Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by genio

  1. 6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

    I'm not sure why you seem to be objecting. You got my point, that these simple, un-nuanced definitions for complex concepts don't help us communicate effectively, but then you talk about "believing" in definitions, and deny that words like "wastefulness" to describe liberals shows that you ARE favoring the right.

    A nonconformist is neither a conformist nor an anti-conformist. A lot of people have the mentality of others being against them if they aren't with them. I'm trashing both sides. Again. Two wrongs don't make a right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_don't_make_a_right

    6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

    Wow, this may not be astrology, but it sounds a LOT like it. You can't use this kind of argument anywhere on this site until you've done some work to support it, IN ITS OWN THREAD. Be warned though, numerology is NOT science.

    The human design system isn't astrology or numerology or a system that predicts the future even though there are zodiac symbols around the wheel to appease to the masses but that's how far it goes in terms of astrology. The wikipedia page on the human design system is incorrect because the human design system isn't a belief system. The human design system is mechanical in which a person surrenders to their aura mechanics and witnesses their mechanics in action. It speaks for itself. It isn't for everyone and it can't be "used" or "forced". The issue I have with the human design system is that the in dept science is hidden behind expensive books and a software application. I'll start my own thread to put it to the test since I have the software which reveals the in dept science of a person's aura mechanics.

  2. 16 hours ago, Phi for All said:

    And this is the mistake many folks make when trying to interpret complex issues by using single words to define them. I know a LOT of people who think the way you do, that "liberal" means "anything goes" and conservative means "responsible". I also know a LOT of people who think conservative means "fearful" and "ignorant" and "stuck in the mud", while liberal means "progressive" and "hopeful" and "forward-thinking". This is the problem with using these terms with each other. It's hard to know how a person has been influenced when they use such broad terms.

    I used the correct single words and "Two wrongs don't make a right" shouldn't have been erased because it makes it seem like I'm favoring the right when I'm not. I didn't use "anything goes" and "responsible" because I don't believe in these definitions for the left and the right. I also don't believe any of the other definitions for the left and the right. Another definition for liberals is putting the cart before the horse while another definition for conservatives is if it ain't broke; don't fix it. Both sides don't understand discipline.

    I see politics as a bunch of incompetent squabbling chickens.

    We need Laws because there are people who disregard the lives of others however it seems like non-born leaders are always trying to lead. Trump being a loudmouth non-born leader. Nayib Bukele (President of El Salvador) is an example of a born leader and how he swiftly cleaned up the country.

    17 hours ago, Phi for All said:

    I'm not sure hubris is the problem in the US. In trying to focus on capitalism to the exclusion of any other ownership principles, we're allowing our leadership to pretend to care about us when their re-elections are really up to big corporations. We may find it hard to give up what we think we've earned, but I don't think it's out of pride. If the American public had any pride at all we'd gather to stop these stains on humanity from exploiting us even further (the CEO of Kellogg's recently claimed that if we're worried about the high price of food, we should eat Frosted Flakes for dinner). 

    We make very little investment in The People. Everything goes to keep big corporations in business, including bailing them out with tax dollars when they mess up. I think we should focus on better social spending and representing the will of The People, and maybe then we can better assess whether this is a matter of hubris or not.

    From an outside perspective. It seems like Trump's hubris and his loudmouth followers does make the US look full of hubris.

    Change is actually afoot. We'll get a taste of a compassionate collective neutrino energy starting April 12th till May 23rd. Then we'll see real change starting January 30 2025. This isn't astrology. It's the human design system and it doesn't contain nonsense astrology. It's a mechanical system which explains how neutrinos from the Sun and planets have an effect on our aura mechanics. The same Pluto energy was around when the American Revolutionary War started and eventually the American Constitution was written. We the people. 1775 + 248 years (pluto orbit around the Sun) = 2023

    We've already seen this energy play out. Such as the outright ban of dangerous dog breeds in the UK. This is a great time to be alive in.

  3. 9 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

    From your use of 'liberals' means that I can safely ignore your opinion.

    Why do I need to know? You could have simply ignored my comment or address my supposed misunderstanding of liberals.

