twilight zones and groupthinks

[prometheuspan]

hi. interesting site. I have a 180 IQ. I'm an aspie.

I'm kind of just aghast. It looks a lot like a train wreck. Yet strangely beautiful.


I have a few questions, maybe you'd like to ban me before we start, or, maybe you'd like to try to answer them.

1. For a Board allegedly for and about and in service to Genius, wheres the forums? Deep intellectual process and
thought tends to take up space and require organization. Genius "ForumS" would imply a list of about 50 or 60 forums,
on topics like Quantum mechanics, Game theory, The assorted Sciences, the arts, and etc. The starting premise
is cool, and, one wonders at the implementation. Why is there only this forum, a forum for arguing, and then a closed
forum for everything else? Do you see how lame that looks to an objective outside geeks geek?

For example,
http://mytalktoday.com/forum/forum.php
http://mytalktoday.com/forum/index.php

2. Masculinity? I'm all for it. But as a member of that set of values? You are working backwards.
(- Truth, Courage, Honesty, Logic, Masculinity, Wisdom, Perfection -)
The number one heal dragging effect of society against intellectualism is fueled by egotism and pack psychology.
All "Masculinity" in the standard cultural contexts has to offer "Genius" is a big fat set of mental cages. Half of which
this board and its assorted affiliates exhibit chronically.

3. "The crucible"? You seem to have fallen prey to the idea that Geniuses like to argue, or that smart people are particularly good at it. Sure, they are good at it, but no, they don't like to do it. Smart people are much more interested
in collaboration, cooperation, and distributed group intelligence.
Leading us back to number one; where are the Genius driven assorted collaboration boards?

I have lots more questions, but i figure thats a full load for the time being.

other than that, have you seen this wikipedia article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

Peace and light,
sincerely,
prometheuspan

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I have a 180 IQ. I'm an aspie.

Neither high IQ nor mental disability necessarily lead to genius.

Deep intellectual process and thought tends to take up space and require organization. Genius "ForumS" would imply a list of about 50 or 60 forums, on topics like Quantum mechanics, Game theory, The assorted Sciences, the arts, and etc.

”Never did many words declare a mindful teaching: strive after a single wise thing, pick one thing you can depend on:” -Thales, the first philosopher

Masculinity? I'm all for it. But as a member of that set of values?

Certainly; effeminate philosophizing does not lead to wisdom, only to touchy-feely bullshit.

Smart people are much more interested in collaboration, cooperation, and distributed group intelligence.

This is not a forum about intelligence, but about genius. Genius is solitary: people in here more often grate against each other than work together.

Leading us back to number one; where are the Genius driven assorted collaboration boards?

Collaboration does not lead to genius. Spirituality is something a person ultimately has to do on his own. It's perfectly appropriate that collaboration boards are not present: we don't scheme together to produce anything.

[prometheuspan]

Neither high IQ nor mental disability necessarily lead to genius.

true nuff.

”Never did many words declare a mindful teaching: strive after a single wise thing, pick one thing you can depend on:” -Thales, the first philosopher

yes, but systemic entropy in social systems would indicate that organization is required to facilitate group Genius.

Certainly; effeminate philosophizing does not lead to wisdom, only to touchy-feely bullshit.

Quite the opposite. masculinized philosophizing leads fools to use ad hominems, straw man arguments, polarizations,
and every manner of ego driven logical fallacy. Genius is not gender polarity specific, and in fact, Genius derives from balancing the TAO within, not turning the Tao into a false gender hierarchy.

This is not a forum about intelligence, but about genius. Genius is solitary: people in here more often grate against each other than work together.

This is a forum, currently, about groupthink and pretensions of Genius, not Genius. The reason for this is that people
grate against each other, rather than work together.

Collaboration does not lead to genius. Spirituality is something a person ultimately has to do on his own. It's perfectly appropriate that collaboration boards are not present: we don't scheme together to produce anything.

collaboration does not necessarily lead to Genius, but group Genius can only be derived from collaboration.

Its perfectly appropriate for a board thats on the verge of Genius, trapped in assorted mental cages. The failure to scheme together to produce anything is itself a proof that what you have here is assorted forms of mental masturbation,
not group Genius.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

For a Board allegedly for and about and in service to Genius, wheres the forums?

For a person with an allegedly 180 IQ, where's the dazzling display of grammatical prowess?

I'm an aspie.

Thanks for the warning.

[prometheuspan]

For a person with an allegedly 180 IQ, where's the dazzling display of grammatical prowess?

I'm sorry, was this supposed to be all about impressing you?
I thought it was an informal conversation.

Thanks for the warning.

Sure, seemed fair.

Your name leads one to assume you are female. Is this so? And, what do you think of false gender hierarchies?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

yes, but systemic entropy in social systems would indicate that organization is required to facilitate group Genius.

Groups do not have genius, only individuals.

masculinized philosophizing leads fools to use ad hominems, straw man arguments, polarizations, and every manner of ego driven logical fallacy.

Ironically, this is a strawman argument. Hasty, reactive, or clumsy thinking leads to these.

Genius is not gender polarity specific, and in fact, Genius derives from balancing the TAO within, not turning the Tao into a false gender hierarchy.

