The Breakfast Question - Images

Sorted By:

"Ah, my good fellow, there you are wrong. You see, I _did_ eat breakfast this morning."

Catholic Space Emperor @catholicspaceem "Ah, my good fellow, there you are wrong. You see, I _did_ eat breakfast this morning." 10:42 AM Jan 21, 2023 31.8K Views :
Catholic Space Emperor @catholicspaceem "Ah, my good fellow, there you are wrong. You see, I _did_ eat breakfast this morning." 10:42 AM Jan 21, 2023 31.8K Views :

The Breakfast Question
breakfast hypotheticals low iq low intelligence sigmund freud george floyd

"But I did have breakfast this morning."

#1 BEST SELLER Ending Bigly, Eh? @EndingBigly "But I did have breakfast this morning." gros 4:17 PM Jan 10, 2023 102.2K Views DANIEL NANCE
#1 BEST SELLER Ending Bigly, Eh? @EndingBigly "But I did have breakfast this morning." gros 4:17 PM Jan 10, 2023 102.2K Views DANIEL NANCE

The Breakfast Question
breakfast hypotheticals low iq low intelligence freedom of speech

Anon Researches IQ

Anonymous (ID: (tGoemegr) 06/26/21 (Sat)22:31:26 No.327667712>>327667818 >>327668086 >>327685429 >>327665089 (OP) Not that anon but I have the IQpills from that thread in text, will dump. >I did IQ research as a grad student, and it involved a lot of this stuff. Did you know that most people (95%+) with less than 90 IQ can't understand conditional hypotheticals? >For example: >How would you have felt yesterday evening if you hadn't eaten breakfast or lunch? >What do you mean? I did eat breakfast and lunch. >Yes, but if you had not, how would you have felt? >Why are you saying that I didn't eat breakfast? I just told you that I did. >Imagine that you hadn't eaten it, though. How would you have felt? >I don't understand the question. >It's really fascinating. We did research on convicts in San Quentin. They're absolute f------ retards, at least 50% illiterate. Anonymous (ID: (tGoemegr) 06/26/21 (Sat)22:32:20 No.327667818>>327667906 >>327668933 >>327669227 >>327669920 >>327685429 >>327688917 >>327667712 >Other interesting phenomenon around IQ involves recursion. >For example: >Write a story with two named characters, each of whom have at least one line of dialogue. >Most literate people can manage this, especially once you give them an example. >Write a story with two named characters, each of whom have at least one line of dialogue. >In this story, one of the characters must be describing a story with at least two named characters, each of whom have at least one line of dialogue. >If you have less than 90 IQ, this second exercise is basically completely impossible. >Add a third level ('frame') to the story, and even IQ 100's start to get mixed up with the names and who's talking. >Turns out Scheherazade was an IQ test! Anonymous (ID: (tGoemegr) 06/26/21 (Sat)22:33:08 No.327667906 >>327667980 >>327684917 >>327685429 >>327686122 >>327667818 >Time is practically impossible to understand for sub 80's. They exist only in the present, can barely reflect on the past and can't plan for the future at all. >Sub 90's struggle with anachronism too. For example, I remember the 80-85's stumbling on logic problems that involved common sense anachronism stuff. >For instance: >Why do you think that military strategists in WWII didn't use laptop computers to help develop their strategies? >I guess they didn't want to get hacked by Nazis? >Admittedly you could argue that this is a history knowledge question, not quite a logic sequencing question, but you get the idea. >Sequencing is super hard for them to track, but most 100+ have no problem with it, although I imagine that a movie like Memento strains them a little. >Recursion was definitely the killer, though. >Recursive thinking and recursive knowledge seems genuinely hard for people of even average intelligence (although at San Quentin there weren't too many of those!) Anonymous (ID: (tGoemegr) 06/26/21 (Sat)22:33:49 No.327667980 >>327668199 >>327685031 >>327685429 | >>327667906 >It's the main reason why so many people with sub-90 IQ are sociopathic or psychopathic. They don't have the mental computing power to model other people's thoughts and feelings. I've seen it over and over with convicts. >How do you think that man felt when you beat him? >Dunno. >How do you think that boy's mother felt when she heard that her son was dead? >Dunno. >It comes across as psychopathic, but these people literally don't have the brainpower to build even a crude model of someone else's mind, let alone populate it with events that are in the past. Anonymous (ID: (tGoemegr) 06/26/21 (Sat)22:35:47 No.327668199>>327673995 >>327679808>>327685429 >>327685570 >>327685800 >>327687876 >>327687892 >>327667980 >I forgot to mention another important part of abstract reasoning, which is 'mapping'. Basically, expressing one thing in terms of another. >For example: >Imagine a picture of an arrow, colored in a gradient from yellow to green, following the direction of the arrow. >Imagine a one-way residential street, with ascending house numbers, with the lowest number being at the entrance of the street and the highest number being at the exit. >If you mapped the arrow onto the street, what color would house number 1 be? >This question really isn't tricky for most 100+s. It has some minor ambiguities, but anyone of normal intelligence can do the 'mapping': that is, the expression of one thing in terms of another. >However, for sub-90's, this stuff is REALLY difficult. They struggle terribly with it. Sub 80's just can't do it at all. >Anything under 90 will routinely make errors with even commonplace mapping (like subway maps, time schedules, etc.) Sub 85s start to get into the territory where they can't learn to read, as symbolic mapping of phonemes (or even morphemes) even with constant drilling, is just too tricky. >Math is another area I could get into, but the long and the short of it is that it's heavily decided by IQ. That's a bit tautological, since it's a principal IQ measurement, but you know what I mean. >As for the criminal narcissists etc: I honestly don't know. However, sufficiently high IQ autists can emulate theory of mind, and do. If you're smart enough, you can build a little simulator in your brain. You also need to be smart enough to appreciate the utility of it. >I suspect that any autist or narcissist over 120 can do this stuff regularly without getting tired, but it's like playing a strenuous game of chess for them. They really don't have the 'hardware' for empathy. That's it. >reeeee formatting f--- you I already reformatted it for normie consumption and have been disseminating it, not retranslating to autist.