  4. On 10/1/2020 at 5:56 AM, joigus said:

    My opinion is that you cannot seriously believe in god if you've studied science in any length. Specially biology.

    But many scientists believe in believing in god. That is, they decide that it's a good social deal to keep saying they believe in god and, if pressed, talk about an abstract god, as in "god is the order in the cosmos" or something like that. Just to escape hostility from believers.

    Scientists discuss science even when the gathering has finished and the discussions keep going while they go back home, or to their respective hotel rooms.

    But I've never seen anybody discuss theology when they go back home from the church, the synagogue or the mosque. Religious people will leave you alone if you just say you're a believer. For all they care your "god" could be a telepathic giant cat living in another planet and handling the universe from there. As long as you say "I believe."

    Unless the biology science we study leads to a complex discovery that proves intent by a creator.

    Why do you equate religion with god(s)? OP specifically said religion.

  5. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's either leniency or strictness in politics. The leniency of the left leads to the strictness of the right to steer the economy back on track. Take a look at Canada and the wastefulness of the liberals trying to save everyone.

    I'd like to see a government that understands discipline.

  6. I'd like to create a total mg/dL blood cholesterol table that equates to a percentage of total cholesterol in the blood.


    So, a milligram is a thousandth of a thousandth of a kilogram, and a milliliter is a thousandth of a liter. Notice there is an extra thousandth on the weight unit. Therefore, there must be 1,000 milligrams in a milliliter, making the formula for mg to ml conversion:

    • mL = mg / 1000


    100mg/dL total blood cholesterol in % ?

    1dL = 100mL


    0.1mL is 0.1% of 100mL ?

    0.1% is 100mg/dL of total blood cholesterol ?

    Then to saturate the blood at 100% total cholesterol; total blood cholesterol would need to be x in mg/dL.


    100mg/dL x 1000 = 100000mg/dL to 100% saturate the blood with total cholesterol ?

    Is this correct or is "mL = mg / 1000" incorrect when applied to total cholesterol?

  7. On 5/23/2023 at 11:19 AM, Phi for All said:

    Innate abilities are something you're born with. Can you support this statement with examples? Critical thinking requires quite a bit of learning, so how can you be born with something you have to learn?

    It is self-evidently proven indirectly. Not everyone can fully use critical thinking skills despite learning them just as not everyone can actually drive a car despite taking driver's education. Therefore, critical thinking and driving precisely is an innate ability that can be perfected. An energy in the brain with various thinking channels.

    On 5/23/2023 at 11:19 AM, Phi for All said:

    You'll gain something useful when you realize your own confirmation bias against science that seems to work for us very well is holding you back. You've become blinded by the idea that scientists are "hidebound" and "stuck in their ways", so you don't see the actual steep progress curve that's been happening for the last 150 years or so.

    I don't have an issue with science. I have an issue with formally educated scientists and their inability to use the scientific method because they're focused on producing a product to make money.

    It does seem so from an outside perspective that I'm being held back. If I'm not with you, then I must be against you? Nope.

    I see the technological progress however I'm not impressed with the concomitant wastefulness. There are no lines being drawn.

    On 5/23/2023 at 11:19 AM, Phi for All said:

    While there is some truth that profit often eclipses reasoned solutions, I hope you can see the problem with you demanding scientists follow the scientific method while simultaneously claiming you can only accept data that you personally deem true. Your cognitive biases (all our cognitive biases) need to be removed and that's just not happening.

    Not data I deem true. Data that is self-evidently true. Such as measurement data. Measurement data with obvious off the chart measurements is valuable and can be used further to interpolate/extrapolate with other scientific fields. Polymath - Wikipedia

    Cognitive biases occur when we're holding onto beliefs. No beliefs = no cognitive biases. It's either self-evident or it's nonsense. It takes a while to train our brain to see possibilities and discard the probabilities.

  8. 10 hours ago, CharonY said:

    Pretty much no one believes that, at least not if you mean that everyone performs equally. If that was the case no test would ever make sense. The big questions really are what we measure with tests  (the Flynn effect being one of the factors that are not trivial to explain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect) , how we actually define intelligence (i.e. what do we mean if we use the term, and in which context) and how does it correlate with cognitive function and performance. 