This is not a hierarchy of sex: anyone, biologically male or female, who is unable to remove their emotions from their philosophy is effeminate, and thus incapable of depth of thought. Soft, pussy-footed, and emotion-laden philosophizing does not lead to genius, plain and simple. Whether or not those character traits commonly considered "effeminate" actually reflect on females is not really the problem: these character traits suck when it comes to thinking.

This is a forum, currently, about groupthink and pretensions of Genius, not Genius.

This forum is not for geniuses, but about Genius. If you read any delusions of grandeur into that statement, that's really a problem on your end. Anyway, since it goes without saying that only a genius is really qualified to recognize genius, are you claiming to be a genius?

The failure to scheme together to produce anything is itself a proof that what you have here is assorted forms of mental masturbation, not group Genius.

Again: group genius does not exist.

Otherwise, one's accomplishments are not reflective on how well one recognizes the truth about reality. Accomplishment, as with all forms of honour and merit, cause false assumptions about reality in those who place value on the possession of these abstract entities. Since the goal of this forum is truth, and is so focused that the only open discussion forum is for genius, you can expect that accomplishments are sidelined. They're simply irrelevant.

For all you know, I could be a world-reknowned writer under a pseudonym, a famous politician, or a serial killer, but none of these accomplishments have anything to do with the goals of this forum, so I don't talk about how many people I've killed. Only genius.

[prometheuspan]

Groups do not have genius, only individuals.

claim limitations, and, sure enough, they're yours.
Groups most certainly can have Genius. In fact, all you do here is prove you have no clue about well understood
psychology principles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_intelligence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaboration

Ironically, this is a strawman argument. Hasty, reactive, or clumsy thinking leads to these.

perhaps you would like to present the actual argument which, in your opinion, justifies gender hierarchy
and pack psychology, as well as group cognicentrism, sexism, and the main dynamics of this boards groupthink?

This is not a hierarchy of sex: anyone, biologically male or female, who is unable to remove their emotions from their philosophy is effeminate,

Actually, modern psychology shows that males have a much harder time removing their emotions from their thinking
than women. The duality that is real is that women have predominant emotional tendencies rooted in the mammalian
brain and thus compassion, nurturing, and understanding, whereas males tend to have emotions rooted in the reptilian
brain, ie, the drives for competition, control, dominance, sadism, and so forth.

Both genders have similar but different problems with emotions unbalancing their rational thought potentiate,
all you are doing is diabolizing and genderfying a problem which transcends gender, as a doublethink method to avoid
having to resolve these issues within your own, or the groups collective shadow. This is sad, because it leads the group
into explorations of its shadow process, not Genius.

and thus incapable of depth of thought. Soft, pussy-footed, and emotion-laden philosophizing does not lead to genius,

All you are doing is ascribing negative values to one gender. Thats sexism at its finest. Those same values are in fact
cross gender, and,. more importantly, this polarizations true purpose is to keep you from exploring similar pyshcological
problems arising from hyper masculinized thinking.

plain and simple.

Too simple. Too plain.

Whether or not those character traits commonly considered "effeminate" actually reflect on females is not really the problem: these character traits suck when it comes to thinking.

I agree that those traits are bad for thinking. The problem is that defining them in this manner is itself lazy thinking
which is based on other traits which are bad for good thinking. These traits are well defined by formal conversational
logic. False Dilemma, and false Hierarchy.

This forum is not for geniuses, but about Genius.

As long as you think that way, you will be trapped in the mental cage of not being a Genius.

If you read any delusions of grandeur into that statement, that's really a problem on your end. Anyway, since it goes without saying that only a genius is really qualified to recognize genius, are you claiming to be a genius?

Since I am lucid, your reasoning is fallacious. Genius can be recognized via principles of truth applied with formal logic.
A near idiot can identify a genius using the proper criteria and process.
Me claiming or not claiming to be a Genius is a trap you'd like to set for me.
too bad for you I'm smarter than that.

Again: group genius does not exist.

Tell that to the cells of your neural network, or, go take it up with Wikipedia.

Otherwise, one's accomplishments are not reflective on how well one recognizes the truth about reality. Accomplishment, as with all forms of honour and merit, cause false assumptions about reality in those who place value on the possession of these abstract entities. Since the goal of this forum is truth, and is so focused that the only open discussion forum is for genius, you can expect that accomplishments are sidelined. They're simply irrelevant.

False dilemma. Its not either or. Its not person OR group. Its person AND group.
Well organized social energy can reflect well organized neural process. That you fail to understand this is
a clear indication that your paradigm is based in egotism.

For all you know, I could be a world-reknowned writer under a pseudonym, a famous politician, or a serial killer, but none of these accomplishments have anything to do with the goals of this forum, so I don't talk about how many people I've killed. Only genius.

And so, ladies and gentlemen, subtle threats and barbaric doublethink replaces intellectual process, and al we have left is a testosterone poisoned fool, who thinks its cute to brag about murder.

[prometheuspan]

by way of example, heres a board which facilitates genuine genius (wether any given individual is one or not.)

