zurew

So you don't buy into the assumption in general, that in order to get a PhD you need to be more logical than an average person or that you would be considered a logical person? I don't know the details regarding that specific statistic, and I don't know what kind of PhD-s you would select for in this case and how you would properly measure how much logic you would need to have regarding each of those instances. - in other words, what makes a major more logic reliant compared to others and how would you measure that? I mean the claim that certain people would be capable to earn a PhD but they choose not to is probably applicable to both genders. I don't know how you would properly measure this either or that what data you have on this. Interests also come hugely from social factors, from culture, from family values, from the social matrix. Having the right to choose is just one factor from the many potential sociology factors. Btw Im not suggesting that there would be no difference between the two genders (if we control for most sociological factors), when it comes to certain majors, my intuition is that that gap would probably become much smaller, but I can be persuaded if good research is shown on the subject. But regardless, you don't need to engage with my questions above, because it is a kind of sidestep from the original topic (chess). Regarding that topic, do you know what kind of variables are the most predictive of one becoming a chess grand master? So for example is there any research that demonstrates how much weight IQ holds regarding one becoming a chess grand master and what are the other most predictive variables? Can you link the research paper on this please? I tried to search for it, but I only found articles on it, but not the original research paper.

How do you exclude and measure the weight of sociological factors on one's decision making? Starting with the assumption of one has to be logical in order to get a PhD - How do you explain for example the fact that in 1980 there were more than twice as many men who earned their PhD compared to women, and now:

I will give you this : he is charismatic and can be really funny sometimes

Hahahaha, im crying from laughter. Thats why he bragged about it proudly ,right? Also he has so much integrity that after he self snitched multiple times ,now he tries to deny everything and just says that all of that was just a character. - thats a peak of integrity for ya

Ya know, THEY have an evil agenda, so its not a surprise.

Because its all a planned matrix attack, because they don't want Tate to reveal the truth about them. But no problem, even if he will get convicted it will be because of the matrix. Even if there will be a fuckton of evidence presented that will all be fabricated by the matrix. - They are afraid of the Tate brothers

Their saying of "its just a character" could be or could have been an optional defense if we wouldn't know all the surrounding facts and context about the guy like: having multiple women tattooed "owned by tate" on them; having a pimp course ; 4 victims reporting him about rape and violent assault ; him demonstrably lying about his own case multiple times and much more makes their saying incredibly weak.

Dude please do research before you speak on a subject. Your message suggests that you haven't read this thread and you haven't done much of an independent research on it yourself. He has already been charged with with rape and sex trafficking - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65959097 . The only thing you can argue about is whether he will be convicted or not, but so far nothing suggests that he won't be convicted. The court taking its time has nothing to do with whether he will be convicted or not. Again do your research or just read this thread before your speak on a subject with such a high confidence. You have an incline to hop on the "matrix is powerful and bad" , but that shouldn't make you blind to whats in front of you. This will be a brief introduction to Tate, I won't write everything down , because I would just reiterate whats in this thread and its actually tiring at this point: - You have guy who has easily 30+ hours of video and audio footage where he brags about how he manipulates women, and how he just views them as a tool to achieve his financial goals - He had a pimp course where he taught guys how to manipulate women and how to set up a cam business - There are multiple women who has a cobra and an "owned by Tate" tattoo on them - totally normal right, who wouldn't want to signal so clearly that they are a property of someone else? - There are leaked logs where he talked to his group and gave tips and even asked for advice how to manipulate more effectively so that he can bring them to his place to eventually turned them into cam girls, obviously under false premises - which is sex trafficking - you have 4 victims reported things about Tate like rape and violent assaults. - and there is so much more that I don't have the patience to write down - just look through this thread and you will get more context.

Whoever unbanned me after Roy quickly banned me, thanks.

Roy has been going downhill for a while now. There is not much of a substance to anything he says and he seem to be incapable to engage with most topics more deeper than surface level.

If you really want to attack porn, lets see if you can make an argument why there is no such thing as making porn in an ethical way or in other words - why all porn production is unethical. or make an argument that shows what is inherently wrong with porn (so don't talk about consequences given a certain societal context, but talk about the subject [porn] without societal context, to demonstrate whats wrong with it inherently) -or in other words give something that would be wrong in all context.

