Famous morons nearby U?

Excluded anywhere else
Clown
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:01 pm
Contact offline

Famous morons nearby U?

Post by Clown » Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:13 pm

Do u know any moron famously known from city to city for poor IQ, behavior, or is that the moron a mental? Because everyone sees how a moron behaves.

Juraj Vysvader
Site Admin
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 5:58 pm
Contact offline

Re: Famous morons nearby U?

Post by Juraj Vysvader » Sat Oct 07, 2017 1:16 am

Trivially, independent events don't seem to be realistic (neither mathematically, physically, nor psychologically). Even, if someone has really had a low IQ, disease, or extraordinary personality traits then, yet still, that's the last thing that should be expected at all. It can't be done by the activities of a person, rather mass media or someone else. You read it from someone with 136 IQ (I've got papers of that).

A simple primary school math for events


Joint events


For joint events, there exists a simple math. How many events are needed to be such famous by own activities, take all the attention instead of others more times, hold the topic for a time? 10? 100? 1000? 10000??? I close one eye and don't count on alcoholics, drug users, etc... I count only on the people with a low IQ and within 1000 people is 160 having a low IQ, or 160K per 1M. In an independent manner, the chance that 1 person is naturally selected out of 160 people only 5 times (160^5) is 1 : 104 857 600 000 (1:105 billion) and, analogically, even the chances to win a lottery (day by day), be multiple times hit by a lighting, or killed by a meteorite are enormously higher. Only 2 Events? If it's not fabricated, the chance to be naturally the shiniest bad star only twice in 0.5 million's city is 1 : 6.4 billion. However, we should count on the whole population, not only 16%. How many times would be needed to be everywhere famous for own activities as a bad star (without media)? Do you expect that one could get over others all the times? At the same, you should think that one person can be on a daily basic hit by lightings or meteorites, day after day hit. Try to imagine the story of the meteorite guy that is day by day hit by meteorites and your brain will reject it. Rejected?




Diverse vocabulary, observations, timing... and probability, variations


Each person uses a different vocabulary, different personality types and genders don't use the same words, and each one is annoyed by different things. So, what's the probability that 10 people independently assign the same nickname, or use the same combinations of words to express themselves? In a group of thousands of people, the vocabulary should be extremely rich, diverse... and each one should mind different things, like believers if a person is also a believer, meantime atheists won't. It should be non-common and counter-productive to each other, balanced exactly as the society is, negotiated and overlooked between more groups of the society having different interests/lobbies/habits.


It could be done if:
  • TV or other media reported (something).
  • 1 person said and do others repeat the words? It could be a report from a very small group of 1-10 people, not reports from 1000 people those would differ in used vocabulary (superlatively rich) and there'd be even non-harmonized counter-productive statements. Did you speak with 1 person or 1000 persons making own reports? Average people hold up to 150 contacts, but in reality, they use to speak with 0-30 a week (about personal matters) and, probably, there's not too high chance that two people will share the same 30. If two people share 0-15 so that's the best what we can think about. There shouldn't be channels to inadvertently collect info from more sources.

Statistically, it is abnormal


It doesn't reflect characteristics of the population. Why? Because the folk doesn't make famous the other people threatened by 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 other like 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


The vast majority of the diagnosed people tend to behave as introverts avoiding a society and not speaking when really are in a 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? More and stronger symptoms of a disorder = fewer chances to be seen/heard. Not only that it negates itself, some people become totally vanished, there are zero records behind them (in the public life), none knows anything about them, anymore.

There's only one group that is characteristically communicative. We talk about Bipolar, manic-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" even under public eyes when they were superstars. There's a higher density, percentage of 'mentals' between Nobel prize winners, or authors of mandatory reading literature, but you don't know anything from their personal lives and, even, you don't know you're calling them 'mentals'. Wouldn't you discriminate the 'mentals'?

Clown
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:01 pm
Contact offline

Re: Famous morons nearby U?

Post by Clown » Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:11 pm

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?

I created a new topic: http://forum.unisoftdev.com/meta-discussion-f13/terms-of-use-t115.html

Juraj Vysvader
Site Admin
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 5:58 pm
Contact offline

Re: Famous morons nearby U?

Post by Juraj Vysvader » Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:41 pm

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, the 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) think about each other. '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...