Forum
Forum Topics / Posts Last Post
No new posts

My Talk Today
positive dialogues

Topics: 37
Posts: 157
Light Blue, And All The ...
Today at 16:58
ExpatasapienView latest post
Subforums: Feedback & Suggestions, Introduce Yourself, Admin Reports+Complaints, Orientation, Methodology, Guidelines, My Talk Today
No new posts

Quantum Thought
the first key to knowing

Topics: 29
Posts: 60
Basic Axioms
21 Jul 2008 18:55
prometheuspanView latest post
Subforums: Quantum Physics, Cause and Effect, Conversational Logic , Positive Dialogue, Quantum Thought, Resources
No new posts

Issues
American.Local. Global. concerns

Topics: 469
Posts: 861
Dear Iraq
Today at 14:25
prometheuspanView latest post
Subforums: Civil Rights, Energy & Environment, Environment + Ecology, Mass Transit , Economy, Poverty, Education, Healthcare + Disabilities, Immigration, Homeland Security, Foreign Policy, Middle East, Military, Veterans, Technology, Senior Citizens, Rural + Urban , Family And Community, Gender And Human Sexuality Issues, Media Reform, Washington Ethics, Religion + Spirituality, Space Exploration + Colonization, Law, Crime, Police, Courts, Manufactured Distractions, Miscellaneous Issues
No new posts

Academy of open source Sciences
A Knowledge Base To Support Problem solving Process for a democratic problem solving process of truth and fact.

Topics: 182
Posts: 244
periodic table of videos...
Yesterday at 20:16
prometheuspanView latest post
Subforums: Physics, Chemistry, Biology + Biochemistry, Quantum Mechanics Macro, Quantum Mechanics Micro, Geology, Earth Sciences, Civil Engineering, Architecture, Meteorology (Weather), Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, Political Science, History, Systems And Game Theory
No new posts

People With Platforms
Ideas, Problems, Solutions...

Topics: 64
Posts: 100
John McCain - The Ugly...
Yesterday at 19:56
prometheuspanView latest post
Subforums: OBAMA!!, John McCain , Hillary Clinton, John Edwards , Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Others
No new posts

OBAMA Groups
members of registered groups on the official Obama website

Topics: 6
Posts: 13
CONGRATULATIONS "BA...
18 Jul 2008 18:26
prometheuspanView latest post
Subforums: Obama Positive Dialogue, 1 Mil. Americans for Obama, Nebraska for Obama, Students for Obama, Women for Obama, Denver 4 Obama, Nodes and Linktos
No new posts

Lounge


Topics: 54
Posts: 154
Campaign Tactics, Trivia...
Today at 00:43
prometheuspanView latest post
Subforums: Hot Topics, Laughter is the best Medicine, Just Me, Runts & Grunts, Embassy of Board
No new posts

Moderators


Topics: 21
Posts: 32
end poverty
09 Jul 2008 04:07
prometheuspanView latest post
Subforums: Open Court of WE, Open Source Cabinet, Open Source Congress, WE THE PEOPLE LOBBY, Depth Analysis, Textbook Collaborators, Letters to Editors + such, Thought Experiments
No new posts

Blogs of the Staff
Voting Records on open source issues, Personal thoughts of the day, Hobbies and triva....

Topics: 18
Posts: 46
Other Voices
Yesterday at 14:50
prometheuspanView latest post
Subforums: Pan and Prometheus, The Hostess Admin, JP Morgan, The yellow Submarine

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Groups most certainly can have Genius.

Not as far as genius is solitary, which it always is. It would be to your own benefit if you didn't resort to Wikipedia, which, like the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is closer to a catalog of thoughts of ideas than a compilation of truth.

perhaps you would like to present the actual argument which, in your opinion, justifies gender hierarchy and pack psychology, as well as group cognicentrism, sexism, and the main dynamics of this boards groupthink?

There is constant disagreement and the butting of heads -- something which you have recognized -- and that is the opposite of groupthink. How can you not see that?

If you were to speak with every member of this board, you would find that none of these outlooks even begin to form a majority. Your opinions aren't impressing me with their accuracy. (Come to think of it, opinions don't impress me at all, no matter how accurate, so that was kind of a useless sentence.)

all you are doing is diabolizing and genderfying a problem which transcends gender

Have you noticed that I was perfectly able to call males effeminate? Quite clearly, you are wrong when you suggest that I do not see that the problems of femininity go well beyond gender or sex. The characteristics themselves are terrible.

this polarizations true purpose is to keep you from exploring similar pyshcological problems arising from hyper masculinized thinking.

Insidious!

The characteristics traditionally considered masculine, such as rationality, logic, depth of thought, single-mindedness, and courage are all advantageous. If biological females are capable of having these characteristics, all the better! Masculinity is not bad for thought: believing women are incapable of masculinity is a bigger problem.

False Dilemma, and false Hierarchy.

I am not responsible for giving the male adjective all the good traits and female one all the bad ones. You shouldn't blame me for the hierarchy: females would be better off if they were masculine. If that's confusing, it's because of an unfortunate quirk of language.

As long as you think that way, you will be trapped in the mental cage of not being a Genius.

