Quote (shane_is_a_balla @ May 14 2016 03:21pm)
The insecurity is strong in this one. Always overt and sad. The response is always unprompted and you notice the plethora of pejorative remarks. Little man syndrome 101 here you are. Just to edify, the motivations & erudition of others aren't usually predicated around aiming to be smarter than anyone; contrarily, that's irrelevant to the majority (besides the insecure ;) ). The need to relegate this information as rudimentary enough to be high-school level is a bit deluded, though. Also interesting you would choose to insult yourself like that.
sorry but this is horribly written. "always overt and sad" makes little sense. always undisguised and sad? always blatant and sad? always conspicuous and sad? clear, obvious? Poor choice of adjective. I've never had an interaction with you but somehow "the response is always unprompted." And your "edifying" is a straw man. I said erudition does not necessitate intelligence and you say "the motivations & eruditions of others aren't usually predicated around aiming to be smarter than anyone" which is a wonderful sentiment but completely extraneous in the context of my assertion. I care nothing for your motivation. I was informing the op that being learned in a field does not mean someone has an intrinsic prowess in that area absent in the admirer.
And lettuce be reality. Talking about quite RUDIMENTARY level physiology and neural interaction/behavior is...........rudimentary. It isn't complex stuff in the slightest. Maybe the high school remark was a bit hyperbolic (considering the depravity and idiocy of new generations) but it certainly is not graduate, or even upper-level bachelor's, level information.
I think the op had a point thought. You have quite a highfalutin way of writing, not in the sense of any arcane, recondite choice of diction, but in trying to overcomplicate simple points. It's kind of a gross habit tbh. If you tell me that people don't usually seek erudition/ they aren't motivated by malice and a desire to intellectually dominate others, you don't need to go on to say the contrary. "usually" has negative connotations with respect to anything that was not explicitly stated. If people usually act in a benevolent way, it need not be said that they usually- "the majority"- do not act malevolently for that notion was excluded from reality by virtue of the previous "usually" claim. Delude, also, means to fool or deceive in some way. So relegating something that you think need not be is not really my being deluded. If you told me something which caused me to incorrectly ascribe something to a status it did not deserve I would be deluded.
and my goal was edification. The words used in this entire thread should really not be anything anyone needs to look up. It is just silly to claim someone with basic knowledge on a subject should come and mindfuck someone by virtue of the readers utter lack of scientific appreciation. If you want a mindfuck, go read a critique of reason, or any scholarly article on, well, anything--biochemistry, neurology, physics, etc.
This post was edited by hoipolloi on May 14 2016 06:16pm