was going to say "(non)religious" but didn't. And that's how that story went.

Ok then, carry on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poopman

i feel bad for you. it seems you must always be accomplishing something....even when sleeping. you are not special. accept the fact that you are part of the same ball of shit as everyone else and youll be better off

---

Strong username to post content correlation.

Actually, I'd say R/S is religiously divided between atheist materialists and a variety of, essentially, New Agers (as much as many of us might oppose that label), united only in a distaste for traditional fundamentalism. ED certainly skews 'Liberal' (i.e. Left-leaning moderate), but there's always a vocal minority of the Rand/Paul crowd. As someone else already said, a lot of the "arrogance" just comes down to adolescent posturing, and as I said a while back, DV ED is less prone to e-peen sword-fights than a lot of places on the web.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Actually, I'd say R/S is religiously divided between atheist materialists and a variety of, essentially, New Agers (as much as many of us might oppose that label), united only in a distaste for traditional fundamentalism. ED certainly skews 'Liberal' (i.e. Left-leaning moderate), but there's always a vocal minority of the Rand/Paul crowd. As someone else already said, a lot of the "arrogance" just comes down to adolescent posturing, and as I said a while back, DV ED is less prone to e-peen sword-fights than a lot of places on the web.

---

This is true but dont forget the agnostics and panentheists as well. I suppose I fall under the arrogant camp but not atheist materialist and certainly not with the new agers. There are quite a few theists on DV but they don't necessarily have well thought out arguments and post an enraged tangent and never come back to that particular thread again. The non-theists just have louder(more intelligent sorry had to say it) voices which gives the illusion that there are more atheists. Same goes for the republicans on DV. They are both scared of discussion.
Btw what is an epeen sword fight?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Btw what is an epeen sword fight?

---

It's when two people on the internet unzip their mental trousers and pull out their intellects, ostensibly to compare size, and then start swinging and mashing them up against each other, calling each other "dirty f****t" and "you stupid b***h," until they both spew pages and pages of text all over anyone who's watching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Btw what is an epeen sword fight?

---

^ He meant "e-penis." It's like when you brag about your penis being larger than my average-sized one in real life*, except this time it's online and about shit that's even less important.

*I assure you ladies, it's moderately above average in (lucid) dreams.

http://i.screwattack.com/content/ima...1267055336.png
Not me btw.

EDIT: Damn it, post-sniped and out-done by Tao. >_<

Goddamn I havent laughed so hard in awhile. I know thats you Gavin.
But my penis is larger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcrow

I know thats you Gavin.
But my penis is larger.

---

Please, I'm one of them olive complect'd muh'fuckahs. Hopefully someone understands that reference otherwise I'll sound like an idiot. Srsly though, my skin tone's tan and I've got black hair. That's not me at all. Except maybe for that irresistible smile. :P Also, lmao @ hidden white text.

How exactly do IQ tests work btw? I've always wondered how you would measure one's intelligence. =/

It's pretty much just a bonesaw and a ruler.

Im just gonna drop my 2 cents on this one:

Theory Of Multiple Intelligences.

No one is 100% kin on all levels on intelligence, in the end, there IS a balance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roddiy

No one is 100% kin on all levels on intelligence, in the end, there IS a balance.

---

I don't really believe that the "gifts" an individual has is balanced. I see no reason why some schmuck can't get smarts looks and charm, while some other fucker is stuck with neither. I believe many of the attempts of finding this balance is just the result of peoples tendency to yearn for fairness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roddiy

Im just gonna drop my 2 cents on this one:

Theory Of Multiple Intelligences.

No one is 100% kin on all levels on intelligence, in the end, there IS a balance.

---

That's ridiculous. If you gain an ability or form more neural connections, you don't simply lose some of your ability in other areas.

I'm assuming that you only hope this is the case, from the way you stated your position. ("in the end, there IS a balance"; you make a strong emphasis that this is an absolute fact, when clearly it is far from being so. Perhaps you're simply trying to convince yourself?)

