First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply Who do you think are the top 3 smartest CR forum members?
26848 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / FL
Offline
Posted 8/20/17 , edited 8/20/17
How can we really know, there are always new users, and many old ones delete their accounts.
4972 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
41 / M / NJ
Offline
Posted 8/21/17 , edited 8/21/17
I'm smert

31527 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 8/21/17 , edited 8/21/17

Foxpower93 wrote:

Having affinity for debate and being smart are two entirely different thing. Someone that is skillful with words can almost rebut any kind of argument. Judging someone intelligence by their argumentation skill is not really valid.


If it was politicians would be considered very intelligent
Guest Pass Litter Moderator
120974 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Boston-ish
Offline
Posted 8/21/17 , edited 8/22/17

riverjustice wrote:
quote pyramid



Zenpie wrote:

Holy wall of quote, I pray to the, for my eyes are dead now


That was getting obnoxious. I've knocked it down.

riverjustice, please don't perpetuate quote chains--if you quote someone who quoted someone then trim out the oldest quote levels. Generally just one quote is sufficient to keep the context. Mods take action when we see more than three levels of quotes in a post, and action is not always limited to kindly cleaning up the quote pile and then walking away.

Posted 8/21/17 , edited 8/22/17
Ty Lorreen I<3u
13330 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 8/21/17 , edited 8/22/17

Ryulightorb wrote:


Foxpower93 wrote:

Having affinity for debate and being smart are two entirely different thing. Someone that is skillful with words can almost rebut any kind of argument. Judging someone intelligence by their argumentation skill is not really valid.


If it was politicians would be considered very intelligent


Not only politicians really, most people able to dialogue in a fancy way and debate easily are considered smart or intellectual, when some really have no idea what they are talking about.
27416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Prison
Offline
Posted 8/22/17 , edited 8/22/17
In all honesty, I am not sure how one "wins" a debate. Very few people concede defeat, regardless of the evidence mounted against them, and the popularity of an answer or the poster is hardly indicative. This is especially true where ideology demographics are slanted to one or the other, with some people are so lacking in doubt that nothing will ever get through to them. They are at peace with themselves, but at war with others, others who do not share their view, and I do not see how "winning" is possible. They are not convinced, we all walk away thinking to ourselves "What an idiot", assured of the beliefs we came to the table with. We often think of ourselves as the wisest to our peers; after all, if our opinions were not believed to be correct, we would not have them. It is just unshakable stubbornness, and I find that the mindset of winning is the most harmful to the idea of actual discussion, which should not be considered something of a win-lose situation.

In essence, I do not believe popularity to be indicative, or what our sense of rationality tells us to be true, and that having someone admit they were wrong in this aspect or that, or entirely, is not normally achieved with polarizing polemics in an effort to win.
20208 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/22/17 , edited 8/22/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

In all honesty, I am not sure how one "wins" a debate. Very few people concede defeat, regardless of the evidence mounted against them, and the popularity of an answer or the poster is hardly indicative. This is especially true where ideology demographics are slanted to one or the other, with some people are so lacking in doubt that nothing will ever get through to them. They are at peace with themselves, but at war with others, others who do not share their view, and I do not see how "winning" is possible. They are not convinced, we all walk away thinking to ourselves "What an idiot", assured of the beliefs we came to the table with. We often think of ourselves as the wisest to our peers; after all, if our opinions were not believed to be correct, we would not have them. It is just unshakable stubbornness, and I find that the mindset of winning is the most harmful to the idea of actual discussion, which should not be considered something of a win-lose situation.

In essence, I do not believe popularity to be indicative, or what our sense of rationality tells us to be true, and that having someone admit they were wrong in this aspect or that, or entirely, is not normally achieved with polarizing polemics in an effort to win.


What you are saying is true, a popularity contest is just a mass opinion, however you can discern intelligence in a person's argument based on their economy of words; and see through their thought process even if you disagree with their ideas.

