IQ

[Reach]

I think more than 30% of the people would answer yes, other than that, there are really smart people that are quite humble.

Is the thing in your signature physically possible with elastics or is there some paradox involved?

Social psychology would tell us that the vast majority of people, i.e. over 85% of people, will report themselves as 'slightly above average' intelligence, as to think of themselves as better than the average bear, but not to appear full of themselves. People don't like to think of themselves as average or less than average, generally, which becomes clear when we realize 85+% of people can't be above average

Also, it's a hypercube, representing a cube in 4 dimensional hyper-space, so no.

I'm also pretty sure many IQ tests inflate scores to make one seem "smarter." I remember this absurdly easy test with a 135 cap, but the questions and length of the test probably demanded no more than a 110 cap.

Well yeah, most online IQ tests don't even standardize the scores based on performance from a sample and don't have any validity checks to assure they're measuring the right things.

Obviously it's difficult to standardize a test online, since the sample isn't at all random - the easiest way is usually to have people take the test that can give you scores from other tests they've taken.

Also, that was probably the tickle.com test, or whatever that site is. I wouldn't exactly call that an IQ test. :P

[Ice wolf]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

Is the thing in your signature physically possible with elastics or is there some paradox involved?

It is a 2-dimensional projection of a 3-dimensional shadow of a 4-dimensional cube rotating. It is known as a hypercube or a tesseract.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by Ice wolf

It is a 2-dimensional projection of a 3-dimensional shadow of a 4-dimensional cube rotating. It is known as a hypercube or a tesseract.

I seriously don't understand how those dimensions beyond the third work. I mean, it's impossible to imagine something like an axis that's perpendicular to the 3 original dimensions, and everything that's said about it is always shown in 3d or 2d. So, what does it really mean?

Well, I did find an explanation of a fourth dimension shown as a "color" axis. But I seriously can't conceive it as another "space" axis.

EDIT: Ah, I get it!
0 dimension: point.
1 dimension: a segment of a line, two points linked.
2 dimensions: square, two segments of line linked.
3 dimensions: a cube, two squares linked by the vertices.
4 dimensions: tesseract, two cubes linked by the vertices.

That's really cool, but I still can't imagine it as being something beyond 3d, I wonder if it's possible to imagine...

Originally Posted by Reach

Social psychology would tell us that the vast majority of people, i.e. over 85% of people, will report themselves as 'slightly above average' intelligence, as to think of themselves as better than the average bear, but not to appear full of themselves. People don't like to think of themselves as average or less than average, generally, which becomes clear when we realize 85+% of people can't be above average

Well... It looks like the people I live with are humbler than usual, because I've known several smart or average people who keep calling themselves "dumb" or "nothing special". I'm not on that group, but I'm not annoyingly arrogant either. I think.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

Well there's that saying, "the average man thinks he isn't" or whatever. I'm also pretty sure many IQ tests inflate scores to make one seem "smarter." I remember this absurdly easy test with a 135 cap, but the questions and length of the test probably demanded no more than a 110 cap.

I've seen IQ tests from ads. They were so ridiculous it looked like the cap was 100 or something.

[MrRubix]

This might be a bit out of place, but I just wanted to reply to that comment about arrogance.

I think when it comes to intelligence, going too far either way on he humility scale can be bad if you're very smart.

Smart people who claim to be nothing special (or who constantly discredit themselves) come across as arrogant to me. I get the impression, "I'm so great that I have to dumb myself down hardcore-style and nuke every one of my strong attributes just to talk to you aiite?" It's also a sort of self-esteem erosion mechanism, because if some gifted dude claims to be nothing special, then what the hell is someone lesser? Retarded?

Similarly, though, people who claim to be fscking hxc also come across as extremely arrogant.