Making shitty posts in brown is so meta.

Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates? Morons.

Is inventiveness the mother of intelligence?

Here's part of a test we used to give to job interviewees, where I used to work:

a) H+K=B;
b) O+H=W;
c) A+W=T;
d) A+W=O;
e) S+S=S;
f) B+Y=G.
g) Y+Y=B;

Supply definitions for each statement. Time allowed 30 minutes.

Spoiler for Want to cheat?:

No chance!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneiro

Is inventiveness the mother of intelligence?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneiro

Here's part of a test we used to give to job interviewees, where I used to work:

a) H+K=B;
b) O+H=W;
c) A+W=T;
d) A+W=O;
e) S+S=S;
f) B+Y=G.
g) Y+Y=B;

Supply definitions for each statement. Time allowed 30 minutes.

---

That one was kinda fun.

Spoiler for Partial solution:

c) and d) ==> T=O
e) ==> S=0
g) ==> B=2Y
f) ==> G=3Y

That much is obvious.
Further more
T+H=W (b) and W=T-A (c) gives us
T+H=T-A which means that H=-A
Together with (a) and (b) that gives us
T-A=W and T-A=-W, which means that W=0 and that T=A

So to recap, those equations gives us that
S = W = 0
T = O = A = -H
B = 2Y
G = 3Y
K = 2Y - T
And we've reduced it to a system with 2 unknown, independent variables, T and Y.
However it cannot be further reduced without more information.

Anyone agree with my interpretation? :cheeky:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khh

Anyone agree with my interpretation? :cheeky:

---

Lol! Very funny khh...

..but...

"Supply definitions for each statement."

So.. so far..FAIL.:(

How could anyone possible need 30 minutes for that? lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneiro

Is inventiveness the mother of intelligence?

Here's part of a test we used to give to job interviewees, where I used to work:

Spoiler for k bit longer than I thought:

a) H+K=B; Hebrew + Kabbalah = Bullshit
b) O+H=W; Oxygen + Hydrogen = Water
c) A+W=T; Arm + Watch = Tardy
d) A+W=O; Accolades + Women = Orgy
e) S+S=S; Sugar + Spice = Scrumptious
f) B+Y=G. Blue + Yellow = Green
g) Y+Y=B; You + Yourself = Bi-polar

Supply definitions for each statement. Time allowed 30 minutes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneiro

"Supply definitions for each statement."

---

I noticed. But systems are so much more fun than a series of randomness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

How could anyone possible need 30 minutes for that? lol

---

You obviously do. Nice try, but.. EPIC FAIL.You made the classic mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

g) Y+Y=B; You + Yourself = Bi-polar

---

Heh.. Years+Years=Brains.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roddiy

Im just gonna drop my 2 cents on this one:

Theory Of Multiple Intelligences.

No one is 100% kin on all levels on intelligence, in the end, there IS a balance.

---

So the gods made humans with the GURPS* point buy system?

*Generic Universal Roleplaying System

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneiro

You obviously do. Nice try, but.. EPIC FAIL.You made the classic mistake.



Heh.. Years+Years=Brains.

---

Years + Years = Brains?

No. That's ridiculous. There's clearly multiple answers to each one. And mine makes more sense than yours.
And if the point of your test is to measure inventiveness, I'd say khh scored very well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

Years + Years = Brains? No. That's ridiculous.

---

You're making the same basic mistake that you made in your attempted answer. You assumed that the remark "Years+Years=Brains" referred to "the classic mistake". It didn't. It was just a remark. False assumption.

You'll kick yourself.. so near and yet so far..

If I remember correctly, we interviewed approximately 170 people over several years and there were possibly 11 or 12 who passed that section, but only 3-4 were shortlisted for the job(s).

What were the criteria for passing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

What were the criteria for passing?

---

It'll give too much away, but let me know if you want to know and I'll PM you..

..but..

