Optimissed wrote:
Oh look it's the guy who likes to think he's incredibly clever.
You can find such a person in any mirror.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
crazedrat1000 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
DiogenesDue wrote:
crazedrat1000 wrote:
I'd interpret it as an accolade, as it shows he's aware that he couldn't claim anything more than to be an intellectual equal.
People who are less intelligent may have valid opinions, they can even be correct in cases where those more intelligent are not... but these less intelligent people do need to cultivate some humility and make more of an attempt to listen / understand those smarter than them - due to the intelligence gap this is an issue. It doesn't need to be an issue of pretense unless you make it into one, and I don't support pretenses where I see them, however this is a major obstacle in these conversations. I also don't have any desire to deny the reality of intelligence differences ... I'm secure enough in who I am to acknowledge them, you should be too. They exist, by denying them you make yourself dumber than you need to be.
Go do a Tarot reading and tell us if Optimissed's psi powers are real .
Does he do tarot? My late brother wrote a book about that. I could get it published, quite easily, I believe. He was something of an expert but he's also worshipped, to some extent. He was a Sufi, I suppose.
Perhaps I should cause his memory to live on.
I merely suggested Dio try the Tarot as a simple introduction. I thought I could show him that he has the ability to invoke these events. I was wrong, I greatly overestimated him.
Personally I just use random number generators if I want to generate a "macro-quantum event" (I know you don't believe it works that way) as I find my own consciousness is a better interpretant than any formal system.
Being "overestimated" in such a way by either of you is clearly a compliment.
Feb 22, 2025
0
#14624
@Dio Well you do have a certain tenacity that I associate with intelligence, and you're obviously not dumb, however you fail to fully understand matters from the perspective of the people you're speaking with, and it often results in you being very dogmatic / inflexible on certain issues.
@Optimissed I switched the tense from speaking to you, to speaking to a broader audience, I don't think I made it clear but I'm aware you're in the high-genius range and you outstrip everyone here. For me this is not difficult to acknowledge as I have very little ego invested in proving myself to anyone here.
Feb 22, 2025
0
#14626
Wow did I finally kill this thread after 920? That'd be amazing. I'd have to put "thread killer" in my profile or something
Feb 22, 2025
0
#14627
crazedrat1000 wrote:
... I have very little ego invested in proving myself to anyone here.
Just as well.
Feb 22, 2025
0
#14628
RNGs work as well as any other technique out there, I can say that.
That's how I first encountered the phenomenon, actually. A girl I was "dating" (I met her on a Jungian psychology forum) introduced me to it, she linked me to a webpage through which you could do a virtual reading. It worked, but it led me down the path of RNGs.
crazedrat1000 wrote:
@Dio Well you do have a certain tenacity that I associate with intelligence, and you're obviously not dumb, however you fail to fully understand matters from the perspective of the people you're speaking with, and it often results in you being very dogmatic / inflexible on certain issues.
@Optimissed I switched the tense from speaking to you, to speaking to a broader audience, I don't think I made it clear but I'm aware you're in the high-genius range and you outstrip everyone here. For me this is not difficult to acknowledge as I have very little ego invested in proving myself to anyone here.
You're using "tense" incorrectly. What this says about your ability to judge others' IQ, I will leave to that same broader audience.
crazedrat1000 wrote:
RNGs work as well as any other technique out there, I can say that.
That's how I first encountered the phenomenon, actually. A girl I was "dating" (I met her on a Jungian psychology forum) introduced me to it, she linked me to a webpage through which you could do a virtual reading. It worked, but it led me down the path of RNGs.
This is pretty funny...so both you and Optimissed were both seemingly convinced the paranormal is possible by "girlfriends".
Feb 22, 2025
0
#14631
Well one example of my ability to judge peoples IQ is in that I can tell Optimissed is being honest in his claims, whereas you cannot.
Feb 22, 2025
0
#14632
DiogenesDue wrote:
This is pretty funny...so both you and Optimissed were both seemingly convinced the paranormal is possible by "girlfriends".
Perhaps women are more capable of suspending judgments than men, and they're also much more social - which leads them to both being open to, and encountering, such things.
Two prerequisites to finding this out. Because everyone I've heard of who recognizes this phenomenon was shown it by someone at some point. It's not really the sort of thing you think up on your own. I suppose someone could have spontaneous experiences, but they'd be likely to discount them as coincidence... and even if they didn't discount it, they'd have no one to talk with about it and no easy way of explaining it.
crazedrat1000 wrote:
Well one example of my ability to judge peoples IQ is in that I can tell Optimissed is being honest in his claims, whereas you cannot.