I place no undue value on being a genius, so forgive me for not caring.

Since I am lucid, your reasoning is fallacious.

All madmen believe themselves lucid. Trust no one, especially not yourself.

A near idiot can identify a genius using the proper criteria and process.

A near idiot who can identify a genius is a genius.

Me claiming or not claiming to be a Genius is a trap you'd like to set for me.
too bad for you I'm smarter than that.

No, it's very simple. You can only assess how well another person understands the truth about reality if you yourself understand the truth about reality (ie. are a genius). By avoiding my question, you tripped over your own heels, which only leads me to wonder: what the hell do you think a genius is?

Tell that to the cells of your neural network, or, go take it up with Wikipedia.

I don't base my understanding of reality based on catalogs filled with useless information about things like Sonic the Hedgehog.

False dilemma. Its not either or. Its not person OR group. Its person AND group.

It's not a dilemma at all. It is a person, and never a group. A group cannot meet the requirements for genius, although an individual person can.

And so, ladies and gentlemen, subtle threats and barbaric doublethink replaces intellectual process, and al we have left is a testosterone poisoned fool, who thinks its cute to brag about murder.

Now I believe you are an aspie. Your ability to assess another person's motivations shows very little insight into psychology.

The accomplishments of a serial killer are no more impressive or tangible than the accomplishments of a scientist. Putting value on accomplishments, like putting value on merit or honours, is not a way to measure genius.

Also, I recommend you don't advertise your forum here. It gives the impression you have no interest in this one.

[prometheuspan]

Not as far as genius is solitary, which it always is.

No, it often is, but for instance, the folks who first worked with radium were a married couple.

It would be to your own benefit if you didn't resort to Wikipedia, which, like the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is closer to a catalog of thoughts of ideas than a compilation of truth.

I hate is as much as anybody. But its often handy. If it makes the point sufficiently well, i might as well use it,
since it does link to other information better than most places.

There is constant disagreement and the butting of heads -- something which you have recognized -- and that is the opposite of groupthink. How can you not see that?

Oh, i do see it. An argument between two nodes on a spectrum only a millimeter long is still one mental cage
between the two of them. In fact, thats how most mental cages are formed; inside of false dilemmas.

Have you noticed that I was perfectly able to call males effeminate?

And thats supposed to impress me? all it does is prove your sexist, and fail to understand the nature of the tao.

Quite clearly, you are wrong when you suggest that I do not see that the problems of femininity go well beyond gender or sex. The characteristics themselves are terrible.

But they have nothing to do with gender, and, more importantly, the associations you have made prevent you from seeing equally problematic bad reasoning skills which you yourself employ.

Insidious!

The characteristics traditionally considered masculine, such as rationality, logic, depth of thought, single-mindedness, and courage are all advantageous.

"Traditionally considered"? By sexists. none of those traits is in truth masculine as such, and more importantly,
other traits which are just as negative as those associated with women are factually true of those who engage in sexist
thinking.

If biological females are capable of having these characteristics, all the better! Masculinity is not bad for thought: believing women are incapable of masculinity is a bigger problem.

Heres a mindblowing one for you. Femininity is even better for rational thinking than masculinity is. Feminine psychology is less egoic, less dominating, more sympathetic, more compassionate, and more diplomatic, as well as less attached
to paradigms.
Masculinity as defined by you above IS bad for thought. But thats not what real masculinity is. You have only proven
you are sexist, and mis defined both masculinity and femininity.

I am not responsible for giving the male adjective all the good traits and female one all the bad ones. You shouldn't blame me for the hierarchy: females would be better off if they were masculine. If that's confusing, it's because of an unfortunate quirk of language.

No, that was done 2000 and 3000 years ago by religions which were intent on turning women into chattel. I'm not blaming you for the false hierarchies existence, I'm telling you that its a mental cage.
I'm not in the least bit confused, you are.

I place no undue value on being a genius, so forgive me for not caring.

No problem. As you like it.

A near idiot who can identify a genius is a genius.

No, they are a near idiot with an IQ test and a scoring system.

No, it's very simple. You can only assess how well another person understands the truth about reality if you yourself understand the truth about reality (ie. are a genius). By avoiding my question, you tripped over your own heels, which only leads me to wonder: what the hell do you think a genius is?

I'd tell you, but then i'd have to kill you.
Howz that for a reversal?

A genius is a person who solves the highest order problems that exist in the world. Genius thus is problem solving
process. Not chit chatting, not bickering, not arguing, not polarizing, not creating false hierarchies, but solving real
world problems. Obviously, one of the first steps to solving a problem is understanding it and the nature of reality and
cause and effect relative to it.

I don't base my understanding of reality based on catalogs filled with useless information about things like Sonic the Hedgehog.

Neither do i. But I don't damn a good source of information just because it has flaws. Take the good with the bad.
The world is full of gray. Thats reality.

It's not a dilemma at all. It is a person, and never a group. A group cannot meet the requirements for genius, although an individual person can.

Clearly, you have no clue about systems theory, or what you are talking about. Not only can a group meet the requirements for Genius, it can do so if not one of the participants is themselves a Genius.
The only threshold is the requirement of sufficiently lucid operational rules for that groups interactions.

