the smartest smart person could ever smartly smart off is still dumb enough that a pair of retards could understand it.

no actually it doesnt mean that at all. you're a moron

It's true that the math works that way but i'd still take a guy with an IQ of 160 over two guys with an IQ of 80 if there was a difficult problem I had to face.

ill join forces with retards to pimp my hoes!

At 4/25/11 05:05 PM, Lorkas wrote: Does that mean two retards could write the best novel?

Well, THEY WROTE YOUR FACE!

the unfortunate truth

I am Asian Man from Japan. Therefore I am genetically intelligent in any way whatsoever to the feeble American-Canadian-Mexican Mind.

Chiki-WAH

Still Love You FUNKbrs!

Or two average persons, 100 iq, minus half retarded.

At 4/26/11 12:21 AM, WeHaveFreshCookies wrote: IQ can't be combined. Two idiots are still two idiots. You can't add them up to make a genius. It just doesn't work that way.

But with cellotape ANYTHING is possible.

But then again, you're not taking into account that two geniuses combined will be better than two retards combined. It is, after all, two retards' heads, and so if it is to apply, two geniuses' heads should be better!

Retards are actually aliens.

Thats a intetisting idea... Really it is...

the article didn't say IQ scores are additive (combined intelligence of two people with IQs A and B = inteillengece of a person with IQ A+B) did it?

besides, a certain amount of intelligence is required for abstract reasoning, something that a person could not do if he doesn't have sufficient intelligence to comprehend. no matter how many of those people group together, they can still not be able to make sense of those abstract ways of thinking.

The thing about problem solving is that "test" problems are always over simplified. A real test of intelligence is solving a problem that would take 40 hours to figure out all the details on, not merely one or two like most standardized tests.

Multiple retards can split up the topical content between them so their limited intellect is still capable of having the same reach as someone with twice the memory capacity. The trick to solving complex mathmatical equasions is to simplify them; break them into parts so simple even a retard could understand them. Science teaches us that all problems can be eventually broken down into math.

How do you think computers solve problems? The whole POINT is that you can take a circuit only capable of understanding "yes" and "no" (symbolized by 1 and 0 in code) and put enough of them together on a microchip that they can solve for internet protocols and web navigation.

And here you guys are, USING COMPUTERS, and still completely ignorant of how you can combine sources of extremely limited intelligence (something as dumb as an "on/off" switch) to solve problems faster and more effectively than the human brain.

try to teach any moron advanced calculus, and you'll know what i mean. they simply don't have intellectual power to grasp difficult concepts.

it is not true that any mathematical problem can be broken down to something a retard can solve. take mathematical analysis for example, you must understand the definiton (which cannot be simplify further) of limits and conditions for important theorems in order to proceed. even for something as mechincal as solving differential equations (which relies heavily on experinece and luck rather than intelletual power), you must understand what consitutes a fundameantal set of solutions and classification of different kinds of equations in order to come up with a general solution. one cannot procced further without soild understanding of these concepts in the first place.

Yeah, except they're still two retards and you're still smarter than them, unless they magically combine their brains into one.

This concept is retarded

At 4/26/11 09:52 AM, i-am-ghey wrote: try to teach any moron advanced calculus, and you'll know what i mean. they simply don't have intellectual power to grasp difficult concepts.

..on an individual basis.... Which goes against my whole point.

it is not true that any mathematical problem can be broken down to something a retard can solve. take mathematical analysis for example, you must understand the definiton (which cannot be simplify further) of limits and conditions for important theorems in order to proceed. even for something as mechincal as solving differential equations (which relies heavily on experinece and luck rather than intelletual power), you must understand what consitutes a fundameantal set of solutions and classification of different kinds of equations in order to come up with a general solution. one cannot procced further without soild understanding of these concepts in the first place.

Retards are fully capable of remembering things. That's not intelligence, that's memory, and it's totally separate. Retards aren't as stupid as you seem to think; normally it's a lack of effort that limits their abilities to succeed in the world, not their ability to remember what they are taught. They just don't have the range and flexibility that more intelligent people have; if a retard works hard and has the discipline to study exclusively, they can command an impressive functional problem solving ability in limited areas.

The hard thing here is getting retards to work together, because there's a bar set by the complexity of language in their ability to communicate with one another. The hard part isn't getting two retards to outthink a genius, it's getting the retards to have a simple enough system of communication that they can work together seamlessly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(%CE%B5,_%C E%B4)-definition_of_limit
are you sure that any retards can understand those abstract definitions? (to be frank, even average junior high school students can not make sense of it), it requires a lot more than good memory.

and if any retard can not see the logic behind calculus, or any other discipline, if they group together, they still can't understand anything about those topics, because they are not equipped to do so.

At 4/26/11 10:37 AM, i-am-ghey wrote:

and if any retard can not see the logic behind calculus, or any other discipline, if they group together, they still can't understand anything about those topics, because they are not equipped to do so.

Kind of like how scientists never bother to work together, because if one individual scientist isn't' capable of figuring something out on his own, working with his peers certainly won't help either?

Wait... that's not how our civilization was built... it was built by a bunch of retards... working together in specialized areas. Because no matter how smart any one person is, they're still not smart enough to understand everything in the universe, because the universe is infinite, and people are limited.