Honest in his claims of taking the same IQ test a couple dozen times to achieve a high score? Yes, this does have the ring of truth. What is lacking is your understanding of how IQ test work and when they are valid or not.
Feb 22, 2025
0
#14634
Actually I don't even need to squabble about the details, or compare your recounting of events with his, since I can just follow his thought process and it's pretty evident he's well into the genius range, since he arrives at the correct conclusion in these conversations immediately in most cases. I don't really need alot more evidence that there's something to his claim. There's no one else on the forum who does that, not even Elroch who... is smart but still completely wrong about a number of things, including game theory. So yes, it's actually pretty obvious. The fact he claims to have evidence corroborating it makes it more obvious.
And you're smart but you hardly can get anything right, so obviously he's way above you. You're like 130 or so would be my guess.
Although I'm not sure IQ alone explains all of what I describe, but it's going to correlate with it.
Feb 22, 2025
0
#14636
Optimissed wrote:
I also estimated him at 130. Maybe 135 but I believe that he makes himself look far dumber than he is. Emotional over-reactivity.
Yeah emotionality is potentially a factor. I think some people also just cultivate their mental world throughout their lifetime, whereas others think / operate on a more mundane level. So in these conversations... they get left behind. Even though they may be intelligent, on a mundane level. Likewise, a person who thinks about things deeply over a lifetime may keep up in conversation despite a significant IQ difference. Because learning and introspection aren't really factored into IQ.
There are other possible explanations.
Still placing him in the top 1% feels a bit too generous to me. But who knows.
Optimissed wrote:
I don't think you understand the inference and I believe it shows that you hold most people in contempt.
If you were pleasant to people, you would have had friend requests which you would have accepted in order to show friendship. You clearly have no idea that there's a huge difference between showing someone friendship and them being your friend. Not understanding that must be a tremendous obstacle to your actually being able to socialise adequately, in normal company.
No, that's the difference between us. I don't accept nor initiate friendship requests "in order to show friendship" at some initial stage. I value friendship more than that. I don't consider casual acquaintances to be friends, nor do I care at all about having a higher numbers of "friends", likes, upvotes, etc.
The titled players are more of a "I'm a fan of your work" type of thing, except for IM Pruess who I interacted with on a votechess game. If the site had a more appropriate mechanism for this, I would use it.
If your locus of self-worth were internal rather than external, you would understand this point of view better.
I do not "hold most people in contempt". That would be you, demonstrably so every time you talk about how you are cut above everyone else in a discussion. I don't even hold you in contempt...but your behavior and choices stemming from your insecurities are contemptible.
Optimissed wrote:
I make friends extremely easily because I can judge people accurately.
Belied by the number of times you have uttered the phrase: "I thought you were X (something positive), but now I see you are Y (something negative)" over the years...
Feb 22, 2025
0
#14639
playerafar wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
@playerafar
And the colour?
I didn't say there was a single color.
Then switch to a dark background.
Optimissed wrote:
This makes him appear to be far dumber than he really is.
He knows that I took a series of DIFFERENT IQ (Eysenck) tests in 1977 when I was recovering from infectious hepatitis, with the object of testing the incorrect belief that IQ tests don't vary much and can be trusted. I found the exact opposite to be true. There wasn't particularly a "learned" aspect to achieving a high score. Somewhere I have the exact sequence of results. The important thing is how well you're feeling.
I deliberately took tests when I was feeling really bad. I already knew my IQ is in the 170 to 190 range and the fact that I never scored more than 169 (3 or 4 times) demonstrated that I was never really on form. The spread of results, though, was 53 IQ points, since I scored a 116 and a (something like) 132 but lots in the 150s and 160s. So I was interested in testing the IQ tests and not the other way round. This has already been explained to him, so he's definitely dishonest.
I am aware that the kind of mental agility which is necessary to obtain high scores in these kinds of tests is a rare phenomenon. Statistically, there aren't going to be many but I know through direct evidence that Elroch is quite bright but doesn't have true reason to trust himself to think creatively, very fast with complete accuracy. Speed of thought is an essential criterion in accurately creative thought because the mind works via small bursts of energy which association pattern "hits" cause in our neural pathways and which power the next association; and so on.
So you "know" that your IQ is between 170 to 190(!), having never scored that high even once (while repeating tests that are designed to be taken once). And this has nothing to do with your father telling some story about his IQ being 171 when you were younger...
These yarns are par for the course for you. I do congratulate you on finding someone obsequious enough in their need to also be thought a great intellect that they are indulging your narrative, but in the end it does no good for either of you.
Enigma could be solved but chess must be many millions of times harder to solve. Maybe it's unsolveable.
Of course Enigma was solved. If a key to the solution hadn't been created along with the code itself, it wouldn't have been worth squat for conveying messages.