Anonymous (ID: (tGoemegr) 06/26/21 (Sat)22:31:26 No.327667712>>327667818 >>327668086 >>327685429 >>327665089 (OP) Not that anon but I have the IQpills from that thread in text, will dump. >I did IQ research as a grad student, and it involved a lot of this stuff. Did you know that most people (95%+) with less than 90 IQ can't understand conditional hypotheticals? >For example: >How would you have felt yesterday evening if you hadn't eaten breakfast or lunch? >What do you mean? I did eat breakfast and lunch. >Yes, but if you had not, how would you have felt? >Why are you saying that I didn't eat breakfast? I just told you that I did. >Imagine that you hadn't eaten it, though. How would you have felt? >I don't understand the question. >It's really fascinating. We did research on convicts in San Quentin. They're absolute f------ retards, at least 50% illiterate. Anonymous (ID: (tGoemegr) 06/26/21 (Sat)22:32:20 No.327667818>>327667906 >>327668933 >>327669227 >>327669920 >>327685429 >>327688917 >>327667712 >Other interesting phenomenon around IQ involves recursion. >For example: >Write a story with two named characters, each of whom have at least one line of dialogue. >Most literate people can manage this, especially once you give them an example. >Write a story with two named characters, each of whom have at least one line of dialogue. >In this story, one of the characters must be describing a story with at least two named characters, each of whom have at least one line of dialogue. >If you have less than 90 IQ, this second exercise is basically completely impossible. >Add a third level ('frame') to the story, and even IQ 100's start to get mixed up with the names and who's talking. >Turns out Scheherazade was an IQ test! Anonymous (ID: (tGoemegr) 06/26/21 (Sat)22:33:08 No.327667906 >>327667980 >>327684917 >>327685429 >>327686122 >>327667818 >Time is practically impossible to understand for sub 80's. They exist only in the present, can barely reflect on the past and can't plan for the future at all. >Sub 90's struggle with anachronism too. For example, I remember the 80-85's stumbling on logic problems that involved common sense anachronism stuff. >For instance: >Why do you think that military strategists in WWII didn't use laptop computers to help develop their strategies? >I guess they didn't want to get hacked by Nazis? >Admittedly you could argue that this is a history knowledge question, not quite a logic sequencing question, but you get the idea. >Sequencing is super hard for them to track, but most 100+ have no problem with it, although I imagine that a movie like Memento strains them a little. >Recursion was definitely the killer, though. >Recursive thinking and recursive knowledge seems genuinely hard for people of even average intelligence (although at San Quentin there weren't too many of those!) Anonymous (ID: (tGoemegr) 06/26/21 (Sat)22:33:49 No.327667980 >>327668199 >>327685031 >>327685429 | >>327667906 >It's the main reason why so many people with sub-90 IQ are sociopathic or psychopathic. They don't have the mental computing power to model other people's thoughts and feelings. I've seen it over and over with convicts. >How do you think that man felt when you beat him? >Dunno. >How do you think that boy's mother felt when she heard that her son was dead? >Dunno. >It comes across as psychopathic, but these people literally don't have the brainpower to build even a crude model of someone else's mind, let alone populate it with events that are in the past. Anonymous (ID: (tGoemegr) 06/26/21 (Sat)22:35:47 No.327668199>>327673995 >>327679808>>327685429 >>327685570 >>327685800 >>327687876 >>327687892 >>327667980 >I forgot to mention another important part of abstract reasoning, which is 'mapping'. Basically, expressing one thing in terms of another. >For example: >Imagine a picture of an arrow, colored in a gradient from yellow to green, following the direction of the arrow. >Imagine a one-way residential street, with ascending house numbers, with the lowest number being at the entrance of the street and the highest number being at the exit. >If you mapped the arrow onto the street, what color would house number 1 be? >This question really isn't tricky for most 100+s. It has some minor ambiguities, but anyone of normal intelligence can do the 'mapping': that is, the expression of one thing in terms of another. >However, for sub-90's, this stuff is REALLY difficult. They struggle terribly with it. Sub 80's just can't do it at all. >Anything under 90 will routinely make errors with even commonplace mapping (like subway maps, time schedules, etc.) Sub 85s start to get into the territory where they can't learn to read, as symbolic mapping of phonemes (or even morphemes) even with constant drilling, is just too tricky. >Math is another area I could get into, but the long and the short of it is that it's heavily decided by IQ. That's a bit tautological, since it's a principal IQ measurement, but you know what I mean. >As for the criminal narcissists etc: I honestly don't know. However, sufficiently high IQ autists can emulate theory of mind, and do. If you're smart enough, you can build a little simulator in your brain. You also need to be smart enough to appreciate the utility of it. >I suspect that any autist or narcissist over 120 can do this stuff regularly without getting tired, but it's like playing a strenuous game of chess for them. They really don't have the 'hardware' for empathy. That's it. >reeeee formatting f--- you I already reformatted it for normie consumption and have been disseminating it, not retranslating to autist.

