add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Whilst the IQ is an imperfect measure of intelligence, it's
still a moderately useful tool for discriminating a level of
granularity of cognitive capability.
There's also DSM IV, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders (ed. 4), used to establish the level of
disorder of a
person's mind, according to comparison
against the standards for a range of known disorders.
However, there is a system of measurement that has not
yet been applied to people, to establish just how "Loopy"
they really are, in their everyday dealings with the world,
other people and reality.
The DQ (Yes, I know, it's an abbreviation for Disqualified)
takes into account the observable level of religious
fervo(u)r and conviction; number of tattoos vs number of
teeth; level of education; affiliation with patriotic and gun
ownership clubs; number of vehicles (Working vs non-
working, front yard vs back); number of children
birthed/sired (before and after the age of 16) and the
average of the last 5 years' income from legal sources.
At the end of the process you get a number that you can
use to reasonably reliably estimate the likelihood of
getting any common sense out of the test subject.
[link]
|
| |
Observable Religious Fervor and Conviction: other than
proudly declaring myself a Heathen, I keep it to myself. |
|
| |
Level of (formal) Education: technical college |
|
| |
Patriotism: extreme, in my own way; no organized
affiliation |
|
| |
Gun Ownership Club Membership: I'm not much of a joiner |
|
| |
Vehicles: four working, three non-working (all in back
yard) |
|
| |
Average of Last Five Years' Legal Income: $2.13 |
|
| |
We have a "family" (Not sure how they're all
related) in our neighbourhood (10 acres blocks,
well out of town) with 8 kids; 6 dogs; 5 horses; 15-
20 goats; upwards of 20 cars and 60-70 tattoos and
about 30 teeth between them. |
|
| |
There are signs on their front fence exhorting
passers-by to turn to their god (who's obviously
saving up all of their allotment of riches, milk and
honey for them after they have succumbed to
tuberculosis or sexually transmissible, incest-borne
disease) and they send the kids out, pamphletting
the entire area every Saturday. |
|
| |
I suspect they're also the source of the volleys of
gunshots loosed in the area, late on Friday and
Saturday nights. |
|
| |
They're a source of inspiration. |
|
| |
I remember having a conversation with someone who I thought was quite articulate and intelligent and then realising from something she said that she believed, quite seriously, in astrology. Funny how something like that can immediately change your view of someone. |
|
| |
Yep. That's the sort of thing I mean. You get under
the exterior and they turn into monster, raving
loonies. |
|
| |
I am confused, did her belief in astrology make her any less articulate or intelligent [hippo]? |
|
| |
//who I thought was quite ... intelligent// |
|
| |
He stated his perceptions. And yes, a firm belief in astrology would have a significant impact on my opinion of somone's intelligence. |
|
| |
I have a very stong spiritual side to me (strong enough to
tell me that astrology is bunk), yet I've never had trouble
letting it stand in the way of reason or scientific
unterstanding. It always seems to just 'fit in' with what I'm
learning. There appear to be others whose spirituality
functions in the same way; is it a measure of intelligence
or our capacity for understanding? Or is it something else...
The religion of Science, perhaps? |
|
| |
A spirtual side or religous belief that doesn't preclude rational thought otherwise should not significantly increase an individual's DQ. However, I would put out there that a belief in astrology, in specific, is a pretty strong indicator of a lack of rational thought, since it requires the spiritual acting in the visible world in a way that is contradictory to our understanding of the universe. |
|
| |
It's not having a belief, it's maintaining that said belief justifies not accepting the observable facts of the universe. |
|
| |
Bingo. To me, the observable facts of the universe
influence and inform my spirituality. My beliefs are a
constantly evolving and growing model of the ineffable
aspects of reality. There's a lot more to it than this, but I
can give a
reduced example by stating that I consider what I call
'spirit' (for lack of a better term) to be a third state of
existence, alongside matter and energy. Thus: |
|
| |
Establishing the correlation between the External Universe,
which is all around us, and the Internal Universe, which is
within each of us. |
|
| |
Which probably means I'm a total kook. |
|
| |
Humorous judgemental bigotry passed off as an idea. |
|
| |
This doesn't factor in the various types of
intelligence and therefore I'd have to disagree with
it. Plus, I like nonconformists and I have met enough
eccentrics to have learned that they often have
more perception than standard. |
|
| |
// The religion of Science // |
|
| |
Religion requires Belief in that which is unprovable. |
|
| |
Science requires that assertions are amenable to proof, repeatable and consistent. |
|
| |
No-one denigrates Newton because he didn't think up Relativity; and Einstein repeatedly referred to his concepts as "a step forward" and "nothing more than an improved model" which he expected to be superseded. |
|
| |
Religion is about dogma; Science is about questioning. |
