Because nothing is absolute

But in order to test anything, you are aiming at truth

Don’t see what you’re trying to get at

Sure

You just never hit it all the way

You can aim at it

Right so you assume there’s a truth to aim at

Good. We are on the same page there 🙂 but I really have to go. I think I need to close the discord app so I don’t get sucked in haha. Continue later or tomorrow?

Yes I’d like that. Talk to you later

Different use of the word. But I like the meme heh

Yea me too 😛

Statistically atheists, Buddhists, pagans, and some Jews, have median IQ well above global averages.

However, I hear "theres" "athiests" who are exceptions to that statistical pattern?

I certainly don’t claim to have a high IQ

iq is an illusion

What makes you think that

Sounds like someone who scored low on an IQ test

Jk

Paradox of Perfection

1. If God exists, then He's perfect
2. If God exists, He is the creator of the universe
3. Perfect beings must create perfect things
4. The universe is not perfect
5. There's no God

It's what a lot of these arguments and lofty metaphorical statements about the nature of God sound like

Why is there only one well known low IQ society (MENSA, 98th percentile), but 4 "Triple 9'er" groups, that argue viciously about valid metrics for -g- ?

In the pinch around Sigma 4, how many people who make claims of sexism in high intellectual demand jobs, realize or admit there are 5 times as many men as women?

There is no “if god exists then”

The understanding is that God is the source of creation. Not “god the man in the sky”

“That which allows for existence is God”

Your premises are flawed; make no sense.

You cannot talk about “existence” without first assuming existence exists

Also, “the universe is not perfect” puts you in the chair of God if you’re deciding that. Perfect by what standard? It’s exactly as it is.

@LokiV I don’t understand almost any of that.

@JPMcGlone hop in vc in an hour let’s have a discussion

I can’t, very busy morning. I would like to, but I can’t today

> @LokiV I don’t understand almost any of that.
@StoneCold316
Write some R code, or any other (non-freeware) statistical modelling language, to import sex and IQ data, and plot the comparative values for the Sigma 2 to 5 or above range.

It's not a result most misandrist lawyers or politicians or "Critical Theory" scammers want to have widely known.

Do you have any understanding of the intent of Stanford-Binet or Wechsler to attempt to approximate "general intelligence" (-g-), or the kinds of differences that become more significant in the extreme upper scale end?

I was trying to illustrate that that argument is obviously fallacious, but it's the same domino game that arguments for God consist of. None of the points made about god follow from the premises

I can prove that gods exist.....

But, I get to define gods as the neurobiological human responses to iconography, fantasies, mental masturbation, or delusions, that people demonstrably experience in their various ritual or nutcase practices.

Andrew Newberg at Penn and many of his colleagues have done some interesting research that supports that approach. It's also supported by pervasive neuropeptide models of humans.

@LokiV - no, I haven’t the faintest idea. What are the kinds of differences that become more significant in the extreme upper scale end.?

> @LokiV - no, I haven’t the faintest idea. What are the kinds of differences that become more significant in the extreme upper scale end.?
@StoneCold316

Over Sigma 3-5 range, the male:female ratio grows into ratios in the 3:1 to 5:1 range, before the very upper tail reflects such tiny numbers of deviant intelligence people are hard to summarize. That has some serious consequences in business, science and engineering as well as management, and tweaks the whole notion of equal partners in relationships.

There are also more complex race and IQ patterns than assumed Bell Curves would suggest, including for blacks a semi-barbell, with a seriously depressed mean IQ that drags down the whole USA compared to Asia or the overall world (but Africa has many pathetic countries), but a disproportionate number of seriously intelligent blacks with an elevated upper tail compared to Normal distribution.

I've known researchers who get attacked with criminal gang backed death threats for publishing honest research, where it seems now the SJW/psychobitch factions are trying to compete with Christian Identity or militant black factions as criminals. In some cases what would seem to be innocuous meta-studies get moved into biohazard science facilities for their security layers, while even grant writers and office staff get forced to live in hiding for periods of years.

Holy moly

Don’t know what any of that has to do with religion

But it’s not like I can really understand any of that to determine if it’s even about religion

OK Cupid data scientists did some interesting demographic analysis, back in the days before they sold out to IAC/I mega-corp.

Noting the usual statistical conditions many people mangle, there are strong intelligence, race, and religion trends that show up in their disguised personality and IQ and other tests. Big surprise, atheists, pagans, Buddhists, and some flavors of Jews, seriously top the list, while Catholics are below white Protestants, and black Protestants WAY down there.

What that means for personal relationships or larger society tends to be more complex.

And girls who say they like beer, tend to be more interested in sex than others. Is that more pragmatic or esoteric compared to all that other stuff? ;-p

Thank you Loki I get what you’re getting at now

I am a big member and supporter of the small words club

Small word easy understand

Also of note on OKC and some other sites that use gamified MBTI variants, the most common personality temperaments tend to be inclined towards social cliques of arrogant bullies, whereas the splinter uncommon types tend to be more concerned about civil rights and prtecting diversity.

@BobbyMack how do you have premises without first assuming existence exists? This was Ayn Rand’s first principle.

All she didn’t do was assume the premise that existence exists by some means. That means, whatever it is, is all we are calling God.