• Philadelphia law decriminalizes marijuana
    124 replies, posted
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46152235]Also I'm not saying that computer's don't make people smarter. I am arguing that their existence does not mean anything on the intelligence of the general population, because they were invented by only a handful of people.[/QUOTE] Amazing really, your head so far up your own ass that you can't read other people's arguments without spinning them into your own world view. Communication leads to more information availability, and more information means more intelligent people. It doesn't fucking matter who invented the things.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;46152335]Amazing really, your head so far up your own ass that you can't read other people's arguments without spinning them into your own world view. Communication leads to more information availability, and more information means more intelligent people. It doesn't fucking matter who invented the things.[/QUOTE] What? I said I'm not arguing that. Obviously that's true. Read the context please and reread what I said. The fact that everyone and their mom has a cellular phone does not mean we have progressed as a whole. Modern technology was given to us by a smaller group of people, meaning they have gotten more advanced, and not us. We just click the remote and talk about how advanced the world is. Very few people actually understand technology. Have you ever seen the movie idiocracy? It's like that, everything is futuristic but people are idiots. If you were to judge the intelligence of the world of idiocracy by what technology they possesed, then they would look like a wonderful civilization of spectacular brilliance. But it was really a world of idiots using the technology left to them by a few gifted individuals. This is a picture from the movie. The intellects had died out and the regular people were left to themselves. This is what happened. [IMG]http://www.nextnature.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/idio-city-530x286.jpg[/IMG] Yes technology has benefits on intelligence, at least some of it. But I was not arguing that this wasn't true.
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46152235]IQ tests are not standardized. A linear increase of IQ does necessarily indicate an increase in intelligence, because the people have been essentially taking different tests. You're saying that both intelligence and the difficulty of the tests have increased. If true then intelligence would have to greatly outpaced the increase in difficulty of these tests... If someone today took an IQ test from the 1930s I'd expect them to get a lower score than the average at the time. Also, evidence points to Flynns effect reversing, that is in modern countries, the IQ score is diminishing.[/QUOTE] You expect them to score lower, but unfortunately that's not what they found when they actually did it. They know that the IQ would be higher because they have people take the tests from years past, and they find that average people scored higher. This is how we are aware of the effect to begin with: we had people actually take the tests from 1930. Also, the quote you cite does not indicate that IQ is diminishing: it merely states that the increases are becoming lower and lower each year. I don't remember ever saying that the tests got harder, either. All I know is that when they standardize the tests, they adjust the scoring so that the average person has an IQ of 100. Whether that means they make the test harder, or if they make the scoring more strict, I have no idea. This is also irrelevant, because evidence shows that people score higher regardless. If they were declining, however, it would have to be an astronomical drop in order to be of any relevance. But they aren't and it isn't. Also I brought up computers because I was illustrating how as a society we have moved so far ahead technologically within a century. This is hundreds, thousands, maybe millions of people from all over the world coming together; people who should be less intelligent than their ancestors. You seem to think that only the elite few are responsible for technological progress, however.
Yes thats it, the rapid development of technology that could barely be theorized 100 years ago is clearly proof that we're all becoming a bunch of bumbling idiots who are getting dumber and dumber as the years go on. Its so easy to see that you're an anxious teen that hates things that you can not comprehend, [B]google "Holden Caulfield"[/B]
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46150882]You support decadence, moral decay and the undermining of the principals of society that have guided man for the past 2000 years. If you don't think any of this means anything, then there you absolutely a degenerate.[/QUOTE] Mate, people have been blazing it every day since man worked out how to not kill themselves on minor poisons and started finding natural drug producers. And we aren't the only species that does this stuff. Every society ever has had drug use amongst almost all the social classes. It only becomes a problem when people can't get information and help about the durgz.