Now I believe you are an aspie. Your ability to assess another person's motivations shows very little insight into psychology.

Your conscious motivations are irrelevant.

Also, I recommend you don't advertise your forum here. It gives the impression you have no interest in this one.

I'll keep that in mind. I'm not advertising. If i were advertising, I'd say "come join my site." all I am doing is using it as a reference. One would think you'd be happy, since you seem to hate wikipedia.

In any case, I have only a very limited interest in this site. Think of it as an IQ test. And regarding that, You might want to give others a chance to answer, because your flunking the whole board on your dime.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

No, it often is, but for instance, the folks who first worked with radium were a married couple.

Being the first person, or couple of people, to work with an element, is not a qualification for genius.

If it makes the point sufficiently well, i might as well use it, since it does link to other information better than most places.

It didn't make a point at all, though. You could list off dozens of different theories (and you have, in other threads), but it's about as convincingly against my point as listing off the titles of every Star Trek episode.

An argument between two nodes on a spectrum only a millimeter long is still one mental cage between the two of them. In fact, thats how most mental cages are formed; inside of false dilemmas.

There is only one reality; complain about the narrowness of the door all you want, but your scatter-brained attempt to solve everything at once does not lead to wisdom.

And thats supposed to impress me? all it does is prove your sexist, and fail to understand the nature of the tao.

There is very little effort on my part to make every post as impressive as possible. I only try to be truthful, which is a quality you seem to bend as you see fit.

But they have nothing to do with gender, and, more importantly, the associations you have made prevent you from seeing equally problematic bad reasoning skills which you yourself employ.

Pardon? You repeated what I said in your own words, and then said that my own interpretation is wrong. Perhaps an excess of reading has prevented you from learning how to read.

Femininity is even better for rational thinking than masculinity is.

If the female mind is better at rational thinking, it is irrelevant to whether or not the adjective "effeminate" is good at all. It is an insult to be called effeminate, and for good reason. I don't think you are seeing a distinction, perhaps because of an incapacity, but I'm going to predict you're going to blow it off as a "false dilemma".

I'm not blaming you for the false hierarchies existence, I'm telling you that its a mental cage.

If I use the words, I'll pick the one with the better virtues. If being effeminate was a good thing, I sure as shit would be trying my damnedest to be effeminate. If you want to disagree on the definitions, fine, but don't say I'm wrong because I'm using the old definition. Accept that what I'm saying is true so far as the language I am using is concerned.

No, they are a near idiot with an IQ test and a scoring system.

An IQ test does not indicate genius. Often, people with high IQ's are fucking insane, and are too scatter-brained to have any wisdom at all.

I'd tell you, but then i'd have to kill you.
Howz that for a reversal?

Pardon? I didn't make a single threat, veiled or otherwise.

A genius is a person who solves the highest order problems that exist in the world.

I'd limit it to someone who has solved the single highest order problem, which needs to be re-solved by every single genius, since only a genius can contemplate it fully. That is the problem of the true nature of reality. A genius is, thus, a wise man.

Any other problems they happen to solve in the process is by accident.

Not only can a group meet the requirements for Genius, it can do so if not one of the participants is themselves a Genius.

If you restrict it to solving trivial problems, sure. Groups can solve problems by working together. Someone capable of genius is not going to be able to achieve genius simply by sitting down and discussing it. There needs to be some real, solitary, conscious work.

Your conscious motivations are irrelevant.

Your bullshit make-believe motivation you gave me is wrong. I am far more aware of my writing than you are.

You might want to give others a chance to answer, because your flunking the whole board on your dime.

I'm speaking for myself. If you extend that to everyone else here, you are a fucking idiot.

[prometheuspan]

Being the first person, or couple of people, to work with an element, is not a qualification for genius.

Aside from your wonderful display of ignorance regarding the case specifics, thats true.

It didn't make a point at all, though. You could list off dozens of different theories (and you have, in other threads), but it's about as convincingly against my point as listing off the titles of every Star Trek episode.

Will that work with you? Cuz, i can find that list pretty easy.
hey, whatever floats your boat. Some people, it takes logic to wake them up. Others, emotional episodes.
If star trek is what it takes to enlighten you, then far be it from me to preclude that method.

There is only one reality;

Actually, theres probably an infinite number of parallel universes, each one with slightly different rules of operation.

complain about the narrowness of the door all you want,

I'm not complaining about the narrowness of the door, i'm telling you you are sexist, because you are.
I'm telling you that you are existing inside of a mental cage, because you are.
An I'm trying to help you, because i'm like that.

but your scatter-brained attempt

Your pathetic ad hominems aren't going to do much in this situation.

to solve everything at once

Eclectic well rounded polymath type solutions are the ones that work. Maybe you should look
up "interdisciplinary." I won't annoy you further by linking you to wikipedias article on the subject.

does not lead to wisdom.

You are not in any position to say what does or does not lead to wisdom.
all you have is mental cages and pathetic ad hominems.

There is very little effort on my part to make every post as impressive as possible. I only try to be truthful, which is a quality you seem to bend as you see fit.