Now, that being said, I'd consider myself a pretty arrogant dude. I attribute it to a few things:

1. Neither one of my parents really praised me for much as I grew up. They cared more about my what my brother was into (mainly football). He was never punished for much, whereas I was punished HARD for insanely retarded things. Neither of my parents went to college. They weren't naturally educated or intelligent, either. I'd try to get better and better at things, but neither one of my parents really seemed to care. As a result, I have a sort of grudge/resentment. Like, I could get scores/grades/college acceptances that only a small handful of people in the country would be able to achieve, and yet my parents didn't bat an eye: "Okay but your brother is going to be much more successful than you. Look at how hard he works! He can lift like four times as much as you can. He's a hard worker. You sit all damn day." At the same time, it angered me that I'd see other parents gushing over their sons/daughters for some lesser accomplishment. While much of my progress was stemmed from natural curiosity and a desire to succeed in life, a lot of it was also to try to spark SOME kind of reaction or interest from my parents. I wanted them to care about what I was doing, and I wanted love and support, but I got little of either. So you can say I am a bit bitter. While I am extraordinarily proud that I am a self-made person, I am extremely pissed off that it was basically the only way for me to get here. I didn't have the educational, financial, or emotional support base from my parents that many of my peers did, and so I am very jealous. Luckily, I had a home to sleep in and a computer -- I have to thank my parents for getting me one early in life, since it was my main source of learning. Even financially, though, I've paid for all my own things ever since I began working years ago, including this absurdly expensive school. Finances only became worse when my father died because then I had to start dumping even more money out just to live at home. People don't realize how easy they have it. I feel like nobody really understands the context of my situation, and it's very isolating. So in some sick way my arrogance is a cry for help or desire for some kind of acknowledgment or understanding for what I've done in life.

2. I get frustrated with people easily when they try to argue with me over something they're incorrect about. This would be different from, say, a debate where you may end up simply agreeing to disagree on some fundamental issue, or being incorrect about something and coming to realize that you were wrong, and correcting your mistake. For instance, I got really frustrated with one of my groups in a Finance course I took. Over and over again, my group would be incorrect when it came to making certain assumptions about a project, or they'd be wrong in the way they calculated something. I'd calmly try to explain to them why they were wrong with tons of evidence, but apparently 3 vs. 1 means I am the wrong one. We'd lose points on the projects consistently, and it bugged the **** out of me that they didn't realize, "Hey, we're constantly losing points every single time we disagree with him" or "Hey he was actually right." The only time we got a perfect score on a project in that class was when I agreed to do the writeup myself (because then I was able to fix everything without them knowing, as I was tired of losing points to their mistakes). What bothers me is that some people either ignore evidence that they are wrong, or are simply unable to understand the evidence.

3. I find that the number of times I am hurt as a result of other people's LACK of intelligence far outweighs the number of times I experience some gain/synergy from PRESENCE of other people's intelligence. A lot of this probably stems from my forced self-support. It's very hard for me to rely on others because I can't trust them, since, empirically, people tend to suck when I put my faith in their word or abilities (even regarding emotional matters). Don't get me wrong though, I do enjoy working in teams, but teams are better when people learn from their mistakes and focus on leveraging their abilities while keeping flaws in check. Being a part of a team where people are just retarded is stressful, because too much energy is wasted on damage control as opposed to moving forward.

I know none of you are probably going to read that bukkake-dump of text, haha. But it helped me to form those things into words.

Long story short, though, when it comes to humility, I try to be a realist about it. I'm not going to completely go off the deep end and say "Oh, I'm nothing," because I'm not. I was blessed with a good mind, and I got to where I am now with a lot of hard work and learning. That doesn't mean, though, that other people can't be at the same level or better, as there are plenty of those people who exist. I'm trying to work a bit at being more humble, since I tend to get carried away from time to time. As most of my arrogance stems from bitterness and jealousy, I have to remember that while my situation has sucked, I have a decent life right now that many, many others would love to have, and so I have to be thankful and humble for my good luck.

[Ice wolf]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

I seriously don't understand how those dimensions beyond the third work. I mean, it's impossible to imagine something like an axis that's perpendicular to the 3 original dimensions, and everything that's said about it is always shown in 3d or 2d. So, what does it really mean?

EDIT: Darn, you figured it out before I posted this, but it still might help you with higher dimensional concepts.

It is only hard to imagine how the higher dimensions work because we are not in them.

Let us look at how we form new dimensions: a 0-dimensional point is connected to another 0-dimensional point at right angles to create a line in the 1st dimension. A 1-dimensional line is connected to another 1-dimensional line at right angles to form a square in the 2nd dimension. A 2-dimensional square is connected to another 2-dimensional square at right angles to form a cube in the 3rd dimension. A 3-dimensional cube is connected to another 3-dimensional cube at right angles to form a hypercube in the 4th dimension (and so on).

