What's a Genius and Do You Consider Yourself One?

[Fukyo]

Only when I'm drunk.

for honesty.

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

Let's say high IQ equates with being a genius.

"In 2010, the U.S. population's normal expectation for the number of persons with an IQ of 180 or over (SD = 16) is about 90 persons."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_IQ_society


(US Population) / (Number of Geniuses) = (One Genius In Every X Number Of People)

314,274,426 ÷ 90 = One genius in every 3,491,938 people.

and 0.00002863739% of people are geniuses?

 

[snafupants]

Let's say high IQ equates with being a genius.

"In 2010, the U.S. population's normal expectation for the number of persons with an IQ of 180 or over (SD = 16) is about 90 persons."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_IQ_society


(US Population) / (Number of Geniuses) = (One Genius In Every X Number Of People)

314,274,426 ÷ 90 = One genius in every 3,491,938 people.

and 0.00002863739% of people are geniuses?

There's evidence that ecological frequency doesn't follow the Gaussian curve whatsoever.

 

[BigApplePi]

@snafupants. Read this and immediately thought you'd take to it. Was from a post on the Wisdom thread by Da Blob. Not meant in a bad way. If you are not snafu, do not read.

Spoiler

"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. - George Carlin"

to which I add:
Think of how everyone has a touch of genius and realize many do better than that and you can try to find it.

 

[BigApplePi]

There's evidence that ecological frequency doesn't follow the Gaussian curve whatsoever.

A long time ago a friend of mine ran a group therapy thingie. I was a member and usually he was was very open. One day he told me he was treating privately a young fellow with 200 I.Q. (I was excited because I had a book, "Genetic Studies of Genius.") But he wouldn't introduce him and kept the story secret. I had no reason to disbelieve the I.Q. story.

 

[snafupants]

@snafupants. Read this and immediately thought you'd take to it. Was from a post on the Wisdom thread by Da Blob. Not meant in a bad way. If you are not snafu, do not read.

Spoiler

"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. - George Carlin"

to which I add:
Think of how everyone has a touch of genius and realize many do better than that and you can try to find it.

@BigApplePi

I have paraphrased that George Carlin quote numerous times on this forum; the workaday verity and corroboration of that sentiment is hugely disturbing but it explicates many wars, governments, and religions since time out of mind. I take the point of the second anecdote as well. In real life, and on the forum when I'm feeling sanguine, I honestly attempt to assimilate most intelligent viewpoints that cross my path. I, like perhaps other members, have my favorite topics and forum benefactors. This thread was never intended as some makeshift referendum; I was shocked by the reception my affirmation was received with today but I can appreciate the general skepticism. Genius is actually statistically improbable so I suppose the visceral gainsaying and outspoken agnosticism is predictable, maybe even healthy, given the implications.

Spoiler

I'm pretty sure everyone has read the contents of that exclusive spoiler by now.

At any rate, thanks for the thought BigApple.

 

[NinjaSurfer]

= ability to find humor in anything

re: 2nd question, yes.

 

[Minuend]

I consider myself a genius. To me genius is an admixture of aptitude, audacity, abstraction, eloquence, efficiency, prescience, and imagination.

 

[PhoenixRising]

I guess schizophrenics must be geniuses.

lol, perhaps sometimes. If their imagined ideas lead them to produce artwork like nothing ever seen before, then yes they could be geniuses. I suppose I left out part of the definition of genius. To be a genius, the ideas and details you can see should be capable of being shared with other people towards the growth and development of the human race. A genius inventor, for example, sees a new way that a quantum computer could function, making it possible to develop this type of technology years earlier than would be possible using the previous concept. This inventor may not share his idea with the world, but the fact that it can be shared and cause others to think about something in a different way makes it genius. Hallucinations usually don't have a cohesive meaning, they can I suppose, but usually they can't be shared in a way that makes others think differently.

 

[snafupants]

As an interesting aside, this cartoon avers that IQ 180 is genius. This is my deduction as the miscellaneous accolades attached to James Woods, aside from that score, aren't that improbable.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Basically, 'genius' is not sufficiently defined or measurable.

/thread imo

 

[PhoenixRising]

As an interesting aside, this cartoon avers that IQ 180 is genius. This is my deduction as the miscellaneous accolades attached to James Woods, aside from that score, aren't that improbable.