Deducing what you already can from what's been posted, why don't you have a go? BTW The original test conditions are already compromised. No-one interviewed had any access to others and their thoughts and answers, so you're at an advantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneiro

You're making the same basic mistake that you made in your attempted answer. You assumed that the remark "Years+Years=Brains" referred to "the classic mistake". It didn't. It was just a remark. False assumption.

You'll kick yourself.. so near and yet so far..

---

I didn't assume that at all. I assumed that was the answer for the last one. Which is a reasonable assumption since you quoted my answer, chuckled, and wrote that.

I assume you're trying to say that I made the mistake that the answers were unrelated, or related. But you're trying to sound smart by being cryptic. Clever....
Where did you work?

Ok so it's obvious there's no correct answer, so you just chose the people who had answers which fit your work place the most or something like that.
Unless there's one answer which fits more.

a) H+K=B; Height + Kangaroo = Bounce
b) O+H=W; Oxygen + Hydrogen = Water
c) A+W=T; Aeons + Waiting = Time
d) A+W=O; Air and Water = Organic
e) S+S=S; SS = Ship
f) B+Y=G; Blue + Yellow = Green
g) Y+Y=B; Yin + Yang = Bi-polar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

I didn't assume that at all. I assumed that was the answer for the last one. Which is a reasonable assumption since you quoted my answer, chuckled, and wrote that.

I assume you're trying to say that I made the mistake that the answers were unrelated, or related.

---

FAIL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

Ok so it's obvious there's no correct answer..

---

FAIL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

..so you just chose the people who had answers which fit your work place the most or something like that.

---

Wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

Unless..

---

Go for it tommo..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

a) H+K=B; Height + Kangaroo = Bounce
b) O+H=W; Oxygen + Hydrogen = Water
c) A+W=T; Aeons + Waiting = Time
d) A+W=O; Air and Water = Organic
e) S+S=S; SS = Ship
f) B+Y=G; Blue + Yellow = Green
g) Y+Y=B; Yin + Yang = Bi-polar

---

Oooooh. FAIL.:(

Same schoolboy error again.

PM me if you want to know what you've done wrong.

There obviously is no correct answer. I've just shown that with two different answers.
And some differ in the way I interpreted it. i.e SS instead of two words etc.

Go ahead, PM me what I "did wrong". I'll prove you wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

There obviously is no correct answer.

---

Wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

Go ahead, PM me what I "did wrong". I'll prove you wrong.

---

Ha! No you won't. You're gonna kick yourself. PM on its way.

a) H+K=B;
b) O+H=W; Oxygen + Hydrogen = Water
c) A+W=T; Apple + Water = Tree
d) A+W=O;
e) S+S=S;
f) B+Y=G; Blue + Yellow = Green
g) Y+Y=B; = Blue

Found another pattern. Just gonna edit this before I check the pm

Meh, fuck it.

I generally feel like a complete and total moron. I guess it's because of my interests and hobbies. They're not easy. Then I run into somebody of seemingly normal intelligence that can't grasp the meaning of the statement "for all x, x + 0 = x". 5 + 0 = 0? Fine. 8/3 + 0 = 8/3? no problem. Generalizing it? No can.

Then I feel like I have above average intelligence. In fact, I'm smarter than pretty much everybody that I meet. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I generally feel like a complete and total moron. I guess it's because of my interests and hobbies. They're not easy. Then I run into somebody of seemingly normal intelligence that can't grasp the meaning of the statement "for all x, x + 0 = x". 5 + 0 = 0? Fine. 8/3 + 0 = 8/3? no problem. Generalizing it? No can.

Then I feel like I have above average intelligence. In fact, I'm smarter than pretty much everybody that I meet. :(

---

Smarter than a chimpanzee, at least. So it seems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I generally feel like a complete and total moron. I guess it's because of my interests and hobbies. They're not easy. Then I run into somebody of seemingly normal intelligence that can't grasp the meaning of the statement "for all x, x + 0 = x". 5 + 0 = 0? Fine. 8/3 + 0 = 8/3? no problem. Generalizing it? No can.