We formed the 4th dimension in the same way we formed the others, so why do we have such a hard time imagining how a 4-dimensional hypercube works? As I said, it is because we are not in that dimension. A person in the 2nd dimension thinks of the 3rd dimension in the same way a person in the 3rd dimension thinks of the 4th dimension.

The reason the higher dimensions are always represented in the lower dimensions is (again) because we are not in those dimensions. We do not have computer monitors that have 4-dimensional displays, so we have to use projections of 4-dimensional objects instead. We can project any object in any dimension into any other dimension.

In the case of leonid's signature, we have projected a 4-dimensional hypercube into 3-dimensional space, and then taken that 3-dimensional representation (which I called a shadow) and projected it into the 2nd dimension (and then animated it rotating ). The reason I used the word shadow is because objects in a certain dimension always cast shadows in the dimension directly below them (e.g. our 3-dimensional bodies cast 2-dimensional shadows). So 4-dimensional objects cast 3-dimensional shadows, 3-dimensional objects cast 2-dimensional shadows, 2-dimensional objects cast 1-dimensional shadows, etc.

We could have directly gone from the 4th dimension to the 2nd dimension if we wanted to do so as shown at the far right of this picture: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../Dimoffree.svg

It is important to note that I am only talking about spatial dimensions. In a space-time view of the dimensions, the 4th dimension is commonly referred to as 'time.' Let me explain: the 0th dimension has no direction, the 1st dimension has forwards and backwards; the 2nd dimension has forwards, backwards, left, and right; the 3rd dimension has forwards, backwards, left, right, up, and down; and the 4th dimension has forwards, backwards, left, right, up, down, forwards in time, and backwards in time.

If you are interested, here is a good video on spatial dimensions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDaKz...eature=related and here is a good series on space-time dimensions http://www.youtube.com/user/10thdim

Well, that was fun. I am going to go eat some spaghetti now.

[MrRubix]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCQx9U6awFw

lol

[Ice wolf]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCQx9U6awFw

lol

I posted his channel in my previous post. http://www.youtube.com/user/10thdim He posts blogs about different ideas that relate to the 10-dimensional view of reality.

[sp1nzoK]

Nice video, this makes me think of something; if tenth dimension contains everything that could ever possibly happen in any given universe, doesn't that make the tenth dimension something such as "God"?

EDIT: it's obviously flawed thought, just hard to explain my point in the sense I like to think of it, I don't mean God as a personafication, just a highest pinnacle that contains everything, but then again if there is a God maybe he can disregard any lines, branches and folds -means of travelling in the entirety, also being able to create such an entirety and able control all the dimensions altogether.

So changing this though to: If 10th dimension is the block-point and God could be proven (well I guess it exists "as a force"), would 11th dimension be this God that people are fanatic about from a religious standpoint or regarding it as a force-of-everything? Hypothetically speaking.

[Ice wolf]

Originally Posted by sp1nzoK

Nice video, this makes me think of something; if tenth dimension contains everything that could ever possibly happen in any given universe, doesn't that make the tenth dimension something such as "god"?

This is actually a commonly asked question. I would answer no. Even if there was some being located in the 10th dimension, it would not necessarily be godlike. I do not think being in the 10th dimension would allow you to turn water into wine.

Originally Posted by sp1nzoK

EDIT: it's obviously flawed thought, just hard to explain my point in the sense I like to think of it, I don't mean God as a personafication, just a highest pinnacle that contains everything, but then again if there is a God maybe he can disregard any lines, branches and folds -means of travelling in the entirety, also being able to create such an entirety and able control all the dimensions altogether.

So changing this though to: If 10th dimension is the block-point and God could be proven (well I guess it exists "as a force"), would 11th dimension be this God that people are fanatic about from a religious standpoint or regarding it as a force-of-everything? Hypothetically speaking.

If you do consider God as the highest pinnacle that contains everything, then sure, I guess you could refer to the 10th dimension as God. As for the religious aspect, I do not think gods as religions view them can relate to this topic, but that is just my opinion.