|
| |
You raise a valid argument. Perhaps 'religion' was the
wrong word, especially as I, a very spiritual person, do not
consider myself to be religious. My beliefs are as far from
dogmatic as it is possible to be. |
|
| |
I was proposing a spiritual leaning that is questioning,
dynamic, open to suggestion and even skepticism, and
adamantly opposed to the rejection of science. I endeavor
to observe the unobservable through feeling and intuition,
but not to present it as fact. There is no proof (nor is it
sought), there is only perception and consideration of that
which is felt in the soul. |
|
| |
And yes, I know that drives my DQ through the
roof. |
|
| |
I know next to nothing of astrology, certainly not enough to believe in it, but I find it... ironic, (I think that's the right word) that a large portion of the first sciences were discovered by those who did believe in it, or at least in devining knowlege from the movements of the stars. |
|
| |
No, I don't have any specifics. |
|
| |
That sounds about right. Some of the first calendars and number systems are linked to astrological systems. |
|
| |
It's one of those external locus of control things they talk about in psychology. This idea is not a new one in psychology which of course as a psuedo-science is all abot evaluating and measuring. There are all sorts of metrics in all sorts of areas related to personality and abnormal psychology. |
|
| |
It's salutary that every culture and every time made
up its own constellations, from the same stars. The
idea that some imaginary shape denoted by the
current (they are all moving relative to each other)
star positions and obviously invented by a stargazer
with an overactive imagination could somehow
influence the course of your life is simply risible. |
|
| |
Given a few centuries, stargazing and campfire stories
became extremely influential mythologies. That's how we
got half-crocodile/half -hippopotami that devour the
hearts
of the unworthy and one-eyed god-kings that ponder the
secrets of the universe whilst hanging by one foot from a
tree the size of the world. |
|
| |
//Your perception is all wrong.// |
|
| |
Now there's an understatement...
From what I've seen, peoples' beliefs are, for the most part, ingrained in them as children and they aren't able to easilly cast them aside without guilt or feeling that they are betraying their elders. Having grown up without a belief system I think that blind faith in anything is completely whacked and yet I am not an athiest. |
|
| |
I think maybe my open-minded approach to spirituality was
ingrained in me as a child, since my parents are neither
religious nor concerned with religion and spiritualism, and
have always encouraged me to examine the world around
me and make my own choices. |
|
| |
I think religion is something that should be objectively
presented to children as a viable option, making it clear
that there are many to choose from (or not). |
|
| |
// // The religion of Science //
Tautology.
//
- did you mean "Oxymoron"? |
|
| |
I thought religion was about comfort. Under a sky
filled with stars, or when the thunder rolls and
lightning cracks across the sky, I can see an early
human trying to make sense of that in order to feel
somehow safe in the world. What has happened to
that feeling since is a very different matter but
taking comfort away from anyone?... not really in me
to agree with that. Rational thought doesn't have all
the answers and I see nothing wrong with a
compromise that cuts some slack both ways. |
|
| |
// -did you mean "Oxymoron" ?// |
|
| |
No. But it is also an oxymoron. |
|
| |
We quote one of the several definitions of
'Tautology' : "A series of self-reinforcing
statements that cannot be disproved because
they depend on the assumption that they are
already correct". |
|
| |
Sounds pretty much like religion to us … |
|
| |
That also describes a skill employed by talented fiction
writers... hmm... |
|
| |
// shear force of will // |
|
| |
Clearly you feel somewhat cut up about this … |
|
| |
Yes, he's obviously torn... |
|
| |
//forced to go to sunday school, watching the new pope burn toast on tv etc.// |
|
| |
Naw, that's not what I mean.
(crap I don't know what I mean)
I saw evil at a young age. I saw good at a young age.
The evil I saw followed the laws of physics. Some of the good I saw/see didn't/doesn't. |
|
| |
Thank you! I think very highly of you as well, [bigs]. |
|
| |
Don't know about the American dream, just the Canadian dream of peace prosperity and politeness in pleasing proportions.
Anarchy isn't the answer of course but minarchy might be...
The physics defying things I've seen have almost never been self-serving. That's kind of what puts them in the 'good' category. |
|
| |
This isn't really helping my DQ much is it? |
|
| |
This isn't a slight against anyone here, but I'm not sure if
most people understand what anarchy really is. I'm
absolutely positive that self-professed 'anarchists' do not. |
|
| |
Don't feel bad, [Alter]. I'm pretty sure most of the
users here don't understand the meaning of liberal,
democracy, communism or socialism, from what I've
seen. |
|
| |
That's okay; neither do most liberals, democratists,
communists, and socialists. |
|
| |
I don't know whether it's funny or sad that so many people
fail to actually learn the textbook definitions of the
social/political philosophies they claim to identify with.
