nytimes.com— Intelligence, it turns out, is a high-priced option. It takes more upkeep, burns more fuel and is slow off the starting line because it depends on learning instead of instinct.
May 7, 2008View in Crawl 4
Fail. What really happens is smart people decide the downside (pollution) is lesser than the upside (a miserable static, non-technological existence) and the downsides can be fixed in time anyway.
Why the f**k do you call them nutjobs. You are simply stupid is you cannot understand what I said in my previous post. People lived in another context. That is like calling Homer a nutjob for writing the Iliad and the Odyssey.Granted, some people take it way too far, but I wouldn't dare to call them nutjobs. If anything, they were good writers.
The comment that started the whole debate was the one by dazparkour suggesting that because Digg is a "tech" site, the people posting on it are probably of a higher intelligence than the population mean (or, rather, that a higher percentage of Diggers are smarter than everyone else).Disputing this claim is not the same as making a claim, especially when there is absolutely no way of knowing that Diggers are smarter on average. The onus is on the one making it, not the one questioning it."Have some research proving that tech people aren't smarter than the average person, or are you just making crap up?"You may as well ask, "Have some proof that God doesn't exist or are you just making crap up?"I think there are some very silly and undereducated people posing as intelligentsia here.
"Besides, darkparkour posted that in direct response to your claim of "1 in 68" in an attempt to refute the implication that the idea that you can use the same statistics and probabilities with the "tech people" posting here. You made an unsubstantiated claim, he made a contradictory unsubstantiated claim. They carry the same weight for lack of evidence." I'm sorry, but you are just talking out of your hind end. The only unsubstantiated claim was that tech people are any smarter on average than non-tech people. It is nobody's responsibility to substantiate that claim other than the one who made it. The statement that 1 in 68 people will either be of superior or inferior intelligence is based on the distribution bell curve of IQ scores. It's simple fact, easily substantiated. <a class="user" href="http://encarta.msn.com/">http://encarta.msn.com/</a> media_461540296_761570026_-1_1/distribution_of_iq_scores.html (remove space after .com) The point of contention is whether "tech people" will tend to fall into that category. Even if EAW did make a direct refutation of the notion it is still not encumbant upon him to prove his case. Again, you are taking the position that, should someone directly refute another person's affirmative claim regarding the existance of God - or unicorns or the tooth fairy - that the person making the refutation must prove his case. He must do nothing of the sort. Your position is utterly absurd.
When a person who is self proclaims to be, smart and mature comes out with such gems as "you think you are smarter" and "intolerance is among the most unintelligent things there are.", one has to wonder what real basis for a constructive conversation one can ultimately have with a person like you.Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that mr special..
"The statement that 1 in 68 people will either be of superior or inferior intelligence is based on the distribution bell curve of IQ scores. It's simple fact, easily substantiated.The point of contention is whether "tech people" will tend to fall into that category. Even if EAW did make a direct refutation of the notion it is still not encumbant upon him to prove his case. Again, you are taking the position that, should someone directly refute another person's affirmative claim regarding the existance of God - or unicorns or the tooth fairy - that the person making the refutation must prove his case. He must do nothing of the sort. Your position is utterly absurd." What? Look at the timeline and the comments themselves again. For one thing, just because something can be CAN be backed up doesn't mean they HAVE. And his claim clearly hadn't. You posting something now doesn't change that.EAW made the claim that "It's statistically impossible, on 68 comments only one person may have a superior intelligence.". It seems (from later posts) that this statement logically followed from two assumptions1: The intelligence (shown by IQ scores in this case) of the general population falls on a normal distribution.2: The intelligence distribution of 'tech people' of normal and has its median matching with that of the general population.The former is easily substantiated, as it was recently. The latter however never was backed up at all, and it was this assumption that darkparkour refutes. It is up to EAW to back up his essertions. As you said "that the person making the refutation must prove his case... is utterly absurd.", and you are completely correct. Darkparkour does not have to back up his case.Again: If he had claimed that 1 out of 68 people tested at random would have a superior or inferior intellect then the evidence cited would have been perfectly sufficient. As it happens, that is not what he claimed. Instead he said "It's statistically impossible, on 68 comments only one person may have a superior intelligence." At this point to be able to use your evidence he must first show that the intelligence distribution of the '68 comments' is almost exactly the same as that of 68 randomly selected people. That is why darkparkour made his comment refuting this last part.EAW: Reading comprehension again?"The man is defending the superior intelligence of digg commentors ffs." No I'm not. What I am doing, however, is saying that your initial claim of "1 in 68" is bulls**t because it assumes that the intelligence distribution of digg exactly matches that of the general population. I have however, said that I doubt the distribution is a normal one. It does seem unlikely that the median intellect of 'tech' matches up exactly with everyone's else... but I'm not arguing for either direction."He can't differenciate my negation from dazparkour's affirmation. Doesn't understand why the burden of proof applies or even where and still asks for evidence of non-existence." You mean your assertion with dazparkour's negation. As for evidence of non-existance? I can give you evidence that my phone is not blue, and you could give evidence that 'tech people' line up with the general IQ curve."And then tells me my logic is failed. It's like trying to explain evolution to Jesus camp "teachers"." Yes it is. Logic teachers at Jesus camp with 8 year olds that pick apart his arguments.
