Don't act like this is an ignorant woman, when it is clearly a malicious Leftist. There's no such thing as a person who can't understand a hypothetical, it's a person who's refusing to understand.
There's no such thing as a person who can't understand a hypothetical
Tell me you have never worked closely with the black community without telling me that you have never worked closely with the black community. There are hard floors in IQ below which certain mental functions cannot be performed.
While I'm sure you and your mother would fall into that category of total mental retardation; you're effectively denying something lower than even Theory of Mind.
I know you're ignorant and racist enough to want to say that black people are not more intelligent than dogs, but that is physically not the case.
There is a major difference between short-term time preference, and the inability to conceive of a hypothetical.
I'm just saying your being objectively fucking retarded is all. Your hate-boner for blacks doesn't change the fact that you a) don't understand IQ, b) don't understand what the scores correspond to. You're being absurd.
There are absolutely people who are incapable of considering and arguing a position that they do not agree with, and similarly there are people who are incapable of considering a hypothetical. Both black and white, though probably disproportionately black.
I have met people without an effective planning horizon. That is, they can't look into the future and consider how their actions will impact their future situation. Certainly not longer than the next meal.
Admittedly they were probably pretty damn stupid before they gave themselves alcohol induced brain damage; "organic brain injury".
Even then the medical profession deems them fit to make medical decisions about their own care.
I don't see it as uncalled for. It's another worthless racist interjecting himself with "Let me make this about how I fucking hate black people with my ignorance of IQ!"
I don't need my dog to come in and shit on the floor, and I don't need a stormfag to come in and shit on the thread.
I'm sure there are dozens of people incapable of having the ability to abstract to such an extreme degree that they can't understand hypotheticals. But, as I said here, those people are literally 100% disabled because they have the minds of toddlers, and can't look after themselves. The ability to understand external perspective is so rudimentary that dressing yourself is typically a more difficult cognitive task in humans.
This is like someone coming up and saying "LOL. Tell me you've never worked with fucking mayos without telling me you never worked with mayos. Look at that smelly bitch! Did you know these fucking failed experiments had to be taught how to bathe by the Maya? They conquered Europe for over a thousand years and never took one bath! I'm really very smart."
That comment isn't needed, isn't wanted, isn't correct, and isn't relevant. It is racist though. But that's not really a good thing.
On top of all of that. Are you really saying that you think that a Leftist won't argue something they don't believe or agree with? Almost every Leftist argument is entirely in bad faith as it is. Half of all Leftist arguments would meet that criteria. Shit like "Communism's never been tried" and "Critical Race Theory doesn't exist". Obviously they can understand hypotheticals... they're lying!
You seriously don't believe some people don't have the ability to think in the abstract? Are you serious or just saying she does but is malicious? I agree she's communist scum who gladly throws children to wolves if it meant her ideas win, and I find her and the ideas that have her repulsive and evil. But she's also a retard.
You seriously don't believe some people don't have the ability to think in the abstract?
I'm sure that some people can't abstract.
However, what that means is that those people are so mentally crippled that they do not have Theory of Mind. Theory of Mind is what happens naturally to 5 year olds. It means that they are so mentally crippled that they have 100% disability and a legal guardian.
It works like this:
Jack and Jane are having a picnic. They have picnic basket and a loaf of bread between them. Jack puts the loaf of bread in the basket. Jane leaves for a moment. While she's gone, Jack takes the bread and puts it behind a tree. Jane comes back.
Where does Jane think the bread is?
3 year olds do not have "Theory of Mind" and are therefore not able to abstract the concept of another person's perception; and will almost always say: "Jane thinks it's behind the tree."
5 year olds have developed Theory of Mind, and are capable of abstraction. They then proceed to gasp, and typically realize that they have 'hidden knowledge' about the location of the bread, because Jane thinks the bread is still in the basket, but it's actually behind the tree.