@Recursoinominado Don't even engage with that dude - he clearly haven't done even a surface level research on the subject, haven't even read the very study that he linked and its actually embarrassing at this point that he said 50% death rate with a straight face without backing it with anything and without thinking just 5 seconds about what that would actually mean if it would be true. He already undermined the validity of medical studies multiple times in this thread, and people like that wont ever be persuaded by any single or collection of studies and you will have to argue with their feelings on the subject, which is obviously a waste of time and an actual brainrot. Im surprised how people like him can survive on a day to day basis using an epistemology like that. At this point we should create a vaccine (and then unironically mandate it) that gives some of these people the ability to feel shame after they make confident and stupid and baseless claims

Dude this thread is full of evidence, at this point you couldn't be more easily spoon fed with the evidence that is against him. You sound like someone who not just haven't done an ounce of research on Tate, but someone who haven't even read this thread. Most of the time he either lies or make claims that haven't been substantiated.

In those posts, there is no justification or establishment of causal connection for the essential claims that he makes, he is just stating his conclusion several times, without backing his claims up by anything. Very poorly made and formed "arguments".

Keep telling yourself that and after he will get convicted (if he will be ) keep telling yourself that it was the matrix.

Andrew Tate fans: "But, but ,but the matrix"

@Sincerity Good stuff! Its so easy to see the arrogance on the right side - talking about philosophy without thinking about it or studying it in depth.

translation: you don't get girls ,therefore you try really hard to try to blame your lack of success all on women. Try to grow up dude, because this is not your first post regarding this issue and its very clear that this is a coping mechanism.

Sure, my point was to demonstrate you don't need to be for example a champion to make someone a champion. Famous example could be Mike Tyson's coach: Cus D'Amato. My understanding is that he was an amateur boxer and thats the best he could achieve as a boxer - but he became an exceptional coach and he handled the careers of Mike Tyson, Floyd Patterson, and José Torres, all of whom went on to be inducted into the International Boxing Hall of Fame.

I will say this : this could be a good rule of thumb, but it has some holes in it. We can take a dozen of different examples where the person who guides isn't really good in that domain , but can still make the other person successful or help him/her to solve his/her problem regarding that domain. You might think ,that if a person is bad at embodying the things he/she says, then what she/he says must not be applicapble or must be bullshit, but thats not necessarily the case and it will depend on a couple of factors. For example lets take a boxing coach who has never been a champion in boxing, but could still create a world champion from the right person. And we could flip this and analyze the other side: Just because you have embodied something ,that doesn't necessarily indicates that you will be able to give good advice to other people with in the same domain, who has different abilities, circumstances, and development and life structure compared to you. So how should you judge? 1) You should judge based on the clients. If the teacher/trainer/coach/doctor has good clients or the clients have achievied good results (the definition of good obviously based on what kind of situation or domain we talk about), then it is almost safe to say , that thats a good choice. 2) The other thing is obviously looking for signs of system thinking. System thinking is not necessarily required if you life situation is almost 100% the same as the other clients, because then the same kind of solution process could be applied to your life, but if your life is a lot different in many aspect compared to the other clients, then yeah system thinking from the coach/teacher/doctor/trainer will be required. Those 2 points above should be enough in most cases, to find the right person you are looking for.

@CARDOZZO I don't know how much he truly cares, but one thing is for sure: that this move will bring even more competition to be the first to create an AGI. It will be an interesting run for sure. But as a side note - if I were him, and if I would truly care about AI safetiness, I wouldn't create an even bigger competition, I would try to join and collab with another big company and help it to make their AI as safe as possible. The goal should be to collect the best people in the field and then join their intellect and power together to create the safest and best AI possible. Shortly: IMO, creating more division and competition around AI and AI safetiness makes solving these issues worse and harder.

Yeah, Elon signed the petition for shutting down GPT4 development for 6 month (virtue signaling and pretending that he cares about AI risk) and simultaneously he built up his own AI company.