According to the chart above, it says 140 is near genius, and above 140 is genius. 180 is certainly in genius level, but so is 145.

 

[snafupants]

According to the chart above, it says 140 is near genius, and above 140 is genius. 180 is certainly in genius level, but so is 145.

The chart says near genius or genius starts at IQ 140; I would put the benchmark at IQ 140 for near genius and IQ 160 and above for genius. The chart's guideline is actually Terman's formulation of the matter as well. The chart really doesn't provide much nuance into the stratosphere, which is fine.

 

[scorpiomover]

Self-proclaimed genius is just arrogance.

It is a title given; not taken.

My family called me one. My friends too. Also said that I can say the stupidest of things sometimes, which I can and do.

Don't know if anyone here would call me a genius. I expect not. Around here, I'm probably mediocre at best. Some here would call me delusional as well.

Does that count? Probably not.

But then, who cares? As long as everyone is happy, does it really matter?

 

[PhoenixRising]

Speaking of IQ, it would be interesting to know if INTPs tend to have higher intelligent quotients than other types. Perhaps it could even be broader than that, perhaps Thinking types have higher IQs. Jung did imply a relationship between personality and IQ, although he didn't do any testing on it that I know of.

This is an interesting paper speaking about the same question:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...8tcFmB&sig=AHIEtbTkIaxC0Sw9szpxDpKIbzxJCiOl7A

Edit: Apparently there have been studies conducted - http://asm.sagepub.com/content/3/3/225.short

 

[BigApplePi]

INTP's are presumed to like to think. What could be more pleasant than to dream one can think effortlessly without limitation and work? Hence the interest in genius as role models. (Other have sports heroes or prize winners.) This may be a false impression when it comes to the real person. I assume they all still have to and want to put forth lots of effort. Besides they have to deal with social situations non-celebrities don't have to face. So idealization may be a false goal.

 

[snafupants]

Speaking of IQ, it would be interesting to know if INTPs tend to have higher intelligent quotients than other types. Perhaps it could even be broader than that, perhaps Thinking types have higher IQs. Jung did imply a relationship between personality and IQ, although he didn't do any testing on it that I know of.

This is an interesting paper speaking about the same question:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...8tcFmB&sig=AHIEtbTkIaxC0Sw9szpxDpKIbzxJCiOl7A

Edit: Apparently there have been studies conducted - http://asm.sagepub.com/content/3/3/225.short

@PhoenixRising

From the information I've seen, the second letter in MBTI, specifically intuition, and IQ are somewhat positively correlated.

 

[PhoenixRising]

@PhoenixRising

From the information I've seen, the second letter in MBTI, specifically intuition, and IQ are somewhat positively correlated.

Yes, that's what the abstract of the research paper indicated.

 

[snafupants]

Yes, that's what the abstract of the research paper indicated.

Very good - that's corroborated in various studies.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Don't neglect P/J IQ correlation.

 

[Hawkeye]

My argument was not so much focussed on the definition of genius, rather, how it is used.

As I mentioned in my first post, it is a title given to other people. It acknowledges not only a person's "ability/creativity/whatever", but an admiration and respect for it. To give it to oneself is quite frankly insulting.

Can a person self-proclaim genius? Sure, although they will only be perceived as arrogant, pretentious and I doubt they will be taken seriously, or even be credited the title by others.

Urban Dictionary sums it up nicely

A self proclaimed genius is a person that thinks they either know everything, or that they are all that and a bag of chips.

 

[redbaron]

@redbaron If you have a problem with the general definition of "genius," it WAS mentioned specifically. And I assume you do, as otherwise it doesn't make sense. Genius can be arrogant, even the "general" definition of the word doesn't mention anything about that. He called himself a genius according to his definition of the word, not yours. And you shouldn't have a problem with someone calling themselves a genius IF they have provided you with a definition of their own. If they haven't and you have a problem with that, you have a problem with arrogance: you think that the guy's arrogant, despite the fact that he might as well be a genius. Therefore, your assumption is emotional, hence rationally wrong.

1. I never said otherwise.
2. And in light of that - in order to be fair, I judged him on the basis of his own definition, not mine. If he isn't able to live up to and demonstrate his genius by the standards of his own definition, I can't be held accountable.
3. I don't have a problem with it. I only said that they shouldn't be surprised if there are some who do.
4. We've already established that arrogance doesn't repudiate genius and I've agreed on that already. This point is moot. Straw man argument also.
5. Although we've already established that the first part of this argument was inherently fallacious, I feel obliged to add that simply because an assumption is based on emotion, does not make the assumption inherently irrational.