---

I don't understand "Generalizing it? No can."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

I don't understand "Generalizing it? No can."

---

Of course you don't understand. It's genius talk.

I don't necessarily think this makes you intelligent if you can solve these under 30 minutes, but it's a fun puzzle. I like stuff like this. :P It reminds me of that other puzzle which says things like "8 t of the o" and you have to complete the unfinished words. I assume there is a set of correct answers, but it looks everyone else is taking it as a test of creativity. I'm not sure which it actually is anymore, but I'll give it a try anyways.

a) H+K=B; Humans + Killing = Blood
b) O+H=W; Oxygen + Hydrogen = Water
c) A+W=T; Americans + War = Trouble
d) A+W=O; Apple + Woman = Original Sin
e) S+S=S; Selling + Sex = Strippers
f) B+Y=G; Blue + Yellow = Green
g) Y+Y=B; Youth + Yale = Brains

Haha yea, so I fail. I couldn't think of what they actually meant and I was running out of time, so I just went ahead and picked the most plausible thing I could think of instead. If my first instinct was right, and they do have actual answers, then I know that all of these (maybe excepting f and b) are wrong. The other type I mentioned before are much easier as word puzzles. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

I don't understand "Generalizing it? No can."

---

He means they can't take a group of statements that they agree on,

0 + 1 = 1
0 + 2 = 2
0 + 3 = 3
0 + 4 = 4

and create a generalised statement,

0 + x = x.

I think this is more interesting than it seems on the surface, because in my opinion such a generalisation is fundamentally what 'intelligence' is; seeing a pattern and forming a symbol for a generalised circumstance. The really interesting thing is that generally (lol) such generalisations are 'unprovable' in a formal sense, if they are not tautological. Take the above, where we are conceiving the numbers in the traditional way (where 5 is a generalisation of 5 trees, 5 socks, etc.), and 0 to be a generalisation of 'no trees', 'no socks', etcetera (and + meaning 'the generalisation of what you get when you put the two together'). The other path we could have taken is defining 0 as the additive identity, i.e. defining 0 to be a symbol so that 0 + x = x for all x, but then of course any attempt to prove 0 + x = x would be a complete tautology, and would not actually refer to anything. Anyway, can you prove that 0 + x = x, given the former context? I predict that you can't. The question is what this then makes of intelligence, if the knowledge it gives us is not seemingly provable. There are many answers to this 'problem of induction'; a reassuring way to think about it is to just look around you and consider how ridiculously successful intelligence has been; there must be something to it. Indeed, from a biological perspective, its successfulness is precisely WHY we have such a thing in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

He means they can't take a group of statements that they agree on,

0 + 1 = 1
0 + 2 = 2
0 + 3 = 3
0 + 4 = 4

and create a generalised statement,

0 + x = x.

I think this is more interesting than it seems on the surface, because in my opinion such a generalisation is fundamentally what 'intelligence' is; seeing a pattern and forming a symbol for a generalised circumstance. The really interesting thing is that generally (lol) such generalisations are 'unprovable' in a formal sense, if they are not tautological. Take the above, where we are conceiving the numbers in the traditional way (where 5 is a generalisation of 5 trees, 5 socks, etc.), and 0 to be a generalisation of 'no trees', 'no socks', etcetera (and + meaning 'the generalisation of what you get when you put the two together'). The other path we could have taken is defining 0 as the additive identity, i.e. defining 0 to be a symbol so that 0 + x = x for all x, but then of course any attempt to prove 0 + x = x would be a complete tautology, and would not actually refer to anything. Anyway, can you prove that 0 + x = x, given the former context? I predict that you can't. The question is what this then makes of intelligence, if the knowledge it gives us is not seemingly provable. There are many answers to this 'problem of induction'; a reassuring way to think about it is to just look around you and consider how ridiculously successful intelligence has been; there must be something to it. Indeed, from a biological perspective, its successfulness is precisely WHY we have such a thing in the first place.

