Religiosity and intelligence

Discussions about society in general and social activity.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Religiosity and intelligence

#121  Postby crank » Mar 09, 2017 9:58 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:What Haidt says with regard to the mind set of liberals and conservatives is true. But it would be fallacious to assume it a simple binary because it is more nuanced than that. For there is a specific demographic among liberals that is every bit as dogmatic as some conservatives. They are social justice warriors who despite being liberal and of the left are not really all that great admirers of the First Amendment. What makes this doubly ironic is that conservatives are more in favour of free speech. Which is not something one usually associates with the right. So the notion of liberals being more open minded and conservatives being more closed minded should ideally be treated more as broad generalization rather than objective truth

And that's really all it's supposed to be. Haidt discusses similar issues,plus, his ideas are tied to morality, the idea about the conservative mindset being prone to delusion is more what I see in them. Looking at all the various tendencies, there is a pretty clear divide. Plus, I would bet among liberals, those with a dogmatic fixation on some issue are still far less likely to be dogmatic more broadly, while that isn't the case with conservatives.

As to free speech, are conservatives really better than liberals in general? I don't want to take the time to try to bring up a good array of examples, but I'm willing to bet that isn't the case. Maybe with some conservatives, but not most of the political conservatives, the RWers and the like.
“When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America you get a front row seat.”
-George Carlin, who died 2008. Ha, now we have human centipedes running the place
User avatar
crank
RS Donator
 
Name: Sick & Tired
Posts: 10413
Age: 5
Male

Country: 2nd miasma on the left
Pitcairn (pn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Religiosity and intelligence

#122  Postby crank » Mar 09, 2017 10:09 pm

Keep It Real wrote:Highly intelligent people can be religious because they're semantically/linguistically flexible enough to take a non-literal view of scripture. I got a 1st at university and have just found my feet in Christianity. I plan to attend church regularly and draw great strength, optimism and comfort from my faith. All you inflexible, religion denying atheists are missing out on the beneficial aspects of participating in a faith imo.

I can't speak for others, but I can't help being inflexible, I can't bend far enough to accept most the the BS in religion. If you're not taking scriptures as literal, how far does this flexibility go? Are there limits? If scripture is so malleable, what makes it special? Who decides what's acceptable interpretation, and which is blasphemy?
“When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America you get a front row seat.”
-George Carlin, who died 2008. Ha, now we have human centipedes running the place
User avatar
crank
RS Donator
 
Name: Sick & Tired
Posts: 10413
Age: 5
Male

Country: 2nd miasma on the left
Pitcairn (pn)
Print view this post

Re: Religiosity and intelligence

#123  Postby Keep It Real » Mar 09, 2017 10:45 pm

crank wrote:
Keep It Real wrote:Highly intelligent people can be religious because they're semantically/linguistically flexible enough to take a non-literal view of scripture. I got a 1st at university and have just found my feet in Christianity. I plan to attend church regularly and draw great strength, optimism and comfort from my faith. All you inflexible, religion denying atheists are missing out on the beneficial aspects of participating in a faith imo.

I can't speak for others, but I can't help being inflexible, I can't bend far enough to accept most the the BS in religion. If you're not taking scriptures as literal, how far does this flexibility go? Are there limits?

There are no limits as far as I'm concerned. Maybe the catholics and fundy anglicans would disagree.
If scripture is so malleable, what makes it special?

I could probably make any religion work for me, but christianity is on my doorstep and so easily accessible. It's special because it enables us to worship a higher, benevolent power which can inspire, comfort and guide us. Then there's the community that springs around religion which provides fellowship, a sense of group identity and support.. This second reason is doubtless enough for some to adhere to a faith.