I don't take things too seriously. If people think I'm unintelligent. It doesn't affect me. Who's smarter than who doesn't matter in the spectrum of things. There is always going to be someone richer, smarter, and more astute than you.

This is after all; just a forum. Where battles of ideas are taken place. And usually the majority can differentiate the bad ones versus the good ones.
20208 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/22/17 , edited 8/22/17

Ryulightorb wrote:


Foxpower93 wrote:

Having affinity for debate and being smart are two entirely different thing. Someone that is skillful with words can almost rebut any kind of argument. Judging someone intelligence by their argumentation skill is not really valid.


If it was politicians would be considered very intelligent


I agree with the lack of intelligence in politicians. I still wonder why Trudeau is even the Prime Minster.
27416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Prison
Offline
Posted 8/22/17 , edited 8/22/17

riverjustice wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

In all honesty, I am not sure how one "wins" a debate. Very few people concede defeat, regardless of the evidence mounted against them, and the popularity of an answer or the poster is hardly indicative. This is especially true where ideology demographics are slanted to one or the other, with some people are so lacking in doubt that nothing will ever get through to them. They are at peace with themselves, but at war with others, others who do not share their view, and I do not see how "winning" is possible. They are not convinced, we all walk away thinking to ourselves "What an idiot", assured of the beliefs we came to the table with. We often think of ourselves as the wisest to our peers; after all, if our opinions were not believed to be correct, we would not have them. It is just unshakable stubbornness, and I find that the mindset of winning is the most harmful to the idea of actual discussion, which should not be considered something of a win-lose situation.

In essence, I do not believe popularity to be indicative, or what our sense of rationality tells us to be true, and that having someone admit they were wrong in this aspect or that, or entirely, is not normally achieved with polarizing polemics in an effort to win.


What you are saying is true, a popularity contest is just a mass opinion, however you can discern intelligence in a person's argument based on their economy of words; and see through their thought process even if you disagree with their ideas.

I don't take things too seriously. If people think I'm unintelligent. It doesn't affect me. Who's smarter than who doesn't matter in the spectrum of things. There is always going to be someone richer, smarter, and more astute than you.

This is after all; just a forum. Where battles of ideas are taken place. And usually the majority can differentiate the bad ones versus the good ones.


Not quite sure that the majority can, especially those who bother to participate with such polarizing attitudes reeking of stubbornness. Those people make up the majority of the thread replies, but hardly any of them can be considered a microcosm of anything other than the politics of the internet, made up of those who bother to out of some twisted sense of...something. While I think that one can discern the rationale that a person abides by, it feels that understandable and logical are to be considered different concepts, and that if they are logical, they would share our opinions, or alternatively, we would share theirs, from the beginning or later on This is provided that there is a conflict between said ideas. These types tend to be based on factual disagreement, which greatly alters what the rationale should be.

This perception of reality versus lies is by far the most troublesome obstacle, especially considering areas where one has not bothered to research because of the belief that "they do not need to".
mxdan 
12059 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 8/22/17 , edited 8/22/17

riverjustice wrote:

What you are saying is true, a popularity contest is just a mass opinion, however you can discern intelligence in a person's argument based on their economy of words; and see through their thought process even if you disagree with their ideas.


Holds true to a certain extent, but let's not forget that you also have to take into consideration effort and time. Some members may appear far less intelligent then they actually are simply because they don't want to take the time to articulate it correctly. Some maybe don't even have the time. And intelligence isn't merely measured by articulation. That's just one form of intelligence. An 'economy of words' may prove higher thinking for a specific but it doesn't absolve someone of having it if they don't use the same subset.
20208 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/22/17 , edited 8/22/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


Not quite sure that the majority can, especially those who bother to participate with such polarizing attitudes reeking of stubbornness. Those people make up the majority of the thread replies, but hardly any of them can be considered a microcosm of anything other than the politics of the internet, made up of those who bother to out of some twisted sense of...something. While I think that one can discern the rationale that a person abides by, it feels that understandable and logical are to be considered different concepts, and that if they are logical, they would share our opinions, or alternatively, we would share theirs, from the beginning or later on This is provided that there is a conflict between said ideas. These types tend to be based on factual disagreement, which greatly alters what the rationale should be.

