Its YOU who ignores facts because you get your political opinions from 4chan

Hey lemme ask you, are you the real ben garrison? Or just a fan?

Lmfao the idea that the real Benny G is in a random discord really tickles me for some reason

Myst you were the one who ran away from the voice chat idk bro

Idk, guy seems like he might be in a discord honestly

He's on the cutting edge of shitposting

You’re not wrong

Right?

You literally just said “that’s not true” whenever I told you a fact based by studies.

Is that all you heard?

He seems more like a forum type than a discord type though

Yeah he does

Myst, intelligence can come from anywhere. Outliers can come from anywhere. Even if you try to breed intelligence, which I'm sure you could, what you're going to end up with is a world that kinda looks like the one we have now. Intelligence is pretty evenly distributed.

That's just cold hard science

///Psychologists have shown that the definition of human intelligence is unique to the culture that one is studying. Robert Sternberg is among the researchers who have discussed how one's culture affects the person's interpretation of intelligence, and he further believes that to define intelligence in only one way without considering different meanings in cultural contexts may cast an investigative and unintentionally egocentric view on the world. To negate this, psychologists offer the following definitions of intelligence;

Successful intelligence is the skills and knowledge needed for success in life, according to one's own definition of success, within one's sociocultural context.
Analytical intelligence is the result of intelligence's components applied to fairly abstract but familiar kinds of problems.
Creative intelligence is the result of intelligence's components applied to relatively novel tasks and situations.

Practical intelligence is the result of intelligence's components applied to experience for purposes of adaption, shaping and selection.[83]
Although typically identified by its western definition, multiple studies support the idea that human intelligence carries different meanings across cultures around the world. In many Eastern cultures, intelligence is mainly related with one's social roles and responsibilities. A Chinese conception of intelligence would define it as the ability to empathize with and understand others — although this is by no means the only way that intelligence is defined in China. In several African communities, intelligence is shown similarly through a social lens. However, rather than through social roles, as in many Eastern cultures, it is exemplified through social responsibilities. For example, in the language of Chi-Chewa, which is spoken by some ten million people across central Africa, the equivalent term for intelligence implies not only cleverness but also the ability to take on responsibility. Furthermore, within American culture there are a variety of interpretations of intelligence present as well. One of the most common views on intelligence within American societies defines it as a combination of problem-solving skills, deductive reasoning skills, and Intelligence quotient (IQ), while other American societies point out that intelligent people should have a social conscience, accept others for who they are, and be able to give advice or wisdom.[84]///

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_intelligence#Intelligence_across_cultures

At a recent international conference, I heard former United States president Bill Clinton speak. As a part of his remarks, Clinton commented that in his visits to many developing countries around the world he has found that "The distribution of intelligence and ambition around the world is equal, but the access to opportunities is not" (my paraphrasing). Clinton's point echoes a message of Malcolm Gladwell's book "Outliers"; both argue that a critical key to success is less about who you are or where you are, but whether you have (not) access to the same opportunities as others.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2925336/

oh

my

Again, science

Literally it’s just outliers

Which I accept

Maybe we should breed outliers. Would be bad luck for you

Listen, I know you want to believe everyone is equal but we’re not.

Ikr, am very smart boi

I never said everyone was equal

Everyone isnt equal. You aren't listening

"Not everyone can be a great chef, but a great chef can come from anywhere"

The point of humanity is that people are different

To try and make a perfect human is a stupid idea because it's so arbitrary and subjective

What works best is a team of humans with different skillsets

Not the perfect human, but preserve quality

That's already happening though

Smart people aren't going around breeding with dumbasses. Like attracts like. Law of attraction

People generally find people that think like them and act like them, etc.

I mean, not everyone is the same, thank God, but everyone has something that they're good at. Some sort of talent, some sort of purpose. Everyone. Not some of the people, everyone.

It's just only so many people figure out what it is they're good at an have the opportunity to show it

Outliers are the people who find opportunities to work the system

Again, all of this is mainstream science. If you want to be a science guy, this is just what science tells us

I don’t have the energy for this autism

Just assume that you at 18 years old is not going to have the same opinions that you will at 21, or 30, or 60. At least hopefully not. You should be able to grow

The feeling youre experiencing is cognitive dissonance

But you can keep rejecting science is you want

Up to you boo boo

But everytime I keep proving you wrong you run away and make snide comments like "youre such a normie"

that's not an argument. It's an admission of defeat

Not to say that what you’re saying isn’t correct, but that doesn’t sound like a scientific finding at all. It’s a philosophy of optimism if anything

Which, is exactly how I expected the conversation to go. And once again, I'm right.

I love winning

You have a problem with my "filter" on life which is fine. Everyone has their own filter

You get to choose your own filter

What makes a good filter is if it can

1.) Make you happy and
2.) predict future events with relative accuracy

Welcome <@414022999423844353>

So I'm an optimist. Aboslutely. Because life is much better that way and generally it gives me a good predictor of how things are going to be

I don’t have a problem with you having that outlook, my only problem is trying to give it some sort of objective legitimacy by calling it science

In fact it’s a good outlook

You don’t need to call it science

You can come to whatever conclusion you like, butmy position is science based absolutely

And I proved it. Honestly I don't even see what's so optimistic

Its just realism

Proved it with the paragraphs of that psychologist saying that defining intelligence by only one metric is “egotistical?”

You have to look into the field of cognitive science. It will challenge everything you know about the world

Egotistical means self centered. So a culture that has different priorities is going to value things differently.

None of these are scientific concepts

Lol sure they are

You don't undesrtand what science is then

And I agree with most of what the psychologist was saying

Science is making judgements based on observations

It’s just not a rigorous science.

No it isn’t.

Yes it is

You have an arbitrarily narrow view of what science is

Science isn't only lab coats and chemicals

Not saying it is.

Science is a system of figuring out the material world around us

You can apply a scientific mindset to most things, but not everything. Anytime you get into philosphy for instance, science is useless because there's no experiement you can do to prove a concept.

Science is a meticulous, falsifiable and repeatable process. Otherwise it’s observational philosophy

And you also cant prove a negative

We don't disagree

hold on brb, busy. if myst ever comes back tell him whenever he wants to become a winner to hmu

Nice..

There is nothing falsifiable or repeatable about saying that we need to broaden our view of intelligence. That’s philosophy

lmao he's been here the whole time hiding

k brb

And I don’t mean that as a pejorative

I agree with you ben. Its the people who think the world can be found out with the scientific method that bother me. Science is very limited.

For instance, how fo you know science reflects reality? You need philosophy to answer that. You cant use science to prove science withoyt arguing in a circle

But like, thats part of the evolution. You get really deep into one particular worldview, and then the older you get the more refined and nuanced you get. You add more distinctions to things

So when I hear a 16 year old call himself a natsoc, that doesnt bother me. Hes 16. He doesnt know anything about anything yet. If he was like 44 and a natsoc id be concerned because then it might be too late. You might be stuck in that narrow worldview the rest of your life because you arent willing to be critical and skeptical of yourself. Its a tough thing to do. Ego gets in the way all the time

But that begs the question of why call your outlook scientific if there’s no science about it.

I wouldn't call it a scientific worldivew, I'd just call it a worldview...or a filter

I don’t call mine scientific because I don’t think it’s a matter of science

I like thinking in terms of systems. Something you'll hear more and more about its the term filter as a way to describe our outlook

https://youtu.be/y3jgT--bDd8

Very cool and important video. Filters in Harmony.

I’ll watch it when I get home.

Let me know if you like it. It might not be for you, but I found it really informative

But I love business and sheit