Social DGames Social | V/LA |

[Wots All This Then?]

It wasnt supposed to be nabe.
But im about to finish the second thrones book.

 

[ranmaru]

Yes, we did, and thanks for that bro. I managed to lose some sleep, but also read enough to the point that I was able to do the quiz and we basically talked. So today I was fine. I also am finally matched with my advising coach, and I like her about me, because I basically want to do what she is aiming to do. (She is on track for getting her masters in social work, is aiming to teach and work with kids, all things I'm interested in while in this field)

So I'm definitely going to let her know my problems with school, especially time management and motivation, and later on we can knock out career stuff too and bam, two priorities in one.

Now to contribute my end, how are you doing with job/school? (Or aiming to do)

 

[#HBC | Nabe]

god you did grab all the good ones
gotta give a mega shoutout to Persona3 REINCARNATION soundtrack, that OST was so good. Also P4, cuz Big Band Jazz is amazing. P4 Reincarnation was **** tho.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDr_krEQNrU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpk_HhEdDO4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlp_CXvHH48
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJFmsk3MpVw

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

It's just so much worse than the original P4 soundtrack, safe for the battle themes (for the most part, some parts I don't like as much as the original), I'll give you that. But the rest of the original OST just puts down such an accurate atmosphere, and it gets broken by the Reincarnation OST imo, ofc a battle theme isn't changing much there.

As much as I love jazz, the whole feeling that the Heaven theme had is now boom gone. Feels like you're in a lounge bar, why??? It's a good new version, but not for the game.
Dislike for the Reverie remix of Nevermore is that it is so out of place compared to the rest of the game. The nice thing about the original Nevermore is that it wasn't a crying song, it was a song that reminds you of all the good times and silly adventures, which is juxtaposed against the sad scene of him leaving yet nobody having regrets, just longing for more. It was so much fun but it just can't go on. With the Reverie remix it's more like "qq im going now this sucks", no contrast.

 

[ranmaru]

Well the thing is, I don't think people realize that there is more to intelligence than what is commonly understood. Intelligence can most likely not be measured. The way that psychologist have traditionally measured intelligence with IQ is just so wrong and bad.

I think the way that most people would agree how we define intelligence is by one's capacity to learn. This can't be measured, but there are some people who you can distinctly say are intelligent. Such as yourself. From what I've seen, you have a really high learning capacity. You understand information quickly and sort that information into relevant associations with other information at a greater rate than normal. I know other people who are like this. The reason why it can't be measured though is that the capacity can vary depending on the situation. And people with a lower capacity can increase their capacity given the right circumstances.

Now the thing that I think most people don't include in their definition of intelligence are all the other aspect that require the mind/body (i.e not just ability to gain knowledge). There is emotional intelligence, inter and intra personal intelligence, verbal intelligence, coordination, discipline, and just so much more. It takes a good football player a good deal of intelligence to train their body, train their skills, train their reactions, and in-game focus. But when we usually think of intelligence, we don't really think of that. We only think of it in the academic sense.

True, I think to be wise you have to understand that you are not wise, or that you don't know everything. I know I don't, and this is why I intend to learn. And it's true, we only think of intelligence as academic, or just maybe... when it comes to engineering and just doing very 'genius' projects or something.

Another example. I think Naruto can be smart, in a way. He's smart with how he fights, he picks things up through experience, but not from explanation. As we all know, he can be a hard head and things have to be broken up for him to understand, but how he applies those things in battle, he's great at. We just focus on the 'obvious'.

 

[ranmaru]

I also think when it comes to college, you are a bit on a level playing field because unique, weird, and possibly intelligent people radiate to 'college', and it's not a bad thing either. You don't want to be the only one! Also, being with others on the same level as you, can possibly help each other get smarter by sharing your own experiences and thoughts/opinions.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Well the thing is, I don't think people realize that there is more to capitalism than what is commonly understood. Capitalism can most likely not be measured. The way that American economists have traditionally measured unemployment with factoring out discouraged workers is just so wrong and bad.

