Despite the fact that some people are visual learners, some are not, etc., some people 'pick up' things more quickly, ceteris paribus.

Two individuals, both living identical lives (yeah, impossible, I know, but that's ceteris paribus for ya), given the same foreign language that makes no sense whatsoever to them: one will understand it more quickly than the other.

Well, that example is flawed, but you get what I'm trying to say.

I've actually taken a real IQ test, not one you buy in a store and take home.

Most of the questions involved giving me a story I've never heard before and asking me questions on it, and giving me nonsense words and aksing me to define them, as well as giving age old tests and quizes and vocab. So they test knowledg,e wisdom and Intelgence.

Reading and writing is actually a Kinetic learning ability ironially enough. Words are not really considered visual, not sure why. Although I would think its actually relate to some other form of learning that doesn't fit the norm because I can draw but I can't write neatly.

I'm not sure if that is true or not, because reading does actually become a visual skill. We learn to read through the shape of the words and the letters, but that is a skill that develops over time so I am not too sure how we initially learn to read and write.

Most kids while learning to read run thier finger over the words and sound them out slowly. My guess is that its a mixture of all three.

*nod* Probably right.

Tah da! Yet for some reason Daganev feels a need to make this and these forums the pebble in the river for his personal crusade.

When did I say math = intelligence. Answer, never. If you had bothered to read the entirety of the site; you would have seen that the notion that stupid people would have an easier time with the puzzle was a minor jest.

Instead you chose to turn this topic into a pointless diatribe about civil rights. Which makes your above statement oddly confusing as to whether you do or do not support them considering your earlier statement about homosexuals and the ACLU. If you want to start an argument to campaign for your particularl social/political cause then do so in a different thread.

First of all, I've never made any comment about homosexuals except that they like all other human beings have a choice what they do in life.

Your instance that this is some bizzare crusade makes me more concerned and worried and thus gives me more reason to try to let you see what type of political spin such websites and games in general have on people, as obviously you find it to be 'just a game' or 'just a joke' and you do not see the inherent and implicity value judgements about people that those 'Just' statemetns make.

It is not good to project your thoughts and intentions on other people. And since nobody has every correctly stated what my intentions or opinions are, I place such judgement calls as projections.

Are you even aware what is ment by sciencentric, or do you just enjoy sticking labels on people for the hell of it?

Again YOU completely miss the point. The argument or statement you present is irrelevant to my issue with you and your habits in posting. I find myself not bothering to care one bit what your opinion is because of the way you present it. Be it your writing style or an actual effort to put yourself forth in such a manner. You consistently come across across as someone who is convinced that they alone are solely capable of making an informed decision based upon what they read. It may only be the way I interpret your writing style but I am beginning to very much doubt that. You constantly present your opinion as fact and anyone who disagrees with it as mentally deficient in a high handed manner, in my point of view.

I generally endeavor not to project personality traits onto someone based upon what they write. After all a written opinion statement is equal parts presentation and interpretation. Yet every time I read something you have written, it screams pious pulpit. Mayhaps I am misinterpreting. If I am then I apologise.

I do not label. I have not said Daganev is an arrogant ass. I say daganev comes across as an arrogant ass.

Now in the last set of quotes you are the one labeling and making projections. In no way am I angry. I can't fathom why you would think I am angry unless it is how you are interpreting my statements. That you see a need to read further into the game then that it is just a game does not make me angry. It does make me wonder at how you can possibly draw a connection between a brain teasing puzzle and the dangers of self-doubt. Keep this in mind with your my previous post and I may be a bit more inclined to try to understand how you think that kind of comparison is valid.

It was you calling me an ornery prig that made me think you were angry. And when you called me anal retentive. (something I have never been called ever, because its so the opposite of what I am) Name calling seems to me to come from a place of anger, or great comrodery, and I don't sense any great comrodery from you. Notice this are labels that attempt to define my personality, not my emotional state.


I change my views on things 20 times a day, depending on new information.

While I will defend fox news to people who say it lies and is a terrible aspect of society, I will also be the first to deride fox news for thier constant focus on stupid things like Court cases and kidnappings and other things that really don't affect the world all that much. But since kidnappings and coverage of stupid courtcases has nothing to do with Iraq, I find no need to go into every pro and con argument for a topic of discussion, there just too many factors and too many things out there. So I simplify my arguments into basic statements about what I'm talking about.

I'm the last person in the world to call myself pious, but at the same time I'm not going to pretend that I don't know what pious activity, as defined by various philosphies in the world, is.

Lets put it this way. You can not know from a single or even repetitive reading what something is untill you explore all possiblities. If possiblities are explored, and are shown to be inconsitant, then I will rail on someone for those inconsitancies untill they can fix them. When a new point of view that I had not thought about before is brought up, I agknowledge it, and attempt to fit it into the theories available and find which it is most consitant with.

As for my comments about 'gays getting thier demands' I don't know how else to put it. I do not see any clear goal in mind as to what is a civil right and what is a special exception, nor has any gay activist on TV or radio expressed what that goal is. Its always one topic at a time, mainly because of the view that the only way to change the society is to sneak it in one issue at a time. Thats a true statement but then so is the fact that its increasing demands and I don't know what they all are. I also highly doubt, sciencentric oppression is going to be the next cause that the ACLU focuses on, so 'who knows what else'

Rofl.

Well I could have chosen better words. I wasn't angry it was more exasperation. I had no intention of posting this thread to make people feel stupid or smart. I just thought it was an interesting game and I hoped people would enjoy it. I hoped, considering the rather oppresive tone in the Game Forums, this would provide a little distraction.

I guess I should consider my actions a little more carefuly next time.