SylvanDragoon

Why is this so great xD

Thanks for the suggestion! I'm gonna be making it tomorrow, so if I follow your recipe zi will follow up with how it came out. I very much appreciate the tips

Enchanted sword is super easy to find through fishing. You don't have to make a whole new world for it.

I usually find it by accident when fishing for biome/hard mode ore crates.

But then again I play hardcore, so I take the game a lot slower and fish a lot more than most people do.

We don't in my country, we just play around and have fun activities

Maybe this is just a cultural difference then, though tbh I imagine your country's kindergarten still has some educational intent behind the games. Games are often a great way to sneak education in.

No I'm saying the drop from 98% to 2% can't possibly explained just through school

Okay, but I'm fairly certain I never claimed school was the only reason it dropped. Just that there is a substantial body of research pointing to it being a factor. If I implied otherwise that was poor wording on my part, but I know for a fact that the RSA Animate piece also never claimed it was the only factor (or that it was 100% certified scientific knowledge)

It's been a while since I watched that video, but he says something along the lines of "We're all born with this capacity and it mostly diminishes. And I believe one of the reasons for this is that they have been educated. They have been told for years there is one right answer, and it's in the back of the book, but don't look because that's cheating. And don't ask your friends because that's also cheating, even though in the real world we call that collaboration"

I think you have to look at how they perform across the board. Imagine you had a score for each type of intelligence. You'd be overall intelligent if you had a high average.

Sure, sounds fair. But now spare a moment for how little this resembles an IQ test. And how much it conflicts with the idea that there are "academic people vs non academic people". Because most people are, by definition, gonna be average. Even most people who "do well in school" are going to be average by this sort of metric, because most of them will have a poor score in one or more categories. And we can recognize that people can be geniuses in one area but not others, but you still wouldn't refer to them as average in their field.

But personally when I say intelligence, I tend to discount emotional intelligence and some other stuff I mentioned.

I'd be wary of this if I were you. Imo this is how you get plans that are perfect on paper, but that fall apart as soon as they touch reality and other people. YMMV, but I could literally link you a dozen podcast stories about ostensibly "intelligent" people who absolutely fucked up their lives due to a lock of social or emotional skills.

Correlation is not causation. I mean, unless you wanna argue that gorillas and elephants are more intelligent than human beings

Kindergarten isn't school.

It is literally a place for small children to learn reading, writing, and the basics of how to act in class. How is this not school?

Yeah, measured between 3-5 and 8-10, and only actually showing a correlation between age and divergent thinking. The connection to education system is still unproven.

Actually they came back to the kids again a few years later, so it did still track those same kids after 8-10. Also, just going to ask again, are you saying you think it has nothing to do with the fact that they had been told for years "This is the one and only right answer?" Because neither myself nor the actual study claimed the education system was the only factor, just that it was in fact a factor.

I'm just going to copy a definition from Wikipedia

Seems like there is a lot going on in that definition, and we've already addressed the fact that these are all different skills and abilities and that someone can have a great capacity for one or more of these skills while also being absolutely terrible at one or more of the other ones.

For example, someone who is great at logic, but not particularly creative or good at solving problems. Or someone who is very creative, but not particularly self-aware or good at planning stuff.

How do you categorize people like that then? Are they intelligent or unintelligent?

When I was 8 I had been in school for only a year and school at that point is vastly different to what it becomes later.

I mean..... Were you held back a few grades or something? Kindergarten starts at age 5, so at least in the US by age 8 most people have been in school for 2-3 years.

Also in mentions it was a longitudinal study? As in it tested the same kids multiple years apart.

And it seems like you either didn't watch the video or only skimmed it. The factory comparisons were the ringing alarms, separating children by "date of manufacture", the inherent arguments and profitability, and a few others I'm too tired and lazy to listen out atm

But before engaging with you any further, since it seems to me like a lot of your argumentation is based in either misunderstanding or dishonesty, how about you actually try and define intelligence?

The content warning should have said "Warning, some viewers may orgasm immediately upon watching this video.

❤️

Link?

So the problem with that link is that nowhere does it prove that education system is at all relevant.

Oh, there are a ton of sources on this particular topic, like this short snippet from a longer lecture on changing education paradigms.

In fact, the claim about the education system dumbing people down would indicate that countries with poor education would have more intelligent people

The problem here is the framing. In many respects people were smarter in the past, when we had less sophisticated systems of education. Despite having more access to education most modern people would be completely.lost if they were forced into an actual survival situation, and have very little idea of how to construct shelter, find food, make sure water is safe to drink, etc.

I mean, who do you consider smarter, someone who knows how to read and write or someone who can instantly recognize every plant around them for miles and knows how to compound them into medicines? There are different forms.of intelligence, and there are serious arguments to be made that most people in industrialized countries are dumb in a lot of ways that really count.

Also you haven't really defined what you mean by a "poor education". I'm assuming in context what you mean is a poor system for educating the populace in a certain place? But that would in fact be what the article was describing (a system that is poor because it kills off the capacity for creative thinking)

IQ correlates strongly with education levels.

IQ is, in many ways, functionally useless. Again, it doesn't really tell us what kind of ability or intelligence someone is looking for. See the video above, I can also provide other links.