Who decides what's acceptable interpretation, and which is blasphemy?
If the adherent believes in a benevolent god (as each beleiver understands it) then there is no blasphemy, and perhaps there is no blasphemy beyond that prerequisite. As far as I'm concerned the CofE is pretty well beyond the concept of blasphemy, and all other religions should be too.
You're only conscious when you're thinking about consciousness.
User avatar
Keep It Real
Suspended User
 
Posts: 9171
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: Religiosity and intelligence

#124  Postby monkeyboy » Mar 09, 2017 11:16 pm

Agrippina wrote: I think people who call eggplants "aubergines" sound pretentious. But that's because I've always known them to be brinjals, or eggplants, and I'm just a South African with no class. :grin:


Ha, ha. I never heard any alternative to aubergine until I saw the film "True Romance" and had to look up what an eggplant is to complete the Dennis Hopper/Christopher Walken scene satisfactorily. And now I've just learned 20yrs later that there is another word for them. Every single day a school day......
The Bible is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
Mark Twain
User avatar
monkeyboy
 
Posts: 5473
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Religiosity and intelligence

#125  Postby crank » Mar 10, 2017 4:31 am

Keep It Real wrote:
crank wrote:
Keep It Real wrote:Highly intelligent people can be religious because they're semantically/linguistically flexible enough to take a non-literal view of scripture. I got a 1st at university and have just found my feet in Christianity. I plan to attend church regularly and draw great strength, optimism and comfort from my faith. All you inflexible, religion denying atheists are missing out on the beneficial aspects of participating in a faith imo.

I can't speak for others, but I can't help being inflexible, I can't bend far enough to accept most the the BS in religion. If you're not taking scriptures as literal, how far does this flexibility go? Are there limits?

There are no limits as far as I'm concerned. Maybe the catholics and fundy anglicans would disagree.
If scripture is so malleable, what makes it special?

I could probably make any religion work for me, but christianity is on my doorstep and so easily accessible. It's special because it enables us to worship a higher, benevolent power which can inspire, comfort and guide us. Then there's the community that springs around religion which provides fellowship, a sense of group identity and support.. This second reason is doubtless enough for some to adhere to a faith.

Who decides what's acceptable interpretation, and which is blasphemy?
If the adherent believes in a benevolent god (as each beleiver understands it) then there is no blasphemy, and perhaps there is no blasphemy beyond that prerequisite. As far as I'm concerned the CofE is pretty well beyond the concept of blasphemy, and all other religions should be too.

No limits is tantamount to imbuing total gibberish with divine inspiration. Which come to think of it, said another way, is indeed true, the divine inspires utter gibberish.

The rest is too alien to my brain and nothing I can say could better illuminate its vacuity. But, if it works for you, go for it.
“When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America you get a front row seat.”
-George Carlin, who died 2008. Ha, now we have human centipedes running the place
User avatar
crank
RS Donator
 
Name: Sick & Tired
Posts: 10413
Age: 5
Male

Country: 2nd miasma on the left
Pitcairn (pn)
Print view this post

Re: Religiosity and intelligence

#126  Postby crank » Mar 10, 2017 4:34 am

On the Dunning Kruger front, came across this quote, and damn, did Darwin perceive or at least get a glimpse of everyfuckingthing?

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
“When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America you get a front row seat.”
-George Carlin, who died 2008. Ha, now we have human centipedes running the place
User avatar
crank
RS Donator
 
Name: Sick & Tired
Posts: 10413
Age: 5
Male

Country: 2nd miasma on the left
Pitcairn (pn)
Print view this post

Re: Religiosity and intelligence

#127  Postby Scot Dutchy » Mar 10, 2017 8:21 am

crank wrote:On the Dunning Kruger front, came across this quote, and damn, did Darwin perceive or at least get a glimpse of everyfuckingthing?

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man


The lack of comprehension also plays a role. I believe religious people have little comprehension of the society they live in and just survive in their little world and refuse to look beyond their boundaries.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43118
Age: 71
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Religiosity and intelligence

#128  Postby zulumoose » Mar 10, 2017 2:28 pm

Keep It Real wrote:Highly intelligent people can be religious because they're semantically/linguistically flexible enough to take a non-literal view of scripture. I got a 1st at university and have just found my feet in Christianity. I plan to attend church regularly and draw great strength, optimism and comfort from my faith. All you inflexible, religion denying atheists are missing out on the beneficial aspects of participating in a faith imo.


We may be missing out on "the beneficial aspects of participating in a faith" , but you see, we have a problem. We care about whether something is true.