I await more fallacious arguments on your behalf.

 

[oscillatingfractal]

[chant] fight! fight! fight! fight! [/chant]

 

[Hawkeye]

[chant] fight! fight! fight! fight! [/chant]

Elephants are the last thing you want to be sitting on when a fight breaks out. Have you ever played Total War games?

 

[Minuend]

I don't really agree with that chart. My point was that if someone claims to be a genius, they should at least have one extraordinary ability.

Being a genius has no value in itself. Just as a house not being used will rot and fade. Though, I suppose it is the same with any other ability.

 

[snafupants]

My argument was not so much focussed on the definition of genius, rather, how it is used.

As I mentioned in my first post, it is a title given to other people. It acknowledges not only a person's "ability/creativity/whatever", but an admiration and respect for it. To give it to oneself is quite frankly insulting.

Can a person self-proclaim genius? Sure, although they will only be perceived as arrogant, pretentious and I doubt they will be taken seriously, or even be credited the title by others.

Urban Dictionary sums it up nicely

@Hawkeye

Does anyone take Urban Dictionary seriously? At any rate, what's the problem with James Woods or Bill Gates or Rick Rosner answering in the affirmative to the genius question? Since there's a consensus that these people are exceedingly clever is the assertion really that bold?

Why should the title of genius be beholden to another's appreciation or respect? In this case I can imagine genius potentially never or only posthumously being realized due to demotic negligence or outright blindness. Another facet to this is that the herd might not value certain ilks of genius.

I'm still unsure why genius has been put on this affirmation-by-others-only pedestal. I've heard Cornel West and myriad YouTube brainiacs anoint themselves as intellectuals; I usually happen to agree with their assessment. Presupposing genius is one echelon up from intellectual, who cares? Why is this tiptoeing around and democratic wheedling necessary?

In either case, the commonality with these folks (intellectuals) appears to be IQ > 140 and a steadfast dedication to study. These are my low end qualifications for intellectual. At the low end for intellectual genius, as I have already alluded to, an IQ > 160 is required but not sufficient. I'd be apt to take seriously someone with an IQ 180 who claimed to be a genius.

Spoiler

There's a difference between donning a genius t-shirt every day and answering "yes" to a question. I feel like this nuance is wasted on you. Pearls before swine.

 

[Hawkeye]

@Hawkeye

Does anyone take Urban Dictionary seriously? At any rate, what's the problem with James Woods or Bill Gates or Rick Rosner answering in the affirmative to the genius question? Since there's a consensus that these people are exceedingly clever is the assertion really that bold?

Why should the title of genius be beholden to another's appreciation or respect? In this case I can imagine genius potentially never or only posthumously being realized due to demotic negligence or outright blindness. Another facet to this is that the herd might not value certain ilks of genius.

I'm still unsure why genius has been put on this affirmation-by-others-only pedestal. I've heard Cornel West and myriad YouTube brainiacs anoint themselves as intellectuals; I usually happen to agree with their assessment. Presupposing genius is one echelon up from intellectual, who cares? Why is this tiptoeing around and democratic wheedling necessary?

In either case, the commonality with these folks (intellectuals) appears to be IQ > 140 and a steadfast dedication to study. These are my low end qualifications for intellectual. At the low end for intellectual genius, as I have already alluded to, an IQ > 160 is required but not sufficient. I'd be apt to take seriously someone with an IQ 180 who claimed to be a genius.

Spoiler

There's a difference between donning a genius t-shirt every day and answering "yes" to a question. I feel like this nuance is wasted on you. Pearls before swine.

No... they don't take Urban Dictionary seriously. I used it because it summed up what I wanted to say - nicely.

Fine, take away respect and admiration for someone else. The term loses credibility the moment people can self classify themselves using their own definition...

Saying one is an intellectual is different from saying one is a genius. IQ tests are not an accurate measure of genius.

“I’m the archetype of a disabled genius, or should I say a physically challenged genius, to be politically correct. At least I’m obviously physically challenged. Whether I’m a genius is more open to doubt.”

- Stephen Hawking​

 

[intpz]

@Hawkeye

A self proclaimed genius is a person that thinks they either know everything, or that they are all that and a bag of chips.

