*** The Official CUCKposting thread ***

[Poopadoop]

If people aren't shapes then why are you so obtuse?

#mathsburns

If you assume one thing you're good at can be applied to everything, then you're mistaken about the concept of intelligence.

People aren't shapes. If you can't tell the difference then that explains the diff. between yours and a more rounded intellect.

[Savy]

If you assume one thing you're good at can be applied to everything, then you're mistaken about the concept of intelligence.

People aren't shapes. If you can't tell the difference then that explains the diff. between yours and a more rounded intellect.

I don't know why you feel so intimidated by me that you keep trying to slag off my intelligence in some way, shape (pun, see linguistic intelligence) or form. I'm sure you would have solved the puzzle too given a bit more time.

I give you guys my worst.

The classes I did the best in (by a lot) were the ones where we dissected and explained literature and created our own literature.

I'm fairly good at dissecting and analysing literature but my vocab is very basic compared to other well educated people. I should work on it but probably never will.

[wufwugy]

I'm fairly good at dissecting and analysing literature but my vocab is very basic compared to other well educated people. I should work on it but probably never will.

Do you read, write, or talk less than normal?

[Savy]

Do you read, write, or talk less than normal?

I'm lazy when it comes to writing, especially when I was at school, so I'd just use simple basic language which can be both a good and a bad thing.

I think I've read about 5 books in the past 10 years, that's probably the biggest issue.

My writing in general though is fine, I've had to write 'masters level' uni essays this year and I've not written anything since GCSE and they've all been fine even though they're fairly last minute one draft wonders. I have a fairly basic writing style and use the same types of phrasing for things too much (as you can probably tell off reading my FTR posts).

[Poopadoop]

I'm fairly good at dissecting and analysing literature but my vocab is very basic compared to other well educated people. I should work on it but probably never will.

The thing about language is that anyone can master it to the extent they want to master it. I'm known in my field as a good writer, but if people realized that I almost daily consult a dictionary or thesaurus, or fret over every word when I'm writing something I want to be taken seriously they might reconsider their opinion and just think I'm OCD instead.

There's such a clear distinction between language skills which are rewarded by hard work and maths skills which are mainly innate (in my experience) that thinking of IQ as a measure of mental ability in general is silly. Math you're either good at or not, language is a battle.

[wufwugy]

The thing about language is that anyone can master it to the extent they want to master it. I'm known in my field as a good writer, but if people realized that I almost daily consult a dictionary or thesaurus, or fret over every word when I'm writing something I want to be taken seriously they might reconsider their opinion and just think I'm OCD instead.

There's such a clear distinction between language skills which are rewarded by hard work and maths skills which are mainly innate (in my experience) that thinking of IQ as a measure of mental ability in general is silly. Math you're either good at or not, language is a battle.

How does that change when it's on the fly, in the moment?

For example, Sam Harris. He might be the most articulate off the cuff speaker I know of. I'm a great speaker, but that dude is on another level. I may be a better conversationalist than him though, so there is that. Which makes me wonder how those skills differ, articulate speaking and conversation. Maybe like the difference between an interviewer and interviewee. The interviewee has to be good at articulating a thought in the most interesting way, but the interviewer as to be good at playing off the thought in the most interesting way.


Harris' mechanical, active speech is hilarious. It's what I do. I'm trying to go more visual (like what Trump does), but it's tough. I think in terms of movement more than picture, but picture is more effective at communicating to somebody that isn't already your choir.

[Poopadoop]

How does that change when it's on the fly, in the moment?

I think there is a notable distinction between language that comes easily in conversation and language that is deliberate. It's interesting, because I have colleagues who can win every argument face-to-face but ask others for help in putting the same argument in writing.

It seems a paradox because language is language but the way in which you use language differs between spoken convo and written discourse. There is no editing allowed in spoken language, but there is in written language. Maybe this is only a point of mine because the difference to me in the quality of my discourse is so stark. But generally I feel having the option of thinking first and talking second makes a huge difference in the quality of an argument. Maybe it should. Or maybe it's a failing unique to myself.

[wufwugy]

But generally I feel having the option of thinking first and talking second makes a huge difference in the quality of an argument. Maybe it should. Or maybe it's a failing unique to myself.

I feel the same way, which is why I enjoy text conversations so much. However, I do have a very strong ability to verbalize on my feet, so that suggests to me that the "think first; say it better" nature of text conversation is true regardless of skill on your feet.

[wufwugy]

I always thought the Bernie appeal was

(1) He talks forcefully (like Trump omg)

(2) He says things people want to hear.

(3) He has a comedic element about him that people find endearing, exemplified in how Larry David could impersonate him even though LD is least impersonating person of all time.

[MadMojoMonkey]

thinking of IQ as a measure of mental ability in general is silly

I agree 100%.

IQ tests are only testing a limited number of expressions of intelligence.
If social acumen was part of the tests, I'd be borderline retarded.

Math you're either good at or not, language is a battle.

Fake news... except for a minority of people who have an actual mental disorder.

You're allowed to not like math, but the assertion that you're bad at it for any reason aside from practice is not true for most people. I agree that some people need less practice than others. I can't agree with a cop-out being used by intelligent people to avoid learning.

[spoonitnow]

Fake news... except for a minority of people who have an actual mental disorder.

Women are more than half of the human race.

[wufwugy]

Women are more than half of the human race.

cant joke i lold

[wufwugy]

Women are more than half of the human race.

and all the people who would get mad at this? only women and wannabe male women (cucks). everybody else gets it.

[spoonitnow]

and all the people who would get mad at this? only women and wannabe male women (cucks). everybody else gets it.