You can have all "the beneficial aspects of participating in a faith" in almost ANY faith active in your community, at any point in history, regardless of truth, unless you are someone who cares about whether all the claims people are making around you are false, baseless, unjustified, delusional. Once you start caring, and think rationally, faith is exposed for the empty shell it always was.
User avatar
zulumoose
 
Posts: 3621

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Religiosity and intelligence

#129  Postby archibald » Mar 10, 2017 2:31 pm

Keep It Real wrote:Highly intelligent people can be religious because they're semantically/linguistically flexible enough to take a non-literal view of elf literature. I got a 1st at university and have just found my feet in elfism. I plan to attend elf meetings regularly and draw great strength, optimism and comfort from my elf beliefs. All you inflexible elf-deniers are missing out on the beneficial aspects of participating, imo.



FIFY
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 10294
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Re: Religiosity and intelligence

#130  Postby jamest » Mar 10, 2017 10:35 pm

Calilasseia wrote:
jamest wrote:
You're so naive


Ha ha ha ha ha. Remember me asking you in the past, to answer whether it is possible to obtain substantive knowledge about unobservable entities? I'm still waiting for you to answer that one. I'll take your failure to do so as evidence of your naivety, not mine.

Of course I think it's possible, via reason, or else I wouldn't be a theist would I? Further, when reason itself informs you that it is impossible to gain substantive knowledge from observed entities because said knowledge is only associable and therefore possible wrt the unobserved domain, then the naive folly of your question stands out like a sore thumb.

You don't seem capable of coming to terms with the FACT that 'some thing you observe' is an event happening in/to you. If some thing exists, then it necessarily exists independently of your observations of it. Why can't you and your ilk grasp that? It's simple stuff. I could probably get most kids to understand it. This whole discussion hinges upon this distinction between your observations of X, and X, to the extent that it is plainly evident that knowledge discerned from your observations of X is not knowedge discerned directly from X itself.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat the bleedin' obvious before the penny drops for you and your ilk, but it does get boring for us all including me. But if you and your ilk fail to learn this most basic fact of metaphysical discourse and continue to promote science/observation as the basis of "substantive knowledge", then I will haunt you all until you stitch me up and get rid of me. Fact. Squire.

jamest wrote:when it comes to metaphysics


Oh, you mean my pointing out the difficulties involved in placing unobservable entities on a rigorous analytical footing?

Your difficulties are not mine. I have progressed far beyond basics which could be understood by young teenage kids. There is no rocket science involved here. Your difficulties are caused entirely by your erroneous bias towards science as being an authority on metaphysics via observation. When you're cured of that crap, you'll hopefully see the significance of metaphysics conducted via reason alone. Reason, that activity which has the potential to heal you of said unwarranted bias. Don't knock it.

I genuinely appreciate the time you take in formulating your long posts and often feel guilty not responding to some of them or only part-responding to them, but when there's something so fundamentally wrong with your approach as to be catastrophic to the entirety of your metaphysical opinion, I hope you'll see why I'm like this.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
 
Posts: 18399
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Religiosity and intelligence

#131  Postby Calilasseia » Mar 11, 2017 3:43 am

jamest wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
jamest wrote:
You're so naive


Ha ha ha ha ha. Remember me asking you in the past, to answer whether it is possible to obtain substantive knowledge about unobservable entities? I'm still waiting for you to answer that one. I'll take your failure to do so as evidence of your naivety, not mine.


Of course I think it's possible, via reason, or else I wouldn't be a theist would I?


In that case, could you, once again, provide, preferably in a manner involving something resembling rigour and detail, how this is possible? Other than, of course, the usual "metaphysics" fanboy approach of "let's make shit up, then pretend that our made up shit equals fact"?

jamest wrote:Further, when reason itself informs you that it is impossible to gain substantive knowledge from observed entities


The world's physicists just pissed themselves laughing at your above assertion. Followed very quickly by the world's chemists, biologists, geologists, astronomers etc.

jamest wrote:because said knowledge is only associable and therefore possible wrt the unobserved domain


How? Once again, to quote the Wendy's Hamburgers advert, where's the beef?

jamest wrote:then the naive folly of your question stands out like a sore thumb.


The only thing standing out like a sore thumb here is the vacuity of your assertions.

jamest wrote:You don't seem capable of coming to terms with the FACT that 'some thing you observe' is an event happening in/to you. If some thing exists, then it necessarily exists independently of your observations of it.