You are diving into less and less content as you become more and more defensive. Again, truth is not sexism,
or false hierarchies based on gender.
Your participation in and perpetuation of that paradigm is sad, and its a mental cage. I'm the one speaking the truth,
your the one ducking it.

Pardon? You repeated what I said in your own words, and then said that my own interpretation is wrong. Perhaps an excess of reading has prevented you from learning how to read.

is this all you have? evasions and ad hominems?
truly, you are wasting both of our time.

If the female mind is better at rational thinking, it is irrelevant to whether or not the adjective "effeminate" is good at all.

wow, the doublethink is getting thick and stuffy around here.

It is an insult to be called effeminate, and for good reason.

yeah, 3000 years of sexism, which we still haven't gotten out of. Other than that, being called effeminate
as an insult just reveals sexism.

I don't think you are seeing a distinction, perhaps because of an incapacity, but I'm going to predict you're going to blow it off as a "false dilemma".

No, i'm calling this one another ad hominem. well veiled, slightly clever. For a sheeple.

If I use the words, I'll pick the one with the better virtues. If being effeminate was a good thing, I sure as shit would be trying my damnedest to be effeminate.

Unless you had a mental map or schema which you had reified which told you that being effeminate was equal to being weak, and etc. Again, true strength comes from understanding and embodying both yin and yang, not one without the other. Yang without yin shatters because it does not yield, pontificates, but does not listen, claims superiority, but cannot lead, and fights, but cannot solve.

If you want to disagree on the definitions, fine, but don't say I'm wrong because I'm using the old definition. Accept that what I'm saying is true so far as the language I am using is concerned.

No, the entire paradigm you are operating here is wrong, its called sexism, and just because you picked it up from
somewhere else does not justify it. You think i don't understand what common usage sexism is? I am well aware of
the paradigm and where it comes from, and the psychologies behind it. That doesn't excuse it, and operating under
such paradigms means that you are operating out of balance with the tao; and thus being stupid.

An IQ test does not indicate genius. Often, people with high IQ's are fucking insane, and are too scatter-brained to have any wisdom at all.

Your ignorance is amusing. IQ tests can indeed be created which test high order problem solving skills.
Not all or even most of them do, but it is possible, conceivably, for a moron to employ a test designed by somebody else
which does indeed reflect a true measure of Genius. Again, the reason why you fail to see this is that you want to give
the term "Genius" special meaning and relevance to yourself and your ego identity.

I'd limit it to someone who has solved the single highest order problem, which needs to be re-solved by every single genius, since only a genius can contemplate it fully. That is the problem of the true nature of reality. A genius is, thus, a wise man.

The true nature of reality is only relevant to the specifics of a given problem. The true nature of reality when sitting
in meditation is merely inner silence. Your super simplification misses the point entirely.
Wisdom is right action. Right action means solving problems.

Any other problems they happen to solve in the process is by accident.

Wow. all i can say is, your grasp of cause and effect leads me to believe your IQ is well under 130.

If you restrict it to solving trivial problems, sure. Groups can solve problems by working together. Someone capable of genius is not going to be able to achieve genius simply by sitting down and discussing it. There needs to be some real, solitary, conscious work.

The mind while in a body is just the conversation between individually idiot neurons. If those interactions are modeled
properly, they can be reflected in human social systems. What you are saying is logically equivalent to saying that
a single cell must be a genius, or, there is no genius. Mind is a social phenomenon. Wether the social strata is neural
or human social, the outcomes of intelligence derive from very simple processes repeated into complexity.

Your bullshit make-believe motivation you gave me is wrong. I am far more aware of my writing than you are.

No, its very clear that you are quite asleep.

I'm speaking for myself. If you extend that to everyone else here, you are a fucking idiot.

How much time do you think i have put aside too sample this place, and, how good of a sample do you think you are
as a representation of the general field?

My starting premise is that trying to talk to this board is a waste of time. I'm willing to devote a small amount of energy to prove that is correct. You are apparently willing to provide a small amount of energy to prove that it is correct as well.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Get out: I've obviously hit on some of your insecurities, since you're trying to use things from elsewhere in this forum to find mine. But I'm not an over-confident, arrogant, wanker who bases his identity on the positive things that other people and their statistics say about me. These attacks don't bother me as much as mine are bothering you. You can pretend otherwise, but the evidence is already on the table.

You're on the wrong forum if you think your present MO is appropriate. You haven't shown any ability to handle yourself under the stress of even the most trivial criticism, and resort to broad-sweeping generalities and fantastical claims to counter-attack. So, either smarten up, or get the fuck out.

But, and I'm going out on a limb here, you aren't fully cognizant of the very real effects that your disorder has on your ability to accurately analyze others and what they are saying, having no norm to compare it to. So I doubt very much that smartening up is even an option at this point.

[prometheuspan]

Get out: I've obviously hit on some of your insecurities, since you're trying to use things from elsewhere in this forum to find mine.

truly, on the contrary, i find you boring and uninteresting.

But I'm not an over-confident, arrogant, wanker who bases his identity on the positive things that other people and their statistics say about me.

No, your ego is based on your presumed superiority over women.