I think the way that most people would agree how we define capitalism is by one's capacity to learn how to get money. This can't be measured, but there are some people who you can distinctly say have entrepreneur qualities. Such as yourself. From what I've seen, you place a really high value on 'education' as a policy. You understand quirks quickly and sort that into relevant associations with other trends at a greater rate than normal. I know other people who are like this. The reason why it can't be measured though is because such a personality doesn't get you laid or gets you money. Although people with a lower capacity for trending patterns can increase their capacity for spot the gopher when they buy dextroamphetamines with money or tutors with money or books with money or receive a better education with money or have basic internet service to look up information thanks to money, it doesn't necessitate that they too are going to make lots of money and get laid however at this point they likely have a strong backer who has been assisting them this entire time so are likely to fulfill both conditions thanks to this money connection.

Now the thing that I think most people don't include in their definition of capitalism are all the other aspect that require the mind/body (i.e not just ability to gain knowledge). There is emotional investments, inter and intra personal investments, verbal investment, job coordination i.e. networking, discipline i.e. 'hard work', and just so much more. It costs a good capitalist a good deal of money to train their body, train their skills, train their reactions, and in-game focus to make even more money in the end. But when we usually think of capitalism, we don't really think of that. We only think of it in the academic sense.

I liked your original post and only did this to highlight a facet of why I find intelligence to be a rather cynical topic for me to discuss as I can't abstract its usage from self-gratifying wealthy 'intellectuals' who have mistaken 'gaming the system' for specialized labor and discuss intelligence as if it was some wide-spread cancer that separates the haves from the have-nots. Discussion of intelligence is a new middle-class by-word to rationalize why you are schlumming it post-high school or post-graduation. You weren't smart enough to make it big or you don't think you are good enough to play with the big boys. It is one of those middle class myths that we all bought into hand in hand with receiving an education and when we graduated with our diplomas we were told that we were entitled when we thought we deserved more. If people aren't fooled by their own lack of smarts, they are fooled by their own lack of faith in themself. Throwing their attention and rationalization into a perfect man who allows an imperfect world to continue to exist. If such an entity were to be considered a human, the immediate catch word that comes to mind is sadist rather than lord/messiah. And if you aren't fooled by a diploma or by religion, you've already been fooled by an economic system that cruelly over values material goods and under values humanity. Because even if you can avoid buying a diploma and pursue your own answers to why the world is why it is, you just can't avoid buying coffee in the morning. And that coffee is ****ing overpriced.

 

[#HBC | FrozeηFlame]

Well the thing is, I don't think people realize that there is more to intelligence than what is commonly understood. Intelligence can most likely not be measured. The way that psychologist have traditionally measured intelligence with IQ is just so wrong and bad.

I think the way that most people would agree how we define intelligence is by one's capacity to learn. This can't be measured, but there are some people who you can distinctly say are intelligent.

I'm not gonna say that IQ tests are the be all end all of intelligence measuring techniques, but this is just far too dismissive.

IQ is a real thing. Some people have a far greater capacity to understand and solve complex cognitive tasks and understand abstract spacial, logical, and numerical reasoning. Chris Langan, Robert Oppenheimer, Bill Joy, Einstein, Hawking, etc. are all evidence of that. Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers does a fantastic job of providing an insight to just how truly different the massively intelligent are in the way they can think and process information. I love Chris Langan as an example because he is an example of someone who is extraordinarily intelligent with none of drawbacks in areas we commonly see in classically high IQ folk. He has no social ***********, he is incredibly physically fit (especially in is young age, as he was able to develop himself physically to be strong enough to kick his abusive stepfather out of the house at age 14 or 15), and he literally rose from NOTHING. He started speaking at around 6 months and TAUGHT HIMSELF TO READ by age 2 or 3. That is a truly high IQ at work right there.