    The fact that there are a lot of discussions surrounding the issue among experts,  indicates that the matter is far more complicated than one might assume from cursory reading on that matter and it is therefore questionable to build too many assumptions on these shaky foundations.

    The high rates of imposter syndrome say different. Those who are extrinsically motivated tend to believe subconsciously that we're all equal in cognitive abilities and that they can be seen as having high cognitive abilities if they obtain multiple degrees. They believe on some level that they have intelligence and/or intellect or that they can obtain it via learning (copy and pasting information).

    There are obviously different types of intelligence and tests should be split to highlight strengths and weaknesses instead of lumping everything together in one test.

  9. On 5/23/2023 at 6:52 AM, Intoscience said:

    What gives you this impression? Science (or at least some areas of it) can be considered underfunded compared to other organisations/fields of study, yet the benefits from scientific discoveries can be immense. 

    Scientists don't get paid that well unless happen to find stardom through popular exposure such as TV etc... who are a tiny portion of the scientific community. 

    If your discovery is so sensational then why not publish a paper for peer review, then maybe if verified you can make millions of bucks for your own ideas, what is stopping you?  

    It's underfunded because they aren't producing results.

    Doing right after I've been severely wronged and giving back my innate being after it was taken away from me for two decades. I was the healthiest child anyone has ever seen and strangely ended up with 5 mercury fillings in my teeth as a child. Experienced acute mercury poisoning and fought for myself like nobody has ever fought. Smashed my head with hardcover textbooks in the middle of class while nobody did anything. Held onto a school chair so tight to prevent fecal incontinence from the mercury poisoning. Ran away from home because it was like a nightmare I couldn't wake up from. Then walked around in high school like I had Parkinson's disease and nobody did anything. My school pictures are all of me with the Parkinson's disease demented smile. I begged my doctor in my 20s to help me and he smiled at me like I was a child who needed cheering up. He referred me to a gay psychologist who tried to sexually abuse me because I was so out of it. I eventually moved back to my home country in an attempt to regain my health and my awareness. Regained sufficient awareness to see the fillings were poisoning me. No help from my father to have them removed despite him having more than 100k in the bank. My father smoked inside the apartment and didn't care about anyone but himself and expected others to be sympathetic to his need to smoke. I made the initial piece of this discovery while breathing in massive amounts of secondhand smoke and drinking at least half a liter of raw carrot juice daily to prevent my brain from being severely inflamed. Went through withdrawal from the secondhand smoke every single day. Part of this discovery is why people smoke cigarettes and do drugs and why I live in a world of addicts. I tried to tell my father so he would stop smoking and he told me... "You're not a scientist", "You'll never accomplish anything", and "Once poor, always poor". Madness. This was a decade ago.

    After all of this. I'm left with GLUT1 deficiency syndrome and various unknown genetic mutations that resulted in severe covid with viral myocarditis and eventually heart failure. I tried to get help from doctors after covid in a developed country and no help at all from them because of my age and their ignorance. I had to read the scientific literature myself and use my intellect to understand how to reverse my heart failure with severe suicidal thoughts. Reversed my heart failure. I then tried to get help for my genetic mutations by sending my symptoms to a doctor so I could be referred to a neurologist and nutritionist because I'm struggling to maintain ketosis. No help from anyone despite free health sick care.

    Formally educated scientists have everything at their fingertips yet I'm the one who made this complex discovery while living through hell.

    I don't feel contempt. I feel resentment.

    If I release it. Then I will be asked... how did you make this discovery? Well... discoveries aren't made in safe spaces.

  10. On 5/28/2023 at 3:04 PM, HawkII said:

    Excess Carbon dioxide causes Global warming

    Excess humans burning an excessive amount of fossil fuels causes global warming. Let's stop blaming molecules.

    The number of children being driven to school throughout the day from Monday to Friday is a major issue. All thanks to law and order svu, by making mothers paranoid.

    The only way is to reduce burning fossil fuels and the clouds/rain will naturally bring the CO2 back down to earth.

  11. 6 hours ago, swansont said:

    No, intelligence.

