Lord Antares

Yes, it does mathematically. Let's say we have 5 blue balls and 5 red balls. How do you calculate the probability of randomly picking a blue ball? Easy, it's the number of blue balls divided by the number of total balls. 5/10=0.5 or 50% chance. Picking any card from a full deck? 1 divided by 64. It's very basic math. This is why 1/infinity is mathematically invalid, because you can't divide by infinity, even though I agree with the value of 1/infinity as a practical approach.

I'm sure they are better than your wild guesses. No, it isn't. You're starting to spew pure drivel here. You have no references. You have no data. You have no evidence. Your words contradict the data shown by actual scientists. You have no idea what you're talking about. There have been multiple independent test on stuff like this with a big sample size of data. There have also been confirmations that people with high IQ parents will typically have high IQs which also disproves your crackpot theory. Also, you can very easily search the highest genius scientists and find which are born in your ''low intelligence periods''. What if IQ tests done on me show different results than what you predict in your imaginary graph? Those IQ test are dumb, right? I should trust you because ''trust me, moon phases n shit''.

Yes, there is. How do you think they got the result? It's just not made publicly available, but it was determined from a large sample size of people. Your imagination does not beat their research And? I struggle to see how someone with an IQ of 130 wouldn't understand the inaccuracy of small sample sizes. If I were a researcher set with a task of finding out the average height of the people in the US and I stumbled into 2 pro basketball players, I would conclude that the average height is 210 cm. That's exactly what you're doing. Also, it has been determined that children with high IQ parents are more likely to have an IQ, which, yet again, disproves your assertion by default. Give it up. Actual scientists have gathered the data and there's an overwhelming amount of evidence against you.

Not only is there zero evidence, there is strong evidence that it's not true. John Cuthber posted a statistic which downright disproves everything this guy is saying. Yet somehow he managed to ignore that data (which is what he was asking for in the first place) and instead relies on his 1 person sample sized research (and it's 1 person because it's one person from each date; not even two).

That's an incredibly shitty test. Have you seen how other people born on those dates did? I was born on November 15 and a serial killer was born on November 14. Wheew, dodged a bullet there. I was almost born as a serial killer.

Yeah, I agree. It's the same as asking what are the odds of finding a red card in a standard ceck of 64 cards. Nothing special there. Read my post. It's only mathematically invalid because you're dealing with infinity and you can't divide by infinity in mathematics. However, I agree that 1/infinity is the ''practical'' asnwer.

Well, it's technically zero, but I think the most logical and representative answer would be 1/infinity; what he said. It's not mathematically defined or valid but it works in a practical sense. As Strange said, he's looking for an answer which says ''the probability is 0.5''. Even though none of this is mathematically correct, I agree that it's the most practical answer. OP, I think you're getting bashed mainly because you're posting this in the mathematics section, which requires a mathematical answer. For example, if all cards except for one are face cards, what are the odds of you picking a face card? You would say infinity - 1 / infinity. Do you see how clumsy and unmathematical that is? I agree that it's the practically correct answer, but the members feel obliged to give you a mathematically correct answer, which that isn't.

And? The point is, even if your sample size of people was large enough (and it isn't), how did you know their IQ? What's the margin of error in your ''estimation''? How does it work? You say ''alright, this person seems to be more intelligent than me. Let's say he has an IQ of 151. Alright, this person is less intelligent than me (not that you would know for sure), he definitely sounds like he has an IQ of 107.''? Obviously, this is going to be called bogus data by anyone remotely within your IQ chart. Really? Where is the evidence for that? I thought you were making up intelligence averages, but it's even worse; you're making up intelligence absolutes. You're saying a person born on a particular date must have an IQ prescribed to that date. That's rubbish. I mean, it's very easily disproved. Find the date Einstein or Hubble or Planck or Feynman or anyone really was born and compare with other people born on those dates. You'll find huge disparities. The most unreasonable thing you're doing here is you're doing this completely upside down. You're supposed to have the data and conclude a result from the data, which is then supported. Let's say you have data with a large enough sample size, you notice that the average IQ on a particular date is much higher than other dates. Then it is reasonable to hypothesize that your speculation is true. You can't make up the data and try to obtain it to see if it is true. It's like if I were a police detective and I tried to figure out the murderer of the next crime case before it happened.