I'm not trying to say that there isn't more to intelligence than what IQ sets out to measure. You're right, there are such things as social intelligence, physical/kinetic intelligence, musical intelligence, practical intelligence, etc. But to claim that IQ is crap and doesn't actually measure anything significant is absolute nonsense. The tests might not be perfect, but they are definitely the best method we have of evaluating the type of cognitive capacity that is so crucial to epistemological advances in human society.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Seconding Outliers. Fascinating book.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I'm not trying to say that there isn't more to intelligence than what IQ sets out to measure. You're right, there are such things as social intelligence, physical/kinetic intelligence, musical intelligence, practical intelligence, etc. But to claim that IQ is crap and doesn't actually measure anything significant is absolute nonsense. The tests might not be perfect, but they are definitely the best method we have of evaluating the type of cognitive capacity that is so crucial to epistemological advances in human society.

So intelligence is measured by epistemological advances in human society or one's ability to bring epistemological advances to human society. Because that also sounds synonymous with capitalism.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I believe Steve Jobs was in Outliers.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Bill Gates.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

The Beatles.

 

[#HBC | FrozeηFlame]

Yeah he is, but he's really only used as a data point to showcase the similarities of the birthdates of those who became the pioneers of Silicon Valley. He get's basically one page to his name, page 66.

 

[#HBC | FrozeηFlame]

^ Thats WRT Steve Jobs. Bill Gates is featured far more prominently. I forget whether he discusses the Beatles or not.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

10,000 hours man. If you do something for 10,000 hours you'll be a success.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I own What the Dog Saw, Outliers, Tipping Point, and Blink. I also bought The Black Swan written by Nassim Taleb after I finished reading Outliers. Not to mention I have his entire online publication bookmarked. At some point I realized he was a hack. Not as a story teller, but the fact that his writing implies there is something deeper to consider when in actuality the content has simply been colored by Gladwell-ism to mystify and astonish the reader to elevate into NY Times Bestseller status right next to 50 shades. Chris Langan was on national television as being a high-IQ genius. He met his wife through a high IQ dating website. He has identified himself as being the paragon of intellectualism and it's sad that he is a man so lost in himself that he cannot see his own hubris as he darts for a straight line towards it. I mean really what is the point in looking at this guy? He's a freak show contestant.

 

[#HBC | FrozeηFlame]

lol I know you're probably joking but that's an extreme over simplification.

The 10,000 hour rule states that generally, to become an elite level master of any cognitively complex task (this distinction is extremely important and often overlooked by critics of his theory), one must spend roughly 10,000 hours performing that task with the intent of doing it well and improving.

Getting those 10,000 hours is not a SUFFICIENT condition of being successful in achieving world class mastery of such tasks, but is a NECESSARY condition of such achievement. Simply put, having done such a task for 10,000 doesn't guarantee that you'll get good at something, but if you DONT get those 10,000 hours, it is extremely unlikely that you will achieve such mastery.

The data he provides in his book in support of this theory is really quite compelling. From chess grandmasters (with the exception of Bobby Fischer who was estimated to have achieved Grandmaster status after about 8,000 hours) to professional violinists, to computer programmers, to physicists, Gladwell shows just how pervasive the rule really is.

 

[ranmaru]

Because even if you can avoid buying a diploma and pursue your own answers to why the world is why it is, you just can't avoid buying coffee in the morning. And that coffee is ****ing overpriced.

And then you get yelled at for being lazy and just wanting to 'live life' instead of doing what society tells you to do. (Living life as in, still living with mom playing dem vidya games and sipping that lemonade like a g, with no moneee)

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

lol I know you're probably joking but that's an extreme over simplification.

The 10,000 hour rule states that generally, to become an elite level master of any cognitively complex task (this distinction is extremely important and often overlooked by critics of his theory), one must spend roughly 10,000 hours performing that task with the intent of doing it well and improving.

Getting those 10,000 hours is not a SUFFICIENT condition of being successful in achieving world class mastery of such tasks, but is a NECESSARY condition of such achievement. Simply put, having done such a task for 10,000 doesn't guarantee that you'll get good at something, but if you DONT get those 10,000 hours, it is extremely unlikely that you will achieve such mastery.