Indeed, it sums up nicely the fact that general population doesn't accept people who know more than them. Either you are as stupid as he/she is, or you are an arrogant dick who thinks that he knows everything. This closed-minded bullshit is worth a medal.

@redbaron seems like you like the word "fallacious." Anyway, I'm too lazy to re-read what I wrote yesterday's(?) evening and comment according to that. I'm taking a sun check.

 

[Hawkeye]

@Hawkeye



Indeed, it sums up nicely the fact that general population doesn't accept people who know more than them. Either you are as stupid as he/she is, or you are an arrogant dick who thinks that he knows everything. This closed-minded bullshit is worth a medal.

@redbaron seems like you like the word "fallacious." Anyway, I'm too lazy to re-read what I wrote yesterday's(?) evening and comment according to that. I'm taking a sun check.

If you know more than someone else, you are merely more knowledgeable... Not a genius.

Why should the title of genius be beholden to another's appreciation or respect? In this case I can imagine genius potentially never or only posthumously being realized due to demotic negligence or outright blindness. Another facet to this is that the herd might not value certain ilks of genius.

This is exactly what happens as there is no solid definition for genius... As demonstrated in this thread.

This makes self-proclamation pointless and rather foolish.

 

[snafupants]

No... they don't take Urban Dictionary seriously. I used it because it summed up what I wanted to say - nicely.

Fine, take away respect and admiration for someone else. The term loses credibility the moment people can self classify themselves using their own definition...

Saying one is an intellectual is different from saying one is a genius. IQ tests are not an accurate measure of genius.

@Hawkeye

I disagree. Why couldn't some other barometer for intellect, even genius, stand in its stead? The alternative to classification by others is not innately rampant and unjustified self-classification. That's an absurd and beguiled dichotomy. At any rate, I have been called a genius by friends and family - my IQ is around one eighty. To touch on your last point, IQ tests theoretically seek to measure intelligence. Hence the name, intelligence tests. The extent to which intelligence tests measure intelligence is gauged (qualitatively) with construct validity and (quantitatively) with criterion/convergent validity. That is why intelligence tests are not called genius tests, which is the term you appear to use as arsenal in a feeble attempt to impugn/lampoon intelligence tests. The goal with intelligence tests is to tap g or general mental ability - the yields from an intelligence test are typically index scores (e.g., verbal and fluid reasoning), confidence intervals, one composite number (i.e., IQ score), and perhaps normative and individual strengths and weaknesses. Intelligence tests are said to be g-loaded to the extent that they measure g. The WAIS, for example, tends to hover around .7 correlation to g. Yes, that's very good, saying one is an intellectual is different from saying one is a genius: did you learn that from my previous post?

Spoiler

Your posts are a fucking joke. Are these attempts at real points?

 

[intpz]

If you know more than someone else, you are merely more knowledgeable... Not a genius.

I never said that knowing a lot means a genius, not even in my initial definition of a genius.

 

[Hawkeye]

I never said that knowing a lot means a genius, not even in my initial definition of a genius.

You implied it in the post I replied to.

 

[Hawkeye]

Spoiler

Your posts are a fucking joke. Are these attempts at real points? [/FONT]

This is just childish. It is one of the weakest supporting arguments going. Please don't reduce yourself to this level. I don't want to debate with kids.


Genius is a relative term. which is why some actual test won't work

 

[snafupants]

This is just childish. It is one of the weakest supporting arguments going. Please don't reduce yourself to this level. I don't want to debate with kids.


Genius is a relative term. which is why some actual test won't work

@Hawkeye

I feel like I'm debating a mental midget. Do you have any other comments? Remember I said that an IQ score is required but not sufficient for intellectual genius?

 

[Hawkeye]

@Hawkeye

I feel like I'm debating a mental midget. Do you have any other comments? Remember I said that an IQ score is required but not sufficient for intellectual genius?

We're done.

 

[snafupants]

We're done.

@Hawkeye

I wasn't aware that you'd ever truly started.

 

[BigApplePi]

@Gentlemen. It's okay to give up. I have often reached a stage where I don't know how to proceed further. Nevertheless there IS a way to proceed further. I just haven't found it. So time is needed. Perhaps there will be an eureka moment or someone will come along with a new insight.

 

[BigApplePi]

How about -we change the title- a new thread? How about, "What's smart and Do You Consider Yourself Smart?"

