The threads on this forum

By the way, the names of the three people that I have ignored in this thread have all been in lowercase letters. I wonder if that particular affectation signifies anything.

Jadeite wrote:As a schizoid, why exactly is it that you have a dislike for other people? Is it not because of their crude, predictable behavior? And yet it is the crudest, most predictable threads, and the invitations to the basest, most self-indulgent discussion that accrue the most responses and views.

My dislike for people actually has nothing to with their crude, predictable behavior. My dislike stems on both a purely visceral level and an idealistic level. On a visceral level, I experience negative sensations from being around people. On an idealistic level, I perceive most people as being maliciously self-centered when I would prefer this not to be true.

Kabuhi wrote:I don't think you're wrong in stating that these threads largely lack intelligent substance.

On this forum though, I don't make the effort to be as concise and analytical as I could be. It's more important to me to make someone laugh than to present the most perfect argument. Ultimately in life, there's no reward for being the most intelligent or for making the best arguments. As a result, intelligence is not something I'm greatly fixated on. Wanting to demonstrably be the most intelligent is another ego-game for nons as far I'm concerned; it's not for me. The only times I'll exercise my full abilities are when I think the topic of discussion is of the utmost importance, which is very rare.

A respectable post, but you make the mistake of attaching emotional signification to words. I am already aware of what you say, that there is no cosmic or transcendent reward for being intelligent; for that matter, there is no such reward for being stillborn or Paris of Troy. That is why I am frank and adhere to the dictionary and scientific principles in my argument; I attach no great triumph to high intelligence. Nevertheless it has far-reaching consequences in my desires, perceptions, and perspective on my life, as you may imagine. Also, I have no desire to make people laugh; I am a rational person, therefore I am selfish. I do, however, amuse myself by the superficial discussions on here; as I said, I have read thirty-four pages of this forum, picking and choosing the topics that interested me.

The lack of further expansion on topics, for example, jobs or enforced social interaction, demonstrates a profound lack of intelligence, in general. It mimics too closely common social conventions and only loosely disguises the underlying deficiency.

Jadeite wrote:

Kabuhi wrote:I don't think you're wrong in stating that these threads largely lack intelligent substance.

On this forum though, I don't make the effort to be as concise and analytical as I could be. It's more important to me to make someone laugh than to present the most perfect argument. Ultimately in life, there's no reward for being the most intelligent or for making the best arguments. As a result, intelligence is not something I'm greatly fixated on. Wanting to demonstrably be the most intelligent is another ego-game for nons as far I'm concerned; it's not for me. The only times I'll exercise my full abilities are when I think the topic of discussion is of the utmost importance, which is very rare.

A respectable post, but you make the mistake of attaching emotional signification to words. I am already aware of what you say, that there is no cosmic or transcendent reward for being intelligent; for that matter, there is no such reward for being stillborn or Paris of Troy. That is why I am frank and adhere to the dictionary and scientific principles in my argument; I attach no great triumph to high intelligence. Nevertheless it has far-reaching consequences in my desires, perceptions, and perspective on my life, as you may imagine. Also, I have no desire to make people laugh; I am a rational person, therefore I am selfish. I do, however, amuse myself by the superficial discussions on here; as I said, I have read thirty-four pages of this forum, picking and choosing the topics that interested me.

The lack of further expansion on topics, for example, jobs or enforced social interaction, demonstrates a profound lack of intelligence, in general. It mimics too closely common social conventions and only loosely disguises the underlying deficiency.

Ok whatever. I'm guessing you're bipolar and not schizoid.

What a retarded thread. Talking about intelligence but never giving it a definition.

Jadeite wrote:Well, we have already established that because there is little-to-no correlation between schizoids and intelligence, and because most of the world is unintelligent, most schizoids therefore are unintelligent. The one paradox is that a preference for isolation is and will be uniformly that of the modern intelligent man. It may even be said that this is the greatest gap in and signifier of intelligence between an unintelligent and an intelligent man. Why then does the schizoid, despite having made this great leap, continue to be unintelligent?