Actually, I think you'll find that Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg had much to say on this issue. Thanks to the requisite work in quantum physics, a certain elementary fact has been placed upon a proper, rigorous, quantitatively precise footing, namely that existing entities are indisinguishable from non-existing entities, until they interact with other entities. Thus far, this is the only method of detecting existing entities that has been even remotely reliable. Which is why science has left mythology eating its dust.

jamest wrote:Why can't you and your ilk grasp that? It's simple stuff.


See above. Also, see Bohr et al.

jamest wrote:I could probably get most kids to understand it.


Most reasonably astute children I know of, would point and laugh at your assertions.

jamest wrote:This whole discussion hinges upon this distinction between your observations of X, and X, to the extent that it is plainly evident that knowledge discerned from your observations of X is not knowedge discerned directly from X itself.


Bollocks. If X engages in an interaction, then the data about that interaction has X as its source by fucking definition. Or was this another elementary concept you slept through?

jamest wrote:I don't know how many times I have to repeat the bleedin' obvious before the penny drops for you and your ilk, but it does get boring for us all including me.


Once the comedy value has been milked from your eructations, it does get boring seeing you parrot the same vacuous assertions over and over again.

jamest wrote:But if you and your ilk fail to learn this most basic fact of metaphysical discourse and continue to promote science/observation as the basis of "substantive knowledge", then I will haunt you all until you stitch me up and get rid of me. Fact. Squire.


It's certainly a better basis for substantive knowledge than "let's make shit up and pretend our made up shit equals fact", which thus far is all I've seen from supernaturalists and "metaphysics" fanboys. Of course, if you have something better than this to offer, you'll be in a position to answer the challenges I laid down, won't you?

jamest wrote:
jamest wrote:when it comes to metaphysics


Oh, you mean my pointing out the difficulties involved in placing unobservable entities on a rigorous analytical footing?


Your difficulties are not mine.


Except that since those difficulties completely destroy your assertions, they become your difficulties, the moment you treat those assertions as fact. Suck on it.

jamest wrote:I have progressed far beyond basics


The evidence from your posts suggests something completely different. Because if this latest assertion of yours was something other than the product of your rectal passage, you would have provided substantive answers to my challenges, instead of snide, condescending dismissals.

jamest wrote:which could be understood by young teenage kids. There is no rocket science involved here.


So if it's so fucking simple, Mr Self-Declared Fucking Genius, how come you've failed to provide even the weakest of attempts to meet the challenges I've presented here?

jamest wrote:Your difficulties are caused entirely by your erroneous bias towards science as being an authority on metaphysics via observation.


Er, bollocks. I don't have any "difficulties" here, as my pointing out serious problems for your assertions clearly demonstrates. Quite simply, entities that don't engage in any interactions at all with other entities, are indisinguishable from entities that don't exist. Unless of course you have a proper, rigorously devised test for the existence thereof, which is in effect what I've been challenging you to provide all along.

jamest wrote:When you're cured of that crap


Fatuous bullshit.

jamest wrote:you'll hopefully see the significance of metaphysics conducted via reason alone.


As my past includes heavy involvement with pure mathematics, I think I'm in a position to say something about "reason". One of the elementary principles thereof that "metaphysics" fanboys routinely demonstrate a failure to understand, being that premises determine conclusions, not the other way round. Look up the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions for an insight into this.

jamest wrote:Reason, that activity which has the potential to heal you of said unwarranted bias. Don't knock it.


When it's properly conducted, I'm all in favour of reason. Your diseased caricature thereof, on the other hand, deserves nothing but scorn and derision.

jamest wrote:I genuinely appreciate the time you take in formulating your long posts and often feel guilty not responding to some of them or only part-responding to them, but when there's something so fundamentally wrong with your approach as to be catastrophic to the entirety of your metaphysical opinion, I hope you'll see why I'm like this.


I'm still waiting for you to explain the nature of this merely asserted "catastrophe", in terms other than "my assertions are right, end of debate".

So, once again, let's take a look at those serious problems for your assertions, that I presented previously.

[1] Unless you actually have a proper, rigorously devised method for deriving substantive knowledge, other than inference from observational data, or deduction from axioms, and can describe this in sufficient detail to demonstrate that you actually know what you are talking about, all you have to offer here is the usual unsupported assertion shit sandwiches. Care to remedy that deficit, for the umpteenth time of asking?