Do you see anything much different in the topic? Perhaps there are two kinds of words:
(1) Open
(2) Closed

Closed words would be technical and have to have exact meaning. Closed because no changing, no variation. Like 32 degrees Fahrenheit. We are supposed to know what 32 means and degree also. Closed words have non-fuzzy boundaries of meaning and are meant to be so.

Open words would be contextual, social, usage meaning. Never precise. Precision would ruin their value. Open words can be used flexibly in a variety of situations. Like warm water. Water is precise, but warm is not. Warm is relative and depends on context. What about smart? Genius? Open words have fuzzy boundaries of meaning and are meant to be so.

If I had posted this a few days ago, would that have been a smart thing? I doubt it. We can kick around an open word and see if it can take us to new and exotic places. Now forget I ever made this post.

 

[Hawkeye]

Well, IQ tests fall apart when you consider savants. They generally average with a score of 70, yet have abilities that are considered to be of a genius quality.

Self proclaimed genius is often associated with mental illnesses like narcissistic personality disorder and is a symptom of delusions of grandeur.

It can also indicate that a person has a superiority complex and feels a need to apply such a title to give themselves a sense of value or purpose in the world.

 

[snafupants]

Well, IQ tests fall apart when you consider savants. They generally average with a score of 70, yet have abilities that are considered to be of a genius quality.

Self proclaimed genius is often associated with mental illnesses like narcissistic personality disorder and is a symptom of delusions of grandeur.

It can also indicate that a person has a superiority complex and feels a need to apply such a title to give themselves a sense of value or purpose in the world.

@Hawkeye

Conversely the claim could be true.

Spoiler

Intelligence tests work well for sifting through most of the population.

 

[Hawkeye]

Intelligence tests work well for sifting through most of the population.

IQ tests only analyse so called "general intelligence". Unfortunately, this is their downfall.

There have been many people in favour of a test that analyses multiple intelligences. So far, none have seem to taken off enough to get rid of the IQ test

 

[snafupants]

IQ tests only analyse so called "general intelligence". Unfortunately, this is their downfall.

There have been many people in favour of a test that analyses multiple intelligences. So far, none have seem to take off enough to get rid of the IQ test

@Hawkeye

Their downfall? What's wrong with dissecting general intelligence? That sounds like an ambitious yet worthwhile pursuit to me. The composite and index scores can be helpful, and they certainly ring true more often than not for most. Anyway, proposals from Howard Gardner and company on multiple intelligences are as intellectually pathetic and feebly revolutionary in theory as they are in practice. What's really the value in knowing someone's naturalistic or bodily-kinesthetic ability? Isn't that a departure from intellectual skill per se? I wouldn't characterize most NBA players (high bodily-kinesthetic IQ?) as especially intelligent, but Gardner would I guess. Isn't Gardner's spatial intelligence gauged with conventional IQ tests anyway? The Wechsler, Kaufman, and Woodcock-Johnson intelligence tests amply cover Gardner's spatial intelligence.

 

[intpz]

You implied it in the post I replied to.

I think I know better what I implied, don't you?

@Gentlemen. It's okay to give up. I have often reached a stage where I don't know how to proceed further. Nevertheless there IS a way to proceed further. I just haven't found it. So time is needed. Perhaps there will be an eureka moment or someone will come along with a new insight.

In my experience, the people who give up arguments are the closed-minded, overly-emotional pricks who cannot accept that there is another truth but their truth, based on irrational arguments. Especially SFJs.

Self proclaimed genius is often associated with mental illnesses like narcissistic personality disorder and is a symptom of delusions of grandeur.
It can also indicate that a person has a superiority complex and feels a need to apply such a title to give themselves a sense of value or purpose in the world.

So... Basically what you're saying is that if you think (believe) that you are a genius (and say so when asked), you are a mental? If so, then you should have the same logic for other adjectives: nice, bad, impolite, polite, giving, selfish, etc.. If that's not what you think, then you're a picky closed-minded prick (no offense), as it is the same thing - self-opinionated title. If you aren't a picky closed-minded prick, however, then I bet your logic concludes with the following argument: you can say bad things about yourself, but you can't ever say nice things about yourself. Sounds like the Christian idea of humbleness...

I do agree on this in case the guy is bragging about it though. But not when he's being honest when asked.

 

[snafupants]

I think I know better what I implied, don't you?