Your confusion may stem from the many assumptions you make when posing your questions. I can identify at least two assumptions here:

1. Only modern intelligent men prefer isolation.

2. Intelligent men invariably seek isolation.

Furthermore, it seems odd that you would end your paragraph with a question that was answered by the very first statement in that same paragraph. There is no paradox when we remove your unjustified presumptions.

If this is not what you are saying, then it please state your point more concisely. There is no correlation between long-windedness and intelligence.

Jadeite wrote:As a schizoid, why exactly is it that you have a dislike for other people? Is it not because of their crude, predictable behavior? And yet it is the crudest, most predictable threads, and the invitations to the basest, most self-indulgent discussion that accrue the most responses and views.

You have again introduced unjustified assumptions into your question. This time the assumption is that schizoids dislike people. This is not necessarily true. I do not dislike most people; I am simply indifferent to them.

Jadeite wrote:That you choose to use them shows that you like to communicate with others in an emotional and familiar manner; I do not. That you choose to speak specifically of me rather than my ideas shows that you are more interested in people than ideas; I am not.

Ok, but all this is of little relevance right now, as it doesn't in the least clarify the point you are trying to get across. Or the question you are posing, I'm not really sure anymore.

Anepsios wrote:Ok, but all this is of little relevance right now, as it doesn't in the least clarify the point you are trying to get across. Or the question you are posing, I'm not really sure anymore.

There are no points nor any questions.
Only a great intellect that is very easily amused.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF-CkMpQtlY

Jadeite wrote:By the way, the names of the three people that I have ignored in this thread have all been in lowercase letters. I wonder if that particular affectation signifies anything.

Perhaps it has something to do with your Royal Protocol?

roscid wrote:

Jadeite wrote:Well, we have already established that because there is little-to-no correlation between schizoids and intelligence, and because most of the world is unintelligent, most schizoids therefore are unintelligent. The one paradox is that a preference for isolation is and will be uniformly that of the modern intelligent man. It may even be said that this is the greatest gap in and signifier of intelligence between an unintelligent and an intelligent man. Why then does the schizoid, despite having made this great leap, continue to be unintelligent?

Your confusion may stem from the many assumptions you make when posing your questions. I can identify at least two assumptions here:

1. Only modern intelligent men prefer isolation.

2. Intelligent men invariably seek isolation.

Furthermore, it seems odd that you would end your paragraph with a question that was answered by the very first statement in that same paragraph. There is no paradox when we remove your unjustified presumptions.

If this is not what you are saying, then it please state your point more concisely. There is no correlation between long-windedness and intelligence.

Jadeite wrote:As a schizoid, why exactly is it that you have a dislike for other people? Is it not because of their crude, predictable behavior? And yet it is the crudest, most predictable threads, and the invitations to the basest, most self-indulgent discussion that accrue the most responses and views.

You have again introduced unjustified assumptions into your question. This time the assumption is that schizoids dislike people. This is not necessarily true. I do not dislike most people; I am simply indifferent to them.

It is unfortunate that we have to discuss specific wording rather than the general idea, but in case it was too ambiguous, I will elaborate; you are right that there is one error, if not more. My intent was to say that all modern intelligent men prefer isolation. To be completely unambiguous it could also be stipulated 'modern highly intelligent men', but the definition from the Shorter OED that was quoted expresses that 'intelligence' is often used when 'superior intelligence' is what is meant; it is somewhat redundant, but unambiguous, I agree.

The points, then, are:

1) All modern highly intelligent men seek isolation
2) All modern highly intelligent men seek isolation

The second point was no different from the first. I was not implying that highly intelligent men from the past always sought isolation.

In the end, you can probably argue against the existence of that paradox, given the first statement--perhaps it is simply as is, that schizoids and intelligence are unrelated (note that I say little-to-no correlation, because I have not completely ruled out some correlation--besides, I fit the criteria for a schizoid), but it remains remarkable the coincidence that a wholly unintelligent man can somehow have one of the chief attributes of a superior man, and one which is completely at odds with society, but either for completely different reason or for reasons of which he is unaware.