    If intelligence is innate, then you shouldn’t be able to improve it with test-taking practice or strategies. If you are measuring intelligence and not knowledge, then your score shouldn’t depend on whether you know what particular words mean, but it does. There shouldn’t be cultural biases, but there are.

    All of these are flaws with IQ tests.

    You're right. They don't measure intelligence but they don't measure intellect either.

    I see the purpose of IQ tests as a way to sneakily measure the performance of our brains.

    I use the definition of intelligence that the majority inherently believe because they believe we're all equal. Which equates to obtaining a formal education with intelligence.

    Marilyn vos Savant is correct in the following video at the 3:40 mark.

    6 hours ago, swansont said:

    So why was Feynman’s IQ 125? He obviously had a high capacity to acquire, understand and use knowledge.

    Feynman had the 43/23 Genius thinking channel. 23 – 43 – Structuring - Human Design Tools

    Richard Feynman: The Right Angle Cross of Explanation 2 (23/43 | 49/4) - Human Design Tools and Life Work Theme: Explanation (Personal Focus - Form)

    Feynman lived out his mechanics.

    Marilyn vos Savant also has the 43/23 genius thinking channel but her channel is completely in 'Design' red. A lot more powerful and hence her IQ over 200.

    Richard Feynman.pdf

  12. On 5/23/2023 at 8:01 PM, swansont said:

    That’s what he reported; the tests have changed over time (he was 12 in 1930) and his score would be on the side of the argument that IQ tests really don’t measure intelligence


    IQ tests do measure intelligence and intelligence is nothing to rave about. Intelligence isn't used to verify whether the knowledge is accurate or not.

    The ability to acquire, understand, and use knowledge.

  13. https://journals.aps.org/prper/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.010119

    I dislike the paper's unintentionally twisted view of white society and how the "why" behind what occurs to certain blacks is always swept under the rug as if all blacks are angels.

    I've lived both in a predominantly white pink neighborhood and a predominantly multi-cultural neighborhood for 3-4 years as a white pink minority. Only received racial slurs from entitled blacks when I was minding my own business in the multi-cultural neighborhood and heard a lot "because I'm black" from young blacks that weren't getting their way. A lot of entitlement and egotistical behaviors instead of them seeing how their behavior is self-deprecating and annoying others. Blacks are tolerant of each other's bad behavior. Other races aren't and hence their repulsion.

    What I like about living in a predominantly pink neighborhood is that we call out each other's bad behavior and essentially keep each other in line. We work together for the greater good. We strive for peace and quietness in our neighborhoods instead of blasting the music until 3:00 AM, and we segregate ourselves when our peace is disrupted. This is the WHY behind segregation.

    The author wants to dismantle a system that we fought wars over to keep the peace. It will never happen.

  14. 5 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

    I sense an extreme amount of bitterness and "contempt" towards the scientific community.

    Bitterness yes; contempt no because "contempt" is a feeling of mentally being on a pedastal and looking down on people. I'm on solid ground.

    24 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

    Science uses models that can be tested and independently verified as it's standard. Until a better model is discovered and verified, yielding more accurate predictions to explain observation, then there is no reason to discount the original model. So what you learn in study is those "standard" models. You then are more than encouraged to seek out better models, nobody in the modern scientific community is going to oppose this approach. However any new model will face extreme scrutiny, and why shouldn't it? If it works and holds then this is the verification that is needed for it to then be accepted as the "new" standard model. At which point this will be taught to the next generation of students. 

    The major issue is when said models are based on making money over seeking indisputable truth.

    Medicine is a pseudoscience by the legal drug dealers that doesn't face the extreme scrutiny that it should. Legal drugs don't heal the body and the word "treatment" is a misleading word which essentially means "the management of degeneration". The receptors in our bodies are for vitamins, amino acids, neurotransmitters, hormones and other essential molecules. Not synthetic drugs and/or herbal supplements that play pinball with our biochemistry. Hence the side effects.

    I don't care whether it's taught or not to the next generation of students. For me it's about taking out the stinking garbage that I don't want to take out.

    48 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

    This is how progress works, start with solid foundations and build on them. Not all discoveries are sensational, some take years of study, bits at a time. 