The Breakfast Question
breakfast hypotheticals low iq low intelligence

>Imagine a picture of an arrow, colored in a gradient from yellow to green, following the direction of the arrow.

Anonymous ID:XSgBUOJW Wed 16 Jun 2021 01:19:54 No.326135529 Quoted By: >>326136394 >>326144762 Report >>326134642 >>326133726 >>326133307 >>326129457 >>326129225 I forgot to mention another important part of abstract reasoning, which is 'mapping'. Basically, expressing one thing in terms of another. For example: >Imagine a picture of an arrow, colored in a gradient from yellow to green, following the direction of the arrow. >Imagine a one-way residential street, with ascending house numbers, with the lowest number being at the entrance of the street and the highest number being at the exit. >If you mapped the arrow onto the street, what color would house number 1 be? This question really isn't tricky for most 100+s. It has some minor ambiguities, but anyone of normal intelligence can do the 'mapping': that is, the expression of one thing in terms of another. However, for sub-90's, this stuff is REALLY difficult. They struggle terribly with it. Sub 80's just can't do it at all. Anything under 90 will routinely make errors with even commonplace mapping (like subway maps, time schedules, etc.) Sub 85s start to get into the territory where they can't learn to read, as symbolic mapping of phonemes (or even morphemes) even with constant drilling, is just too tricky. Maths is another area I could get into, but the long and the short of it is that it's heavily decided by IQ. That's a bit tautological, since it's a principal IQ measurement, but you know what I mean. As for the criminial narcissists etc: I honestly don't know. However, sufficiently high IQ autists can emulate theory of mind, and do. If you're smart enough, you can build a little simulator in your brain. You also need to be smart enough to appreciate the utility of it. I suspect that any autist or narcissist over 120 can do this stuff regularly without getting tired, but it's like playing a strenuous game of chess for them. They really don't have the 'hardware' for empathy. As for solutions, I really think stupid people should be gassed. At lest they have to be dissuaded from reproducing, and immigratting.
Anonymous ID:XSgBUOJW Wed 16 Jun 2021 01:19:54 No.326135529 Quoted By: >>326136394 >>326144762 Report >>326134642 >>326133726 >>326133307 >>326129457 >>326129225 I forgot to mention another important part of abstract reasoning, which is 'mapping'. Basically, expressing one thing in terms of another. For example: >Imagine a picture of an arrow, colored in a gradient from yellow to green, following the direction of the arrow. >Imagine a one-way residential street, with ascending house numbers, with the lowest number being at the entrance of the street and the highest number being at the exit. >If you mapped the arrow onto the street, what color would house number 1 be? This question really isn't tricky for most 100+s. It has some minor ambiguities, but anyone of normal intelligence can do the 'mapping': that is, the expression of one thing in terms of another. However, for sub-90's, this stuff is REALLY difficult. They struggle terribly with it. Sub 80's just can't do it at all. Anything under 90 will routinely make errors with even commonplace mapping (like subway maps, time schedules, etc.) Sub 85s start to get into the territory where they can't learn to read, as symbolic mapping of phonemes (or even morphemes) even with constant drilling, is just too tricky. Maths is another area I could get into, but the long and the short of it is that it's heavily decided by IQ. That's a bit tautological, since it's a principal IQ measurement, but you know what I mean. As for the criminial narcissists etc: I honestly don't know. However, sufficiently high IQ autists can emulate theory of mind, and do. If you're smart enough, you can build a little simulator in your brain. You also need to be smart enough to appreciate the utility of it. I suspect that any autist or narcissist over 120 can do this stuff regularly without getting tired, but it's like playing a strenuous game of chess for them. They really don't have the 'hardware' for empathy. As for solutions, I really think stupid people should be gassed. At lest they have to be dissuaded from reproducing, and immigratting.

