High School 'Sex Quiz' goes too far?

[DominionSeraph]

You're a megalomaniac.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Silly child, trapped by confirmation bias.

That I have not been tested here (due to the lack of any sort of setup) does not imply that I am not well-tested.
I have been through the wringer. I became more because of it.
Your continual failures also support this. Chew on that.

 

[HumblePie]

I've been kind of following this thread and seeing what other people had to say about this. This thread got derailed fast though.

However, my opinon is kudo's the the professor personally. Education and learning is about "Knowledge" in all forms. Anyone who wants to stop or contained knowledge has issues in my book.

First off, this quiz was meant as a mental exercise to illustrate a point. Mental exercise sadly is something that many posters I feel lack around here.

The point of the exercise was to reflect the changes within our own minds without conscience direction as we hit adolescence.

For example, if you take that quiz and gave it to a bunch of 4 year olds. They would more than likely get the "actual" answers to each question on that quiz. Younger children brain development has not usually grown to accept sexual thought patterns yet. So they would not see the questions as innuendo but literal interpretations.

However, as we age and puberty kicks in, our minds like our bodies go through transformation. Something most people never see or even realize. We can see the changes going on the outside of our bodies and we know that we get some new urges, like being attracted to the opposite sex for example, but we don't realize how fully transformed we become from our childhood years.

True, the teacher could have just stated what I said above, but do you think that would have drove the point home as well? Demonstrations of a subject that is being taught is a vastly superior teaching method than to lecture out only facts.

This quiz was not compromising morals. It was not telling kids to go do anything they shouldn't be doing. It was not overboard in my opinion. The fact that some shut-in prudes get their assholes all puckered up any time the word "sex" is used around one of their "children" is a disservice to those children.

 

[zsdersw]

That I have not been tested here (due to the lack of any sort of setup) does not imply that I am not well-tested.

The well-tested don't repeatedly say how supremely intelligent and superior they are.

 

[DominionSeraph]

The well-tested don't repeatedly say how supremely intelligent and superior they are.

And there you are wrong.
Some of us do.

You should really check your patterns more carefully before you field them.

 

[zsdersw]

And there you are wrong.
Some of us do.

.. which is boasting, which isn't an intelligent thing to do.. as I originally said.

 

[DominionSeraph]

.. which is boasting, which isn't an intelligent thing to do.. as I originally said.

Wow, you have been completely confused by the English language.

The English language allows you to transform words into parts of speech which they don't properly belong to. "A person walked," can be translated into, "A person went for a walk." This doesn't mean that "walk" is a physical object, even though it can be treated as such for many transformations. "A long walk," works, but, "A red walk," does not.

"Intelligent" modifies something that can have that attribute. "An intelligent person." You have it modifying a noun placeholder for a verb and then are back-linking it across all with the type descriptor!
That's pretty retarded. Linking forward keeps you attached to what's real. Linking backwards can give you disconnects unless you have the strength of modal necessity. Which you do not.

Also, holding all to a single value structure? How amateurish.

 

[PeshakJang]

.. which is boasting, which isn't an intelligent thing to do.. as I originally said.

Brother, give up. His stated life ambition is to fuck a cartoon character.

Hard to question the intelligence of somebody that doesn't have a grip on reality.

 

[zsdersw]

Wow, you have been completely confused by the English language.

The English language allows you to transform words into parts of speech which they don't properly belong to. "A person walked," can be translated into, "A person went for a walk." This doesn't mean that "walk" is a physical object, even though it can be treated as such for many transformations. "A long walk," works, but, "A red walk," does not.

"Intelligent" modifies something that can have that attribute. "An intelligent person." You have it modifying a noun placeholder for a verb and then are back-linking it across all with the type descriptor!
That's pretty retarded. Linking forward keeps you attached to what's real. Linking backwards can give you disconnects unless you have the strength of modal necessity. Which you do not.