---

Ok, so I guess I understand what he means now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I generally feel like a complete and total moron. I guess it's because of my interests and hobbies. They're not easy. Then I run into somebody of seemingly normal intelligence that can't grasp the meaning of the statement "for all x, x + 0 = x". 5 + 0 = 0? Fine. 8/3 + 0 = 8/3? no problem. Generalizing it? No can.

---

Maybe I was thrown off by this bit - . 5 + 0 = 0
It equals .5, not 0.

But I don't understand why you can't prove it.

Just take, as you say. 0 socks, and then put 5 socks down. You have 5 socks. Done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savy

I don't necessarily think this makes you intelligent if you can solve these under 30 minutes, but it's a fun puzzle. I like stuff like this. :P It reminds me of that other puzzle which says things like "8 t of the o" and you have to complete the unfinished words. I assume there is a set of correct answers, but it looks everyone else is taking it as a test of creativity. I'm not sure which it actually is anymore, but I'll give it a try anyways.

a) H+K=B; Humans + Killing = Blood
b) O+H=W; Oxygen + Hydrogen = Water
c) A+W=T; Americans + War = Trouble
d) A+W=O; Apple + Woman = Original Sin
e) S+S=S; Selling + Sex = Strippers
f) B+Y=G; Blue + Yellow = Green
g) Y+Y=B; Youth + Yale = Brains

Haha yea, so I fail. I couldn't think of what they actually meant and I was running out of time, so I just went ahead and picked the most plausible thing I could think of instead. If my first instinct was right, and they do have actual answers, then I know that all of these (maybe excepting f and b) are wrong. The other type I mentioned before are much easier as word puzzles. :P

---

The test was stupid. I'll give you a hint and the ridiculous reasoning why my answers were wrong. Which is the same reason yours are wrong.

Spoiler for HINT:

Only c) is correct

Spoiler for RIDICULOUS REASON:

The instruction was to "Supply definitions for each statement"
Oneiro thinks that that means you have to supplement the first two letters with words and supplement the third letter with something that defines the first two words.

Evidently everyone reads "Supply definitions for each statement" as:
Supply definitions for each statement lol a), b), c), d) etc.
Which is what it actually means.

H is not a statement. H + K is not a statement.
H+K=B is a statement.

So yeah, really dumb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

But I don't understand why you can't prove it.

Just take, as you say. 0 socks, and then put 5 socks down. You have 5 socks. Done.

---

Read my post closer, I went to a lot of length explaining this... I was not asking for proof of '0 + 5 = 5', I was asking for proof of '0 + x = x'. If you thought I would ever ask for proof of the former then the message of my post totally went over your head; please try to read it with more concentration.

This has nothing to do with Philosopher's post by the way; he was just making the point that many people can't cope with simple abstraction. I was elaborating way beyond that, Phil probably doesn't even agree with me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Read my post closer, I went to a lot of length explaining this... I was not asking for proof of '0 + 5 = 5', I was asking for proof of '0 + x = x'. If you thought I would ever ask for proof of the former then the message of my post totally went over your head; please try to read it with more concentration.

This has nothing to do with Philosopher's post by the way; he was just making the point that many people can't cope with simple abstraction. I was elaborating way beyond that, Phil probably doesn't even agree with me.

---

I read it a few times to make sure I was getting it right.
But 0 + x = x is just an abstraction. It doesn't mean anything by itself.
So all you have to do is substitute the x for a number of something.
And see if it is correct. Then you have proven it.

If you mean you can't prove it without doing that - being tautological - well that doesn't mean anything either :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

I read it a few times to make sure I was getting it right.
But 0 + x = x is just an abstraction. It doesn't mean anything by itself.
So all you have to do is substitute the x for a number of something.
And see if it is correct. Then you have proven it.

