₦airaland Forum

Hmmm. Some posts make sense. I retract my statements. The thread is quite legitimate. Maybe the title doesn't convey cheekiness as it was meant to.

Lol, Jk. I hope you were not posted in the forest of the living dead. Aren't we supposed to do plenty maths collating all the numerous ratings for the last movie before moving on? Me, I no get calculator. Obinna, will you do the honours?

I only went through the thread very quickly. I see the arguments that atheism is supposed to be 'immoral'. Well atheism doesn't have anything to do with that any more than being a Nigerian has to do with it. I also do not think this thread is necessary. What point is being made here? That atheists can fight and bicker too? Who says they can't? Why have they been turned to some sort of cyborgs like they can't feel love, compassion hatred etc like the rest of us 'normal' people? I recommend John Teehan's book, In the Name of God to people who don't grasp the difference between ethics and morality.

This thread requires a crash cart, stat.

Pastor, thanks a ton for that expose earlier. Really compressed stuff.

MyJoe. Lol, you're right. I'd ask more questions but I fully understand what you're saying. I like that you and Uyi said intelligences are highly merged. As for DeepSight's question about who's more intelligent between Shakespeare and Einstein or some other duo (I think Uyi presented some of his own) my belief is this: yes, there must be a more cumulatively intelligent person as long as we want to keep on using the word 'intelligent' but we may never agree on what intelligence is or a way of evaluating it, so will probably never know or agree who is more intelligent.

Er, you're not ranting. I wish there was an excuse for you to open a thread.

Thanks MyJoe. Maybe I'll try to read that book. Have you considered whether these eight can be added to or shrunk? You know, whether it is over-generalization or over-simplification? I quite agree with you that intelligence testing methods come with heavy bias towards logical-mathematic and verbal-linguistical. I'd wager it is because these are the most pertinent to use in future. Musical intelligence is great but hardly useful for instance. To a lesser degree so is kinesthetic intelligence which may be useful only to a hunter. Without being conditioned by my last two sentences, do you think any of these intelligences are superior (not necessarily more useful, perhaps rarer and harder to develop) to the other. Would you advocate something of a hierarchy of these intelligences?

JK will skin me without anesthesia if I don't review. I've not been able to watch it again as planned. I've been royally distracted lately. I'll try my best

The Usual Suspects. One of the few films with a cult following. In retrospect there really isn't all that much to the movie but retrospection doesn't actually take us back all those years. It could have easily been my favourite movie had I seen it fresh from the kitchen in '95. The film is built around Soze, a character that makes 7foot thugs wet themselves asking for mama in a fetal position. When I saw the movie, I have to admit, unlike you guys, I was fooled completely and didn't expect the ending at all! Of course that means I enjoyed the movie more than you guys too, lol. I was even expecting Soze to unleash some of his awesome super powers! No joke! How can these guys fear someone who'd bleed like them. Of course the whole darn movie was just an excellent liar's imagination. The way he improvised on the spot using things and names in the office he was being questioned in, damn! The calm demeanor, damn! Even the cop was digging the story with rapt attention. Talk about spinning a yarn. A damn good yarn it was too. The scene in the end where Kevin Spacey changes his stride was priceless! Absolutely priceless! I wish I saw the movie again to give a more comprehensive review but . . . . . . I rate it 90%

Now now fellas, play nice

And I forgot to ask, MyJoe. Your theories seem to suggest that there's no such thing like being more intelligent than another and if possible there's no way of measuring it or that one may merely be more intelligent than another in one type i.e. musically etc. Is this correct? Also do you think intelligence increases or decreases? Is it possible?

MyJoe. I assume that musical, verbal-linguistical etc are part of these eight intelligences you speak of. Could you mention the other four? It's interesting. May change my whole outlook. I like the training model you mentioned cuz I've always believed that environment more than anything affects intelligence. Einstein in Akure might have just become a village headmaster.