The data he provides in his book in support of this theory is really quite compelling. From chess grandmasters (with the exception of Bobby Fischer who was estimated to have achieved Grandmaster status after about 8,000 hours) to professional violinists, to computer programmers, to physicists, Gladwell shows just how pervasive the rule really is.

All his books are indicative of the major flaw in (bad) American journalism. A gaping parts to whole flaw. Looking at an isolated case in order to make 'greater' commentary about people as a whole to highlight what may be possible for us collectively.

 

[ranmaru]

I sure hope that one person trying to master something with that much time does it RIGHT the first time.

lolz

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I'm really upset that frozenflame with all his LSAT lexicon and tool belt of formal fallacies refuses to deconstruct a Gladwell novel. The case study I was going to toss to Zen from Outliers was going to be the Termites. How one crazed professor collected a bunch of kids with enormously high IQ and tracked them to see where they turned out. Non-surprisingly most of them turned out to be like everyone else.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Outliers didn't touch on actual brain physiology. Concepts like brain plasticity and studies of hippocampus readjustment are oddly absent from discussions of IQ in Outliers. This leaves really solely a social commentary and human commentary on isolated case studies and in the case of the Termites a study of a case study. Social commentary is not my de facto commentary to go to for uncovering underlying truths about manifestations supposedly tied to human anatomy. I am pretty sure though that intelligence is an artificial concept. If I had to recommend something cool to look at while we're on this topic, everyone should google image a normal human brain and one that has Alzheimer's. Oh. And also the one I linked before of them slicing brains into thin pieces to be analyzed in a lab. Also open brain surgery.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

The real flaw in Gladwell's journalism if I haven't made it clear is that the people he highlights aren't inspiring because they actually are intelligent. We don't see a manifestation of their intellectual side but rather we see things that have social connotations of representing what we conceive as being intelligence. The reader themselves aren't allowed to form their own opinion whether they share Gladwell's adoration for his subject matter but are rather forced to come along for the poetry reading. IIRC the opening of the passage for Langan was that he was appearing on 1 vs. 100 and he was already identified as being a genius. It's so fake. It's so fake. It's so fake. It's so fake. It's so fake. It's so fake. It's so fake.

 

[#HBC | FrozeηFlame]

Dude, just because you don't like the way Gladwell goes about making his point doesn't mean you can just ****ing deny the strength of the numbers behind a great deal of the studies he cites.

Like dude, how can you argue against the data regarding the birthdates of the members of the elite canadian hockey teams? Literally upwards of 75% of them are born between January and April. That's not a coincidence and he's not "guiding" the reader to any conclusion. He shows the raw data, and then gives you the background that explains why that phenomenon occured.

Also, just because Gladwell introduces Langan by telling the story of his appearance on 1 v 100, doesn't mean for one second that he isn't ACTUALLY OBJECTIVELY INTELLIGENT. Have you even read his website and tried to digest his Cognitive-Theoretic Model? No amount of Gladwell bashing will change the fact that he's a ****ing genius, that he's exceptional in so many ways, and that his life could have been vastly different had he had the opportunities that Oppenheimer had in his youth.

I didn't bring Outliers up to claim it's the most accurate and significant literary work of all time. In fact, I'm rather unenthused at the idea of arguing for its significance as literature per se. The point I was trying to make was that IQ is a very real thing, and that a great deal of the points Gladwell makes and the phenomenon he discusses are very relevant to a sophisticated understanding of how we as a society have come to view what constitutes success and also why the framework we've constructed to reward that ideology is fundamentally broken and biased.

Sure, Outliers has some assailable points. But the 10,000 hour rule and the notion that some people are naturally more intelligent than others are absolutely not in that category.