---

I don't understand you. 0 + x = x does mean something: it means,

0 + 1 = 1
0 + 2 = 2
etcetera

where the symbols have the definitions I ascribed to them. The statement represents every single substitution for x, not just one. How can you possibly prove 0 + x = x by taking a single value of x and showing that it is correct? I really don't understand your meaning. Take another statement, for example, 'if x is odd then it cannot be divided [by a smaller whole number than 1] without remainder'. Well, let's sub in 1. 1 is odd and it can't be divided without a remainder. So that proves the statement..? Check it some more. 3 can't be, 5 can't be, 7 can't be. Man, there's no way this statement isn't right!

This is so clearly wrong I doubt it's what you meant, though, so could you please explain further.

ARGHHHH I should be going to bed lol

The point is, if you use something enough times and it works, it is most likely the correct way to do it.

Plus 0 + x = x can just be shortened to x = x. And anyone with half a brain knows that if you have some thing, it is some thing and not some other thing.

You prove it by changing it around (forgot what that's called now) and seeing if it works out the same way.

Your statement 'if x is odd then it cannot be divided without remainder' should be 'if ALL x...."
Otherwise you are only saying that one given odd x cannot be divided without remainder.

I'll post more tomorrow.

If all x is... odd? The correct statement is 'for all x, if x is odd, etc.', but of course that is implicit in the 'if x is odd', and the 'for all x' is often omitted. To be really strict we should be saying 'for all positive integers x, etc.', but from the context of the discussion we already knew what we're talking about. But sure.

With respect to 'if it works enough then that is likely correct': well, that is the whole point of my post; that is, the problem of induction. The point is that 'yeah that's probably right' is not in any sense a proof. What is the basis for even thinking that, because the statement checks out for a few numbers, it'll check out for all of them? Take the (for these purposes very simplified) statement, 'x is less than 1,000,000,000,000,000'. You could work at that via your method of proof for a lifetime and be convinced that it is universally correct.

Now, the most interesting part of what you said. Bearing in mind that what we're trying to achieve is a proof of 'for all positive whole x, 0 + x = x': can you delineate exactly how your proof works? As it stands, it's running roughly as

x = x
hence
0 + x = x
(because the former is just 'the latter shortened')

but what is your basis of this being a valid inference? It seems to me that what you have done is added 0 to the left of both sides, and then, on the right, used the fact that 0 + x = x. But... that's what we are trying to prove in the first place, you can't use it as part of your proof.

No no no, you guys. To understand solving for x, you must first think like x. You have stated that 'x is less than 1,000,000,000,000,000' but this is absurd, because x is a number; not a letter. Then you have the word "hence" right in the middle of your math equasion!
Furthermore, tommo stated that anyone with half a brain knows that if you have some thing, it is some thing and not some other thing, but sometimes something is the same thing as nothing and some other thing can be full of things or something.
Dummies.

Speaking of generalization, Phil, you're signature is hilarious. :)

Phil is gone, DuB.
...unless there is something I don't know.

I'll quote cloud who quoted someone else at one point
intelligent enough to know that I know very little
or "more intelligent" than 50% of the gen. pop, depending on my self-esteem.
can't measure that shit etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sloth

Phil is gone, DuB.
...unless there is something I don't know.

---

Phil Stoned, or Aaron

tommo's objective view on subjective riddles is very silly, by the way

::facepalm::

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

This has nothing to do with Philosopher's post by the way; he was just making the point that many people can't cope with simple abstraction. I was elaborating way beyond that, Phil probably doesn't even agree with me.

---

I generally agree. I don't see why you think that I wouldn't. I thought it was fairly common knowledge that your knowledge has to start somewhere. I don't however think the situation is quite as hopeless as you're making out. The vast majority of mathematics can be proven. It ultimately comes down to things that we can't prove and I think that this will always be the case. Those things are exceedingly obvious. But dig this.

for all x, x - x = 0 right? Now add x to both sides to get x = 0 + x. QED. :lol:

Or how about this one.