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46150882]You support decadence, moral decay and the undermining of the principals of society that have guided man for the past 2000 years. If you don't think any of this means anything, then there you absolutely a degenerate.[/QUOTE] god, you are the most repulsive person on this planet. "waaa if you enjoy yourself you're a degenerate waaaaa" get off your fucking high horse pls.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46152554]You expect them to score lower, but unfortunately that's not what they found when they actually did it. They know that the IQ would be higher because they have people take the tests from years past, and they find that average people scored higher. This is how we are aware of the effect to begin with: we had people actually take the tests from 1930.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46152554] I don't remember ever saying that the tests got harder, either. All I know is that when they standardize the tests, they adjust the scoring so that the average person has an IQ of 100. Whether that means they make the test harder, or if they make the scoring more strict, I have no idea. This is also irrelevant, because evidence shows that people score higher regardless.[/QUOTE] If the tests did not change in their difficulty then why did people score differently between the modern IQ test and the one from the 1930s? Clearly they either got more or less difficult. Any change in their own intelligence would be reflected equally on both tests if they never changed. In either case it should invalidate using the incrementation of high IQ scores as evidence of an increasing intelligence among the general population. [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46152554]Also, the quote you cite does not indicate that IQ is diminishing: it merely states that the increases are becoming lower and lower each year.[/QUOTE] You're right it doesn't. Also I forgot to cite it. If you're wondering it's from the same Wikipedia article you cited. So is the following : [QUOTE]Jon Martin Sundet and colleagues (2004) examined scores on intelligence tests given to Norwegian conscripts between the 1950s and 2002. They found that the increase of scores of general intelligence stopped after the mid-1990s and declined in numerical reasoning sub-tests.[/QUOTE] There's more evidence than this in the article, but I'd rather not flood up this post with the rest. It's under the "Possible end of progression" section of the article. Go ahead and read it. [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46152554] Also I brought up computers because I was illustrating how as a society we have moved so far ahead technologically within a century. This is hundreds, thousands, maybe millions of people from all over the world coming together; people who should be less intelligent than their ancestors. You seem to think that only the elite few are responsible for technological progress, however.[/QUOTE] Technology is not progressed by the general intelligence of mankind. It is progressed by those gifted few that actually understand and create it. They don't have to be elites, but they are certainly a minority. You might have millions of computer scientists, but not very many of them make real contributions. It's the same thing for scientists, and engineers. I really stress that you watch Idiocracy which completely demonstrates my point. It's a good movie anyway. [QUOTE=flamehead5;46152671]Yes thats it, the rapid development of technology that could barely be theorized 100 years ago is clearly proof that we're all becoming a bunch of bumbling idiots who are getting dumber and dumber as the years go on. Its so easy to see that you're an anxious teen that hates things that you can not comprehend, [B]google "Holden Caulfield"[/B][/QUOTE] I've read the Catcher in the Rye, thank you very much. If you actually understood technology you'd realize that computers ten years ago are fundamentally identical to computers today. And I'm not talking backwards-compatability. [QUOTE=DemonElite;46152854]god, you are the most repulsive person on this planet. "waaa if you enjoy yourself you're a degenerate waaaaa" get off your fucking high horse pls.[/QUOTE] I literally described degeneracy using terms taken from it's Google definition. I was making sure he understood what it is that he was calling himself. [QUOTE=xalener;46151901]Why are people arguing with Milly? It's not like the fucker's gonna be in charge of anything important. We should rejoice in that fact.[/QUOTE] Way to enforce your hivemind without actually saying anything.
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46152357]What? I said I'm not arguing that. Obviously that's true. Read the context please and reread what I said. The fact that everyone and their mom has a cellular phone does not mean we have progressed as a whole. Modern technology was given to us by a smaller group of people, meaning they have gotten more advanced, and not us. We just click the remote and talk about how advanced the world is. Very few people actually understand technology. Have you ever seen the movie idiocracy? It's like that, everything is futuristic but people are idiots. If you were to judge the intelligence of the world of idiocracy by what technology they possesed, then they would look like a wonderful civilization of spectacular brilliance. But it was really a world of idiots using the technology left to them by a few gifted individuals. This is a picture from the movie. The intellects had died out and the regular people were left to themselves. This is what happened. [IMG]http://www.nextnature.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/idio-city-530x286.jpg[/IMG] Yes technology has benefits on intelligence, at least some of it. But I was not arguing that this wasn't true.[/QUOTE] Do not use Idiocracy as an example when debating human intelligence. Ever. I don't know if you watched the movie, but it's a [I][B][u]fictional comedy[/u][/b],[/I] not a documentary. I'm sick of people who can't grasp that. It's fiction, fake, a story, not fucking real, it's about as rooted in reality as fucking Star Wars is. Nothing they posed in the movie will [I]ever[/I] happen. It's a cynical movie written by, get this, writers. Not scientists who studied how human society is going to go, [I]writers,[/I] who know about as much of where humanity will go as any other random asshole. Do you want to say Invader Zim's depiction of humanity is accurate too?