 

[#HBC | FrozeηFlame]

I also don't see at all how that fact that I took and teach the LSAT has anything to do with whether or not I should deconstruct Gladwell's works. Nor, do I see how me knowing formal logical fallacies is relevant to that either. Not once in any of the arguments you just made link the alleged lack of quality of Gladwell's works to any commission of fallacy or error in logical reasoning. So yeah, I really don't see what point you're trying to make there, other than just being condescending toward me.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I also don't see at all how that fact that I took and teach the LSAT has anything to do with whether or not I should deconstruct Gladwell's works. Nor, do I see how me knowing formal logical fallacies is relevant to that either. Not once in any of the arguments you just made link the alleged lack of quality of Gladwell's works to any commission of fallacy or error in logical reasoning. So yeah, I really don't see what point you're trying to make there, other than just being condescending toward me.

So you subconsciously bring LSAT jargon into forum board discussions.

Getting those 10,000 hours is not a SUFFICIENT condition of being successful in achieving world class mastery of such tasks, but is a NECESSARY condition of such achievement.

That is the first or second day content of every LSAT class.

 

[#HBC | FrozeηFlame]

Well yeah, I spent all last year teaching the LSAT and I'm in law school now. Of course I use that kind of jargon when making points related to logic. And yeah, that is one of the first things taught in most LSAT prep courses.

I don't see how any of that is relevant to whether or not I should have the impetus to deconstruct Gladwell's works.

Also, just because it's LSAT jargon doesn't mean it's inappropriate to use outside of that context. Sufficient and necessary conditions are elements of logic in general, so obviously they are perfect descriptors for the point Gladwell was making WRT to the 10,000 hour rule, especially considering without that nuanced description the theory falls apart very quickly.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Also, just because it's LSAT jargon doesn't mean it's inappropriate to use outside of that context. Sufficient and necessary conditions are elements of logic in general, so obviously they are perfect descriptors for the point Gladwell was making WRT to the 10,000 hour rule, especially considering without that nuanced description the theory falls apart very quickly.

I'm sorry. But the fact that you're justifying this makes you a bigot.

 

[#HBC | FrozeηFlame]

"Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics."

Remind me again how justifying the use of LSAT jargon outside of an LSAT classroom setting in order to describe and clarify the specific logical function of a theory that you grossly oversimplified makes me a bigot?

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Stop. You're just making it worse.

 

[#HBC | FrozeηFlame]

I can't use specific, technical terms to describe the logical function of a theory without being a bigot? Using the proper descriptors to accurately and specifically describe exactly what a theory is contending is bigotry now?

I feel like I'm being trolled hardcore.

Sorry I pissed you off so much just by bringing up an author you clearly have some deep-seated issues with.

off to bed for me

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Frozenflame we might have been friends in a different universe. Like a universe where you're not a bigot.

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

Eh. As bigoted as that was I don't think it matters much in the argument. **** move though.

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

wow dick is censored what if my name was dick??

 

[#HBC | Kary]

So i'm going to put the kettle on, does anyone want a nice calming cup of tea?

Sugar? Milk? I can make you a green tea or something if you prefer.

And there's biscuits, if you'd like one. A selection, actually.

What more could you want, really?

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

So you subconsciously bring LSAT jargon into forum board discussions.

Pretty sure that's not abnormal. Irregular, but not abnormal given the context of who you're talking to and what forum you are on. His vocabulary is one of the reasons I have never really liked him very much (that and his initial reputation), but that's one hell of a strawman. You lightly touch on what he said and then you harp on his vocabulary and continually pursue it. Come on man, you're a little better than that.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Also, I still treasure my conversation with him where he tries to force the last word in moving a harmless conversation from the sign-ups thread to the social thread.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I'm sorry for being an asshat. That's just the way I am. Aiyyo.

Yeah I do keep my emotions bottled up a lot. I've been wondering about how other people deal with **** in their lives for awhile now. I've noticed that a lot of my coworkers, for instance, will deal with my ****ty manager by literally just yelling back at him, but I would never do that in a million years unless I "snapped" or something. Other college students get stuff off their chest by complaining to their friends. A lot of people release their frustration immediately, or at least in the near future after the point where they've became frustrated. I've been thinking about complaining to someone but I don't want to burden someone with my troubles nor do I really have that many people to open up to in the first place. There's always family but opening up to them feels so awkward.