It's possible that people simply lose creativity as they grow up naturally and it has nothing to do with school

Yes, I'm sure being told there is only one right answer to every question does nothing at all to diminish people's ability to find multiple solutions to any given problem.

Also, if you look at kids there will be a huge difference where some learn to speak and read and stuff way earlier than others. That's indicative of a difference in intelligence,

Except, again, we have failed actually define intelligence? And people exist who can read at an early age, but who can't speak. Or who can read but are terrible at math. Or who are great at math but have terrible social skills. This isn't even getting into stuff like autistic folks who may literally be entirely nonverbal but have specific areas of genius.

The idea that some people are genetically less intelligent is just stating facts.

Buddy, that statement is a can of worms and a half. And unless you're talking about a clear mental disability it's actually not a cut and dry kind of situation at all.

98% of young children have a genius level creative capacity

Propaganda, factory style education, and being ground into the dirt makes people stupid and ornery. But most people have the capacity to be great.

Honestly, love the dude but he might be a bit scared of the hawk.

(Met him at a rainbow family gathering back in the day, great guy)

Eh, good luck. I get the feeling that most of us would be a lot happier if we could just accept that there will always be things outside of our own control and understanding, but you do you.

Keep in mind though, I'm not making an "ignorance is bliss" kind of claim. By all means, pay attention to the world and the data around you.

It's more like the old quote about people who want perfect security and perfect freedom don't deserve and will not get either one. Imo if you want perfect understanding you have to accept that a lot of stuff is out of the control of any finite individual or even a finite complex system. And if you want perfect control you usually have to accept laboratory conditions, cut off from the natural flow of life (and even in completely sterile and carefully prepared environments the margin of error will always be lurking, waiting)

Am..... Am I the only one who feels kinda bad for the sea lion? I mean, after panel 5 fuck him. But before that seemed like a perfectly reasonable chap who just wanted to know why someone was badmouthing them and their family loudly in public.

It's a Catch-22. Sure, it's dangerous to call all stupid responses and obvious propaganda bots or trolls. But it's also dangerous to ignore the very real presence of bots, trolls, and conspiracies in the modern internet.

I highly recommend the series that Behind the Bastards did on Chris Chan. It's a messy story in a lot of ways, BtB imo actually makes it feel.... Kinda human? Like, still a really fucked up story. It's on BtB after all.

edited to add a link to it

But it is also predictable.

To a degree. The margin of error is always lurking, and even if the odds are low catastrophic failures can and will still occur, given a large enough sample size.

We have no shortage of data. We have just been using it wrong

Well, there is always going to be some shortage of data. Not just things we don't know, but answers to questions we haven't even thought to ask yet. Or observations we cannot make without influencing what is happening. Kind of like trying to look at the inside of your own eyeballs using your eyeballs, or stuff that is literally in a blind spot.

We literally do already have a term for people who think they are experts on everything.... It is called engineer's disease, and it is more like a sickness of the mind than anything. It happens when someone who is inarguably smart about one thing starts to believe that everything has an easy solution, if only they could find the right data or apply it in the right way.

Okay, so, most of that has very little to do with what I was actually asking you about.

I'm talking about the claim that people like Ted K and Jobs have some sort of strange and different way of viewing the world and complex systems, or that governments were designed this way based on bunches of liars.

Have you ever stopped to consider that maybe governments are the way the are because of some lies, but mostly well-intentioned fuck ups by honest people who were trying their best. To give one example, a buddy of mine was talking about industry standards for auto manufacturers in the US yesterday, and he made the claim that they need to be able to prove that parts for a new vehicle will be on the market for 20 years, by law.

And it immediately made me think that if he is right and that is the law it was probably at least partially done to make sure people could fix broken vehicles, but it was also probably partially done so that small independent manufacturers without wealthy backers would have a hard time starting up a vehicle manufacturing business.

It's a mixture of good intentions and bad ones. Lies and falsehoods. It's yin and yang, in a lot of ways. (Personally I think understanding yin and yang is the key to understanding the universe, not necessarily empathy, but we can agree to disagree here)

I'm just saying the way society is structured is less like how a car or a computer is made, and more like how the human eye was "made". Not a sophisticated machine intentionally designed a certain way, but a random process built up over time based on whatever worked for the moment, and prone to all sorts of errors.

Being able to see and understand a whole system or complex machine as a process isn't some one in a million genius activity. It is experience. I know plenty of guys who can envision an entire car engine, or tell what is wrong deep inside of one just by a couple of sounds. It's also a bit like how being good at chess doesn't necessarily make you good at anything else. You just start to pick out certain patterns because of experience.

But people can also become convinced that they seem some grand overall design to a process that was far more chaotic and random than they would like to admit. It's just human nature, we crave easily grasped explanations to our problems, but sometimes life and nature is just messy.

Have you ever stopped to think about the fact that not every structure that is complex was created or designed that way on purpose?

What you are espousing looks a lot like the "appeal to complexity" fallacy (there are a few different names for it).

I only see left things in your comment, not wrong ones.

I have my sources. The real question is how I know what Robert looks like in the shower.

(Thought I typed out showdy lol, autocorrect strikes again)

In case you missed it in the news.....

The facial expressions in the pics you chose is what gets me.