Posts by swiftcobra15

Quote : Originally posted by Solaris
So, you're saying someone who isn't just run-of-the-mill isn't considered "normal"? 😁 😕

That’s exactly how it works by definition. We tend to label anyone who doesn't strictly stick to the median as "abnormal," and we apply that same flawed logic to mental health. In this view, a genius is always seen as unstable—which makes them easy to distrust—while a totally mediocre person is deemed perfectly fine.
I've noticed people are generally intimidated by anything that exceeds the average, especially when it comes to intelligence, expertise, or true wisdom. It forces high achievers to carefully scout out a niche where they can exist without being targeted by the crowd.

😉"People will find it much easier to forgive you for being wrong than for being better than them." 🙂

Quote : Originally posted by Bilbo @ Baggins
If you strip away every single gene tied to aggression and swap them out for traits like peacefulness, tolerance, and empathy, you won't have any problems left.

Just dial up the obedience gene, and you've basically engineered the perfect workforce.

Quincy:

illegale said:Since someone brought up conscience, why couldn't it just be something shaped entirely by social conditioning?

It’s true that humans are inherently social creatures—everything about our existence is influenced by the society we live in. Even basic things like how we eat, drink, or breathe are shaped by our culture.
But that doesn't mean I'm just some carbon copy or a pre-programmed script. I feel like I'm constantly building, refining, and evolving my own conscience. Even though I'm part of a community, my moral compass remains uniquely mine. 😉

jimmy said: I was actually taken aback by that level of empathy coming from outside our usual circles.
In the States, we tend to only mention condolences when someone passes away, usually just through a few words. But you really need to have logic. Principles. A sense of duty.

🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
Finally, someone said it! 😉 Of course I respect every single person.
I don't see any reason why I should show more respect specifically to people with disabilities. 😕
Condolences aren't about pity—it’s simply an acknowledgment that we are all part of the same community. For those with physical disabilities, it means showing extra solidarity and being helpful. You can't just practice that by memorizing a set of social rules. To put it bluntly, Bon-ton is a poor substitute for a vigilant conscience. 😉

Jose Palmer2 said:I'm not quite sure where you're pulling those numbers from, because my own research from various sources tells a completely different story, 😉

If we accept that people today perform better on spatial perception tests than they did a century ago, then we are looking at definitive neurological shifts. That’s just a fact.

😕

I truly respect the points you've laid out here, but we can't ignore the reality that "intelligence" is merely whatever an IQ test manages to measure—and frankly, those instruments are incredibly unreliable. 😉

As for spatial perception, surely you aren't suggesting they were all evaluated using the exact same metrics? 😕

Bobba Fett said:I honestly think you're missing the point here.

😕
Of course we have a reference point: LIFE itself.
The way our society is headed feels almost suicidal—it's fundamentally anti-life.
Life in general, and human life specifically, is the only true metric I recognize. Everything else is just noise. 😉

Jose Palmer2 said: If this biological phenomenon didn't exist, learning—as the process of building upon existing knowledge—would be impossible. To expand our quantum of knowledge, we would require increasingly massive amounts of energy per unit of time, far exceeding what the energy-limited chemical processes in our brains can actually supply.

😉 Jose Palmer2, you explained the growth of knowledge beautifully, but I believe intelligence is something else entirely—essentially, the ability to navigate unfamiliar situations. The problem is that testing methods are constantly being recalibrated; for instance, early tests were adjusted so women could achieve averages comparable to men, and later, they were modified so Black Americans in the US could reach similar results. I’m not trying to diminish anyone's intellect here, but I want to point out that the measuring tools themselves are incredibly subjective, if not outright elastic.
There simply isn't an objective, unbiased way to measure intelligence. Even if you subjected participants to rigorous, weeks-long testing, the results would still be highly unreliable.
There is also a fundamental paradox at play: the more a person knows, the fewer "unknown" situations they encounter, which leaves us wondering what these instruments are actually quantifying.
I really feel it's foolish to fetishize IQ tests, as they are just as "unfair" as the questions on a game show like "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire."😉