The people who believe the 2SD thing also believe a modern computer can't emulate a Nintendo 64's computer, because there's too much of an artificial intelligence gap between the two. The N64 can't ever emulate a windows 11 desktop, communication is impossible there, but windows 11 desktop can certainly emulate the N64.
And we'd all call a computer that couldn't emulate lower-level software to be handicapped in some way.
It's not as great as if you're on the same level, you're constantly aware you're running on a lower-level, but "near impossible" is truly ridiculous a sentiment, for sure.
You sidestep it. If the other processor cannot handle 4 cores, you don't hit them with 16 cores, you downscale. Don't try to make them "get it". You're not picking a marriage partner, you're picking someone to make smalltalk with while accomplishing some side objective such as playing a game or conducting business.
We know it's aggravating, but you described it as "impossible." Most the replies are reading that literally like there is a bidirectional language barrier rather than it just being so frustrating it's difficult not to walk away.
It is impossible within the confines of a polite conversation.
If the other party were very trusting of the speaker
If the other party were truly motivated to grasp the concepts being used
if the other party were to actually do the work (which might take weeks or months) they would be truly changed by the ramifications of the new concepts and the new, improved world model.
For example: Where does money (fiat currency) come from? How is it created? Under what circumstances is it destroyed? What are the long term implications; especially WRT the boom and bust cycle?
Someone with an IQ of 84 literally can't get the concepts involved in this discussion. They just can't. No amount of work will get them there.
Even having such a discussion with you would require that we have enough shared culture (and attached concepts) to be able to discuss the matter.
If you didn't know what fiat currency was or how it is created, I'd probably rely on about an hour of animated videos to get you there.
I don't want to try to sum up a literal hour of very careful scripted and animated educational videos so I can establish the base foundations for the conversation. More to the point the person I am talking with won't have a single useful or interesting thing to say on the subject. Why would I even bother?
So, define impossible buddy. Can it be technically done? Sometimes. Often even. Is is utterly, completely pointless on every single occasion? Yes.
That's all and good, but let's go back to the original claim that was being discussed.
This. Communication beyond 2 SD less intelligent is near impossible outside of basic interaction.
If you define "basic interaction" as anything short of discussing economic concepts. Sure, it's impossible. But, to me at least, "basic interaction" means something you can manage with someone who barely even speaks your language.
Not being able to communicate with some 2 SD less intelligent would mean that someone with 129 IQ could manage better than basic interaction with someone with 100 IQ, but someone with 131 IQ would not be able to. Obviously a flawed premise. The decisive factor in the complexity of communication is the minimum of the two IQs, not the delta.
The people who believe the 2SD thing also believe a modern computer can't emulate a Nintendo 64's computer, because there's too much of an artificial intelligence gap between the two. The N64 can't ever emulate a windows 11 desktop, communication is impossible there, but windows 11 desktop can certainly emulate the N64.
And we'd all call a computer that couldn't emulate lower-level software to be handicapped in some way.
It's not as great as if you're on the same level, you're constantly aware you're running on a lower-level, but "near impossible" is truly ridiculous a sentiment, for sure.
You sidestep it. If the other processor cannot handle 4 cores, you don't hit them with 16 cores, you downscale. Don't try to make them "get it". You're not picking a marriage partner, you're picking someone to make smalltalk with while accomplishing some side objective such as playing a game or conducting business.
Isn't it that they don't want to get it? The limiting factor for people's comprehension is generally not their intelligence, but their self-interest.
We know it's aggravating, but you described it as "impossible." Most the replies are reading that literally like there is a bidirectional language barrier rather than it just being so frustrating it's difficult not to walk away.
It is impossible within the confines of a polite conversation.
For example: Where does money (fiat currency) come from? How is it created? Under what circumstances is it destroyed? What are the long term implications; especially WRT the boom and bust cycle?
Someone with an IQ of 84 literally can't get the concepts involved in this discussion. They just can't. No amount of work will get them there.
Even having such a discussion with you would require that we have enough shared culture (and attached concepts) to be able to discuss the matter.
If you didn't know what fiat currency was or how it is created, I'd probably rely on about an hour of animated videos to get you there.
I don't want to try to sum up a literal hour of very careful scripted and animated educational videos so I can establish the base foundations for the conversation. More to the point the person I am talking with won't have a single useful or interesting thing to say on the subject. Why would I even bother?
So, define impossible buddy. Can it be technically done? Sometimes. Often even. Is is utterly, completely pointless on every single occasion? Yes.
That's all and good, but let's go back to the original claim that was being discussed.
If you define "basic interaction" as anything short of discussing economic concepts. Sure, it's impossible. But, to me at least, "basic interaction" means something you can manage with someone who barely even speaks your language.
Not being able to communicate with some 2 SD less intelligent would mean that someone with 129 IQ could manage better than basic interaction with someone with 100 IQ, but someone with 131 IQ would not be able to. Obviously a flawed premise. The decisive factor in the complexity of communication is the minimum of the two IQs, not the delta.