Xonar is a pretty good person for some bounce back and he said that he would like to talk to you more on Skype about stuff. I'm pretty sure a lot of other guys wouldn't mind you venting. It happens. **** happens. I mean I don't think you would really burden anyone. If you are concerned about burdening other people then you would just strike the balance between what you need from other people, what you can give back, and what you can keep inside. I don't believe at all that you should make a drastic personality change from a premature internet call out. Nor do I believe that people make dramatic changes. If you're bottled up then you just need to somehow find a way to let loose some of the pressure and that's something you should try experiment with yourself and the people who are willing to be sounding boards for you.

Oh no, I would have to murder somebody before she would even considered kicking me out of the house. She's not that type of person. It's just that me and my mother have held a distanced relationship for awhile now. Not a bad one, just a distanced one. My mother started falling away from the family when I was around 10 years old. My dad primarily took care of me and my sisters from the ages 10 and up. My mom has somewhat interrogated her way back into my life and my sister's life (definitely my sister's life more so than mine) in recent times but because I never really interacted with her much after the age of 10 I never really gotten use to talking to her about stuff.

I prematurely assumed that there was potentially an antagonistic relationship instead of a distant one which is a lot more difficult to navigate due to the abstract relationship vibe I'm getting from your description of the two of you. Me and my mom have a fierce antagonistic relationship where I fight for independence and she fights for dominance. Although it's more stressful, we're accustomed to pissing each other off and falling short of expectations. She uses my failures as leverages to gain higher ground on where my life should go (back to school) and I've used my successes to counter her propositions and to start a career with what I've currently got (stay in employment). I don't know how you should approach it, but I've always been hasty to get the bad parts over with simply because I know the response I will be defending against is going to be crippling on multiple levels.

I value this particularly class (Calc 1) a lot because I'm using it as a measure my understanding of math. However because I didn't do the work I'm now left with an incomplete understanding of calc. A lot of my frustrations with clac arises from the algebra of it all, and not the actual calculus. I heard that Calc 2 is pretty hard so we'll see how hard the calculus concepts can actually get when I cross that road but as of now a lot of calculus concepts is just formulas. When I need to do tricky algebra **** in order to use those formulas is where I falter.

Calculus is very tough because the teachers aren't very good and if they are out of touch with their students they also tend to test harder than they teach. This coupling results in many students getting out of mathematics as soon as possible. Calculus however is a great introduction to an open-problem solving mentality that you will see a recurring theme in if you pursue engineering. You may have to review algebra if you notice a recurring trend that your tests build up from a core of basic mathematics. Also if you don't end up passing the first time, I assume that it should be offered again next semester which gives you a quick chance to jump back into the subject. As realistically as possible though I would suggest you plot out what you can cover before the finals and if possible whether you can withdraw if you don't find some mixture of optimistic realism pointing towards you making this work out.

A lot of people who I have trouble talking with are exactly like you've described them. They talk a lot about matters of little substance, so I suppose I shouldn't feel bad about not being able to make conversation with them and I'm glad that you've put it in that context for me. There are a couple, though, who are just too advanced for me, and I feel lost when trying to make conversation with them. When people start having an actual in depth discussion about politics, for example, I don't know where to comment and I feel lost in the conversation. Then again these types of conversations often occur in group settings where a other people also just kind of sit there where like three or four of the other people do most of the talking, so I suppose that I shouldn't feel too bad about this.

Hahaha politics. No I wouldn't worry about it. Calculus I is a lot more important than anything happening currently in the news.

I know that feel. It's like when I have two days off in a row. The first day I feel great, but the second day I start to dread the fact that tomorrow I will have to go to work. I don't really have anything to say to this, except that I'm planning to try to get a job on campus next semester to replace my current one.

That's awesome. Again there's no reason to put yourself through self-abuse for a job that couldn't be paying you enough to justify your dislike of it. The thing that always gets me through is the sense that I have a plan. If not a micro plan then some overall checklist of what I'm doing to get where I want to be in the big picture. I never want to be stuck anywhere and I'll go back to school once I find myself professionally stuck without any more plans to play.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

I'll stop.