Autism/neurodivergence club

[Usseewa ✾ She♡Her ✾]

16 minutes ago, Deception said:

Philosophy yap for no reason (completely unhelpful but read it if u want whatever):

  Hide contents

If all of your decisions were impulsive, they would all be valid - but if only some were impulsive, things get complicated.

First of all: If all of your decisions are impulsive:

All humans take a certain amount of time, and all humans have valid decisions. All mice take a shorter amount of time, and a mouse decision is still valid to a mouse. Therefore, there is no universal amount of decision time for all decision makers.

In addition, a higher IQ person may come to decisions faster. This makes their decisions more valid, not less, so this invalidation doesn't make sense.

 

Now for the rabbit hole of only some decisions being impulsive:

You could say that the impulsive ones are invalid because they are less educated than non-impulsive ones

You could also say that they are all equally valid because using the same logic to separate the human race's decision time, you can separate an individual's decision time.

YAP YAP Yap Yap yap yap yap yap yap...

Ok now that I have said nothing in a whole lot of words, here is my real answer:

IDK

people (including mysefl) really shouldnt apologize for "ranting" or "yapping" especially not on an internet forum and especially when

some people enjoy reading longer posts because more info stuff

 

also it's usually shorter than you think, *wink*

 

(hheheh)

Edited Friday at 12:30 AM by Usseewa

[Aeoryi she/her]

5 minutes ago, Usseewa said:

Also why u say things abt iq so much

IQ is intellegence quotient: your intellect versus that which is expected for your age, then multiplied by 100, I believe. 

In terms of what it actually means it's literally just an arbitrary number, one of the many times a complex concept like intellect has been attempted to be quantified 

[Usseewa ✾ She♡Her ✾]

Just now, Aeoryi said:

IQ is intellegence quotient: your intellect versus that which is expected for your age, then multiplied by 100, I believe. 

In terms of what it actually means it's literally just an arbitrary number, one of the many times a complex concept like intellect has been attempted to be quantified 

ik what it is/means

nvm tho i was asking smth else tho but nvm it was a wee bit rude

 

some things are not built for quantification or boxes i think

[Aeoryi she/her]

1 minute ago, Usseewa said:

ik what it is/means

nvm tho i was asking smth else tho but nvm it was a wee bit rude

 

some things are not built for quantification or boxes i think

many things are not built for quantification

[BlueWildRye he/him]

I am the quantification

[Deception He/Him]

25 minutes ago, BlueWildRye said:

I am the quantification

Huh?

1 hour ago, Usseewa said:

some things are not built for quantification or boxes i think

1 hour ago, Aeoryi said:

many things are not built for quantification

True. IQ does a horrible job at representing someone. But it can still be useful as a baseline sometimes, as long as you remember it isn't a limit. My (possibly quite biased) ranking of important intelligence factors looks something like this:

Spoiler

1: Enjoyment of learning and/or determination to learn

2: Work Ethic

3: Formal education

4: A good childhood / nice parents

5: IQ

6: Money (NOT saying that being rich makes you smart. I'm saying it is very difficult to get anywhere if you can't pay for things like college, books, a computer, etc)

As you can see, IQ is pretty far down the list. But it is also the easiest one to measure, so people use it more often. That doesn't make it any better.

[Aeoryi she/her]

13 minutes ago, Deception said:

Huh?

True. IQ does a horrible job at representing someone. But it can still be useful as a baseline sometimes, as long as you remember it isn't a limit. My (possibly quite biased) ranking of important intelligence factors looks something like this:

  Reveal hidden contents

1: Enjoyment of learning and/or determination to learn

2: Work Ethic

3: Formal education

4: A good childhood / nice parents

5: IQ

6: Money (NOT saying that being rich makes you smart. I'm saying it is very difficult to get anywhere if you can't pay for things like college, books, a computer, etc)

As you can see, IQ is pretty far down the list. But it is also the easiest one to measure, so people use it more often. That doesn't make it any better.

Perhaps I'm missing the point of why we need to measure intelligence to begin with.

[Deception He/Him]

30 minutes ago, Aeoryi said:

Perhaps I'm missing the point of why we need to measure intelligence to begin with.

Because people want to know stuff, and measurements are the easiest way to visualize things, I guess? Why do people want to measure the wave lengths of light? Why do people want to measure the distance to the moon?

[CoderDrag0n8 He/They]

hi im here what happened

im the local crazy guy who started a completely unrelated to sanderson book cult

[Deception He/Him]

55 minutes ago, CoderDrag0n8 said:

hi im here what happened

im the local crazy guy who started a completely unrelated to sanderson book cult

WHAT CULT? I MUST KNOW!

[Aeoryi she/her]

1 hour ago, Deception said:

Because people want to know stuff, and measurements are the easiest way to visualize things, I guess? Why do people want to measure the wave lengths of light? Why do people want to measure the distance to the moon?

Attempting to "objectively" compare humans is just grounds for trying to determine what kinds of people are "objectively superior" which is kinda... suspect.

I have found multiple times throughout my life that people who are traditionally considered "more stupid", per say, have been some of the kindest friends I've ever had. And there are some people who are really smart who I have been friends with who have not been great at well, being friends. I value both of them equally. If I even was to endorse the idea that some people are inherently and objectively more valuable, better than others, I would be not only contradicting what my experience has led me to conclude, but I would also be dismissing the value of people as a whole. 

