Originally posted by PosTMOd
Interestingly, if you grab a random sample of people, and ask them if they think they are above average intelligence, 98% of them will say "Yes, I am above average intelligence."
The implication is that 50% of people are deluded into thinking they are above average.
Originally posted by SelfExel
[Keep in mind that all 100 people are very intelligent.
Originally posted by SelfExel
So when looking at our current social structure it's not to say that the lower social class in not intelligent, but it's that the higher class is more intelligent.
Originally posted by janiecakes
barf.
I hope you're not thinking that with a straight face. If you're thinking that with a straight face, someone should throw a brick at it.
Originally posted by SelfExel
It's the relativity that makes the function work.
Originally posted by SelfExel
I'm disregarding the anomalies, I'm making generalizations.
Originally posted by PosTMOd
It's the stupidity that makes you funny.
oh dear god.....Originally posted by SelfExel
I think you meant to say "Irony".
Originally posted by SelfExel
I think you meant to say "Irony".
Originally posted by PosTMOd
The only thing I'm afraid of is that I might injure my brain to the extent that I would not know how to spell words such as "excel", and I wouldn't know the difference between "than" and "then".
Than I would call myself SelfExel, and not understand the ironing.
Originally posted by SelfExel
It's true, my gramatical skills will be the end of me. Look away...look away.
Originally posted by PosTMOd
*Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, in effect: language and thinking are inextricably linked, thus 'mistakes' in grammar indicate underlying flaws in semantics
Originally posted by marcinm
do you agree with this hypothesis?
Originally posted by marcinm
do you agree with this hypothesis?
Originally posted by stryker
We don't have a class system. We may have people with different incomes but we don't have a class system, Europe does.
Stew
Originally posted by SelfExel
I sure don't. Knowledge is not a instantaneous, it's progressive.
Postmod:
You can look at semantics in 2 ways.
The study of language and the direct correlation of words and the ideas behind them. The other is the study of ideas/symbols without directly looking at language.
The second mode of looking at semantics comes from the notion that there are multiple modes and combinations of words that can come to the same conclusion/ idea. The second mode of semantics also illustrates that even despite flaws in semantics, the general idea being communicated can still be understood and be identified as flawed or correct.
For example when you read exel, you can extrapolate what the meaning is, when in conjuction with a string of ideas, "then" and "than" can be easily differentiated.
On another note how have you come to the conclusion that my ideas are illogical?