I mean, not only does it not show a difference much higher than 1 IQ point, it says the opposite of what he says. It says IQ is at its lowest in spring (1+ point lower than in summer), whereas his graph shows it's the highest in spring, when it's presumably his birthday (obviously, because he put it as a highest value). I mean, is he talking about averages or what? Average IQ in march being 150 is laughably ridiculous. Since 150 makes less than 0.01% of the population and march-born people make about 1/12 of the population, I think it's safe to conclude that this is rubbish. EDIT: Sorry, it's not throughout the whole month of march, but the averages he proposes for the prolongued lengths of time are ridiculous. And it is implied by the cutoff of the graph that the pattern repeats every 3 month which leads to the conclusion that most people have an above average IQ; which is obviously wrong by default.

There is so little content here that it's not possible to call it a hypothesis. You actually need the data you're looking for to make a hypothesis, which is ironic, because you wanted to present them your speculation as a hypothesis in order to get the data. And no, ''I observed people's intelligence'' doesn't count as data. How is one supposed to judge your ''hypothesis'' if its validity is entirely dependent on the data you're trying to obtain? Depending on the data, we can say ''yes, this seems legitimate so far'' or ''no, this seems completely wrong''. I doubt something like this wouldn't be noticed. Also, did you happen to be born on march 1?

Is there any evidence of the legitimacy of any of this?

Well, that's the answer and that's what we've been saying. You can't say the question makes no sense and then answer the question to give the reason why it makes no sense. I think I can actually pinpoint his train of throught here because this is exactly what I was thinking when I was a kid. I was wondering if a balcony was falling down and you were on it, you just jump up at the last second and then fall down. The idea is that I thought it would negate the downward velocity if you jumped up and it would be as if you hadn't been falling down at all. Obviously, this is wrong but that's what I was thinking as a kid.

Yes, that's what we are saying, not what you are saying.

You are wrong. Re-read the OP. he clearly means what we're talking about. It makes no sense to ask what would happen if you jumped onto a table from a building but jumped off the table before impact. It makes no sense. You are misinterpreting it. Obviously, the person would just crash trough the table in that case and wouldn't be able to jump off of it. Are you sure about that? You exert no weight on the table. Maybe if you were crouching on it so you could exert weight by raising up. If your legs were completely straight, would you be able to lower them and thrust the table downwards?

Stepping off the table won't do anything. You are still falling with the same speed as if the table wasn't there. You'd still die just the same.

Isn't it that you can't jump at all, rather than ''not jump very high''? You are freefalling and so is the table. You are technically not even standing on the table. It's as if the table wasn't there. You'd die just the same.

You aren't a convicted criminal if you spent one night in jail lol. Especially if you haven't been convicted, as you say. You are fine.

As I said, chess is a far better example. It's as impersonal as possible and devoid of any gender or ethical issues. Women have at least as much access to chess as men do, yet there are far fewer women than men in chess. The most reasonable assumption would be that they simply lack interest in chess. I don't think anyone could provide an alternative explanation which makes sense as of yet. This was the bit where I attempted to explain why the best players always tend to be male, not why there aren't as many female players. I think it is the life-consuming interest and restless attitude about a game which are far, far common in men than women which often makes the best players. Also, if you look at many chess champions, you will see a lot of oddity and ''abnormal'' devotion to chess. So in many ways, a lot of champions were like Bobby Fischer as a matter of fact. It is because these are very vague and unspecific skills. They border on nonsense, to be honest. What is ''focus and strength'' in some desk or programming job? Or many other jobs? On the other hand, if you generalize and say that women are more sensitive and men are more aggressive, your generalization will be true, on average. You are a biology expert, so you do understand that there are some noticeable differences in men and women.

What's all this nonsense?