There are also theories of multiple intelligences that are decently supported, and your definition of intellect doesn't seem to account for that.

Put simply, there is merely little or no value when it comes to objectively comparing humans, and the entire concept of intellect kinda just falls short when you start thinking about what it actually is. 

I guess I bring this up because I think that this kind of thinking, this method of looking at people, I think it's highly ineffective and I really don't want anyone reading this thread to take away the conclusion of "higher IQ = better".

Edited Friday at 04:26 AM by Aeoryi

[Deception He/Him]

5 minutes ago, Aeoryi said:

Attempting to "objectively" compare humans is just grounds for trying to determine what kinds of people are "objectively superior" which is kinda... suspect.

I have found multiple times throughout my life that people who are traditionally considered "more stupid", per say, have been some of the kindest friends I've ever had. And there are some people who are really smart who I have been friends with who have not been great at well, being friends. I value both of them equally. If I even was to endorse the idea that some people are inherently and objectively more valuable, better than others, I would be not only contradicting what my experience has led me to conclude, but I would also be dismissing the value of people as a whole. 

There are also theories of multiple intelligences that are decently supported, and your definition of intellect doesn't seem to account for that.

Put simply, there is merely little or no value when it comes to objectively comparing humans, and the entire concept of intellect kinda just falls short when you start thinking about what it actually is. 

My ranking was mainly for the kind of intelligence that gets you a job and skill.

Yes, the theories of multiple intelligence are better.

I believe everything is objective and anything can be objectively compared, so I can't say that humans cannot be objectively compared, but what I am about to say means basically the same thing:

Humans cannot be objectively compared in a way simple enough for the human mind to understand. We are too complex and varied.

[Aeoryi she/her]

1 minute ago, Deception said:

My ranking was mainly for the kind of intelligence that gets you a job and skill.

Yes, the theories of multiple intelligence are better.

I believe everything is objective and anything can be objectively compared, so I can't say that humans cannot be objectively compared, but what I am about to say means basically the same thing:

Humans cannot be objectively compared in a way simple enough for the human mind to understand. We are too complex and varied.

I would perhaps instead argue that everything is subjective and that nothing can be considered objective. 

 

[Deception He/Him]

Just now, Aeoryi said:

I would perhaps instead argue that everything is subjective and that nothing can be considered objective. 

 

Well, I don't think we will be changing each other's minds any time soon I don't want to argue about it.

[CoderDrag0n8 He/They]

16 minutes ago, Deception said:

WHAT CULT? I MUST KNOW!

ORV

Very long, big commitment.

[Aeoryi she/her]

11 minutes ago, Deception said:

Well, I don't think we will be changing each other's minds any time soon I don't want to argue about it.

mmmm

Spoiler

I only make an effort to disagree because I fear you have a dangerous, hurtful line of thinking.

 

11 minutes ago, CoderDrag0n8 said:

ORV

Very long, big commitment.

Is that a rpg

Edited Friday at 04:44 AM by Aeoryi

[Deception He/Him]

24 minutes ago, Aeoryi said:

mmmm

Spoiler

Ok so are we just arguing in spoiler boxes now?

It's not hurtful to me. I like it when I can explain things. And I never said everything had a simple objective explanation. Just that at the base level, everything can be traced down to objective, predictable events.

[Aeoryi she/her]

8 minutes ago, Deception said:

  Hide contents

Ok so are we just arguing in spoiler boxes now?

It's not hurtful to me. I like it when I can explain things. And I never said everything had a simple objective explanation. Just that at the base level, everything can be traced down to objective, predictable events.

can we move to a PM or something 

[Deception He/Him]

1 minute ago, Aeoryi said:

can we move to a PM or something 

Ok.

[CoderDrag0n8 He/They]

9 hours ago, Aeoryi said:

mmmm

  Reveal hidden contents

I only make an effort to disagree because I fear you have a dangerous, hurtful line of thinking.

 

Is that a rpg

Book. 551 Chapters, webnovel, translated from korean.

[Deception He/Him]

On 6/5/2026 at 6:41 AM, CoderDrag0n8 said:

Book. 551 Chapters, webnovel, translated from korean.

Omniscient Reader's Viewpoint?

btw NO SPOILERS

[CoderDrag0n8 He/They]

On 6/6/2026 at 11:17 PM, Deception said:

Omniscient Reader's Viewpoint?

btw NO SPOILERS

OMG UR READING IT

Can I add you to a gc (PM with a bunch o people)

I have been recruiting peoplee to ORV for so long, check my sig

Edited Monday at 09:18 PM by CoderDrag0n8

[Deception He/Him]

1 hour ago, CoderDrag0n8 said:

OMG UR READING IT

Can I add you to a gc (PM with a bunch o people)

I have been recruiting peoplee to ORV for so long, check my sig

Not reading yet, I need to finish Elantris.

Then I probably will.

[CoderDrag0n8 He/They]

1 hour ago, Deception said:

Not reading yet, I need to finish Elantris.

Then I probably will.

Mmm tell me when you start!