You knew exactly what I was saying and what I meant, but chose to go into a condescending and wholly unnecessary diatribe about "the English language" as a distraction. Nice try.

 

[PeshakJang]

Linking forward keeps you attached to what's real.

Like Rukia?

 

[zsdersw]

Brother, give up. His stated life ambition is to fuck a cartoon character.

Hard to question the intelligence of somebody that doesn't have a grip on reality.

Nah, I'm having too much fun with this.

 

[DominionSeraph]

You knew exactly what I was saying and what I meant, but chose to go into a condescending and wholly unnecessary diatribe about "the English language" as a distraction.

It was completely necessary because you lost track of what you were saying. Or at least I hope you did, because otherwise you're just retarded.

If you had instead phrased it as, "An intelligent person is allowed no value system in which may perceive some value in boasting," I think you would have seen that nothing you have has the authority to make that true. Being that there is no authority to make it true it is not necessarily true, so your back-linking across all possible worlds is fucking retarded.

Learn to check your threads both ways. If it ain't true forward don't cover it in "true" going backwards.
And if you think this nonsense about intelligence is true going forwards, you need to seriously work on your error-checking methodology.

This is one of the main reasons science operates as it does.
Error checking is no joke.

 

[zsdersw]

It was completely necessary because you lost track of what you were saying. Or at least I hope you did, because otherwise you're just retarded.

If you had instead phrased it as, "An intelligent person is allowed no value system in which may perceive some value in boasting," I think you would have seen that nothing you have has the authority to make that true. Being that there is no authority to make it true it is not necessarily true, so your back-linking across all possible worlds is fucking retarded.

Boasting about one's own superior intelligence is not perceived by the audience as the speaker having superior intelligence. The audience, instead, thinks the speaker is vane, megalomaniacal, and arrogant. Since you, as the speaker, claim to not particularly care what the audience thinks regarding your intelligence, why do you boast?

This is one of the main reasons science operates as it does.
Error checking is no joke.

Confirmation bias. I can think of no better description for your attitude: "a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true."

Your preconception and hypothesis is that you're of superior intelligence... and you apparently reinforce this hypothesis by your presence/participation in this forum; you favor this forum because from your perspective it confirms your existing hypothesis.

Are you truly of superior intelligence? I don't know, but the totality of your comments suggest you're merely vane and arrogant.. not necessarily of superior intelligence. The vanity and arrogance in your comments mask any intelligent thoughts that are occasionally made.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Boasting about one's own superior intelligence is not perceived by the audience as the speaker having superior intelligence.
The audience, instead, thinks the speaker is vane, megalomaniacal, and arrogant. Since you, as the speaker, claim to not particularly care what the audience thinks regarding your intelligence, why do you boast?

Read what you just wrote.

No, never mind. It would probably take you a month to find it.
Here:

A. Boasting does not X.
B. I claim to care not about X.
C. I boast.

Then you ask: Given A, B; why C? (Implying that C is a contradiction)

If I care not about X, and Y does not X, and I Y, then this is in perfect alignment with me not caring about X.

Jesus.

1+1=2
"But why does it equal 3??"
It doesn't.
Let's hear it for basic math time on P&N. :\

Your preconception and hypothesis is that you're of superior intelligence... and you apparently reinforce this hypothesis by your presence/participation in this forum; you favor this forum because to you it confirms your existing hypothesis.

Again, read what you just wrote.

No, again, never mind. I'll spell it out again.
Confirmation bias is about blindly missing evidence. If the people here are providing evidence, that isn't missing evidence in regards to them. I am saying that I am smarter than them and you have just agreed with me, because to actively and precisely place myself into a position where I will only be receiving confirming evidence means that I know our relative positions -- that I know what that missing evidence is (evidence of equality or superiority) and I have avoided it. In order to have actively avoided it with such consummate skill I cannot be blind to it.