I was using idiocracy to demonstrate an idea, not as evidence to prove it. And it seems like it worked. So what's the problem? Fictional situations are absolutely acceptable for these purposes.
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46147256]I don't own a television. It sounds like you need to swallow the redpill.[/QUOTE] Why are you still adhering to purple prose from action films? lol
Still? Did I mention that again? I'm holding true to it though. It wouldn't hurt you to look into it.
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46153337]Still? Did I mention that again? I'm holding true to it though. It wouldn't hurt you to look into it.[/QUOTE] I literally grew out of this "i'm better and AWARE than everyone else" in high school.
No that's not being redpilled at all. In fact it's absolutely what you make of it. Part of it is knowing that you cannot know you're right, at least in my book.
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46153394]No that's not being redpilled at all. In fact it's absolutely what you make of it. Part of it is knowing that you cannot know you're right, at least in my book.[/QUOTE] Where do you get all of this redpill verbose from?
-snip- figure it out
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46153417]-snip- figure it out[/QUOTE] I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and guess that this post was a link to the redpill subreddit
No fuck that place. It has absolutely nothing to do with this.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;46153606]I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and guess that this post was a link to the redpill subreddit[/QUOTE] [img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12335423/screenshot.png[/img]
Grats, that's what I said. Not that it's meant anything for 7 years
[QUOTE=Derpmeifter;46153630][img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12335423/screenshot.png[/img][/QUOTE] So, /b/ (or just 4chan in general) then? Great, what better place to pick up knowledge
/b/ nope. That's why I revoked it. Just google it we are so off topic.
please tell me you frequent /pol/ because that'll just make this thread so great
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46150968]NE Philly here. Never met a cop that really gave a shit about small things. We always get off easy. Hell, once I accidentally kept my SAK on my keyring when I went to the courthouse for jury duty (pocket knives of any sort are illegal in Philly,) and the cops there were just like "whatever." Then again a friend of mine got busted a week ago for having half an ounce on him though so I guess it comes down to luck.[/QUOTE] North east as well, i can confirm this is pretty much city wide. I spend most of my time in North Philly and around Temple. The cops there legitimately do not care as long as you aren't being stupid or obvious. Provided you aren't actively dealing infront of them or smoking it infront of them, the cops will leave you alone. If you're smoking it, most cops will tell you to get rid of it immediately and if you do, they leave you alone. They don't want to waste their time arresting some guy for smoking a joint. Hell most of the cops around north philly can be really awesome provided you aren't a dick. Also pocket knives are legal in philadelphia dude. Provided they aren't gravity knives or assisted opening knives and the blade is smaller than 6 inches or doesn't go beyond the palm of your hand it's completely legal. I always carry a blade on me, it's legal. Also why is millysoose still trying to defend himself here? He hasn't provided a single legitimate point at all. If he really did study history he would know that there is no credibility at all to marijuana being a gateway drug and that its merely just an invention created around the turn of the century to downplay marijuana use. There's no legitimacy at all to it. You whine to others to provide proof yet offer practically none yourself.
