Nie lubię ludzi, którzy są online i nie odezwą się nawet słowem, chociaż to wcale nie boli i nie zajmuje aż tak dużo czasu.
Może to moja wina, bo jestem zbyt otwarta, zbyt transparentna, zbyt rozmowna. Może powinnam przestać być sobą i zacząć zachowywać się tak, jakby mi było wszystko jedno. Może powinnam przestać być sobą i zacząć być jak reszta świata.
Może powinnam dostosować moje oczekiwania do tej rzeczywistości, w której wszystko jest powierzchowne, tymczasowe.
Może powinnam nauczyć się być w stanie zadowolić się kimś tak trochę, nie zupełnie.
Zobaczyć, co się stanie, jeśli raz nie odezwę się pierwsza. Świat się skończy?
Albo zostawić to wszystko i wszystkich, i nie próbować już nigdy-nigdy więcej.
Ja się odzywam komentując tu! Jesteś online i nie odzywasz się ani słowem na moje komentarze. Dlaczego? :(
OdpowiedzUsuńŻart żart, słowo słowo. :)
Bo jesteś jak manekin, bez twarzy, bez imienia.
UsuńByć może nawet nie istniejesz.
Fakt. Prawda. Względnie gorzka pigułka. Dziękuję. Choć anonimowe działania bywają pozytywne, moje nie zasługują na uznanie.
UsuńZnajdź mi kogoś, kto będzie mną zainteresowany dłużej niż pięć minut.
UsuńWell I'm not the one to promise anyone that there's someone out there for him/her for sure. Dying alone, unloved, and miserable is real and not at all 'depending on your own choices'. (This made me remember about that 'Justine' novel that I read about on Wiki when I was young, egdy, and 22.) But I can tell you that, as little as that means considering it's half of the population, you are an above-average person in most respects I've got to observe.
UsuńWhat made you think I'm anyhow "above average"?
UsuńBTW I'd like to respond to your mail but I haven't got any email address of yours. Can I post it here?
>anyhow
UsuńDon't you dare go down the path of denial of your intelligence (I'm going even to say it directly: your IQ. Eat it, denialists of its importance.). As soon as you minimize your talents by saying 'eveyone can accomplish what I have' -- a degree, learning many languages, even an effing decent musical taste (even if I've personally never really heard much in Opeth) -- you're giving the message that it's 'own choice and dilligence and such' that that depends on, to the effect of minimizing the sense of urgency of unearthing those accomplishments' true, nurtural (upbringing, schooling) and, more importantly, natural (genetic) causes. The society can not really be elevated without eugenic. The more you contribute to the free will fallacy that 'people's achievements depend on their own efforts', the more likely it is that people will continue finding exhortations such as 'you just need to try harder!' meaningful advice, disregarding the fact that it is in practice extremely impotent. They will unfairly blame unachieving people on 'just failing to heed that advice and apply themselves', whereas the true reason of low IQ remains genetic, and continues to wreak suffering, impair those low IQ people's health, decrease their lifespans, subject them to crime and poverty, and infinitely more.
Yyyes you can go ahead.
Oh wow. I'm just gonna say I'm flattered.
UsuńA oto rzeczony email.
UsuńDrogi A.,
Twoje komentarze w niczym mi nie przeszkadzają. Wręcz przeciwnie - zwykle dają do myślenia. Ja z reguły rzadko odpowiadam na komentarze. To jest dużo trudniejsze, gdy komentujących nie sposób rozróżnić - dostaję informację, że "Anonimowy" dodał komentarz. To nie pomaga. Mam wrażenie, że skoro ktoś nie podpisał się nawet imieniem, to odpowiadanie na taki komentarz jest jak rozmowa z duchem.
Jestem dzisiaj w dość kiepskim stanie, stąd taka kwaśna odpowiedź. Przepraszam.
Miłego wieczoru.
M.
Well your music taste really is not THAT good.
UsuńNie musisz skracać mojego imienia do "A." -- nie wstydzę się jego pełnego brzmienia, tj. "Anonim". ;)
UsuńI see. Thank you a lot. Cheers and, um, I personally stuff my face when in low spirits, but that's probably not very recommendable to a woman.
I think I'm just gonna go to sleep for now. And do some shopping tomorrow. Nothing makes me happier than new t-shirt with Minions.
UsuńI'm confident that the range of things that can make you happy will continue to expand.
UsuńGood night.
I think I'd like that, yeah.
UsuńSleep tight.
@Anonimowy27 maja 2016 23:22
OdpowiedzUsuńPeople's achievements partially depend on their own efforts, being an lazy idiot with a high IQ myself to prove that theory lol.
Dear Igor,
Usuńyou'll never understand the pain of having to come up with creative ways to ridicule the incessant fallacies of anecdotal personal exceptions of 'I know a smart/stupid guy who's a failure/success', of nonsensical separation of IQ from its correlates with 'IQ means nothing in itself' or 'IQ is meaningless if you don't use it', of 'IQ doesn't matter, what matters is that you apply it' which betrays utter ignorance of the concept of predictive power (the two senses of 'mattering'), of 'effort trumps IQ' which is an unfalsifiable tautology of the form of 'the best guarantee of success is you ensuring it yourself', of 'IQ doesn't guarantee that I...' which betrays ignorance of the breadth of its protective range, of the rejection of responsibility that the term 'intelligence' implies behind the 'I'm an idiot' disclaimer of yours, the way it adds an insult to an injury of truly, literally retarded people, the 'true intelligence is not IQ, it's just knowing how to ensure to be happy' redifinition into a definition that's unoperational, and insofar as it is operational, it is just a correlate of IQ, of 'true intelligence is mental fluiditiy' smoke screen as such 'fluidity' as soon as tested is a correlate of g, of 'intelligence cannot be defined' misunderstanding definitions needn't be verbal, of... dozens more... infinitely.
tl;dr you are what politeness regrettably prohibits me from saying on the Cat's blog. Not even anticipating your errors is entertaining any more.