    A tip: To enable you to refute an argument, you need to learn as much information as you can. This includes that which you may believe to be intuitively false. But intuition can cloud your judgement, especially when dealing with science, things aren't always the way you imagine they should be. So go and study, gain an understanding of that which you are claiming is false, you never know you may come back with something sensational, or you may learn something. At least you may get a different perspective and gain a little respect for science.  

    My discovery is shockingly sensational and the tip is exactly how I made it. I had to drop all my beliefs and only accept data that was self-evidently true.

    I don't have a problem with science. I have a problem with formally educated scientists not following the scientific method and instead manipulating the world for $$.

  15. On 5/18/2023 at 3:10 PM, Phi for All said:

    Unfortunately, you're ignoring an important part of the equation: reason and critical thinking. The books are built on data turned into information, but when you actually study the books and debate/discuss them, critical thinking helps turn the information into knowledge. I think you've been using this whole "scientists are arrogant" narrative as an excuse not to "conform". Since I have absolutely no contempt for you, I'd love to see you get over this stumbling block and gain something useful from science discussion.

    Critical thinking is an innate ability to see bias, not hold beliefs and not overlook information. Combining information into knowledge while maintaining confirmation bias and holding beliefs is what mainly occurs when books are written.

    I'm a born nonconformist.

    I will gain something useful when some people actually use the scientific method and stop treating Science like a cult where nobody is allowed to see the world independently.

    On 5/18/2023 at 10:24 PM, MigL said:

    Genio has shown 'contempt' for people who put in the effort and hard work to understand a subject and get a degree.
    But is he  angry at them; I don't think so.
    Quite possibly, he is angry at himselffor never having the intestinal fortitude and willingness to be able to do the same

    Copy and paste a subject into their minds and get a piece of paper with a fancy golden symbol. Hence extrinsic motivation.

    I feel resentment at formally educated scientists for overlooking the science of a particular subject because of their confirmation bias and corrupt mentality. I made a complex hidden world changing discovery that will eventually collapse all the corrupt industries because I lived through hell and it bothers me how formally educated scientists are paid billions, and can't even see the arrogance and errors in their conditioned ways of thinking.

    I have no choice. I can't obtain a formal education by forcing myself to learn misconceptions.

    On 5/19/2023 at 6:49 AM, dimreepr said:

    Contempt requires you to assume your knowledge and understanding is better than their's, you have no reason to assume that; even if they're in a wheelchair and dribbling, because you might be talking to Stephen Hawkins, or his twin. 

    Anger is for now not tomorrow, it's a base reaction to something you don't like, on the good end it stops someone from attacking you, physically, on the bad end it gives you an excuse to attack someone you JUST disagree with.

    Contempt implies arrogance. 

    As demonstrated by @genio

    Serenity, regularity, absence of vanity,Sincerity, simplicity, veracity, equanimity, Fixity, non-irritability, adaptability, Humility, tenacity, integrity, nobility, magnanimity, charity, generosity, purity. Practise daily these eighteen "ities" You will soon attain immortality. - Socrates

    Not all eighteen every day, five a day should be plenty... 😉

    Very well articulated. While I have an issue with the educational system because it tends to foster the know it all mentality in a good amount of people. You've explained the contempt tree beautifully.

    I'm wondering if the OP is in a position of authority and should use empowerment towards others by enlightening them on their ignorance and/or be open to being wrong instead of feeling contempt.


    Is empowerment the opposite of arrogance?
    Yes, empowerment can be considered the opposite of arrogance.

    Arrogance is characterized by an exaggerated sense of self-importance, an inflated ego, and a disregard for the opinions, needs, or contributions of others. It often involves an attitude of superiority and a lack of humility.

    Empowerment, on the other hand, involves recognizing and respecting the worth and abilities of individuals, promoting their autonomy, and providing them with the tools and resources to take control of their own lives and make meaningful decisions. It encourages a sense of self-confidence and self-empowerment while also valuing the input and capabilities of others.

    In this sense, empowerment and arrogance are contrasting attitudes. Empowerment fosters a collaborative and inclusive mindset, while arrogance promotes a self-centered and dismissive approach.