[QUOTE=Viva;46153716]North east as well, i can confirm this is pretty much city wide. I spend most of my time in North Philly and around Temple. The cops there legitimately do not care as long as you aren't being stupid or obvious. Provided you aren't actively dealing infront of them or smoking it infront of them, the cops will leave you alone. If you're smoking it, most cops will tell you to get rid of it immediately and if you do, they leave you alone. They don't want to waste their time arresting some guy for smoking a joint. Hell most of the cops around north philly can be really awesome provided you aren't a dick. Also pocket knives are legal in philadelphia dude. Provided they aren't gravity knives or assisted opening knives and the blade is smaller than 6 inches or doesn't go beyond the palm of your hand it's completely legal. I always carry a blade on me, it's legal. Also why is millysoose still trying to defend himself here? He hasn't provided a single legitimate point at all. If he really did study history he would know that there is no credibility at all to marijuana being a gateway drug and that its merely just an invention created around the turn of the century to downplay marijuana use. There's no legitimacy at all to it. You whine to others to provide proof yet offer practically none yourself.[/QUOTE] [quote](1) Definition. Cutting Weapon. Any knife or other cutting instrument which can be used as a weapon that has a cutting edge similar to that of a knife. No tool or instrument commonly or ordinarily used in a trade, profession or calling shall be considered a cutting weapon while actually being used in the active exercise of that trade, profession or calling. (2) Prohibited Conduct. No person shall use or possess any cutting weapon upon the public streets or upon any public property at any time. (3) Penalty. The penalty for violation of this section shall be a fine of not less than three hundred (300) dollars and imprisonment of not less than ninety days.[/quote] [url]http://www.phila.gov/philacode/html/_data/title10/chapter_10_800_safety/10_820_Cutting_Weapons_in_Publ.html[/url] By law, if it has a knife edge, it can be considered a weapon. Technically illegal. Like I said before, though, most cops don't care.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46154087][URL]http://www.phila.gov/philacode/html/_data/title10/chapter_10_800_safety/10_820_Cutting_Weapons_in_Publ.html[/URL] By law, if it has a knife edge, it can be considered a weapon. Technically illegal. Like I said before, though, most cops don't care.[/QUOTE] Actually by pa state law as well as city law it is at the officers discretion as to if it is a weapon or not. It all falls into grey areas when it comes down to it. But you are actually within your right to carry a knife on your person in philadelphia despite city laws stating otherwise. If any officer deemed it a weapon and arrested you, you can actually sue the city and unless you were actively waving the damn thing around or threatening people with it and it was not in a self defensive manner you'll will.
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46153105]If the tests did not change in their difficulty then why did people score differently between the modern IQ test and the one from the 1930s? Clearly they either got more or less difficult. Any change in their own intelligence would be reflected equally on both tests if they never changed. In either case it should invalidate using the incrementation of high IQ scores as evidence of an increasing intelligence among the general population.[/QUOTE] Easy. When they normalize the test to each new generation of tests, they could easily adjust scoring so that the median score was 100. Even if they happened to use the same test, they would merely be able to adjust scoring. Someone who goes back and uses the old test and the old scoring would find that they would be way above 100. Someone who jumps forward would find that they were way below. For a simple example, let's say a man from 1930 took a test for 1930. The average person would score 100. So let's say he answers a hypothetical question and gets 2 hypothetical points. At the end, all these are added up and the man has a score of 100. A man from 2014 takes the same test, and winds up with 200 for example. And the average result of all the people who take that test is also 200. So the test maker says "Okay, let's adjust the scoring. Let's make each question be worth one point instead." They have just normalized the test for the current generation. Again, the method is irrelevant: We find that people score higher on older tests than they would on their generation's test. Where they would get 100 on today's test they might get 130 or 150 on tests from decades ago. If they do not readjust, they would find that the IQ would be climbing higher and higher. Are the tests getting easier? Then people would score lower on older tests than newer ones. This is not what was found. Are tests getting harder? That would mean that ones who took the earlier tests would score lower on the newer tests. (one who can only get 100 on an older IQ test would not achieve that same feat on the newer tests.) Does the scoring shift? That means people of younger generations are able to answer more questions correctly than people of older generations in order to keep pace with that 100. How can that be? People are getting more intelligent. This theory satisfies every question and every hypothetical scenario and matches up perfectly with the evidence provided.