[2] As I pointed out previously, any "metaphysical" theory, that fails to take into account observational data, and simply blithely ignores it, without even bothering to formulate an elementary framework for the understanding thereof, is by definition incomplete, and furthermore incomplete to the point of being useless for the purpose of trying to dismiss said observational data as a source of knowledge. On the other hand, any "metaphysical" theory within which the requisite labour is expended, to generate a framework for the understanding of observational data, will by definition generate assertions that are themselves observationally testable. Care to spend some time pondering how this dooms your entire assertionist enterprise?
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22039
Age: 58
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Religiosity and intelligence

#132  Postby Agrippina » Mar 11, 2017 7:11 am

crank wrote:
Keep It Real wrote:Highly intelligent people can be religious because they're semantically/linguistically flexible enough to take a non-literal view of scripture. I got a 1st at university and have just found my feet in Christianity. I plan to attend church regularly and draw great strength, optimism and comfort from my faith. All you inflexible, religion denying atheists are missing out on the beneficial aspects of participating in a faith imo.

I can't speak for others, but I can't help being inflexible, I can't bend far enough to accept most the the BS in religion. If you're not taking scriptures as literal, how far does this flexibility go? Are there limits? If scripture is so malleable, what makes it special? Who decides what's acceptable interpretation, and which is blasphemy?


What bothers me with religion and its inflexibility is that the believers in each faith claim open-mindedness but that only applies as far as their own religion is concerned. I could accept that religious people are open-minded if they were prepared to accept that other religions interpretations of gods (their own and that of the other religions) were valid. If say the Pope said that Bastet was a real god and that because of that cats ought to be protected, hailed as gods, valued as omens of goodness and foretellers of disasters, I would call him "open-minded".

Yes, perhaps when it comes to religion my mind is made up that I'm not going to be convinced to believe in gods, again, any of them, included Bastet, I may be called "closed-minded". And I can accept that. When it comes to everything else, I don't care to argue with people about their behaviour even if their behaviour seems peculiar to me.
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36689
Age: 109
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Religiosity and intelligence

#133  Postby Agrippina » Mar 11, 2017 7:14 am

monkeyboy wrote:
Agrippina wrote: I think people who call eggplants "aubergines" sound pretentious. But that's because I've always known them to be brinjals, or eggplants, and I'm just a South African with no class. :grin:


Ha, ha. I never heard any alternative to aubergine until I saw the film "True Romance" and had to look up what an eggplant is to complete the Dennis Hopper/Christopher Walken scene satisfactorily. And now I've just learned 20yrs later that there is another word for them. Every single day a school day......


I don't have a problem with aubergine. I just can't figure out how people who will use an exotic name for something, and even spell it correctly, cannot figure out the difference between "their" and "there". I would imagine people who can't do that, would call an egg-shaped purple vegetable, a "purple thing that looks like an egg". Just the way my mind works. What is really getting me at the moment is that people understand "arcane" but can't figure out when to use "whom" and "who".
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36689
Age: 109
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Religiosity and intelligence

#134  Postby Calilasseia » Mar 11, 2017 7:23 am

Agrippina wrote:
monkeyboy wrote:
Agrippina wrote: I think people who call eggplants "aubergines" sound pretentious. But that's because I've always known them to be brinjals, or eggplants, and I'm just a South African with no class. :grin:


Ha, ha. I never heard any alternative to aubergine until I saw the film "True Romance" and had to look up what an eggplant is to complete the Dennis Hopper/Christopher Walken scene satisfactorily. And now I've just learned 20yrs later that there is another word for them. Every single day a school day......


I don't have a problem with aubergine. I just can't figure out how people who will use an exotic name for something, and even spell it correctly, cannot figure out the difference between "their" and "there". I would imagine people who can't do that, would call an egg-shaped purple vegetable, a "purple thing that looks like an egg". Just the way my mind works. What is really getting me at the moment is that people understand "arcane" but can't figure out when to use "whom" and "who".


You would probably enjoy Pidgin English. :D
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22039
Age: 58
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Religiosity and intelligence

#135  Postby archibald » Mar 11, 2017 7:33 am

jamest wrote:Of course I think it's possible, via woo, or else I wouldn't be a theist, would I?