"You denied the existence of this source it seems, so you fail at logic again. Your job is to provide a better source and demonstrate why it's better."You might want to check your link again ace. "404 Page not found !!!", and while your at it, why not find a source that has at least a little credibility."Your entire point was to demonstrate that I was wrong to say that only 1 in 68 may have superior intelligence, an approximation that most likely ressembles reality because you're insulted. Like a child."What? Of course thats my entire point. Thats the only assertion I reject. Also, why would I be insulted? It makes no difference to me what you think the average intellect of a digger is. In fact, personally I'd be inclined to believe that the average digger is a dumb f**k that just comes here to digg the newest story about the last gadget they bought or their favorite politician of the day. For the most part, all I take objection to is your faulty use of statistics."And this is where you completely discredited yourself. " And how did I know that would make you resort to ad hominem again? Really, you are becoming quite predictable.
blast_flameMay 8, 2008
Fail. What really happens is smart people decide the downside (pollution) is lesser than the upside (a miserable static, non-technological existence) and the downsides can be fixed in time anyway.
Closed AccountMay 9, 2008
Why the f**k do you call them nutjobs. You are simply stupid is you cannot understand what I said in my previous post. People lived in another context. That is like calling Homer a nutjob for writing the Iliad and the Odyssey.Granted, some people take it way too far, but I wouldn't dare to call them nutjobs. If anything, they were good writers.
eltitoMay 9, 2008
The comment that started the whole debate was the one by dazparkour suggesting that because Digg is a "tech" site, the people posting on it are probably of a higher intelligence than the population mean (or, rather, that a higher percentage of Diggers are smarter than everyone else).Disputing this claim is not the same as making a claim, especially when there is absolutely no way of knowing that Diggers are smarter on average. The onus is on the one making it, not the one questioning it."Have some research proving that tech people aren't smarter than the average person, or are you just making crap up?"You may as well ask, "Have some proof that God doesn't exist or are you just making crap up?"I think there are some very silly and undereducated people posing as intelligentsia here.
eltitoMay 9, 2008
"Besides, darkparkour posted that in direct response to your claim of "1 in 68" in an attempt to refute the implication that the idea that you can use the same statistics and probabilities with the "tech people" posting here. You made an unsubstantiated claim, he made a contradictory unsubstantiated claim. They carry the same weight for lack of evidence." I'm sorry, but you are just talking out of your hind end. The only unsubstantiated claim was that tech people are any smarter on average than non-tech people. It is nobody's responsibility to substantiate that claim other than the one who made it. The statement that 1 in 68 people will either be of superior or inferior intelligence is based on the distribution bell curve of IQ scores. It's simple fact, easily substantiated. <a class="user" href="http://encarta.msn.com/">http://encarta.msn.com/</a> media_461540296_761570026_-1_1/distribution_of_iq_scores.html (remove space after .com) The point of contention is whether "tech people" will tend to fall into that category. Even if EAW did make a direct refutation of the notion it is still not encumbant upon him to prove his case. Again, you are taking the position that, should someone directly refute another person's affirmative claim regarding the existance of God - or unicorns or the tooth fairy - that the person making the refutation must prove his case. He must do nothing of the sort. Your position is utterly absurd.