For that matter, the same extends to religion. I've seen an
awful lot of christians do some very un-Christian things,
and I'm reasonably certain there's nothing in the Qu'ran
(sp.?) about killing yourself and a whole crowd of innocent
people around you to try and prove some vaguely defined
political point. All of the Jews I've ever known were well-
educated in their religion, but fewer than a dozen
individuals does not an accurate demographic make. |
|
| |
I, on the other hand, am a Heathen, and I know exactly
what that means. |
|
| |
It's just another term with multiple meanings so what
does it mean when you use it? |
|
| |
The original, most literal meaning: one who dwells on the
heath; figuratively, one who lives outside of societal
boundaries. I also use it for the Pagan connotation,
because I am one, though my spiritual paradigm bears little
resemblance to those of the pre-Viking Teutono-Nordic
tribes who were first collectively known as Heathens. |
|
| |
Why do people feel they need to define themselves
in terms of what they do or don't believe? |
|
| |
Isn't there already enough to do in life without that? |
|
| |
I suspect "Panem et circenses" is closer to the
money. |
|
| |
That claim makes no sense; where's the frivolity in
this discussion? |
|
| |
I was suggesting religion is just another form of
"Bread and circuses", [Phront]... a means by which
the populace's examination of real problems is
diverted by bullshit answers. |
|
| |
You want frivolity? The circus is two doors down. |
|
| |
If religion is a 'bullshit answer', there are still a great
many asking the question. |
|
| |
Then there are a lot of credulous people, following
previous generations' mistakes because "that's how
we do things". |
|
| |
Religion is at best self-delusion; at worst it's
wholesale scamming of the population. More damage
and crime has been done in the names of god/s than
any other cause in history. |
|
| |
What people do in the name of anything is the real
issue; politics, science et al are just as easy a
bandwagon to get on. Fanatics and sheep seize on
whatever suits their personal agendas; it seems
illogical to blame any god for the evils people quite
capably cook up all by themselves. |
|
| |
I agree. However, religion is the most common
justification for bad acts. |
|
| |
*Common Sense* and *Intelligence* are really two entirely different concepts. Whilst your painted image of your //loopy// neighbors is just plain stereotyping, have you ever had a conversation with any of them? I tend not to judge people by any of those things, though not to say that some of the stereotypes don't fit-- oh, some of them do, but yet it's our responsibility as the more intelligent ones (?) to give each individual a chance to prove their common sense or intelligence by means other than the external situations they represent. |
|
| |
With respect, [xandram], I spent 5 years of my life
as a repossession agent in amongst a total of 23
years spent directly involved in credit
management and debt recovery. I have reached
into my pocket and given some thousands of
dollars to people who were genuinely suffering
hardship and trying to get back to a level footing
in the world. There are, however, some people
who try and some who don't. I've been in the
game long enough to be able to judge reasonably
quickly which is which, not just by their external
behaviours but also the evidence of belief systems
and values they exhibit. "You can tell a lot about a
man from the cut of his clothes" is an aphorism we
have begun to ignore, in modern times. |
|
| |
In any case, this idea isn't about that aspect of
human behaviour... it's about a perceived need for
a system of measurement of the characteristics of
behaviours that mark people out as eccentric,
non-conformist and downright confrontational in
relation to the rest of society, in a fashion that
doesn't concentrate so much on the known mental
illnesses and disturbances as it does on quirky and
individualistic behaviours. |
|
| |
I'm not particularly surprised that it attracted a lot
of fishbones here. Most people are comfortable in
their assessment of the rest of their sphere of
influence being roughly the same as they perceive
themselves to be, to the extent they will even
vote on ideas in conformist fashion, almost every
time the voting starts on an idea. |
|
| |
With respect to you also, //some who try and some who don't// would have made a better platform for this idea than pointing out how many tatoos someone has. Personally, I don't have any tatoos, but that doesn't mean I'm not crazy!! |
|
| |
// I thought "I was just following orders" was
the most common justification for bad acts // |
|
| |
That's actually #2, just behind "The Voices
told me to do it …" |
|
| |
//this idea isn't about that aspect of human behaviour... it's about a perceived need for a system of measurement of the characteristics of behaviours that mark people out as eccentric, non-conformist and downright confrontational in relation to the rest of society, in a fashion that doesn't concentrate so much on the known mental illnesses and disturbances as it does on quirky and individualistic behaviours.// |
|
| |
To what end?
I've known complete whack-jobs most people look down on that I would trust with my life and men in three piece suits I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw... and vice versa. |
|
| |
Like [xandram] I'm not into body modification, but I've got some kick-ass toys in the 'ol attic.
My perception of reality differs from most, how could my sense be common? This seems to be more about conformity than commonality.
Perhaps what is needed is an inverse IQ scale. |
|
| |
See, nobody thinks about negative zero. |
|
| |
(love ya [2fries]) !!! xoxo |
|
| |
I can't say exactly why, but this makes me think of Lewis Black's routine where he describes overhearing someone say something that drove him nuts, and that is: |
|
| |
"If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college" |
|
| |