In my experience, the people who give up arguments are the closed-minded, overly-emotional pricks who cannot accept that there is another truth but their truth, based on irrational arguments. Especially SFJs.





So... Basically what you're saying is that if you think (believe) that you are a genius (and say so when asked), you are a mental? If so, then you should have the same logic for other adjectives: nice, bad, impolite, polite, giving, selfish, etc.. If that's not what you think, then you're a picky closed-minded prick (no offense), as it is the same thing - self-opinionated title. If you aren't a picky closed-minded prick, however, then I bet your logic concludes with the following argument: you can say bad things about yourself, but you can't ever say nice things about yourself. Sounds like the Christian idea of humbleness...

I do agree on this in case the guy is bragging about it though. But not when he's being honest when asked.

@intpz
@Hawkeye

Exactly! The gainsayers appear to have ethical reservations about perceived self-glorification!

Well, I have news for these people: everyone is not created with equal abilities and talents.

There also appears to be the aroma of cheerleading the underdog. Aberrant abilities in idiot savants, that's kosher, but all-around intellectual clout, that's verboten.

 

[Hawkeye]

A person who asks another person the question "do you think you're a genius?" is an idiot.

Answer me this. Why would one need to declare themselves a genius?

 

[snafupants]

A person who asks another person the question "do you think you're a genius?" is an idiot.

Answer me this. Why would one need to declare themselves a genius?

@Hawkeye

What makes that person an idiot? Also, one would dis/affirm the label of genius when asked about possible genius in oneself. That's how questions and answers work. Any more mind-bending riddles? I've got a question for you: why do you obfuscate and waffle whenever someone else brings up a decent point? How does addressing posts ninety two to ninety four, inclusive, grab you big boy?

 

[Hawkeye]

@Hawkeye

What makes that person an idiot? Also, one would dis/affirm the label of genius when asked about possible genius in oneself. That's how questions and answers work. Any more mind-bending riddles? I've got a question for you: why do you obfuscate and waffle whenever someone else brings up a decent point? How does addressing posts ninety two to ninety four, inclusive, grab you big boy?

you didn't answer my question. Instead, gave me another...

They are an idiot because they don't understand what the term means and have to ask a person they think is a genius to clarify if they are... ergo idiot.

 

[snafupants]

you didn't answer my question. Instead, gave me another...

They are an idiot because they don't understand what the term means and have to ask a person they think is a genius to clarify if they are... ergo idiot.

@Hawkeye

Your original question wasn't based in reality: someone asked about genius. This isn't about arbitrarily declaring oneself a genius but rather it's about answering a specific question. There are numerous other questions that I would have honestly answered.

Are you calling yourself an idiot? Do you understand what the term genius (or idiot) means? Have you asked any questions about the term in this thread? I fully documented answers to both portions of the OP question. Why would that person be an idiot though? Isn't it intelligent to question things?

 

[intpz]

There also appears to be the aroma of cheerleading the underdog. Aberrant abilities in idiot savants, that's kosher, but all-around intellectual clout, that's verboten.

I wanted to post this, but my PC crashed. Hence my unstable PC mentioned somewhere else...

A person who asks another person the question "do you think you're a genius?" is an idiot.

Answer me this. Why would one need to declare themselves a genius?

I still don't see why, even after your post below.

To asnwer the question.

They are an idiot because they don't understand what the term means and have to ask a person they think is a genius to clarify if they are... ergo idiot.

You don't know if they understand it or not. That pre-assertion is even more idiotic than your explanation.

You also don't know if "they" think he is a genius, maybe they merely ask a random stranger; a forum post is a good example of that.

Ergo your argument's idiocy is collapsing on itself. Watch out! Black hole!

 

[snafupants]

I wanted to post this, but my PC crashed. Hence my unstable PC mentioned somewhere else...



I still don't see why, even after your post below.

To asnwer the question.



You don't know if they understand it or not. That pre-assertion is even more idiotic than your explanation.

You also don't know if "they" think he is a genius, maybe they merely ask a random stranger; a forum post is a good example of that.

Ergo your argument's idiocy is collapsing on itself. Watch out! Black hole!

@intpz

I'm not sure Hawkeye has parried any of these arguments. The man should be left for dead. Perhaps I should move on from this polemical bloodbath as well. This might be what arguing with an imbecile third grader or devout catholic resembles, and it doesn't seem fair. I need a shower.