Yes, this forum provides me plenty of the absence of evidence of equality or superiority to me. And I know it.
To know what is in that void and to know that it will not be present is not confirmation bias.

I know where I can find disproof of |superiority|. There are gathering places of my equals. This is not one of them, and that being the simple truth does not mean that I am unaware of these other places.

 

[zsdersw]

Read what you just wrote.

No, never mind. It would probably take you a month to find it.
Here:

A. Boasting does not X.
B. I claim to care not about X.
C. I boast.

Then you ask: Given A, B; why C? (Implying that C is a contradiction)

If I care not about X, and Y does not X, and I Y, then this is in perfect alignment with me not caring about X.

Jesus.

1+1=2
"But why does it equal 3??"
It doesn't.
Let's hear it for basic math time on P&N. :\

If you don't care whether others here perceive you to be of superior intelligence, why do you continue to assert that you have superior intelligence? Repeatedly mentioning an alleged attribute of yourself that you don't care if others acknowledge or recognize serves no purpose other than to be an expression of vanity and arrogance.

Again, read what you just wrote.

No, again, never mind. I'll spell it out again.
Confirmation bias is about blindly missing evidence. If the people here are providing evidence, that isn't missing evidence in regards to them. I am saying that I am smarter than them and you have just agreed with me, because to actively and precisely place myself into a position where I will only be receiving confirming evidence means that I know our relative positions -- that I know what that missing evidence is (evidence of equality or superiority) and I have avoided it. In order to have actively avoided it with such consummate skill I cannot be blind to it.

Yes, this forum provides me plenty of the absence of evidence of equality or superiority to me. And I know it.
To know what is in that void and to know that it will not be present is not confirmation bias.

I know where I can find disproof of |superiority|. There are gathering places of my equals. This is not one of them, and that being the simple truth does not mean that I am unaware of these other places.

Actually, no, I didn't agree with you. I said that you believe yourself to be of higher intelligence.. as it is your preconception/hypothesis. What purpose for you does browsing/commenting in this forum serve? To reinforce your hypothesis that you're of superior intelligence via your biased interpretation of this forum's participants.

 

[DominionSeraph]

If you don't care whether others here perceive you to be of superior intelligence, why do you continue to assert that you have superior intelligence?

It keeps coming up.

Repeatedly mentioning an alleged attribute of yourself that you don't care if others acknowledge or recognize serves no purpose other than to be an expression of vanity and arrogance.

It's taken you this long to figure that out? Didn't I say two pages back that this is my toilet and that having such serves me?

Actually, no, I didn't agree with you. I said that you believe yourself to be of higher intelligence.. as it is your preconception/hypothesis.

You went further than just speaking of me when you mentioned evidence. Evidence comes from outside. The acknowledgement that I can manipulate my browsing position to measuredly manipulate the flow of incoming evidence is more than just a mention of a belief in a vacuum.
Your agreement that P&N will give me evidence of inferiority and nothing else (which you confused as being confirmation bias) is aligned with the hypothesis that superiority = true. If it was false there would be no such guarantee. If I was one of the shit rabble then I would be assailed by evidence of superior shit -- there would be no such perfect alignment with superiority=true.

By saying all of the evidence comes from below me you have placed me at the top. (assuming the evidence isn't playing games.) Looks that way from here, too; so your model of my viewing position is perfect in that regard.

Good job.

As my supreme arrogance would likely cause anyone of halfway decent intelligence to try to show me up (see: your reason for getting into this), and as none of those have managed to climb higher than my nut sack, it doesn't look like the evidence is playing games.


I'll acknowledge an equal when one pops up. But if one does he probably won't stick around. As I have said, this place is intellectually barren.

 

[boomerang]

I've been kind of following this thread and seeing what other people had to say about this. This thread got derailed fast though.

However, my opinon is kudo's the the professor personally. Education and learning is about "Knowledge" in all forms. Anyone who wants to stop or contained knowledge has issues in my book.