These attacks don't bother me as much as mine are bothering you. You can pretend otherwise, but the evidence is already on the table.

okay, whatever floats your boat. Smile. nod.

You're on the wrong forum if you think your present MO is appropriate.

My MO? can you define that, from your perspective?

You haven't shown any ability to handle yourself under the stress of even the most trivial criticism,

stress? where?
Again, you bore the shit out of me, and i find your sexism revolting, but, not stressfull.

Criticism? from you? why would that matter to me?

and resort to broad-sweeping generalities and fantastical claims to counter-attack. So, either smarten up, or get the fuck out.

Actually, I am very specific, very pragmatic, and very cogent. That i would need to "counter attack" is silly,
I'm just telling you the facts about your mental cage. You are the one whos been utterly predictable and utterly
reflexive.

My assumption is, you don't have the power to make me leave, or you would have already. If you think just telling me
to leave will work, you are truly a silly person.

Its very unfortunate that this happened, when all i am trying to do is be of service to you and humanity. On the other hand, its very predictable that this would happen, because after all, I am pointing out the groupthink extant on this
board and its affiliate net sites.

But, and I'm going out on a limb here, you aren't fully cognizant of the very real effects that your disorder has on your ability to accurately analyze others and what they are saying,

No, i am fully cognizant of what is going on with you. I have pointed out quite cogently that the board and you suffer
from soem serious bad mental habits. Sanity is to stop and perform critical introspection and self maintainance. Genius
is to take the gift as such and apply it. Instead you have demonstrated the epitomy of stupidity, because instead of recognizing your mental cage when pointed out to you, you have instead chosen to defend it, and to attack the criticism.

As well as the criticizer.

None of this is surprising to me, i have been here a thousand times before.

having no norm to compare it to.

mindblindness can go both ways.

So I doubt very much that smartening up is even an option at this point.

I'm sorry to hear that you choose to stay stupid.
Should you change your mind, I'll be glad to assist your evolution in any way possible.

Other than that, I'd invite you to stay off my threads. thanks.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Wow, you really are like a five-year old. Half a second ago, you were ready to leave, and now you want to stay. A little reverse psychology, and you did a complete 180.

You are totally full of yourself. Your ego is poorly developed, at best, full of masturbatory concepts like polymath and high IQ, and completely devoid of the built-in self-criticism and doubt of a philosopher. You are closer to a man who constantly boasts of his 12-inch dick than an egolessness, enlightened sage. I hope in the time you will now spend in this forum, you will learn a little something about reality and enlightenment.

[prometheuspan]

Wow, you really are like a five-year old.

wow, all you have for me is a lame ad hominem.

Half a second ago, you were ready to leave, and now you want to stay. A little reverse psychology, and you did a complete 180.

no, i'm operating by my own timetable, and you are not a fair sampling of the entire board.

You are totally full of yourself. Your ego is poorly developed,

I'm an aspie you idiot. My ego is not only more highly evolved than yours is by neccessity, my ego is flexible
and i can dissolve it via an act of will, because my brain operates differently than yours does.

at best, full of masturbatory concepts like polymath and high IQ,

masturbatory concepts? hmm, you mean like the ones this board is founded on? polymaths and high IQ?
so, make up your mind, are those concepts good, or are they masturbatory?

and completely devoid of the built-in self-criticism and doubt of a philosopher.

Unlike you, i have an advanced capacity for critical introspection. Unlike you, as an aspie, this is required
in order to properly compensate for real operational differences in the way my brain works.


You are closer to a man who constantly boasts of his 12-inch dick than an egolessness, enlightened sage.
-----------
more petty ad hominems from a petty and small minded caged fool, all to punish me for unmasking his attachement
to sexism.

I hope in the time you will now spend in this forum, you will learn a little something about reality and enlightenment.

it could happen. or, i could pretty much not run into anything i didn't know already. So far, the latter, but who knows?

[Jamesh]

No, the entire paradigm you are operating here is wrong, its called sexism, and just because you picked it up from somewhere else does not justify it.

This is a philosophy board not a “practical solutions” board. We don’t post for humanities sake, but for clarifying reality in our own minds, or because of habit or a knowing of some of the other personalities.

The male-female debate is a persistent topic here, that I’m for the most part tired off. The problem with this topic is that it is the conflict where everyone can have a say, and as such they do. I find the moderators a bit pompous for not concentrating on directly promoting individual masculine traits, rather they just lump it into the term masculine. To some extent they do so to balance against the present day far greater respect for feminine ways/values out there in the real world. Organisation and business promotes feminine mindsets, as that leads to more cooperation or sales.


I can see that you are aligned to practicalness, so you won't find much of interest here. If you want to give it a try though, I would suggest you pick up something from the Genius News link (a non-gender related topic) that you disagree with and offer your views.

Asperger syndrome - with an IQ of 180 or whatever. Do you think there is a direct intrinsic relationship between the two, in that in your early years you would have been caused by your superior calculation and memory abilities, to have developed a sense of rejection of the irrationality of others, and it is this that now causes the sysmptons of Aspergers in how you deal with others?

[prometheuspan]

thanks jamesh. interesting insights. Its true i'm much more a practical person.