I have not seen people talk about this, but have you thought about women simply not being interested in it? Take chess for example. Chess is an impersonal game (no character or something else a particual gender could relate to) and the ratio of men to women is about what you'd expect, similar to videogames. Any argument about it being less accessible to women is invalid, since they actually have more choice (they could play in normal or women only tournaments). Still, the highest rated woman is about rank 50. Why? What I've gathered from noticing stuff like this is that women seem to get into these things less than men do. They seem to be less dedicated (not necessarily a bad thing). When I notice a lot of the best male players, they seem to be only about chess and nothing else. Take Bobby Fischer for example, one of the (if not the) best players of all time. He literally did nothing but study chess all the time. He had no social life or other interests; chess was his life. When I see the best female players, I see love of the game, but other things as well. The Polgar sisters (one of them being the best female player of all time) are, to my knowledge, all married and active in other things. I think some like hiking, sports, travelling and other activities. This could also explain why men tend to be better at games and unphysical sports. I know this is only one example, but I've noticed this in a lot of disciplines and life as well. Same goes for video games. When you see female streamers, they all seem to have boyfriends and a life outside of gaming. When you see the best male streamers, all they ever do is play and practice the game with no other interests. I've noticed the same for other things is life, including science to a lesser extent. It is truly my belief that this is why women are under-represented in science, video and tabletop/board games and such activities. I don't have any statistics to support this, but that noticing it from now, you'll see how often it seems that this is the case. Why they have less interest is another matter. Maybe they're discouraged from it (I doubt it in cases like chess. Video games, maybe), maybe they want to have multiple priorities in life, maybe it simply doesn't give them any interest; I don't know.

Good point. There has been a rise in female players these past years, which supports your point. However, as of now, males are still mutiple times more likely to play a game, even with a lead female character. DOTA 2, for example, a very popular games features a cast with close to 50% of characters being female, yet the majority of players are still male and all pro players are male. So, males are still more dedicated and interested, but it could be because of the long-lasting tradition of video games being a ''male thing''. I do expect to see a rise in female population, which I don't mind.

Are you serious? It's an uninhabited island. What kind of "info" do you want? What bases and landings are talking about? Saturn must be a secret too because no landings or bases have been reported.

I also watched half of the Avengers and couldn't keep watching. There's something with new films that makes them so much dumber and worse than older ones. I know I sound like a hipster, but I really mean it. Please don't call non-American people as ''foreign''. It is a pet-peeve of mine. This is not an American exclusive forum. I know it does since they keep whining about it. But it doesn't actually make sense. Take video games for example. The majority of players are male and a lot of the new games will feature female lead characters (sometimes replacing old male ones in an existing franchize). Clearly, there's an outcry for it, yet most players are male. So it doesn't seem to be true that people just want to play themselves; they just want pandering.

No, you missed my point completely. I'm saying the exact opposite. I'm saying that it doesn't matter that everyone looks like you, which is why forcing diversity as an agenda is senseless. Do I mind watching a film where the full cast is black? Nope. GTA San Andreas, one of the most highly praised video games of all time - every main character is black. Do I mind? No, I loved every single main character in there. Do I mind that Jackie Chan is Chinese and he's the main role? No, I love Jackie Chan. Did I mind playing the old Tomb Raider games as a woman? No. I've never cared for these things. I don't see the issue in watching or playing as someone who doesn't look like you. Why does it matter? In anticipation of you saying ''then why do you mind that casts are being diversified?'', I mind that it's being done for political reasons, instead of being a natural choice. Let the one you feel is most appropriate be the character and that's it. I didn't say the other end is good either. If a white character is playing a historically black one, that's senseless as well. Yes. Why does the character need to be white in order for me to like him?

No, you're not missing anything. It is not a secret that the forced political corectness has stopped making sense (note, correctness only applies to non-white people). You know that everyone would lose their shit if a white person were to replace a non-white character, but it is ok if it is the other way round. It has been happening for a few years now in media. Pretty much all video game protagonists of upcoming popular games are non-white males, even in established francizes which have several games with the protagonist being a white male. In the upcoming, self-described ''historically accurate'' Call of Duty WW2 game, you will be able to play as a black female Nazi on the Axis side, lol. People have also criticized the show ''Game of Thrones'' because of the lack of non-white people. Frankly, I find it sickening that every piece of media must be checkboxed to include every race, gender and religious minority. These people are very sensitive if you don't include a forced cast where every character is of a different preset. And the bit with J.K. Rowling is bollocks, because if you've seen the cast, every single person from it was cast to look as close as possible to the original character, except for Hermione. In this context, the sentiment that anyone can be ''what they want'' makes no sense, seeing how she's the only dramatically different character. This is also to cater to the oversensitive.