The Breakfast Question
breakfast hypotheticals low iq low intelligence

They don't have the mental computing power to model other people's thoughts and feelings

Anonymous ID:Dd8Hnh0L Tue 15 Jun 2021 22:05:51 No.326118207 Quoted By: >>326122636 >>326127674 >>326129225 >>326133726 >>326117577 Report Thanks. On the last point, it's the main reason why so many people with sub-90 IQ are sociopathic or psychopathic. They don't have the mental computing power to model other people's thoughts and feelings. I've seen it millions of times with convicts. >How do you think that man felt when you beat him? >Dunno. >How do you think that boy's mother felt when she heard that her son was dead? >Dunno. It comes across as psychopathic, but these people literally don't have the brainpower to build even a crude model of someone else's mind, let alone populate it with events that are in the past. Stupid people should be sterilized and gassed, and the worst thing that can possibly happen to your civilization is a drop of average IQ scores. It's absolutely lethal.
Anonymous ID:Dd8Hnh0L Tue 15 Jun 2021 22:05:51 No.326118207 Quoted By: >>326122636 >>326127674 >>326129225 >>326133726 >>326117577 Report Thanks. On the last point, it's the main reason why so many people with sub-90 IQ are sociopathic or psychopathic. They don't have the mental computing power to model other people's thoughts and feelings. I've seen it millions of times with convicts. >How do you think that man felt when you beat him? >Dunno. >How do you think that boy's mother felt when she heard that her son was dead? >Dunno. It comes across as psychopathic, but these people literally don't have the brainpower to build even a crude model of someone else's mind, let alone populate it with events that are in the past. Stupid people should be sterilized and gassed, and the worst thing that can possibly happen to your civilization is a drop of average IQ scores. It's absolutely lethal.

The Breakfast Question
breakfast hypotheticals low iq low intelligence

We never did that, but time is practically impossible to understand for sub 80's

Anonymous ID:Dd8Hnh0L Tue 15 Jun 2021 21:35:51 No.326115041 Quoted By: >>326115378 >>326131278 Report >>326114271 We never did that, but time is practically impossible to understand for sub 80's. They exist only in the present, can barely reflect on the past and can't plan for the future at all. Sub 90's struggle with anachronism too. For example, I remember the 80-85's stumbling on logic problems that involved common sense anachronism stuff. For instance: >Why do you think that military strategists in WWII didn't use laptop computers to help develop their strategies? >I guess they didn't want to get hacked by nazis? Admittedly you could argue that this is a history knowledge question, not quite a logic sequencing question, but you get the idea. Sequencing is super hard for them to track, but most 100+ have no problem with it, although I imagine that a movie like Memento strains them a little. Recursion was definitely the killer, though. Recursive thinking and recursive knowledge seems genuinely hard for people of even average intelligence (although at San Quentin there weren't too many of those!)
Anonymous ID:Dd8Hnh0L Tue 15 Jun 2021 21:35:51 No.326115041 Quoted By: >>326115378 >>326131278 Report >>326114271 We never did that, but time is practically impossible to understand for sub 80's. They exist only in the present, can barely reflect on the past and can't plan for the future at all. Sub 90's struggle with anachronism too. For example, I remember the 80-85's stumbling on logic problems that involved common sense anachronism stuff. For instance: >Why do you think that military strategists in WWII didn't use laptop computers to help develop their strategies? >I guess they didn't want to get hacked by nazis? Admittedly you could argue that this is a history knowledge question, not quite a logic sequencing question, but you get the idea. Sequencing is super hard for them to track, but most 100+ have no problem with it, although I imagine that a movie like Memento strains them a little. Recursion was definitely the killer, though. Recursive thinking and recursive knowledge seems genuinely hard for people of even average intelligence (although at San Quentin there weren't too many of those!)

