You can’t judge a pres conference for what they didn’t bring but what they did bring, you’re letting your own expectations and wants over a solid non-biased review over a pres conference.
They brought boredom.
I found everything they brought extremely good.
It should be more like…
wanna play fortnite switch while we wait?
I’m lowkey excited about Paladins on the switch.
Octopath Traveler is one of the games i’d like to play first on the Switch
Apologies, I’m not much for battle royal games
ah okay, i’ve actually been having a lot of fun with it
PC is master race. I only have a Nintendo console due to their massive lineup of first party games you can’t get on PC.
@galaxydueler I miiiiight give it a shot. Depends on how much time is made available to me to play it.
neat, tell me if you do
High Five fellow intellectual!!
Using taste in games/shows to judge your intelligence.
Intelligence means nothing these days. It’s just a fun word to throw around.
As long as you meet a baseline requirement, you can be considered intelligent if you are very good at something that society considers valuable. If anything, the word intelligence or intellect seem more a social term rather than anything objective.
This is of course excluding once in a million extremely talented individuals such as Hawking, Einstein, Newton, Copernicus, etc.
Eh, I beg to differ. I agree that society as a whole uses it a bit too frequently or lightly, but it certainly still exists. Mind you, I’m talking strictly about intelligence as the ability to learn or apply logic. Other forms of intelligence also exist, and of course there are ‘skilled’ persons as well.
I think it unfair, however, to believe no others are intelligent when compared to the brilliant minds you listed.
But this is the problem I mentioned, is that how subjective intelligence is. And even if we want to talk about it in the strictest sense like IQ, that is also subjective. An example of this is how schools give out exams. From time to time they change the purposes and goals of exams sometimes changing the format completely meaning that your perception of intelligence, my perception of intelligence and society’s perception of intelligence vary widely.
Even when I mention those great minds, their intelligence is still subjective in that you want someone who is extraordinary at the study of physics, great I have the man for you. You want to meet someone who is an expert at atmosphere/weather patterns and how that affects the international ecosystems, great I have another man for you.
If you want to talk about intelligence in the context of critical thinking, then that is good, but in the end it is still subject to context because under that definition, the only intelligent people are those who are able to pick and master anything you can think of in which case you are most certainly going to skip over some great minds who have made their fame by specializing in very specific fields.
In the end, as long as the term remains as is, it will be more fitting as a descriptive term used mainly by society rather than being used in any meaningful way.
I’m afraid we must agree to disagree.
Me, an intellectual:
I for one, would like to have some definition of intelligence outside of societal views to better analyse animal intelligence and the evolution of human intelligence. Right now, scientists just do a lot of tool use or rescission making excersizes to measure if certain animals are intelligent. The problem is that this is so meaningless for animals with brains different from humans. For example, jumping spiders are thought to be intelligent due to their ability to plan out paths of movement, but octopuses are thought to be intelligent due to their tool use. There’s no real standard way to define intelligence, but I feel that it’s not solely a societal construct.
Maybe it has to do with adaptability, maybe a group of other traits are all collectively known as intelligence. Who knows.
I think I came off wrong in somethings I said, I didn’t mean to imply that intelligence was a social construct, I apologize. I just think that it is hard to provide an objective measure of intelligence, not that it doesn’t exist.
Maybe a similar way to think about this is in the chemistry of voltaic cells. In a simple voltaic cell, you have two beakers each filled with an solid material in the form of a stick and the same material but in a liquid form. The two beakers have differing materials so beaker #1 has iron and beaker #2 has copper. The sticks in each beaker are connected by a wire with each end of the wire containing alligator clips to hold the sticks. The result will be a flow of electricity between the two beakers because there is an area of low energy and an area of high energy (this is much more complicated than I am making it sound).
We are able to determine how much energy potential each material holds and whether it is positive or negative but the problem is that the potentials of the materials are subjective, there is no absolute value that they can be so we can make them either 8.3 or 934 or beyond. So in order to assign values, we assigned water the value of 0 and then compare every other material to water to determine their values through a special experiment. But at the very end, all the values are subjective just like intelligence.
It is not to say that the values do not differ, it is just that they are subjective depending on whether you want to make water have to value of 0 energy potential or iron. And this is a trend found in other parts of science as well where values are arbitrarily assigned. There are even situations in which the value of 0 can be assigned to a certain material depending on what you are trying to measure (not in the case of voltaic cells).
I may have butchered that explanation but hopefully I represented my point of view a little better.