Page 1 of 1

Famous morons nearby U?

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:13 pm
by Clown
Do u know any moron famously known from city to city for poor IQ, behavior, or is that the moron a mental?

Re: Famous morons nearby U?

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 1:16 am
by Juraj Vysvader
Trivially, independent events don't seem to be realistic (neither mathematically, physically, nor psychologically). It's not possible.


Joined events

For joined events, there exists a simple math. How many events are needed to be such famous? 10? 100? 1000? I close one eye and don't count on alcoholics, drug users, elderly, etc... I count only on the people with a low IQ. The chance that 1 person is shiniest thus is naturally selected out of 160 people 5 times (160^5) is 1:104.8 billion and, analogically, even the chances to win a lottery, be multiple times hit by a lighting, or killed by a meteorite are enormously higher. Within 1000 people is 160 having a low IQ, or 160K per 1M. Only 2 Events? If it's not fabricated, the chance to be the shinest person only twice in 0.5 million's city is 1 : 6.4 billion, or (only within a village, within 1000 people) it's 1: 25.6K (1/160 x 1/160 = 1/25.6K), and third time it's already 1: 4 million. However, we should count on the whole population, not only 16%. How many times would be needed to be everywhere famous for own activities? Do you expect that one could get over others all the times?

It could be done if:
  • TV, or other media reported (something). A single report. Was any evidence presented?
  • 1 person said and do others repeat the words? It could be a report from 1 person, not reports from 1000 people. Did you speak with 1 person or 1000 persons making own reports? Waw, does he/she speak with 1000? Average people hold up to 150 contacts, but in reality, they use to speak with less than 50 a week and, probably, not even 1/2 of those 50 can personally ever know the "famous person" from any time of their lives.
  • If there was 1000 people reporting (not repeating) then It's not possible while the math probability of joined events, too broad statistical difference, physical possibility, and social dynamics, all apply.

Statistically, it is abnormal

The statistical significance - p < a - the result, since it doesn't reflect characteristics of the population (the result is too broad, something extraordinary). Why? Because the folk doesn't make famous the elderly threatened by Alzheimer's, or other diseases, intractable alcoholics, 1/6 teens abusing prescription drugs, 1/4 of 18-20 years old consuming more-less regularly some of the drugs including weed) and so far..., None of them became even a bit famous as you mentioned. Whereas, when someone was bullied, then the abilities and behavior didn't matter...


Is the person worse than the elderly with heavy diseases, drug users (how do they behave and look?), and alcoholics (the vast majority of the population drink). These people aren't famous, but they behave very badly. Even the smartest behave badly when are smashed. Smashed people aren't even able to walk properly and sometimes walk on 4... I'd seen it many times, people who couldn't get out of a floor on 2 legs, defeated by the gravity when even the gravitation is too difficult.

Psychologically, thru social dynamics

I'm not sure what is for you a 'mental', but rather of the people diagnosed by psychologists belong to introverts, silent persons avoiding too much society, or even isolating themselves (someone who doesn't communicate). It doesn't sound like you mentioned someone, which is able to make himself/herself famous. How could it be done?

There's only one group that is characteristically communicative. We talk about Bipolar, manio-depressive. Also, there's a research made on Mensa members.

However, even if they don't speak too much and don't spend too much time in society, we know about 'introverts' famous for their work such as Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Beethoven, Mozart, or Vincent Van Gogh, but they've never been famous for their weirdness. There's a higher density, percentage of 'mentals' between Nobel prize winners, or authors of mandatory reading literature (e.g. Hemingway - one of the Nobel Prize winners) and artists learned in schools than the percentage in the average population. In contrast, you know a lot of their work, but don't know anything from their personal lives and, even, you don't know you're calling them 'mentals'.

Re: Famous morons nearby U?

Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:11 pm
by Clown
OK, let's say the events are not independent. Let's say I think someone is such... Is it possible that other people find him/her the same and will agree with me?
I'm not sure what is for you a '...
Describe me what is it for the majority of people, how they imagine it. Why and what is the difference, why and what do we imagine differently?
You know that none is perfect.
How does someone know the smartest geniuses can be wrong? How is it possible to know the best geniuses are, or not perfect? On the planet are walking people with IQ above 190 and well educated people with lower IQ, but how can you know it about the rest of population if you are not the smartest on the planet and you are not the most educated one?

I created a new topic:

Re: Famous morons nearby U?

Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:41 pm
by Juraj Vysvader
If you say it first... Psychologists had given a lot of opportunities to build up lists of cognitive biases like you can find on Wikipedia, or here. If conditions are met, majority of the cognitive biases will be powering the faith.
It wasn't so long time ago when women mightn't vote, drive and work in many professions, because males didn't think females are smart enough. In the same time, many Afro-Americans were living as ex-slaves receiving just a minimum respect as well.

One is obvious. If you say 'moron', then e.g. liberals and conservatives, victims and their attackers, bullied and their bullies imagine a different person (each other - exact opposites). 'Smart, ethical, strong, cool' mean something else for members of different religious beliefs, political tribes, movements, sports, cultures, ethnics, genders, professions, interests, drinkers vs non-drinkers, or weed consumers vs others and whatsoever...

Clown wrote:How does someone know the smartest geniuses can be wrong? How is it possible to know the best geniuses are, or not perfect.
Deductively, for example:
1.) If you observe five and one of them is an atheist, christian, muslim, buddhist and hinduist, then 4/5 of them, or all of them are wrong. The number can be 4/5, or higher.
2.) Debates... There can't be all correct if they don't agree together. It's just a simple deduction.