Its also true that it is somewhat sad to see people adding fuel to the fire of sexism in the name of rationality.

I suppose that my secret to divulge is that I'm only here because somebody else told me they thought i'd like the place.

I came, i looked around, and, mostly, its exactly the problem i find most places.

I joined Mensa once. I have never been so bored in all my life. How can people with higher IQs stand such meaningless
past times? After winning the third or fourth game of symbolic game board warfare, I realized I was significantly smarter
than those folks, and that my mind requires much more complicated stimulus to keep it genuinely entertained.

In fact, the highest order problems are the only ones that really interest me. and, one would assume, that by definition,
any place interested in genius would be interested in promoting genius, not in merely bickering over it and re -enforcing
victorian era gender stereo types for purposes of ego gratification.

I suppose i've made enough of a splash, and it would seem that the place isn't probably what i am looking for,
or likely to change to suit my (or, truthfully, anbodies,...) needs.

maybe i'll stop by in a few days and see if my seeds grow any worthwhile fruit.

thanks for your honest appraisal of the situation.

sincerely
prometheuspan

[Trevor Salyzyn]

prometheus, you don't need to blubber out a bullshit defense. From the moment you used the word "sheeple", you've been in the palm of my hand, little man. Your IQ means shit-all to me: your ego is as poorly developed as a child. The status of your ego, not your IQ, is how genius is measured.

BTW, I had anticipated you would try to turn Asperger's syndrome into a plus earlier in this thread, when I said that you were completely oblivious to the fact that it's a serious disability. Don't give me any bollocks that it helps you in any fucking way. You haven't even taken the first step: accepting you have a problem.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I suppose i've made enough of a splash, and it would seem that the place isn't probably what i am looking for, or likely to change to suit my (or, truthfully, anbodies,...) needs.

maybe i'll stop by in a few days and see if my seeds grow any worthwhile fruit.

Fucking hell. Does he have any humility at all?

Attention-whores are a nuisance.

[prometheuspan]

Asperger syndrome - with an IQ of 180 or whatever. Do you think there is a direct intrinsic relationship between the two, in that in your early years you would have been caused by your superior calculation and memory abilities, to have developed a sense of rejection of the irrationality of others, and it is this that now causes the sysmptons of Aspergers in how you deal with others?

missed this. sometimes speedy readin i skip stuff.

lets be clear what aspergers IS. An autist lives in a world internally of their own creation, the world of dreams, even while waking. In contravention to NTs(neurotypicals) Autists literally do not have an ego. Instead, they have heightened commnications between brodmanns brain areas. Aspergers is in the middle. I have an ego, but it started out in life
probably a tenth as strong as most peoples, and it has always been more or less possible for me to "stop the world"
(to borrow from carlos casteneda.)
I can live in a world of my creation which is equal to constant voluntary halucination; or, "simulation."

I can also meet other people out in the real world, unlike autists.

The net result of this is differences in cognition which make it nearly impossible for an aspie to understand the experiential side of what it is like to think like an NT- and Vice versa. As one grows older, one either learns to compensate and adapts, or one falls behind. Compensating for me includes learning about psychology, and thus
using knowledge to compensate for what would otherwise be a nearly impossible psychological gulf between me and NTs.
The strange paradox of this is, I'm not operating via emotions or subliminal processes, because i don't have a subliminal mind like NTs do. What is for most people subliminal is for me a playground. So i end up with two windows into psychology which are very deep, and that gives me in many instances insights which transcend what most people are capable of. However, these are often not the same insights that matter most, and, perhaps more importantly, I;m using
intellectual process to duplicate what other people do automatically. Theres a flood of information, and picking out which
pieces of it are most important is the hardest thing. I get more information, not less. But i don't have the capacity to sort it or to make the same kind of sense of it that NTs do.

How I deal with others is thus in many ways very cold and impersonal. Its detached because i am alien and alienated.
I have far greater objectivity, because i'm not seeking group membership, because theres no way i could get it or, appreciate it even if i did .

The joke is on both sides, because as an adult, the sheer facts are that i have hundreds or thousands of times more information than NTs and significantly more mental faculties by which to juggle that knowledge. To be blunt, I have better answers to all of humanities problems than any presidential candidate.

What i do not have is tact, diplomacy, charisma, or, in general the ability to make friends and influence people.

For the most part, thats the tragic loss of humanity, because if they would bother to meet me in the middle, I could
give them wonderful gifts.

For instance, this board. Its swell and all, but its not Genius. Add 50 new forums and some new social protocols, and it could become Genius. But the odds are significantly against that happening, because, nobody ever listens to aspies.

[prometheuspan]

clockwork stupid;
truly, i'm just too bored to answer.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Yeah, negative attention does that to you, doesn't it?

Forgive me for not worshipping every shit you take.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

It's remarkable when someone who is totally attentive to glowing praise gets bored and listless when someone points out faults. Truly this is the epitome of unbiased, rational thought.

[Shahrazad]

Trevor,

From the moment you used the word "sheeple", you've been in the palm of my hand, little man.

When I first read this, I thought you were saying that the new guy is Daybrown, but there's no way he can be. DB is an older man.

-