MyJoe. As fascinating as all these categorizations of genius are (kinesthetic, spatial, verbal-linguistic, musical etc) I am reluctant to accept them as chips of intelligence. I'd rather say they were abilities resultant from genes AND some intelligence. It is said that everyone is good at something at least. You may never discover that you're good at one thing if you never tried. But then you'd need the tools which I think is independent of intelligence. Chess would be a more suitable sport to test intelligence even though it is cliched.

I'd also wanna distinguish between training or developing an ability from actual intelligence. So almost anybody could be a snake charmer, but very few indeed would.

Lol. Some whisky in the morning?

I suppose one could derive an all encompassing definition of intelligence. Probably the same way people like Stephen Hawkings look for a theory of everything. I realise now that this thread is an offshoot of the question whether atheists are more intelligent. Well, in a way yes. That would fit with the part where I think intelligence is being able to go against instinct. I believe deity worship is somewhat instinctive.

[size=58pt]RAMEN!!!
[/size]
I actually salivate at the thought of it

Touche. Touche. Touche.

Perhaps I came off like I knew what I was talking about. Au contraire. I take pains not to sound like what I say is hard fact. Except it is. All I wrote was my view. The reason why my definition was so open ended is because I do not believe one can develop an encapsulating definition. It's like trying to define beauty. Moreso, I have not said all I think intelligence is. But I know it is not limited to what I wrote. Not by my reckoning.

About the program. I didn't mean to liken intelligence with the program. I meant to liken the finesse of the program to intelligence. Like theists see God in design.

Yes, you are right. Mutually exclusive is a wrong term. Wrong by its very definition too. I was typing fast and didn't think what I was saying much. Opposing thoughts is better like Socialism and Capitalism. What I really meant is an ability to change his mind upon deep thought or new evidence. This is why thick people cannot be reasoned with.

Also I think it is an ability to be able to understand and override instinct. Really, I cannot help but be open ended about the definition because it is a composite term. I think the components of the definition carry different significance though it can hardly be quantified only relative.

Autists indeed have their intelligence focused on very narrow scope. I'm glad you used the word "focus". It implies that they are not of less intelligence but of less ways to use it. But then not all autists are apparently intelligent. It's all up in the air jare.

What do you think of the claim/fact that we do not use all of our brain? Would you say someone who can access more of his latent brain is more intelligent?

Homosexuality? I can't stand the thought of it. But it is none of my concern either.

Ah, Pastor. I'd wager you knew we'd get epistemological some time, probably just not this soon.

Intelligence to me is a composite of various abilities of which the foremost is creativity. Intelligence is like a fine program: as little code as possible to do as much as possible.

It is also curiosity. A desire to know stuff.

It is also an ability to connect the dots, to extrapolate, to be specific or generalize. To see the big picture and use a magnifying glass. This I believe is Pastor's main point.

Intelligence is a host of other things: recognition of patterns, ability to hold two mutually exclusive thoughts etc. I don't think a robust memory is intelligence. It enhances it but it is not intelligence itself. Compare to a computer with plenty memory but little processing speed. The processing speed to me is intelligence but the memory may enhance it. By extension knowledge is also not intelligence. Neither is wisdom which is more like a catalogue of cause and effect than anything else. A wise person has probably made all possible mistakes.

A reason why I think intelligence is multi-faceted is cuz autists are very intelligent and very dumb at the same time.

Ah. What trouble JK. You'll have to holla on YIM cuz I can't see people who're online. This your review is very good. Almost discouraging. I'll go see the movie again first before reviewing. I hope it has truly been a while.

So this is who the freaking person Uti is! Jeez! Glad this stuff is over. Folks take it more seriously than the players sef.

94.875 lol.

Let's round that up to 95% which queerly was my rating. Men, I can get used to this. Too bad it'll take a long time before the carousel does 360.

Your ball, JK Simmons.

How goes it dude?

Let's assume that's a review. Put your satisfaction with the movie in percentage and let whoever's on JeSoul's list choose the next movie