Help your girl to heal, and then help her setting up clear and strong boundaries. She needs to be extremely clear about her boundaries especially because asshole and pushy guys will totallly take advantage of her if she won't be very upfront about what line can't be crossed. She needs to learn that there are a lot of cases where the strategy of being confrontational and very upfront is much better than being passive or agreeable. And of course , she needs to cut off that friend.

Yes, because I have resarched this topic a lot, and I asked you and the other guy in this thread and before that I have talked to a bunch of people who could be called vaccine sceptic and they couldn't bring anything substantive on the table just going on side tangents without giving any evidence for their claims or if they did bring something most of the time their own paper debunked their claims or they couldn't conceptualize what was going on in that paper or they only read the abstract and didn't bother the read the whole paper. - so yes this and knowing how fucking insane the idea is to manage to hide these big secrects on a global scale - when on a much smaller scale leaks happen all the time, I am very confident in my position. Before you say again "ohh so you are not open to the idea that a big secret can be uphold for multiple years happen on a global scale?" - show me anything tangible. I don't know whats the problem with you guys regarding analyzing incentives just only from one side and thinking thats like a big find or something. You do realize that alternative media people have a lot of incentive as well to keep repeating their ideologically and conspiratorial points? Alex Jones have earned a fuckton of money doing that and you can earn a lot more than money - for example fame and followers, and an authority position - where you can virtue signal that you are the good one, that you have have all the people's interest in mind, opposite to the corporate ,bad, ugly mainstream media. You can spot a bunch of same tactics and dynamics that you are so oppose to when it comes to the maisntream , but you are not even remotely suspicious or critical when it comes to the alternative media - that shows me you don't really care about seriously analyzing those dynamics you care more about focusing on people who are ideologically aligned with you and your opinions. These tactics could be included on both sides : - Try to become an authority figure who can feed you information - Signal to people that you have their interest in mind - Constantly undermining the other side's validity - Earning a lot of money by not focusing on being right but more by focusing on telling points that are aligned with an establishment or an anti establishment ideology - and then on the top of all that foundation you can build businesses and start your run for president "Years of brainwashing" - where you actually need to learn about medicine and you can't just pull everything out of your ass without . Also you do realize here, that when doctors make claims about the vaccine or about any medicine - they will automatically be uphold to a much higher standard - therefore they need to worry a lot more about not saying wrong shit, because they can lose their job or at minimum they will be 5x more criticised than a layman like RFK. So who has the incentive there to say correct things and to do a more in depth research? If RFK jr is wrong you answer would be - "who cares, he got corrected". If a mainstream doctor is wrong - he is purposefully told a lie to participate in a global scam or "he should lose his job, because he is irresponsible" etcetc. None of that gives you a reason to reiterate a point confidently that you haven't checked yourself. No. Even this point of yours show me that you haven't done any research before, because there are claims that are easy to check (with sometimes a 5 second in other times few hours of google search) and there are others that you can't really check because you would actually need to be an expert or very knowledgeable on the topic. Ohh I am your best bet, because I am not a doctor so I am not brainwashed or blinded by the system yet and I still have a special ability to see through the matrix.

You have made some claims about the vaccines, without doing any research yourself and just reiterated what RFK said. - Why do such a thing if you are truly agnostic? Instead of asking 100 different 'why' questions - psycho analysing RFK - why not do some research regarding the vaccines? None of your questions are relevant regarding the efficacy and or safetiness of the vaccines - there are a 100 million different ways a person could be wrong about something, its not relevant why someone is wrong if he is indeed wrong. I can fuck up a math equation for a million different reasons and in a million different ways - but it still won't change the fact that I fucked it up. Sounds like you haven't researched any smart person seriously. No matter how smart you are , you can always say some dumb shit, especially when you are making claims outside of your own expertise - which sounds exactly like something what RFK did. Also, its not like RFK jr is some genius or something. Whats interesting is that on one hand, you are claiming to be agnostic and on the other hand literally nothing is stopping your from fact checking rfk's claims. - to me if you would be honest you would just say that RFK's words are resonating with you , because it aligns with your anti-establishment ideology - but in that case lets not pretend that you would be persuaded by any data or studies. I would suggest to be more honest with your position , because you are giving off extremely dishonest vibes here.