Papist wrote:@site I think your therapist got it wrong. Between your good people skills (making APD unlikely) and the various emotional benders I have seen you go on, I would classify you as a narcissist.
Is narcissism not a characteristic of both sociopathic and psychopathic individuals?
Edit: additionally, good people skills (aka the ability to manipulate) are another indication.
My emotional benders as you put them are not emotionally fueled, but could be easily interpreted as such. I think these are your primary reasons for your assumption.
Papist wrote:@oats13. You are talking about intelligence as if it is a physical object we can measure, but it isn't that straightforward. This is a problem the social sciences have been grappling with since their inception - how do we quantify and analyze that which cannot readily be quantified and analyzed? Numerous studies have concluded that there are in fact many types of intelligence; IQ tests only measure a handful (and even those readings are questionable), and most of the others aren't measurable (social intelligence is a thing, but how do you quantify how good someone is at interacting with other people?). It's just not as simple as one person having "more of something" than another.
I entirely disagree for instance 'emotional intelligence' is simply called 'empathy' etc. Intelligence tests classically measure the information processing ability required to decipher the most prevalent forms in which information is presented to us- numerically, linguistically and symbolically- a generalised intelligence hence Spearmans' G factor which has by far the highest coefficient of all standards used- the problem isn't what is being measured as in fact our intelligence IS contained within a physical structure- our brain, and some people simply do have more than others in terms of size and performance, but rather the problem is what do the measurements mean not in terms of their own standards but in relation to other standards.
You actually could quantify how good various people are at interacting with other people if you really wanted to and you would end up with the same set of problems.
Opening up new areas such as gardners' 'Multiple Intelligences' doesn't necessarily undermine the Factoral Analysis of Spearman- it just complicates it.
We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women created by the you know, you know the thing.
Papist wrote:@site I think your therapist got it wrong. Between your good people skills (making APD unlikely) and the various emotional benders I have seen you go on, I would classify you as a narcissist.
Are you a psychiatrist/psychologist by chance? If not, then why are you diagnosing him? I wish metis was here, as he would straighten out the clowns here.
To the topic: I don know, so I voted yes on the off chance that I am.
Papist wrote:@oats13. You are talking about intelligence as if it is a physical object we can measure, but it isn't that straightforward. This is a problem the social sciences have been grappling with since their inception - how do we quantify and analyze that which cannot readily be quantified and analyzed? Numerous studies have concluded that there are in fact many types of intelligence; IQ tests only measure a handful (and even those readings are questionable), and most of the others aren't measurable (social intelligence is a thing, but how do you quantify how good someone is at interacting with other people?). It's just not as simple as one person having "more of something" than another.
I entirely disagree for instance 'emotional intelligence' is simply called 'empathy' etc. Intelligence tests classically measure the information processing ability required to decipher the most prevalent forms in which information is presented to us- numerically, linguistically and symbolically- a generalised intelligence hence Spearmans' G factor which has by far the highest coefficient of all standards used- the problem isn't what is being measured as in fact our intelligence IS contained within a physical structure- our brain, and some people simply do have more than others in terms of size and performance, but rather the problem is what do the measurements mean not in terms of their own standards but in relation to other standards.
You actually could quantify how good various people are at interacting with other people if you really wanted to and you would end up with the same set of problems.
Opening up new areas such as gardners' 'Multiple Intelligences' doesn't necessarily undermine the Factoral Analysis of Spearman- it just complicates it.
[/spoiler]
There is this opinion with regards to understanding concepts and constructs. If it is possible to model it or create an algorithmic version of it, then you are close to realising what it is. Intelligence fits well this idea. Attempts in AI have been fruitful, however, they are by no means complete or independent. Usually, such computers are made to fulfil certain tasks, even though it feels as if they are "thinking" themselves, hence intelligence. Also, don't forget that performance in intelligence tests can be improved. A person brain can be changed to fit this training. Intelligence is dynamic. It is yet to be conquered as a fully understood concept and therefore be measured properly.
deleted_user wrote:Nah man he literally believes this shit. Fuck that.
Why is this about site? What I quoted is your question about you being the only one not willing to consider killing 3.5 billion people. And the point is that we're not considering that. The discussion is about what would happen afterwards and about how to measure intelligence.
deleted_user wrote:Nah man he literally believes this shit. Fuck that.
Why is this about site? What I quoted is your question about you being the only one not willing to consider killing 3.5 billion people. And the point is that we're not considering that. The discussion is about what would happen and about how to measure intelligence.
the discussion is about whether or not you consider yourself to be a sociopath