First off, this quiz was meant as a mental exercise to illustrate a point. Mental exercise sadly is something that many posters I feel lack around here.

The point of the exercise was to reflect the changes within our own minds without conscience direction as we hit adolescence.

For example, if you take that quiz and gave it to a bunch of 4 year olds. They would more than likely get the "actual" answers to each question on that quiz. Younger children brain development has not usually grown to accept sexual thought patterns yet. So they would not see the questions as innuendo but literal interpretations.

However, as we age and puberty kicks in, our minds like our bodies go through transformation. Something most people never see or even realize. We can see the changes going on the outside of our bodies and we know that we get some new urges, like being attracted to the opposite sex for example, but we don't realize how fully transformed we become from our childhood years.

True, the teacher could have just stated what I said above, but do you think that would have drove the point home as well? Demonstrations of a subject that is being taught is a vastly superior teaching method than to lecture out only facts.

This quiz was not compromising morals. It was not telling kids to go do anything they shouldn't be doing. It was not overboard in my opinion. The fact that some shut-in prudes get their assholes all puckered up any time the word "sex" is used around one of their "children" is a disservice to those children.

Wow, that's quite a lot of justification for an email.

I'm sure somewhere in this country there's a professor earning a living teaching a course on viral emails. And I'm equally certain there's a bunch of dopes sitting in class thinking they're getting an education.

 

[zsdersw]

It keeps coming up.

Not really.. you keep asserting it, whether it comes up or not.

It's taken you this long to figure that out? Didn't I say two pages back that this is my toilet and that having such serves me?

No, I figured that out a while ago. Not sure why it serves you, though. People of truly superior intelligence do not boast about it as you do. They articulate dispassionately without splicing in their own pride in their intelligence or their disgust of others. That's not what you do here.

You went further than just speaking of me when you mentioned evidence. Evidence comes from outside. The acknowledgement that I can manipulate my browsing position to measuredly manipulate the flow of incoming evidence is more than just a mention of a belief in a vacuum.
Your agreement that P&N will give me evidence of inferiority and nothing else (which you confused as being confirmation bias) is aligned with the hypothesis that superiority = true. If it was false there would be no such guarantee. If I was one of the shit rabble then I would be assailed by evidence of superior shit -- there would be no such perfect alignment with superiority=true.

By saying all of the evidence comes from below me you have placed me at the top. (assuming the evidence isn't playing games.) Looks that way from here, too; so your model of my viewing position is perfect in that regard.

Good job.

As my supreme arrogance would likely cause anyone of halfway decent intelligence to try to show me up (see: your reason for getting into this), and as none of those have managed to climb higher than my nut sack, it doesn't look like the evidence is playing games.

P&N provides no evidence that you're of superior intelligence relative to others who participate in it, or that others who participate in it are of inferior intelligence relative to you. It is all a game; a game in which winning doesn't suggest superior intelligence and in which losing doesn't suggest inferior intelligence. The only things that do suggest either superior or inferior intelligence are matters of real consequence. Internet forums are not matters of real consequence.

I'll acknowledge an equal when one pops up.

Doubtful.

 

[shira]

I've been on boards where I've put 8 hours straight into constructing a single paragraph. It is worth it to put such effort into things when it has been established that you're going to get a well thought out, deep reply.

Please provide a link. Or if you prefer, please post a copy of a single paragraph that required 8 straight hours of effort on your part.

 

[PeshakJang]

Please provide a link. Or if you prefer, please post a copy of a single paragraph that required 8 straight hours of effort on your part.

Start paragraph -> masturbate to cartoon characters for 7 hours -> eat a Hot Pocket -> grab a diet Dr. Pepper -> finish paragraph -> masturbate to more cartoon characters.

I can see that taking 8 hours in his case.

 

[DominionSeraph]

No, I figured that out a while ago. Not sure why it serves you, though. People of truly superior intelligence do not boast about it as you do. They articulate dispassionately without splicing in their own pride in their intelligence or their disgust of others.