[MrRubix]

I've always had a huge problem with the 4th dimension being "time," be-all-end-all, because it would imply that, say, a 2 dimensional world has no "time." Can I not move around in a 2 dimensional world? I think too many people try to understand the 4th as "time" and then they get confused when they think about what higher dimensions really mean.

I would say the 4th dimension is "time for 3d beings" or something similar, since I think we can define 3d as "time" for a 2-dimensional being. We need some way to explain how we change from one state to another within a given dimension by utilizing the dimensions above.

[sp1nzoK]

Originally Posted by Ice wolf

This is actually a commonly asked question. I would answer no. Even if there was some being located in the 10th dimension, it would not necessarily be godlike. I do not think being in the 10th dimension would allow you to turn water into wine.

I edited my post to reflect it better after thinking about it more. I'll say it even better in this one: If we come to a point that contains _every possible outcome of every universe_ then wouldn't "God" be the force on the dimension above the highest possible dimension a human mind can produce, disregarding what God may be or do and just using it as the "unknown" factor in the big picture. In that regard proving God is nigh impossible even if it exists in any form, since we can hardly gain information of the lower dimensions as it is.

Enough mind**** for today I guess haha.

EDIT: I see you answered my EDIT too now, well basically what I was after is that no matter how hard humankind tries, God is of an incomprehensible level, if we have to relate to already very difficult subjects as alternate universes and time travel, and God would be beyond that, maybe in the sense that it will surpass the last dimension that is imaginable.

I don't believe in religious God, but it would be fun to believe in it as that unknown factor or force, that will almost certainly remain incomprehensible.

[MrRubix]

I really don't believe in a God, nor do I think there is a dimension that contains or IS God. Having such a thing doesn't really explain anything. I mean, although it's valid to ask, "Where did everything COME from?", which may include this 10th-dimensional framework, simply adding a creator doesn't really solve the problem of the initial question. Under the 10th dimension theory, what role can God possibly play? The 10 dimensions alone contain all universal outcomes anyway, and so if there is a God, he isn't doing a whole lot.

[Ice wolf]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

I've always had a huge problem with the 4th dimension being "time," be-all-end-all, because it would imply that, say, a 2 dimensional world has no "time." Can I not move around in a 2 dimensional world? I think too many people try to understand the 4th as "time" and then they get confused when they think about what higher dimensions really mean.

I would say the 4th dimension is "time for 3d beings" or something similar, since I think we can define 3d as "time" for a 2-dimensional being. We need some way to explain how we change from one state to another within a given dimension by utilizing the dimensions above.

I am not incredibly well versed in the 10-dimensional view of reality, but I would say that the 2nd dimension would still utilize the 4th dimension for time, not the 3rd dimension.

After all, the 2nd dimension is a spatial dimension just as the third is. I think it would help people if they imagined the first three dimensions as one big spatial dimension.

Originally Posted by sp1nzoK

I edited my post to reflect it better after thinking about it more. I'll say it even better in this one: If we come to a point that contains _every possible outcome of every universe_ then wouldn't "God" be the force on the dimension above the highest possible dimension a human mind can produce, disregarding what God may be or do and just using it as the "unknown" factor in the big picture. In that regard proving God is nigh impossible even if it exists in any form, since we can hardly gain information of the lower dimensions as it is.

Enough mind**** for today I guess haha.

I think I am starting to understand you a little better, but I see no reason to think that there is some unknown factor or force above the highest dimension of which we can think.

You will have to more clearly define God before I can come to a better understanding of your thoughts.


This is going to turn into a critical thinking thread after a while.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by Ice wolf

I am not incredibly well versed in the 10-dimensional view of reality, but I would say that the 2nd dimension would still utilize the 4th dimension for time, not the 3rd dimension.

After all, the 2nd dimension is a spatial dimension just as the third is. I think it would help people if they imagined the first three dimensions as one big spatial dimension.

I would say that "time" is not a dimension in itself, but another function of space (as per the "spatial dimensions").

[Ice wolf]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

I would say that "time" is not a dimension in itself, but another function of space (as per the "spatial dimensions").