  16. 14 hours ago, mistermack said:

    That's what it boils down to. People are gullible, in every nation. They are fed a version of history that those in power think will solidify and stabilise the national unit and maintain the social order. And it works so well that people absolutely believe the untrue versions of history (and the present day) that they are fed.

    It's not just North Korea and Japan that practice history-bending indoctrination, it's virtually every country on the planet. 

    Having said that, it's the winners that generally get to write the history, the losers have to just suck it up. 

    Rosy retrospection - Wikipedia

    I'd suggest you stop reading history because you're not the type of person who's bound to repeat it and see the solutions to humanity's problems.

  17. 59 minutes ago, TheVat said:

    I want to change my judgmental reflex and feel less contempt for others.

    Now, let's discuss those people who get degrees and think they know everything, and arrogant scientists who can't ever be wrong.

    The 'judgmental reflex and feel less contempt for others.' is the result of formal education because formal education doesn't foster critical thinking. It shapes/hammers the brain into accepting everything without fact checking or using intellect.

    59 minutes ago, TheVat said:

    Maybe one should ask, is it possible to be critical in a useful way, and without contempt for the person?  

    Yes. Prove the other person wrong in a humble way instead of saying 'because science said so' or 'because my book said so' while at the same time not providing indisputable evidence.

    Scientific books are so watered down from their topics that its laughable to those who have actually learnt from the raw data.

    59 minutes ago, TheVat said:

    I remember how distasteful I found American politics when Obama was president, and there was a segment of society that couldn't just disagree with his policies or suggest better ones - they had to attack him, constantly, as "arrogant."

    Shining the light is more like it and what you're doing is misdirection. Making it personal and not seeing the errors in your thinking.

  18. 8 minutes ago, iNow said:

    It already happened over 70 years ago, but you can continue believing any ridiculous silly thing you want for as long as you want. The science remains valid and true whether you accept / believe in it or not.

    Link please.

    Creating simple amino acids does not constitute life.

  19. 26 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

    Because he's posting as a moderator, not a member. His first point was that you used Argument from Incredulity, which is a logical fallacy, and against the rules for discussion here. His second point was that you're using a Strawman argument in your description, another logical fallacy, also against the rules. And third, he's reminding you that bringing up something supernatural in a mainstream section is against the rules. 

    I'm not comitting logical fallacies because science has not proven how flapping our ligaments leads to developing wings. Makes perfect sense in theory but why would an animal or an insect flap their ligaments? What is the "intent" behind flapping their ligaments before they developed wings?

    We can see evolution at work with professional basketball players and how they're so tall because they keep jumping. The intent of jumping is to shoot the ball and reach for the hoop to dunk.

    26 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

    You can believe what you want. Some folks here prefer knowledge they can trust rather than wishful thinking or believing based on faith.

    You're committing confirmation bias. Supernatural has nothing to do with faith. It's all mechanical.

  20. 5 hours ago, swansont said:

    Moderator Note

    1. Whether you understand something or not has no bearing on its veracity.

    2. Your description of what you think the sequence of events bears little resemblance to what the science says.

    3. Discussion of supernatural anything or the intelligent design dogma has no place in this discussion


    This seems like an abuse of power. Why not just prove my points incorrect with science?

    5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

    So... you find it hard to believe something, and that leads you to believe in magic?! Why do you need the supernatural when you have changes in gene variants within a population every generation for millions of years?

    Why can't I believe in both?

    I don't need the supernatural. Supernatural experiences naturally occur with me. No choice. I'd love if scientists would study me.

    Science still hasn't proven how the first organism created itself into existence. When scientists can create with favorable conditions any form of life where no life has existed before is when I will believe that there's no intelligent design within the universe. I also don't believe in God.

  21. I find it hard to believe that an animal flapping their arms would develop wings or feathers and for what purpose to being with. There has to be a supernatural energy or energies behind these intelligent designs or the universe could be a consistent intelligent design in itself.

    Evolution doesn't have a direction because the energy from the Sun and the planets is/are always different.

  22. 4 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

    Why do you think it doesn't make sense?  Clearly Homo sapiens sapiens were different sub species than Homo sapiens neanderthals.

    What is the African homo lineage called during the time of the Homo sapiens neanderthals lineage?

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.