Good point, this is exactly what happened in Germany in the 1930s. No proof for any of Hitlers ideas, just persuasion and clever propoganda.
Intellectual betterment.
- Thread starter Maggot
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Good point, this is exactly what happened in Germany in the 1930s. No proof for any of Hitlers ideas, just persuasion and clever propoganda.
But that's my point, IF it was that every one thought the world was flat, then that is true, because it only us(human race) that hold beliefs that pertain to our own reality, but it only works if every one on on the planet hold the same beliefs, if there's one guy in the corner saying "rubbish its all wavy and purple" then that is his reality and that is how the world is, unless he changes his belief, either by someone presenting a more beneficial idea or by the pressure of over whelming arguments, take missionary's in Africa, to me they didn't present a better idea of the world they used pressure of over whelming arguments, "we all belive this and were more advanced than you so it must be true and there for you should believe it to" where as medicine has at times used the presentation of better ideas such as pain control when removing a leg, it is simply better than hacking away with the drunken patient wailing away, my personal idea is that unless the whole of humanity is in one forum there is no point in even discussing ideas of percepted realities because the out come of the conversations will be meaningless as its just two peoples ideas being confirmed or denied rather than mass held perceptions being probed and explored, wha i mean is i may hold the same views on a subject as the chap stood next to me, and the two guys across the table hold the same view as each other, but while I can talk to the guy across the table neither of us can hear the guys sat next to us, so the differences in how we grew up to the points we are at in our lives would dramatically alter the out comes of our conversations to the point that we would have radically different out comes, and then have to then present the out comes to each other, which would then change the out come of the discussion again as we then have to re disscuss the out come of the first con versation, and so on and so on, never reaching a definitive idea just having to accept that we can all have differing ideas on the ame subject and that they can all be right as the answer often depends on our experience of the world as we see it,
I was a member of Mensa for 2 years before i stopped paying. Which test did you take JD? These are the accepted tests. I did the Cattell III B test.
Cattell III B
Culture Fair
Ravens Advanced Matrices
Ravens Standard Matrices
Wechsler Scales
(Full membership of Mensa comes with a fully printed certificate, no handwritten parts to it)
Cattell III B
Culture Fair
Ravens Advanced Matrices
Ravens Standard Matrices
Wechsler Scales
(Full membership of Mensa comes with a fully printed certificate, no handwritten parts to it)
Last edited:
I agree Southey, that sort of summarises what i'm trying to say, though i don't have a gift with words and tried to explain my point in a very convoluted way.
Nothing is true permanently, what we believe to be true will no doubt be thought of as savage and primitive in the future.
Things like science and religion cannot and should never be debated because your system for belief are opposite.
My face has melted.
Nothing is true permanently, what we believe to be true will no doubt be thought of as savage and primitive in the future.
Things like science and religion cannot and should never be debated because your system for belief are opposite.
My face has melted.
Hahaha I just had to have twenty cups of tea to counter to that kind of mental rummage in the morning! hahah Im off to a Squadron reunion this afternoon so I should be able to regain my stsus quo after a few ciders,
Actually its very easy. You state you "claimed" it but I CLIMBED it so you could never hav ebeen there.I claimed Mt Everest this morning, Try and prove I didn't!
Unless of course I'm not really here
I wonder if there is a mathmatical formula or expression that could predict Godwins Law??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Last edited:
If ten men post on a form 12 times a day for 3 days what is the number of fish born in Fijian waters in the month of march?
You are probably right.. But Was Viktor Reznov a figment of Alex Masons imagination??
Isnt it true that Data has to exist in three different place for it to be considerer real, does the same go for data created characters?
"The worst thing about being intelligent is a permanent sensation of being surrounded by idiots"
No, I wouldn't have thought so. I could write nonsense at work, then at home, then in the pub. It exists in 3 places, but will still be nonsense.
It is actually quite amusing watching this discussion unfold, and at the same time a little disturbing how some people react.
Have you ever seen a Mors "try-stick"? If a person on this forum told you that he could make a try-stick, would you react similar?
If another person claims he can light feathersticks, make fire with a handdril or similar, would you "challenge" this in the same way, even though proof of the claim already has been presented?
Why is it that intellectual abilities makes you react so strongly?
Actually, in post #22 http://www.bushcraftuk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=77007&p=935476#post935476 you claim that the matematical explanation provided you is basically meaningless to you. When you openly admit you do not understand the principles behind this explanation why continue this "crusade" against intellectual abillites? By the way, there are ample reading opportunities on the internet regarding Emil Post and his work. Studying and actually understanding a posting before criticizing the author with ad hominem retorics might lead to an understanding of why a proven scientifical approch to computability theory normally is preferable ...
Actually, as a civilized society we should do everything possible to encourage and nurture intellectual and cognitive development, so that civilization may continue to flourish and prosper.
If a society develops, where the intelligent persons meets the same degree of scepticism and verbal persecution as shown in this thread, then you are actually celebrating cognitive mediocrity and actively hindering progress and valuable scientific discoveries.
All humans are born with different genetics. Some have a genetical potential in the field of mathematics - others may have similar potential in other fields. As long a it is recognized that each individual is unique, then ultimately competition between humans have no real operational significance. As such the diversity should be celebrated and brought to the fullest potential - like we enjoy biological diversity in our nature.