I'm not saying a genius isn't in a great position to make new discoveries, what I'm saying is that the world's smartest person still needs to rely on the intelligence of people who aren't as smart, and someone's lack of intelligence can be overcome by group effort.

What I'm saying is that stupid people, if organized properly, are smarter than smart people who don't work together.

I mean, how do you think they came up with Punk Rock, one of the most revolutionary, if not THE most revolutionary musical concepts? It wasn't because the classical music genius kids came up with it! It took a group of highly motivated and well integrated sub-intellectuals applying trial and error with remarkable efficiency to fundamentally change the way people looked at music.

true. one has to rely on discoveries by other people to advance. but as i have mentioned before, having a clear picutre of what's other's work is about is the bare minimum for any person to make further advancement in the field. this cannot be accomplished by people with below-average intelligence simply because they do not have the necessary analytical power to do mathematics.

some for arts and music. you can't create new musical genres if you are anything but creative. i'm sure even if you gather a group of people that do not have any artistic ability, they can't produce music that is orginal, and of good quaility.

At 4/26/11 11:17 AM, i-am-ghey wrote: this cannot be accomplished by people with below-average intelligence simply because they do not have the necessary analytical power to do mathematics.

If a dog can figure out the trajectory of a frisbee, I think a retard can figure out vector based mathematics too.

some for arts and music. you can't create new musical genres if you are anything but creative. i'm sure even if you gather a group of people that do not have any artistic ability, they can't produce music that is orginal, and of good quaility.

The Shaggs

Tell that to them, and their decades long carreer with critical acclaim. Curt Kobain was a huge fan, and Frank Zappa himself (Steve Vai, supergenius guitar player extradorinaire's original band leader) called them "Better than the Beatles."

dogs didn't calculate the exact trajectory though. it uses experience to predict the behaviour of projectiles under the infulence of gravity.

you don't use intuition in mathemtics. you give formal proofs of theorems. even if it is intuitvely clear that a certain property/theorem holds, proving itmay be a problem. heck, vector calculus isn't just about trajecotry anyway. figuring the shortest path on a differentiable manifold requires a certain famaliarity of suffix (or einstein) notation, which again requires a bit of abstract thinking. more advanced topics on calculus are purely theortical and you cannot relate them to everyday phenomon.

At 4/26/11 12:01 PM, i-am-ghey wrote: dogs didn't calculate the exact trajectory though. it uses experience to predict the behaviour of projectiles under the infulence of gravity.

Other than not being able to write the answer for a teacher, exactly what is the difference in functionality? Humans really aren't as smart as we think we are. That's been my point from the beginning.

you don't use intuition in mathemtics. you give formal proofs of theorems. even if it is intuitvely clear that a certain property/theorem holds, proving itmay be a problem. heck, vector calculus isn't just about trajecotry anyway. figuring the shortest path on a differentiable manifold requires a certain famaliarity of suffix (or einstein) notation, which again requires a bit of abstract thinking. more advanced topics on calculus are purely theortical and you cannot relate them to everyday phenomon.

You do all of these things for a grade, not to be successful.

In real life, noone's handing out any marks. You don't have to explain why you did the right thing, you just have to do it.

yes. you do have to give formal proofs when you do research in unveristies. otherwise, you work will most likely be rejected during peer-reviewing and oral defense. in fact, even if a theorem (which you arrive based on intution) may appear to be correct, in most cases, people will be able to find a counter-argument to disprove your theory.

and the entire argument here depends on how you define 'intelligence'. in my opinion, giving the right answers (without going through any deductive reasoning) is not evidence of intelligence. it only shows how lucky and experienced (with real life phenomon) you are.

By this same logic if I found someone with a 12 inch cock and were to walk around with them and have them in the bedroom with me while I partake in fortification, I would have an 18 inch cock.

Gee golly can't wait to try this out.

At 4/26/11 12:31 PM, zooos wrote: By this same logic if I found someone with a 12 inch cock and were to walk around with them and have them in the bedroom with me while I partake in fortification, I would have an 18 inch cock.

Gee golly can't wait to try this out.

Only if you cut his off and had it surgically ADDED to your own.

However, both of you in tandem would probably be more sexually pleasing to a woman than just one man with an 18 inch cock.

Kind of like how a threesome with two decent looking chicks is still better than nailing one supermodel.

At 4/26/11 10:37 AM, i-am-ghey wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(%CE%B5,_%C E%B4)-definition_of_limit
are you sure that any retards can understand those abstract definitions? (to be frank, even average junior high school students can not make sense of it), it requires a lot more than good memory.

and if any retard can not see the logic behind calculus, or any other discipline, if they group together, they still can't understand anything about those topics, because they are not equipped to do so.

Calculus isn't nearly as inherently difficult as you make it out to be. Any guy with an 85 IQ can learn it if he puts in the effort to really understand the fundamental concepts. The reason so many students fail at it is because they have this flawed belief that they aren't smart and calculus is beyond them.

4 People with IQs of 40 are as good as a guy with an IQ of 160. Ofcourse. Two people with IQs of 80 are not capable of the same comprehensions and understanding a guy with an IQ of 160 is capable of. Get two people with IQs of 80 and tell them to work on Theoretical Physics and see how far they get.