[QUOTE=kibble;46152057][t]https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10009848_519058241537413_8153407197312775840_n.png?oh=7effd617226408839f7e7231de77fe67&oe=54BB62CC&__gda__=1421246630_822a374595fbba2c168bc2e6f876119d[/t] if weed is a gateway drug why dont they prescribe it to ugly girls?[/QUOTE] fuck I'd shoot up for that shit anyday :v: [QUOTE=MillySoose;46151945]Let's just do away with tests. After all they aren't a measure of anything meaningful right. No, they represent a standard of knowledge, one that is not just "trivial facts." Understanding concepts in tests is correlated to your natural ability. IQ tests pamper to this. This is why you don't need to study before taking an IQ test to understand the material. An IQ test is universal and doesn't represent your knowledge of what you learned. It is the most fair measurement of intelligence there is.[/QUOTE] No one really knows what intelligence really is. You can't define it, and if you do, your definition is different from the next guy who tries. Knowing this, there's really no good way to test for 'intelligence' as we don't even know what it is. Take any IQ test for example. Perhaps it tests your pattern finding skills or math skills, but it doesn't test how well you interact with your social and cultural environment. It's a different skill and whatnot that can't be gauged by those kinds of tests. Who the fuck even cares about tests. They're irrelevant.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46154144]Easy. When they normalize the test to each new generation of tests, they could easily adjust scoring so that the median score was 100. Even if they happened to use the same test, they would merely be able to adjust scoring. Someone who goes back and uses the old test and the old scoring would find that they would be way above 100. Someone who jumps forward would find that they were way below. For a simple example, let's say a man from 1930 took a test for 1930. The average person would score 100. So let's say he answers a hypothetical question and gets 2 hypothetical points. At the end, all these are added up and the man has a score of 100. A man from 2014 takes the same test, and winds up with 200 for example. And the average result of all the people who take that test is also 200. So the test maker says "Okay, let's adjust the scoring. Let's make each question be worth one point instead." They have just normalized the test for the current generation. Again, the method is irrelevant: We find that people score higher on older tests than they would on their generation's test. Where they would get 100 on today's test they might get 130 or 150 on tests from decades ago. If they do not readjust, they would find that the IQ would be climbing higher and higher. Are the tests getting easier? Then people would score lower on older tests than newer ones. This is not what was found. Are tests getting harder? That would mean that ones who took the earlier tests would score lower on the newer tests. (one who can only get 100 on an older IQ test would not achieve that same feat on the newer tests.) Does the scoring shift? That means people of younger generations are able to answer more questions correctly than people of older generations in order to keep pace with that 100. How can that be? People are getting more intelligent. This theory satisfies every question and every hypothetical scenario and matches up perfectly with the evidence provided.[/QUOTE] I watched the Ted Talk given by Flynn and I thought it was very enlightening. He points out some things like that a score of 100 in 1930 would be only 70 today, clinically retarded. So go ahead and watch that first before reading the rest of my comment. Now early I alluded that advancements were not brought solely by natural ability (ability to solve problems unrelated to facts) but by it combined with concrete information. It seems that people in the past did far worse when thinking about abstract concepts than we do today. They were not concerned with the hypothetical questions, the kind you have to answer on IQ tests. IQ test scores did improve, and by the 1990s they reached their peak. But now they are falling in modern countries. Flynn also points out the ignorance that has encompassed society. An IQ test cannot measure this in a person. It is only able to draw on their ability to work with abstract concepts. So have we actually gotten any smarter? I'd say yes and no. As IQ scores went up, scores on SAT tests went down. Now they are both decreasing. What do you make of that? I'm still defending IQ as an accurate gauge of intelligence if you're curious. It is certainly a fair measure of abstract thought. But that is only one field of intelligence. The other compoents cannot be easily tested for. So think of intelligence as a two or three part test. If one person scores 15/20 on part A and the other 20/20, but the parts B and C are missing, who did better on the test? Person A 15 + ? + ? Person B 20 + ? + ? Since we cannot know their scores on the two parts, and thus cannot make any differentiations between them, they are essentially equivalent. So from that data alone we can say that the second person is more intelligent. But then does this confirm that we've gotten smarter as a society because IQ tests have increased (Aside from IQ scores now decreasing)? No, because we have data for the other "?"s, whatever you want to classify them as. And this shows things like SAT scores dropping, people doing less reading, etc.
[QUOTE=Banandana;46154302]fuck I'd shoot up for that shit anyday :v:[/QUOTE] i hope you arent talking about shooting up a nugg of marijuana, the chemicals in that shit will kill you
nah the one with the chick ill take it [editline]5th October 2014[/editline] Still though, intelligence tests are almost entirely useless.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.