"Jane thinks it's behind the tree" is what happens when people can't abstract. Developing Theory of Mind late is a sign of significant Autism, and it means the child isn't going to develop properly. Never developing it makes the person a cripple. Someone with the intellectual capacity of a 3 year old can't function in society, let alone host a podcast, or drive a car out to the Timcast bunker.
This would be like asking, "what if Jack put it in the car?" and the response is, "but Jack put it behind the tree." Which is what you would get if someone could not understand a hypothetical.
Theory of mind and arguing a hypothetical are not the same thing.
No, but it seems to me that the only way to make that response is to not be able to have Theory of Mind. Theory of Mind requires you to be able to create an abstraction that represents a different view. Theory Of Mind is about whether or not the subject has the capacity for creating and then personifying an abstraction. A hypothetical still requires the capacity to abstract. If you can't abstract, you can't have Theory of Mind.
If you can't form a hypothetical scenario, we couldn't even test the scenario. They aren't literally showing people moving bread in the woods. They are starting with a hypothetical: "Imagine two people are having a picnic in the woods."
If someone didn't understand hypotheticals, they might respond with: "But we're not in the woods."
Without the capacity for hypotheticals, we can't even test Theory of Mind. Not only are we saying "this woman doesn't have the cognitive capacity of a 5 year old", we're saying she has far less than that. We're not talking about someone with sub standard IQ, we're talking about someone who is so developmentally disabled that they have nearly single digit IQs. We've entered the region of non-human animal intelligence.
Not to mention that if you watch longer parts of the conversation, she uses hypotheticals herself in order to deflect from the conversation; so obviously she can understand hypotheticals. She's just being dishonest.
Don't act like this is an ignorant woman, when it is clearly a malicious Leftist. There's no such thing as a person who can't understand a hypothetical, it's a person who's refusing to understand.
Tell me you have never worked closely with the black community without telling me that you have never worked closely with the black community. There are hard floors in IQ below which certain mental functions cannot be performed.
Quiet faggot, the adults are talking.
While I'm sure you and your mother would fall into that category of total mental retardation; you're effectively denying something lower than even Theory of Mind.
I know you're ignorant and racist enough to want to say that black people are not more intelligent than dogs, but that is physically not the case.
There is a major difference between short-term time preference, and the inability to conceive of a hypothetical.
IQ puts me in the top 1%, and unlike you, my parents weren't cousins in an arranged marriage.
You can deny reality for whatever reason you want to, but those of us who have to work and live in your little melting pot utopia get to see reality.
I'm just saying your being objectively fucking retarded is all. Your hate-boner for blacks doesn't change the fact that you a) don't understand IQ, b) don't understand what the scores correspond to. You're being absurd.
Yep, about 20 points.
The IQ he's talking about is at 20 points, not 20 points below the mean.
A crow is capable creating hypothetical scenarios in it's own head.
You really are just insufferable, Giz. Please get over yourself.
Go beat up some random black kid at the 7-11 to make yourself feel better.
In fact, call him a nigger. I give you permission.
Ok, that was uncalled for, and you're wrong here.
There are absolutely people who are incapable of considering and arguing a position that they do not agree with, and similarly there are people who are incapable of considering a hypothetical. Both black and white, though probably disproportionately black.
I have met people without an effective planning horizon. That is, they can't look into the future and consider how their actions will impact their future situation. Certainly not longer than the next meal.
Admittedly they were probably pretty damn stupid before they gave themselves alcohol induced brain damage; "organic brain injury".
Even then the medical profession deems them fit to make medical decisions about their own care.
I don't see it as uncalled for. It's another worthless racist interjecting himself with "Let me make this about how I fucking hate black people with my ignorance of IQ!"
I don't need my dog to come in and shit on the floor, and I don't need a stormfag to come in and shit on the thread.