Not even the irony of my 90 constantly bearing the burden of debunking the misconceptions of your, let me take a shot, 140-145 in school but not tested since (and no, this is not implicit ridicule of high school testing, not with yours truly)... not even this irony adds any spice to the general tedium and disillusionment anymore.
UsuńIn short, the nearly choreographed amount of fallacious knee-jerk reactions that even ever putting the letters 'I' and 'Q' together causes truly warrants abolition of that abbreviation and just using 'g' instead.
UsuńAll the above is just pure speculation about how I might think about IQ, as you apparently missed the word "partially". In fact I am actually quite a fan of eugenics (or neoeugenics as you like it - http://www.neoeugenics.net/ )
OdpowiedzUsuńAlso you are wrong about the word "idiot" : An idiot, dolt, dullard or (archaically) mome is a person perceived to be lacking intelligence, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way (wiki). - The second part of that definition fits perfectly.
A blog is not a science paper, therefore I don't feel really obliged to defend my statement, but it's hardly an anecdotal personal exception, rather years of observation and realizing the difference between "wise" and "intelligent". I think you might still be confusing those two.
PS Nah, just 118-120, Mensa tested on 3 separate tests a decade ago. Probably lower now ;)
PS2 Using other punctuation than a comma might actually make your first sentence readable.
Oh wow, a reply. Like I didn't get one of those before.
UsuńInsisting at any sort of significance of the strawman of 'waah that's not what *I personally* think' as though I weren't pointing out in that post what the general population thinks is tired. Not to mention that you *do*, in fact, share those misconceptions.
Half-adopting a fallacy doesn't make it half-true. As soon as you concede the validity of predicating success on 'your own effort' instead of nature and nurture to any degree, you are guilty of to that degree sidestepping empirical observation and being content with things that are not even wrong.
Bringing up extended senses of words such as 'idiot' is not funny, particularly in the context of this discussion explicitly being IQ. You don't even need to remember that the very term idiocy used to denote one of the medical ranges of mental retardation.
Any distinction between 'wise' and 'intelligent' is meaningless. A term is meaningful insofar as it has valid/reliable tests for it; you can arrive at no definition of 'wisdom' which is not (1) platitudinal ('always doing the right thing rather than the wrong thing'), (2) circular ('open-mindedness', 'adaptability', 'discernment', ...), (3) (as I said) a correlate of IQ -- a test that basically measures IQ, except that it doesn't predict as many different life outcomes. 'Wisdom' is a worthless term that people mention when they feel the need for the 'no true' fallacy: 'no IQ is true intelligence/wisdom'. Not realizing that there's simply no life factor as wide-reaching as IQ. Feel free to prove me wrong -- there've been written articles on the repeated failures to do just that.
Your transparent jab of 'my IQ is lower now', hoping to in an equivocal manner connote that 'IQ is not reliable' while you'd on the surface level insist that what you just meant is just that it decreases with age, is not funny either.
'Unreadable' is what people accuse sentences of being when they're smart enough to realize that 'ungrammatical' does not strictly speaking fit.
I shouldn't have replied. I mean, to that post of yours in addition to the first one.
Let me still restate the social irresponsibility of minizmizing IQ's validity through saying that 'it's not TRUE intelligence', undefining the latter term into meaninglessness such as 'true i. is always knowing the best course of action at the moment' or 'true i. is wisdom'. Keeping people from equating intelligence with IQ keeps them from realizing first its validity and then its heredity: the old 'I think IQ is meaningless because I don't know it's relationships, I don't read the studies describing its relationships because I think it's meaningless' circle.
UsuńIt's been such a time that I discussed meaningfully that I feel I might be missing whole stretches of people's wrong or harmful thinking that I should mention, but which I no longer pay notice to.
Of course, eventually, it all comes down to personal cowardice: as soon as people acknowledged IQ's validity, they would be obliged to act to increase it on the nurture/nature level or at least educate people about the necessity of it and infeasibility of the other methods, face the flak from the stupid, as well as put their own intellects to use, understanding now their rarity and the unlikelihood of other people being able to do the things he/she can. Thence the egalitarian misdefinitions of intelligence, thence 'multiple intelligences', thence 'IQ cannot be/is culturally defined' and all that trash.
Usuń@Anonimowy28 maja 2016 16:48
OdpowiedzUsuńI seriously recommend masturbating from time to time. It helps to relieve stress and focus on other things than arguing with strangers on the net.
Have a nice day!
This is the exact kind of seemingly innocent and even justified ridicule that, amplified through enough social approval of it, results in the neglect of the subject of IQ that results in preventably (in (eu)genetic terms) stupid people breaking their legs, losing their homes, getting their house implements ruined, getting their children killed, and so on. It is this very kind of reaction that leads to this. Let not the indirectness of it absolve you from responsibility.
UsuńAlso, don't be disingenuous. When I say I despise you for your disingenuous 'have a nice day', I am being honest.
(You are also being obviously short-sighted when you dismiss my comments as a waste of time, not realizing that every time I choose to comment, I i.a. practice making my points conciser and more comprehensive. But arbitrary assertions of irrelevance like that are a given in human discussion.)
Usuń