This perception of reality versus lies is by far the most troublesome obstacle, especially considering areas where one has not bothered to research because of the belief that "they do not need to".


I don't think people bother to do research because they don't need to, moreso, its their laziness and the difficulty of the topic. For instance, climate change.

Can anyone in this forum actually give me a scientific proof and explanation if climate change is anthropocentric? 99% of people can't. The topic is difficult, meteorologist can't even give an accurate weather outlook after a 7-day period.

We have people who believe since X percent of scientist said it's true, then we should go with the consensus. This leads to social proof bias. Like you said earlier, the masses are unable to participate because of the pugnacity of a subject that gain an overwhelming consensus.

The funniest thing is profound scientific revolutions such as Copernicus's heliocentric discovery and Einstein's discovery of the general theory of relativity was the antithesis of the general consensus.

citer 
30 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Cape Town
Offline
Posted 8/22/17 , edited 8/22/17
Rant Regarding the OP

I only recently returned to using any kind of "forum/bulletin board". I am finally able to relax a bit after spending a good 10 years working my ass off. and I must say.. everything's changed.. Its like click bait rains supreme.. the average internet user seems to be more interested in the responses of others.. not the actual content or questions.

Its no longer a pursuit of truth but some strange attempt at self gratification. this isn't unique in the "Anime Community" i see it almost everything..

So I find myself contemplating the Outcome.. I suppose at some point it will balance itself out.. It just saddens me.. the internet was at some point in my past a place of great growth. Its now a "Measuring Contest".

End of Rant.
My Apologies.



riverjustice wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


Not quite sure that the majority can, especially those who bother to participate with such polarizing attitudes reeking of stubbornness. Those people make up the majority of the thread replies, but hardly any of them can be considered a microcosm of anything other than the politics of the internet, made up of those who bother to out of some twisted sense of...something. While I think that one can discern the rationale that a person abides by, it feels that understandable and logical are to be considered different concepts, and that if they are logical, they would share our opinions, or alternatively, we would share theirs, from the beginning or later on This is provided that there is a conflict between said ideas. These types tend to be based on factual disagreement, which greatly alters what the rationale should be.

This perception of reality versus lies is by far the most troublesome obstacle, especially considering areas where one has not bothered to research because of the belief that "they do not need to".


I don't think people bother to do research because they don't need to, moreso, its their laziness and the difficulty of the topic. For instance, climate change.

Can anyone in this forum actually give me a scientific proof and explanation if climate change is anthropocentric? 99% of people can't. The topic is difficult, meteorologist can't even give an accurate weather outlook after a 7-day period.

We have people who believe since X percent of scientist said it's true, then we should go with the consensus. This leads to social proof bias. Like you said earlier, the masses are unable to participate because of the pugnacity of a subject that gain an overwhelming consensus.

The funniest thing is profound scientific revolutions such as Copernicus's heliocentric discovery and Einstein's discovery of the general theory of relativity was the antithesis of the general consensus.



It is but Time. that is the true test of validity.

also I cant agree more with this..


This perception of reality versus lies is by far the most troublesome obstacle, especially considering areas where one has not bothered to research because of the belief that "they do not need to".


28516 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / M / Bay Area
Offline
Posted 8/22/17 , edited 8/22/17
Any kind of written document that has to do with law or contracts and including politics-BlueOni
55304 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
100 / M
Offline
Posted 8/22/17 , edited 8/22/17

scoobydew wrote:

Any kind of written document that has to do with law or contracts and including politics-BlueOni


When I first read this topic, first person come to my mind is BlueOni!
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.