I guess it really just depends on how you look at it. In the 10-dimensional view, time is considered a full dimension. Let me find the video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfhOBevrN2U

[sp1nzoK]

Well I agree with the statement that it's useless to try and figure out unknown and using the word God to place on that unknown was silly of me. It was just something interesting I started to speculate and we all know speculation is mostly only good for fun and games

On topic: Most random online IQ-tests definitely have dumbed down ceiling and rarely even work as an IQ-test in the first place, they are more like a crappy quiz.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by Ice wolf

I guess it really just depends on how you look at it. In the 10-dimensional view, time is considered a full dimension. Let me find the video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfhOBevrN2U

Errr, that video clearly indicates that he agrees time is NOT a dimension by itself, i.e. the 4th dimension is how we 3d creatures experience time, but that doesn't make the 4th dimension "time for everything." It's all about using the additional dimensions as perceptions of "time" by changing states.

[danny53x]

I tried the IQ test Reach posted. It seems better than most of the junk out there ]:

[ieatyourlvllol]

This thread is going in all sorts of directions...

Originally Posted by MrRubix

People don't realize how easy they have it. I feel like nobody really understands the context of my situation, and it's very isolating. So in some sick way my arrogance is a cry for help or desire for some kind of acknowledgment or understanding for what I've done in life.

I had always figured there was some underlying force, though I didn't imagine it had such extent. Having not been subjected to such circumstances, I can't really empathize, but I can at least offer an understanding of the arrogance. I suppose it's a justified complex, especially when it manifests via internet, which provides the dual convenience of social access and pseudo-anonymity.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

What bothers me is that some people either ignore evidence that they are wrong, or are simply unable to understand the evidence.

I think the problem is often that they're so focused on establishing a reputation of credibility (or perhaps maintaining a longstanding one) that they basically remove admission of fault from their list of options. It's particularly prevalent on forums, where all people have to judge you by are your posts. Consequently, first impressions are paramount. If you leave someone a bitter afterimage, they usually use it as a filter to judge subsequent posts, and the shadow just grows exponentially. Since most people don't like to admit they're wrong, trying to convince them that they've unjustly branded you tends to put them even further on the offensive, which only exacerbates the situation. For the most part, people are much more willing to bestow approval than to acknowledge defeat. Thus, as I'm sure you're aware of, in many forums, it's not so much about intelligence and evidence as it is about adaptation and tact. It's a bit bothersome, yes, but that's just the way it is.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

I'm trying to work a bit at being more humble, since I tend to get carried away from time to time. As most of my arrogance stems from bitterness and jealousy, I have to remember that while my situation has sucked, I have a decent life right now that many, many others would love to have, and so I have to be thankful and humble for my good luck.

At least you're aware of it and have reasons to back it up. It's a shame that your foray into FFR/ODI forumgoing went the way it did. You've definitely toned it down several notches since then (though I guess part of it is from no longer having the scores catalyst and whatnot), so most of the drama has faded. That is, at least on the FFR side of things; ODI, unfortunately, is much more unforgiving (but in your case it's not like there's anything worth salvaging anyways).

tl;dr - the explanation cleared things up a lot

[MrRubix]

ieat: Thing is, I feel the online aspect is only a small part of it. I can blast off at people online because I can simply vent and get away with it -- if I don't want to see that person again, I don't have to. In real life, I have to be a bit more constructive and reserved with how I interact with people I strongly disagree with.

Like, I was damn-near ready to kill my Finance group. I never called them retarded like I might have done online, but rather just became more and more frustrated. They seemed to favor groupthink at the expense of accuracy. It's like trying to explain to someone, "If I drop this apple, it will fall to the ground" only to have a few people go "Ehhh, I think that's wrong. It'll probably go up." I can rant and rave with a billion examples and proofs as to why they're wrong, but it doesn't seem to matter. I can't imagine any other reason as to why people would still insist their incorrect way is right unless they're stupid. Of course, nobody wants to be called stupid, and by doing so, you come across as arrogant. My group was losing points on **** THEY were getting wrong, and they just kept ignoring my contributions. Even if it's about maintaining credibility... I mean, who are they fooling? They're obviously wrong -- the proof was in the score, the explanations, the class, etc.

As for the FFR/ODI thing, I just had to come to realize that it's impossible to win an argument with stupid people who enjoy bandwagoning. Ah well. My time spent trolling and getting people riled up didn't help much either. I don't play anymore so it isn't a big deal.