The Breakfast Question
breakfast hypotheticals low iq low intelligence

>Write a story with two named characters, each of whom have at least one line of dialogue.

my kategHT Anonymous ID:Dd8Hnh0L Tue 15 Jun 2021 21:22:51 No.326113606 Quoted By: >>326114047 >>326114271 >>326116404 >>326133080 >>326113029 >>326108368 Report Other interesting phenomenon around IQ involves recursion. For example: >Write a story with two named characters, each of whom have at least one line of dialogue. Most literate people can manage this, specially once you give them an example. >Write a story with two named characters, each of whom have at least one line of dialogue. In this story, one of the characters must be describing a story with at least two named characters, each of whom have at least one line of dialogue. If you have less than 90 IQ, this second exercise is basically completely impossible. Add a third level ('frame') to the story, and even IQ 100's start to get mixed up with the names and who's talking. Turns out Scheherazade was an IQ test!
my kategHT Anonymous ID:Dd8Hnh0L Tue 15 Jun 2021 21:22:51 No.326113606 Quoted By: >>326114047 >>326114271 >>326116404 >>326133080 >>326113029 >>326108368 Report Other interesting phenomenon around IQ involves recursion. For example: >Write a story with two named characters, each of whom have at least one line of dialogue. Most literate people can manage this, specially once you give them an example. >Write a story with two named characters, each of whom have at least one line of dialogue. In this story, one of the characters must be describing a story with at least two named characters, each of whom have at least one line of dialogue. If you have less than 90 IQ, this second exercise is basically completely impossible. Add a third level ('frame') to the story, and even IQ 100's start to get mixed up with the names and who's talking. Turns out Scheherazade was an IQ test!

The Breakfast Question
breakfast hypotheticals low iq low intelligence

>How would you have felt yesterday evening if you hadn't eaten breakfast or lunch?

▬ Anonymous ID: Dd8 Hnh0L Tue 15 Jun 2021 21:17:33 No.326113029 Quoted By: >>326113606 >>326126835 >>326129457 >>326133307 >>326136325 >>326143940 >>326108368 NP. I did IQ research as a grad student, and it involved a lot of this stuff. Did you know that most people (95%+) with less than 90 IQ can't understand conditional hypotheticals? For example: >How would you have felt yesterday evening if you hadn't eaten breakfast or lunch? >What do you mean? I did eat breakfast and lunch. >Yes, but if you had not, how would you have felt? >Why are you saying that I didn't eat breakfast? I just told you that I did. >Imagine that you hadn't eaten it, though. How would you have felt? >I don't understand the question. it's really fascinating. We did research on convicts in San Quentin. They're absolute f------ retards, at least 50% illiterate. If every single incarcerated person was summarily executed tomorrow, I think America would be debt-free within 5 years. That's how much damage these people do to the economy. They must cost the taxpayers millions, perhaps tens of millions over the course of their evil lives.
▬ Anonymous ID: Dd8 Hnh0L Tue 15 Jun 2021 21:17:33 No.326113029 Quoted By: >>326113606 >>326126835 >>326129457 >>326133307 >>326136325 >>326143940 >>326108368 NP. I did IQ research as a grad student, and it involved a lot of this stuff. Did you know that most people (95%+) with less than 90 IQ can't understand conditional hypotheticals? For example: >How would you have felt yesterday evening if you hadn't eaten breakfast or lunch? >What do you mean? I did eat breakfast and lunch. >Yes, but if you had not, how would you have felt? >Why are you saying that I didn't eat breakfast? I just told you that I did. >Imagine that you hadn't eaten it, though. How would you have felt? >I don't understand the question. it's really fascinating. We did research on convicts in San Quentin. They're absolute f------ retards, at least 50% illiterate. If every single incarcerated person was summarily executed tomorrow, I think America would be debt-free within 5 years. That's how much damage these people do to the economy. They must cost the taxpayers millions, perhaps tens of millions over the course of their evil lives.

The Breakfast Question
breakfast hypotheticals low iq low intelligence