Oh, and by the way, it is not all that uncommon for persons with higher academically education to be in the top 1%. Intellectual abilities can be trained and sharpened - and a continuing academical education over the course of 5 - 8 years can really develop a persons cognitive abillities to their fullest.
Remember that there are 6930000000 people in the world. 1% of that is 69300000. This means that worldwide is just under 70 million people actually in the top 1%
UK's population is 62,262,000 people. That means that UK's population is about 1,11% of the worlds population, This would at the same time mean that between 625000 and 780000 (depening on chosen calculation method) persons in the UK should be in top 1%
Two of the students (teenagers, actually) I had on outdoor education courses last year were top 0,1% according to their mensa tests. It was a rare privilege to teach fieldcraft and nature awareness to such fine individuals.
//Kim Horsevad
Last edited:
Now, that's what I call a well thought out and intellectually robust reply.
If I may. If someone on here claimed to be able to make a feather stick, I'd believe them. If someone came on here and said "I invented the feather stick" I wouldn't. My strong reaction to Jonathans claim of being in the top 1%, globally, while being married to one of only a handful people 'worldwide' who is as good at maths as his good lady, is as a result of the fact it's, well dubious at best. By way of proof, he has produced a document which is clearly not a 'certificate' but a letter from Mensa saying he is quite bright and he should take it further. With a knife strategically placed to obscure the key bits.
By his own initial figures he didn't make the UKs top 1%, how on earth is he going to make the planets top 1%? We must also bear in mind that these measurements are only for the population that have had formal IQ testing. Also, to my knowledge, there hasn't been a large scale formal testing of IQ in the populations of Africa, China, the Sub-Continent has there? Your analysis of how many people from the UK are in the top 1% is also deeply flawed. For a start it assumes that high IQs are routinely spread through the countries of the world, using your theory of distribution then each country contributes an equal proportion of their population to the 1% statistic, which obviously they do not. From a quick bit looking through Mensa sites across the world, and the Maths Olympiad it is quite clear that actually the USA, Russia and China are the real maths geniuses and produce disproportionately more maths geeks than elsewhere.
I am in no way doubting Jonathan and Emmas ability cognitively, mathematically, intellectually, not at all, as I have said several times in this thread I do not doubt they are both extremely clever. I am also not doubting that they are thoroughly nice people, and who knows maybe one day we'll meet up at some gathering or other and have a good laugh about all this. Maybe even a nice game of cards for money.
As for the verbal persecution bit, that would have been awe and amazement if the claims had been reigned in ever so slightly. "I'm in Mensa, and my wife is a maths genius" is great. "I am in the top 1% of the entire worlds IQ's and my wife is one of only a handful of such gifted mathematicians in the whole world" deserves more scrutiny before the awe and amazement bit.
One final thing, did the two high IQ students you had on a course pick up the skills quicker and assimilate the knowledge faster? What was it that made them such fine individual? Because surely they didn't turn up with their IQ stamped on their foreheads did they? Why were the other individuals on the course not so fine?
If I may. If someone on here claimed to be able to make a feather stick, I'd believe them. If someone came on here and said "I invented the feather stick" I wouldn't. My strong reaction to Jonathans claim of being in the top 1%, globally, while being married to one of only a handful people 'worldwide' who is as good at maths as his good lady, is as a result of the fact it's, well dubious at best. By way of proof, he has produced a document which is clearly not a 'certificate' but a letter from Mensa saying he is quite bright and he should take it further. With a knife strategically placed to obscure the key bits.
By his own initial figures he didn't make the UKs top 1%, how on earth is he going to make the planets top 1%? We must also bear in mind that these measurements are only for the population that have had formal IQ testing. Also, to my knowledge, there hasn't been a large scale formal testing of IQ in the populations of Africa, China, the Sub-Continent has there? Your analysis of how many people from the UK are in the top 1% is also deeply flawed. For a start it assumes that high IQs are routinely spread through the countries of the world, using your theory of distribution then each country contributes an equal proportion of their population to the 1% statistic, which obviously they do not. From a quick bit looking through Mensa sites across the world, and the Maths Olympiad it is quite clear that actually the USA, Russia and China are the real maths geniuses and produce disproportionately more maths geeks than elsewhere.
I am in no way doubting Jonathan and Emmas ability cognitively, mathematically, intellectually, not at all, as I have said several times in this thread I do not doubt they are both extremely clever. I am also not doubting that they are thoroughly nice people, and who knows maybe one day we'll meet up at some gathering or other and have a good laugh about all this. Maybe even a nice game of cards for money.
As for the verbal persecution bit, that would have been awe and amazement if the claims had been reigned in ever so slightly. "I'm in Mensa, and my wife is a maths genius" is great. "I am in the top 1% of the entire worlds IQ's and my wife is one of only a handful of such gifted mathematicians in the whole world" deserves more scrutiny before the awe and amazement bit.
One final thing, did the two high IQ students you had on a course pick up the skills quicker and assimilate the knowledge faster? What was it that made them such fine individual? Because surely they didn't turn up with their IQ stamped on their foreheads did they? Why were the other individuals on the course not so fine?
Similar threads
