Here’s his (I’m guessing) latest.
Sigh.
I mean, if you’re gonna read this woo-woo philosophical shit, could you at least find something from the last decade or so? This was interesting when I was an undegraduate – 30+ years ago. (Fuck. I graduated from college 30 years ago. Fuck.)
You’re pitting a thread with zero replies? Why?
It’s the latest installment of the Coberst Manifesto (we read it here first – or not); and because he has chosen to enlighten us, without any actual interest in feedback from us, it’s irrelevant whether there are replies or not – the annoyingness quotient is the same.
First I thought this was a pitting of Stephen Colbert. I thought Coberst might be some dumb nickname…
Anyhow, my biggest pet peeve is when someone overcomplicates a simple idea to make themselves seem smarter. The fact that Stephen Hawking can put super-complicated (I’m coining that) shit into terms I can understand is what I find really impressive.
…that’s why I would pit him is all I’m saying.
For being sophomoric? Works for me.
I kept waiting for him to mention the Dark Jesus.
Reminds me of a line I heard somewhere; that you do not truly understand something unless you can explain it to a fourth grader. ( The idea being that children are at least as smart as adults, just ignorant, and only someone who truly understands all the details can fully explain something to a child ).
The trouble with that hypothesis is that a fourth grader isn’t nearly as intelligent as an adult.
And now, having skimmed that thread, wow. What flagrant bullshittery. Of course, he’ll probably never know that he’s been pitted.
100% true. One of my tests for doing an “explain this” post is if I can, in my head, explain it to Brandon (now 11) and have it make sense to him. He’s a remarkably sharp and insightful boy, but as naive as you might expect from the age, maybe even a little bit more so. It doesn’t mean I won’t ever post BS, but it keeps the proportion of BS per post down to a remarkable extent.
Dead wrong. Intelligence is raw information-processing capacity. Most fourth-graders are more intelligent than they will be as adults, according to tests. (Less brain capacity burned out for one reason or another.) What fourth-graders are notably less than, than adults, is informed and experienced. Newton and Einstein were remarkably ignorant of the genome sequence and had absolutely no experience with personal computers; that doesn’t mean they were not intelligent, simply that they lived before the times when that information was available or valuable.
It’s a shame that the One-Trick Pony Chowder and Marching Society isn’t still accepting new members. He’d make an excellent addition.
Yeah, I’d have to see some actual evidence of that to believe it. Though I don’t even see how you could attempt to test it; even standard IQ tests - which are not uncontroversial - don’t have any particular capacity to objectively compare the intelligence of different people at different ages. Besides, what is “raw information-processing capacity” anyway? General intelligence is a difficult term to define at all - so much so that many psychologists don’t believe it exists. And what is it that you imagine is destroying the brain capacity of adults?
I’m not particularly inclined to wax rhapsodic about children and how amazing they are, because I don’t like them much. Perhaps I’m biased in the opposite direction in my opinion, but it’s been my experience that people who (for whatever reason) don’t dislike children tend to be extremely impressed by things that aren’t particularly impressive. I have to wonder if your judgment is clouded by this phenomenon.
Probably because of all the brain cells killed off while in college…
Me too. I was wondering if twickster is part Hungarian and was upset by that bridge-naming contest thing.
Maybe she’s a bear.
Same here, and I was going to protest vociferously! I did learn in one of the coberst threads that it’s considered jerkish to start more than one thread a day. I did not know that.
Naw, it’s only considered bad manners to start lots and lots of threads, and then only if the threads aren’t particularly interesting. No one would fault you for starting two threads in a day.
From the registration agreement (emphasis mine):
I have found coberst’s posts intriguing, because I experience a strange, physical inability to read the words. It’s like the text is in soft focus, or in an illegible font. And I think I hear harp music.
But that doesn’t specify a limit of one new thread per day. Sure, if you post fifteen in a day, you’ll earn people’s ire. But posting two new threads in one day is way below the threshold, I think. I doubt anyone would actually notice.