You are condescending and nothing more. You have only shown your absolute lack of ability to use proper grammar, spell check or provide any reasoning beyond “I’m right and you’re wrong because I’m smart and you’re not” which is, quite frankly, more reminiscent of an ad hominem argument than anything logical. Sorry for bursting your bubble, but someone had to do it.

As far as refuting your argument, well, you have to make a logical one before that is possible, so…get crackin’!

Your study on ice cream sales and murder is based on an old Rat Bradbury story.The gist was two elderly (retired) insurance execs found a temp at which more murders were committed than any other.

Like most good speculative fiction writers, Bradbury tended to take a small amount of existing science or theory and apply them in such a manner as to examine something about the human experience. As seems to be often the case, it appears that you are aware of only the most superficial aspects of the discussion. Just because Bradbury took a well known effect that professors have used for a long time to teach students about the limitations of correlation doesn’t mean that the information being exchanged is false.

.And some of your critiques -it may have been a clock radio,not a thermometer , are laughable.Lo0ok ,one of the first things one is taught is not to “Post hoc,ergo propter hoc,”(Sorry to burst your bubble.)

Yes, one of the first things people are taught is to not assume that correlation equals cause. Just because an even follows another does not mean that the first caused the other. I’m not sure why you felt the need to follow an attempt at critique with a bit of misplaced Latin, but it neither help your cause nor lends the appearance of authority. Perhaps you were reaching for reductio ad absurdum? Even that wouldn’t quite work well because a nuanced critic would have realized that when I was talking about the temperature study I was using it as a symbol for the problems with the measurement of intelligence.

Sarah, a little primer on intelligenge.First,general intelligence (g) correlates with all forms of intelligence.

Ahh, general intelligence. Could you please provide use with a definition of “general intelligence?” How would you measure it? How would you ensure construct validity? How would you manage differences in verbal abilities versus spacial relations? How do you account for people with very high general intelligence but very low emotional and social intelligence?

Let me explain a bit more

Could we get a decoder ring as well, or should we just grab a cup of kool aid and a copy of The “Bell Curve?”

The generally accepted most intelligent person of the last century was John von Neumann.

Really? Care to back that statement with, I don’t know…anything?

smart people do well in any field

Again, some evidence here would be nice. Are you really suggesting that Nietzsche, under slightly different circumstances, could have been a great mathematician? Perhaps in another life Dali would have been a nuclear engineer or William Blake a skilled engineer.

What I find a/be-musing is so many people who have firm feelings on subjects have no knowldge or ability to apply knowledge.

What I find “a/be-musing” is the combination of your shockingly poor verbal abilities, clearly defensive arrogance, and inability to attend to anything beyond the manifest.

Let me make a point to so many of you.and I’m not trying to bully with my intellect.

I’ll try not to be intimidated…

You tend to want pleasant answers.

Which is why I’m such a big fan of Michel Foucault and Alice Miller. Rays of sunshine those two are…

And you avoid and even are antagonistic to persons who impinge with reality.

I’m going to assume you mean “impinge upon reality” there and were just too busy to proofread. Anyway, I find it interesting that you assume not only that such a thing as “reality” can exist but also that you are able to accurately and infallibly identify it.

I am usually referred to as ‘brilliant’.

Funny, most people who need to make an assertion like that tend not to be. You really are a beautiful and unique snowflake!

I have more scientific background than a fraction of 1% of the populace

A cynic might assume that all of these masturbatory qualifiers would signal someone who is trying to convince themselves as much as their audience. I’m not a cynic though, I’m more a fan of plesant answers, so I’ll just assume that you are possessed of an intellect so overwhelming that what would be crippling insecurity masquerading as arrogance or conceit in a lesser person is simply self awareness for you. Y’know, like Ayn Rand.

See my point?

Perhaps, but I’m willing to bet that its not the one you’re trying to make.

See why I’m a little humble?

Oh, I doubt there is any question of how humble you are, Corwin.

Anyway, barring a change in attitude I’m not going to respond to you anymore. Its clear at this point that you’re starved for attention and painfully insecure. I don’t see much of a point in continuing to kick you.

At least I tend to be right–and when I’m not, I’m freakin’ crazy. Easy to tell either way.

Corwin, you’re an idiot. You’re also an idiot that takes work to read and interpret. I had to snort at comment 26. I did pretty much the exact same fucking thing to another student (while in high school). Most riddles are riddles because they have deceptively easy solutions. For any of them, no matter how hard it is, it’s a matter of the right perspective. Telling a story of Von Neumann giving the right answer to *that* problem (as an example of real smartnes) sez a whole lot more about smart *you* are, than how smart Von Neumann is–which is still really fuckin’ smart.

I mean…my god. You didn’t even understand Sarah‘s answer! She’s fucking exactly right, and you still can’t be bothered to drop the condescending attitude! As if VonNeumann is actually an unknown name to people here.

You’ve gotta be a troll projecting insecurities…

Sarah? I thought your comment about math was pretty funny. I’m pretty much the opposite. I absolutely can’t handle any kind of make-your-own-context math like set theory or circuits like knight travels. However, I am very good at the spatial awareness part! Linear Algebra, conic sections, diffEQ (sorta, I’m wierd), anything with a pattern or shape to them.