IT'S BECAUSE WOMEN LIVE LONGER

[Savy]

You're allowed to not like math, but the assertion that you're bad at it for any reason aside from practice is not true for most people. I agree that some people need less practice than others. I can't agree with a cop-out being used by intelligent people to avoid learning.

No maths is special!

Bernie Sanders is a fucking cuck

He cleans up the liberal pootang on basically every college campus in the US. He'd only be a cuck if he won got power then did everything he says he wanted to do.

[spoonitnow]

He cleans up the liberal pootang on basically every college campus in the US. He'd only be a cuck if he won got power then did everything he says he wanted to do.

He's beta as fuck, no girls want to fuck him, they just want his food stamps

And Bernie Sanders has never won a fucking thing in his life

[Savy]

He's beta as fuck, no girls want to fuck him, they just want his food stamps

He's just taken the issues with your "provider" archetype and applied it to such a huge scale without having to actually ever provide. When you start appreciating the deeper levels of his game you'll understand.

[Poopadoop]

You're allowed to not like math, but the assertion that you're bad at it for any reason aside from practice is not true for most people. I agree that some people need less practice than others. I can't agree with a cop-out being used by intelligent people to avoid learning.

This is different from my own admittedly small sample conclusion, and I suspect may reflect the fact that if you can't do math you are not going to try physics. In psychology, I have encountered many people who can do logic, language, and analytical thinking but no matter how you try to explain it cannot do math much further than 2+2=4. The problem i feel in my field is such people aren't being weeded out because the math we do is sufficiently complicated that it is rare for any of them to be evaluated by anyone who is capable of understanding why what they are doing is wrong.

A simple example might illustrate my point: i recently reviewed a paper in which the authors analysed their data in a silly way. When I pointed that out, their counter was that they agreed with me but that someone had recently published a paper using the same silly analysis, so therefore it was ok. I don't even know what to say at this point....
.

[Savy]

A simple example might illustrate my point: i recently reviewed a paper in which the authors analysed their data in a silly way. When I pointed that out, their counter was that they agreed with me but that someone had recently published a paper using the same silly analysis, so therefore it was ok. I don't even know what to say at this point....

Rather than being a dick I mean this quite genuinely even though I'm sure you'll take offence to it. Maybe try thinking about what you should say or do that makes a difference to this happening. That isn't stupidity it's laziness & bad practise. None of which are signs of not being able to do Math. Now I'm sure these people probably don't understand the maths well enough to have a real concept of what it is they are doing wrong and why it's so bad but this is never going to be the case especially when applying stats to non-mathematical fields.

If you want to change this (which you have said you do) then you kind of need to take responsibility for this. Correcting people is a really shit way of fixing their habits, especially when there are thousands of people doing the same thing.

[Poopadoop]

Rather than being a dick I mean this quite genuinely even though I'm sure you'll take offence to it. Maybe try thinking about what you should say or do that makes a difference to this happening. That isn't stupidity t's laziness & bad practise. None of which are signs of not being able to do Math. Now I'm sure these people probably don't understand the maths well enough to have a real concept of what it is they are doing wrong and why it's so bad but this is never going to be the case especially when applying stats to non-mathematical fields.

If you want to change this (which you have said you do) then you kind of need to take responsibility for this.

Correcting people is a really shit way of fixing their habits, especially when there are thousands of people doing the same thing.

I think your argument is genuine and makes a good point.

to the first bolded: I think it's unclear which it is. They can defend themselves equally well either way. They can say e.g., yes we understand but that's how it's always been done' whether they don't understand or do understand and don't give a shit. So their counter is ambiguous.

The second bolded bit is really the crux of the matter. Without going into detail, their analysis is based on the presumption that people can react to something they see by pressing a button within 1/10 of a second. Anyone who knows the basic time frame of stimulus-->neurons --> muscles knows that's (fucking) impossible. So my view is not that they're incapable of seeing this, but that they find it easier/better/whatever to base their analysis of the data on the idea that it is possible, for reasons known only to themselves, on an assumption that is silly.

third bold: In this case, I am not the one who ultimately decides if a paper gets published. So my responsibility is to tell the editor this is bullshit or this is reasonably solid. After that it's on them.

last bold: that's a perfectly good point, but reaching a wider audience isn't possible when reviewing a single paper. That requires a more general treatise of a much broader subject which both you and my colleagues agree needs to be presented to a general audience. I am one of those presenting such a treatise but nonetheless I can only deal with this specific example of foolishness in its own context at this specific time.

[wufwugy]

This is different from my own admittedly small sample conclusion, and I suspect may reflect the fact that if you can't do math you are not going to try physics. In psychology, I have encountered many people who can do logic, language, and analytical thinking but no matter how you try to explain it cannot do math much further than 2+2=4. The problem i feel in my field is such people aren't being weeded out because the math we do is sufficiently complicated that it is rare for any of them to be evaluated by anyone who is capable of understanding why what they are doing is wrong.

A simple example might illustrate my point: i recently reviewed a paper in which the authors analysed their data in a silly way. When I pointed that out, their counter was that they agreed with me but that someone had recently published a paper using the same silly analysis, so therefore it was ok. I don't even know what to say at this point....
.

Paging Nassim Taleb.

[Poopadoop]

Paging Nassim Taleb.

My take on Taleb is that he's a gifted mathematician who for whatever reason tried to apply his skills to a field to which they aren't suited and then got butthurt when they weren't appreciated by people in a field they weren't suited to. He then pointed out what a waste of his talent that field was and everyone knowledgeable about maths agreed and everyone else got the other message that certain fields have too much variance for anyone trying to find some predictive parameter to make a useful model.

At least I think the latter message is worth communicating to economists who would otherwise argue that they know how a butterfly flapping its wings can affect the economy.

To me this is a bit 'no shit' - something like Tolstoy saying that Math doesn't appreciate literary genius.