I'm sure there are dozens of people incapable of having the ability to abstract to such an extreme degree that they can't understand hypotheticals. But, as I said here, those people are literally 100% disabled because they have the minds of toddlers, and can't look after themselves. The ability to understand external perspective is so rudimentary that dressing yourself is typically a more difficult cognitive task in humans.
This is like someone coming up and saying "LOL. Tell me you've never worked with fucking mayos without telling me you never worked with mayos. Look at that smelly bitch! Did you know these fucking failed experiments had to be taught how to bathe by the Maya? They conquered Europe for over a thousand years and never took one bath! I'm really very smart."
That comment isn't needed, isn't wanted, isn't correct, and isn't relevant. It is racist though. But that's not really a good thing.
On top of all of that. Are you really saying that you think that a Leftist won't argue something they don't believe or agree with? Almost every Leftist argument is entirely in bad faith as it is. Half of all Leftist arguments would meet that criteria. Shit like "Communism's never been tried" and "Critical Race Theory doesn't exist". Obviously they can understand hypotheticals... they're lying!
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Approved: This... is doing the opposite of that.
You seriously don't believe some people don't have the ability to think in the abstract? Are you serious or just saying she does but is malicious? I agree she's communist scum who gladly throws children to wolves if it meant her ideas win, and I find her and the ideas that have her repulsive and evil. But she's also a retard.
Yes, yes he is actually saying that.
I'm sure that some people can't abstract.
However, what that means is that those people are so mentally crippled that they do not have Theory of Mind. Theory of Mind is what happens naturally to 5 year olds. It means that they are so mentally crippled that they have 100% disability and a legal guardian.
It works like this:
Jack and Jane are having a picnic. They have picnic basket and a loaf of bread between them. Jack puts the loaf of bread in the basket. Jane leaves for a moment. While she's gone, Jack takes the bread and puts it behind a tree. Jane comes back.
Where does Jane think the bread is?
3 year olds do not have "Theory of Mind" and are therefore not able to abstract the concept of another person's perception; and will almost always say: "Jane thinks it's behind the tree."
5 year olds have developed Theory of Mind, and are capable of abstraction. They then proceed to gasp, and typically realize that they have 'hidden knowledge' about the location of the bread, because Jane thinks the bread is still in the basket, but it's actually behind the tree.
"Jane thinks it's behind the tree" is what happens when people can't abstract. Developing Theory of Mind late is a sign of significant Autism, and it means the child isn't going to develop properly. Never developing it makes the person a cripple. Someone with the intellectual capacity of a 3 year old can't function in society, let alone host a podcast, or drive a car out to the Timcast bunker.
Your example is not a hypothetical.
This would be like asking, "what if Jack put it in the car?" and the response is, "but Jack put it behind the tree." Which is what you would get if someone could not understand a hypothetical.
Theory of mind and arguing a hypothetical are not the same thing.
No, but it seems to me that the only way to make that response is to not be able to have Theory of Mind. Theory of Mind requires you to be able to create an abstraction that represents a different view. Theory Of Mind is about whether or not the subject has the capacity for creating and then personifying an abstraction. A hypothetical still requires the capacity to abstract. If you can't abstract, you can't have Theory of Mind.
If you can't form a hypothetical scenario, we couldn't even test the scenario. They aren't literally showing people moving bread in the woods. They are starting with a hypothetical: "Imagine two people are having a picnic in the woods."
If someone didn't understand hypotheticals, they might respond with: "But we're not in the woods."
Without the capacity for hypotheticals, we can't even test Theory of Mind. Not only are we saying "this woman doesn't have the cognitive capacity of a 5 year old", we're saying she has far less than that. We're not talking about someone with sub standard IQ, we're talking about someone who is so developmentally disabled that they have nearly single digit IQs. We've entered the region of non-human animal intelligence.
Not to mention that if you watch longer parts of the conversation, she uses hypotheticals herself in order to deflect from the conversation; so obviously she can understand hypotheticals. She's just being dishonest.