flashback99May 9, 2008
When a person who is self proclaims to be, smart and mature comes out with such gems as "you think you are smarter" and "intolerance is among the most unintelligent things there are.", one has to wonder what real basis for a constructive conversation one can ultimately have with a person like you.Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that mr special..
rendonsmugMay 10, 2008
"The statement that 1 in 68 people will either be of superior or inferior intelligence is based on the distribution bell curve of IQ scores. It's simple fact, easily substantiated.The point of contention is whether "tech people" will tend to fall into that category. Even if EAW did make a direct refutation of the notion it is still not encumbant upon him to prove his case. Again, you are taking the position that, should someone directly refute another person's affirmative claim regarding the existance of God - or unicorns or the tooth fairy - that the person making the refutation must prove his case. He must do nothing of the sort. Your position is utterly absurd." What? Look at the timeline and the comments themselves again. For one thing, just because something can be CAN be backed up doesn't mean they HAVE. And his claim clearly hadn't. You posting something now doesn't change that.EAW made the claim that "It's statistically impossible, on 68 comments only one person may have a superior intelligence.". It seems (from later posts) that this statement logically followed from two assumptions1: The intelligence (shown by IQ scores in this case) of the general population falls on a normal distribution.2: The intelligence distribution of 'tech people' of normal and has its median matching with that of the general population.The former is easily substantiated, as it was recently. The latter however never was backed up at all, and it was this assumption that darkparkour refutes. It is up to EAW to back up his essertions. As you said "that the person making the refutation must prove his case... is utterly absurd.", and you are completely correct. Darkparkour does not have to back up his case.Again: If he had claimed that 1 out of 68 people tested at random would have a superior or inferior intellect then the evidence cited would have been perfectly sufficient. As it happens, that is not what he claimed. Instead he said "It's statistically impossible, on 68 comments only one person may have a superior intelligence." At this point to be able to use your evidence he must first show that the intelligence distribution of the '68 comments' is almost exactly the same as that of 68 randomly selected people. That is why darkparkour made his comment refuting this last part.EAW: Reading comprehension again?"The man is defending the superior intelligence of digg commentors ffs." No I'm not. What I am doing, however, is saying that your initial claim of "1 in 68" is bulls**t because it assumes that the intelligence distribution of digg exactly matches that of the general population. I have however, said that I doubt the distribution is a normal one. It does seem unlikely that the median intellect of 'tech' matches up exactly with everyone's else... but I'm not arguing for either direction."He can't differenciate my negation from dazparkour's affirmation. Doesn't understand why the burden of proof applies or even where and still asks for evidence of non-existence." You mean your assertion with dazparkour's negation. As for evidence of non-existance? I can give you evidence that my phone is not blue, and you could give evidence that 'tech people' line up with the general IQ curve."And then tells me my logic is failed. It's like trying to explain evolution to Jesus camp "teachers"." Yes it is. Logic teachers at Jesus camp with 8 year olds that pick apart his arguments.
rendonsmugMay 11, 2008
"You denied the existence of this source it seems, so you fail at logic again. Your job is to provide a better source and demonstrate why it's better."You might want to check your link again ace. "404 Page not found !!!", and while your at it, why not find a source that has at least a little credibility."Your entire point was to demonstrate that I was wrong to say that only 1 in 68 may have superior intelligence, an approximation that most likely ressembles reality because you're insulted. Like a child."What? Of course thats my entire point. Thats the only assertion I reject. Also, why would I be insulted? It makes no difference to me what you think the average intellect of a digger is. In fact, personally I'd be inclined to believe that the average digger is a dumb f**k that just comes here to digg the newest story about the last gadget they bought or their favorite politician of the day. For the most part, all I take objection to is your faulty use of statistics."And this is where you completely discredited yourself. " And how did I know that would make you resort to ad hominem again? Really, you are becoming quite predictable.
Closed AccountMay 12, 2008
Oh wow, he can't even recognize his own name.
cronianMay 14, 2008
Stupid people don't a reason to be stupid. It just provides another reason for smart people to be depressed, or turn to mind-inhibiting drugs.