No, you're confusing the point of peak differential evidence with the thing. We act that way a lot because it serves us. Logic is widely agreed upon: Even the ignoramus who reacts with nothing but mindless programmed responses 99% of the time breaks down to using the best procedural thinking he knows how to when things get really specific in an uncharted area. His thinking is full of uncorrected fallacies but he does understand the basic usefulness of the procedure.

Logical thinking is an area where smart people have insurmountable advantages. We have refined the discipline to a extraordinary degree, and it is the contrast of refinement where it is most clearly obvious that we are different from the rabble whose logical faceplants show that they can't even string two thoughts together. But this does NOT mean that we are limited to the mode that most clearly shows our superiority. There are things that travel by other pathways, and to be aware of and to embrace these other sides does not reduce one's IQ.

Doubtful.

Yes, I've noticed that your system doesn't appear to be very robust.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Please provide a link. Or if you prefer, please post a copy of a single paragraph that required 8 straight hours of effort on your part.

Last time I revisited the forum where I did most of my serious work, they only had the option to view posts from the last 180 days. Search didn't bring up any of my old stuff, either.
Hmmm... looking at it now, "Down for maintenance, be back shortly," which also shows up on Google's cache from Jan 11th. Methinks the old P&R may be dead.

Ugh, I was going to post something about Plantinga's ontological argument since that's a tricky little devil that's wrong in many ways, but I'm too distracted.
Throat feels like I'm wearing a too-tight collar. Inside of my ears feels like they're swelling. Heart racing.
Been having these spells on and off for a week now. Guess it's doctor time.
This shit's fucked. Never felt anything like it before.

E: Tested positive for strep. Good to know what it is.
But so ends the streak of 14 years without an illness.

 

[zsdersw]

No, you're confusing the point of peak differential evidence with the thing. We act that way a lot because it serves us. Logic is widely agreed upon: Even the ignoramus who reacts with nothing but mindless programmed responses 99% of the time breaks down to using the best procedural thinking he knows how to when things get really specific in an uncharted area. His thinking is full of uncorrected fallacies but he does understand the basic usefulness of the procedure.

Why does it serve you?

Logical thinking is an area where smart people have insurmountable advantages. We have refined the discipline to a extraordinary degree, and it is the contrast of refinement where it is most clearly obvious that we are different from the rabble whose logical faceplants show that they can't even string two thoughts together. But this does NOT mean that we are limited to the mode that most clearly shows our superiority. There are things that travel by other pathways, and to be aware of and to embrace these other sides does not reduce one's IQ.

To constantly employ them in communications to others, in any venue, may not reduce your IQ, but it certainly doesn't make the case for its superiority.

Yes, I've noticed that your system doesn't appear to be very robust.

I've noticed that robust systems are very often overshadowed by the system operator's arrogance, with yours being Exhibit A.

 

[werepossum]

Why does it serve you?

To constantly employ them in communications to others, in any venue, may not reduce your IQ, but it certainly doesn't make the case for its superiority.

I've noticed that robust systems are very often overshadowed by the system operator's arrogance, with yours being Exhibit A.

Dude, seriously. You're arguing with someone with an anime character avatar. You're better than that.

 

[3chordcharlie]

You know, there is one group of reasonably intelligent folk who do brag about their mental superiority.

Cartoon criminal masterminds, who normally have a scheme to take over the world, and also kidnap and bang the hot cartoon chick.

So DS, now that we've caught on to your nefarious scheme, how about you withdraw and come up with a new one for the next episode.

 

[PeshakJang]

You know, there is one group of reasonably intelligent folk who do brag about their mental superiority.

Cartoon criminal masterminds, who normally have a scheme to take over the world, and also kidnap and bang the hot cartoon chick.

So DS, now that we've caught on to your nefarious scheme, how about you withdraw and come up with a new one for the next episode.