1 + 0 = 1. Now suppose, for induction, that n - 1 + 0 = n - 1. Then add one to both sides to get (n - 1) + 0 + 1 = (n - 1) + 1 and so n + 0 = n. :fame:

Finally, suppose (for a contradiction), that for some n, n + 0 =/= n. Then (n - n) + 0 =/= n - n => 0 + 0 =/= 0. But we know that 0 + 0 = 0: contradiction. :laugh:

Of couse In the first and last "proofs" I assumed that x - x = 0 which is equivelant (so circular) but perhaps more obvious, and in the middle one, I used induction. We need to have already developed the integers to do that and presumabley, we need what we're trying to prove to have done that.

Hum. We make mathematical models to simulate real life systems. Can we do the reverse, and create a real life model of the mathematics in question such that it can prove the math, or not?
And by "real life model" I mean the use of physical objects that we can apply definitions to such that they and their actions can perform as mathematical symbols in various operations.

Ex:
I have rocks. A rock, as made distinct from other rocks by its solid surface that makes it whole and separable from the other rocks, can represent the number one. Joining this rock with another rock will be defined as addition, and the resulting formation of rocks (when only a rock and a rock is used and not more than those) we will call the number two. Did I prove that 1+1=2, or is that inherent in the definitions I used? Also, is that any different than using the symbols on paper? :|

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by no-Name

tommo's objective view on subjective riddles is very silly, by the way

---

What?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

If all x is... odd? The correct statement is 'for all x, if x is odd, etc.', but of course that is implicit in the 'if x is odd', and the 'for all x' is often omitted. To be really strict we should be saying 'for all positive integers x, etc.', but from the context of the discussion we already knew what we're talking about. But sure.

With respect to 'if it works enough then that is likely correct': well, that is the whole point of my post; that is, the problem of induction. The point is that 'yeah that's probably right' is not in any sense a proof. What is the basis for even thinking that, because the statement checks out for a few numbers, it'll check out for all of them? Take the (for these purposes very simplified) statement, 'x is less than 1,000,000,000,000,000'. You could work at that via your method of proof for a lifetime and be convinced that it is universally correct.

---

Sorry about that, early in the morning (hadn't slept yet lol) I realised that I wrote the wrong thing as I was going to sleep, but had to say fuck it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Now, the most interesting part of what you said. Bearing in mind that what we're trying to achieve is a proof of 'for all positive whole x, 0 + x = x': can you delineate exactly how your proof works? As it stands, it's running roughly as

x = x
hence
0 + x = x
(because the former is just 'the latter shortened')

but what is your basis of this being a valid inference? It seems to me that what you have done is added 0 to the left of both sides, and then, on the right, used the fact that 0 + x = x. But... that's what we are trying to prove in the first place, you can't use it as part of your proof.

---

You could add 0, or just take it out.
But you really see that all that statement says is x is x. Because 0 is nothing, so it's basically unneeded in the equation.
And of course x is x. It can't be anything else.

So I wasn't really using it as part of my proof. Well, I dunno maybe it is in a way.
But I really just used it to show that it is saying x=x. And proved that x=x by showing that one thing cannot be another thing.

As for the 'all x < 1000000000' thing.
This is similar to sorry if I've got this wrong, but I think:
There was the theory of mechanics which Newton proposed, but when you got to very small sizes, it didn't work, which is why Einstein came up with his Theory of Relativity.

So the same would most likely happen with this 'all x < 10000000000' thing.
If we only needed 1000000000 numbers.... this is illogical btw lol All numbers are less than 1000000000 (a number lol)
Oh well.
If we only needed that many, it would suit us fine, we would say it is correct that every number is under 100000000.
But if we suddenly needed to go over that number, we would find another rule, 'all x is > 0' or 'all x is < 1000000000000000000000000000000000000' if we weren't as smart.

Ask me how intelligent I think this thread is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Ask me how intelligent I think this thread is.

---

How intelligent is this thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

How intelligent is this thread?

---

:cookiemonster:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

:cookiemonster:

---

Wow, cookie monster level? Really? I think you give too much credit.

It's an unintelligently drawn cookie monster. The cookie is red and the monster is purple.