I have no idea what drug caused this, but this ain't funny. it's disturbing.
Is this really just IQ?
@xue
This anwser makes it actually worse.
Are you really policing yourself and making conscious decision to say "good morning" "thank you" and "goodbye" every time you enter the shop?
Dont be ridiculous
@NEETzsche @xue
And they say, it's the autistic people who are unable to catch the social clues...
You could ask, "How would you have felt yesterday if you hadn't eaten breakfast?"
They would respond, "But I did eat breakfast. What do you mean?"
"Yeah, but if you hadn't, what would it have been like?"
"No, you didn't hear me...I ate breakfast yesterday."
"But if you hadn't..."
"But I did..."
Someone lower than that range would continue to insist that they are right and that the person asking the question is an idiot, without parsing the words more carefully or imagining the scenario (of being "born 10 years ago").
ay lmao
IQ isnt real, thats freemason bait to lure narcissistic individuals
"Oh look at me, i scored 190 on solving mazes and maching patterns" ayyy lmao
@xue @victor @NEETzsche
Go to a gypsie occupied area and talk to them. TALK TO THEM FOR 10 FUCKING MINUTES, and tell me, that IQ doesn't exist.
first of all, i dont speak gypisie
but also, i value my belongings
@xue @victor @NEETzsche
Yes.
Reducing a complex phenomenon into a single number is the essence of any useful metric.
First, IQ isnt metric, for metric you need two variables
It more resembles estimator but:
1. You can make any estimator you want, and it doesnt need to provide any useful information
2. What kind of estimator that is, when it can return different data for the same person
It is arbitrary device, to check how good you are with solving special case of mazes
And you attribute any real world value to it? lmao
1. it has to equal 0 only the same element
2. it has to be symetric, d(a,b) = d(b,a)
3. triangle inequality
It isnt metric, it is another made up shit by psychologists, who dont care about science, they just write what they think
oh, let me think of another
p s y c h o m e t r i c
xDDDD
Your score will be 5 and Luke's 10.
Here, valuable, scientific invention
@xue @victor @NEETzsche
Btw, do not think, that sociology is not full of garbage.
for example, EQ is a bullshot metric, that miraculously corresponds perfectly to breast size.
But IQ is not one of them.
Yo, what the fuck?!
@Jens_Rasmussen @victor @xue @NEETzsche
Women with big boobs have no problem in any social situation, and everyone is interested to talking to them about their feelings.
therefore, they have a high EQ.
@Jens_Rasmussen @victor @xue @NEETzsche
Well, it is what is measured.
But I'm pretty sure EQ is supposed to measure your capacity for sympathy, empathy and sociability rather than how likable/pretty you are.
@Jens_Rasmussen @victor @xue @NEETzsche
Well, next time you hear anyone describe EQ, take a moment to think, if the exact situation they describe would play differently for me, or for Big Booba Babe.
@Jens_Rasmussen @victor @xue @NEETzsche
Sure... and it magically drops at the age of 35 for most women.
@Jens_Rasmussen @victor @xue @NEETzsche
Ok, let me explain it this way.
If you have booba, every conversation you have begins with goal of the opposite party to be as likable as possible.
If you don't have booba, this expectation is reversed.
So, there is no "social skill" actually needed on the side of the woman (relatively speaking) to get desired result.
It is as if you were comparing selling stuff to giving away money. The skill required to complete task is in a completelly different reality.
EQ (Emotional Quotient) is about being able to understand others. And not just verbally.
@Jens_Rasmussen @victor @xue @NEETzsche
Except it's fake. It is measured by self report of how well can you maintain relationships. If EQ was real, and actually did exist in women as described, divorce courts would not exist.
@Jens_Rasmussen @victor @xue @NEETzsche
If you want to debate about the ability for empathy, I could agree there.
But EQ has nothing to do with it. Equating EQ to empathy is the same as equating feminism to equal rights. These terms are so masaquered by common understanding, that using them in some "specialized meaning" is pointless.
No one except you uses EQ as synonymous for "charm" or "attractiveness".
@Jens_Rasmussen @victor @xue @NEETzsche
OK lightbulb.
Will the scenario of "being critisized" play differently if you're attractive?
Do you have more reason's to "be positive", when everyone is suspiciously kind to you?
These are the questions from the test. I am sorry, this is not an empathy test. And neither is it a self-awareness test.
It is "how many people are trying to make my life easy in hope to get in my pants" test.
Probably? You might get critizised for different things or by different people than if you were ugly, that's almost certain. But your reaction to criticism, in terms of whether it makes you defensive or whether you take it constructively can also be completely unrelated to your looks. For example if you are criticized for your skill at something by people who can't see you.
That test you have images of looks retarded if it's supposed to be an EQ test though. Not at all related to others, but about how you see yourself, which is something completely different.