FIFY
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 10294
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Religiosity and intelligence

#136  Postby Fallible » Mar 11, 2017 9:20 am

zulumoose wrote:
Keep It Real wrote:Highly intelligent people can be religious because they're semantically/linguistically flexible enough to take a non-literal view of scripture. I got a 1st at university and have just found my feet in Christianity. I plan to attend church regularly and draw great strength, optimism and comfort from my faith. All you inflexible, religion denying atheists are missing out on the beneficial aspects of participating in a faith imo.


We may be missing out on "the beneficial aspects of participating in a faith" , but you see, we have a problem. We care about whether something is true.

You can have all "the beneficial aspects of participating in a faith" in almost ANY faith active in your community, at any point in history, regardless of truth, unless you are someone who cares about whether all the claims people are making around you are false, baseless, unjustified, delusional. Once you start caring, and think rationally, faith is exposed for the empty shell it always was.


Yes, and then that in turn completely takes the shine off anything enjoyable, or it did for me. Being in a community setting with people who I knew would think there was something wrong with me or that I needed help, while simultaneously I was incredulously trying to work out what kind of life long suspension of disbelief allowed them to live in that world would just make me feel like a hypocrite and an outsider even if only I knew it, and distance me from them.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51401
Age: 47
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Religiosity and intelligence

#137  Postby archibald » Mar 11, 2017 9:25 am

Fallible wrote:.....and then that in turn completely takes the shine off anything enjoyable, or it did for me. Being in a community setting with people who I knew would think there was something wrong with me or that I needed help....


Perhaps that needn't have been as big a problem as you thought. It doesn't seem to stop you enjoying coming here, for example.
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 10294
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Re: Religiosity and intelligence

#138  Postby Fallible » Mar 11, 2017 9:31 am

Well thanks, at least someone finally owned up! :waah:
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51401
Age: 47
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Religiosity and intelligence

#139  Postby crank » Mar 11, 2017 9:38 am

Agrippina wrote:
monkeyboy wrote:
Agrippina wrote: I think people who call eggplants "aubergines" sound pretentious. But that's because I've always known them to be brinjals, or eggplants, and I'm just a South African with no class. :grin:


Ha, ha. I never heard any alternative to aubergine until I saw the film "True Romance" and had to look up what an eggplant is to complete the Dennis Hopper/Christopher Walken scene satisfactorily. And now I've just learned 20yrs later that there is another word for them. Every single day a school day......


I don't have a problem with aubergine. I just can't figure out how people who will use an exotic name for something, and even spell it correctly, cannot figure out the difference between "their" and "there". I would imagine people who can't do that, would call an egg-shaped purple vegetable, a "purple thing that looks like an egg". Just the way my mind works. What is really getting me at the moment is that people understand "arcane" but can't figure out when to use "whom" and "who".

Well, I thought aubergines were something farmers tended to wear.

As someone who has in the recent past said something like 'that seen in the movie', and twice 'I had scene it before', I can say I'm pretty sure I know the difference. I know we've had this discussion before, there may be people who don't know the difference, but mostly it's lack of proof reading, because if I look at what I wrote, I see the error immediately. Being on twitter or FB makes this crap happen a lot more often. I think it's a nearness in your current mental state's search space, lead astray by repetition and/or recent exposure kind of thing. But that's a guess. The 'whom' thing is long dead, its grave site too overgrown to find a headstone, if one exists, I heard they just threw it in on top of thee and thou.
“When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America you get a front row seat.”
-George Carlin, who died 2008. Ha, now we have human centipedes running the place
User avatar
crank
RS Donator
 
Name: Sick & Tired
Posts: 10413
Age: 5
Male

Country: 2nd miasma on the left
Pitcairn (pn)
Print view this post

Re: Religiosity and intelligence

#140  Postby Fallible » Mar 11, 2017 9:47 am

I often make these mistakes when I'm typing. Just yesterday I wrote a post which contained 'there' instead of 'their', and a grocers' apostrophe in the word 'minds'. These errors were also immediately adjacent to each other in the sentence. As we know, I'm considered to be a pain when it comes to grammar, spelling and punctuation (it caused a visceral reaction in me akin to that which one might experience having alighted upon a shocking image on google when I saw my mistakes), and yet I can still make these fundamental errors unless I check my output before submitting. I cling to the hope that much of the upsetting illiteracy I witness is actually down to carelessness...which, come to think of it, I'm not sure is much better.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51401
Age: 47
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Sociology

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest