On social media, they saying that Terrance Howard really is smart and they tryna give him credit for AR/VR technology. EDIT debunked

[Professor Emeritus]

I could tell he definitely was exaggerating some stuff. He's obviously crazy but the craziest person I know is also the smartest person I know.

I mean, yeah, there's plenty of brilliant people who are crazy. I think he is intelligent. The main issue is just that he hasn't gotten any background on the subjects he's trying to speak on, and instead of trying to build a foundation from which he could figure out some cool stuff, he started with nonsense and built off of that.

could care less about the VR patent. I was much more interested in the Lynch Pins and his theory on planet formation.

His theory on planet formation is wrong at every level.

1. He starts off by assuming that planets all come from the sun. But they don't, and there's no reason to believe that they did. He seems to just make up the idea, then assume it to be true.

2. He states that the Earth is drifting 0.6 inches further from the sun each year, and since he assumes the Earth came from the Sun, the Earth must be 93 trillion years old. But the Earth is only 4.5 billion years old. The ENTIRE UNIVERSE is only about 14 billion years old! If you do the same "extrapolation from the speed they're moving" thing with the universe, you find that it was all at the same point in space about 14 billion years ago. But if the universe was all at the same point in space 14 billion year ago.....then how could the Earth have been slowly moving away from the sun for 93 trillion years? It's complete nonsense.

3. A normal theorist, when they come up with an idea that turns out to be at complete odds with the data, will abandon the idea. All of our science and theories - the dating of rocks on Earth, the dating of asteroids that hit Earth, the understanding with have of solar formation, the understanding with have of galactic formation, the understanding with have of the speed of the universe expanding - they ALL show that the universe and everything in it is no more than a few billion years old. So the sun/earth can't possibly be many trillions of years old.


There's so many other levels at which the theory fails, but that should be the easiest to understand. His entire timeline is off by a factor of more than 5,000. Every line of evidence proves him wrong.

 

[Neo. The Only. The One.]

I mean, yeah, there's plenty of brilliant people who are crazy. I think he is intelligent.

I disagree with the bolded. A man who doesn't understand basic multiplication is in no way intelligent. I think that he is retarded but he's able to speak with a cadence and use of words that appeals to the general public (that is ignorant) much the same way Trump does. It isn't that he's intelligent. It's just that most of the public is half retarded just as he is. He has charisma and that can suck people in.

 

[Uachet]

I disagree with the bolded. A man who doesn't understand basic multiplication is in no way intelligent. I think that he is retarded but he's able to speak with a cadence and use of words that appeals to the general public (that is ignorant) much the same way Trump does. It isn't that he's intelligent. It's just that most of the public is half retarded just as he is. He has charisma and that can suck people in.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I disagree with the bolded. A man who doesn't understand basic multiplication is in no way intelligent. I think that he is retarded but he's able to speak with a cadence and use of words that appeals to the general public (that is ignorant) much the same way Trump does. It isn't that he's intelligent. It's just that most of the public is half retarded just as he is. He has charisma and that can suck people in.

I disagree. I think he's smart, but uninformed and arrogant.

The problem with smart people is that being smart doesn't make you any more likely to admit when you're wrong. It just makes you far better at arguing your position, whether it is right or wrong. They've actually done psych experiments testing this - people with high IQs are able to come up with far more reasons to justify their answers than people with low IQs are. That seems obvious. But the non-obvious finding is that people with high IQs, on average, don't come up with any more reasons they might be wrong than people with lower IQs come up with. They just keep thinking of more and more different ways to justify themselves, but they don't automatically check and correct themselves very well. SOME people do that, of course, there are some smart people who are excellent at humility and constantly improving themselves. But it's only a small subset, and doesn't happen any more often than for people of lower IQs.

So the question is, why are smart people usually right, if they're not particularly good at correcting themselves? Well, it's because highly intelligent people are much more likely to do the research and get along the right path from the beginning. Since they can take in the information and discern between the options more effectively, they are better at figuring out the right path from the beginning than lower IQ people are.

The problem with Terrence Howard is that he never started on the right path. He started believing dumb shyt right off the bat, and he never got the kind of education/foundation that would have led him to better ideas early. So he just starts off with some bad idea, like, "The Earth originated from the Sun" or "1x1=2", and devotes all his reasoning powers to try to justify that bad idea. Because he's intelligent, he can come up with lots of reasons for justifying it, but because he's arrogant (not stupid), he internally refuses to come up with the counterarguments or respect the ones he hears from others.

 

[Uachet]

I disagree. I think he's smart, but uninformed and arrogant.

The problem with smart people is that being smart doesn't make you any more likely to admit when you're wrong. It just makes you far better at arguing your position, whether it is right or wrong. They've actually done psych experiments testing this - people with high IQs are able to come up with far more reasons to justify their answers than people with low IQs are. That seems obvious. But the non-obvious finding is that people with high IQs, on average, don't come up with any more reasons they might be wrong than people with lower IQs come up with. They just keep thinking of more and more different ways to justify themselves, but they don't automatically check and correct themselves very well. SOME people do that, of course, there are some smart people who are excellent at humility and constantly improving themselves. But it's only a small subset, and doesn't happen any more often than for people of lower IQs.

So the question is, why are smart people usually right, if they're not particularly good at correcting themselves? Well, it's because highly intelligent people are much more likely to do the research and get along the right path from the beginning. Since they can take in the information and discern between the options more effectively, they are better at figuring out the right path from the beginning than lower IQ people are.

The problem with Terrence Howard is that he never started on the right path. He started believing dumb shyt right off the bat, and he never got the kind of education/foundation that would have led him to better ideas early. So he just starts off with some bad idea, like, "The Earth originated from the Sun" or "1x1=2", and devotes all his reasoning powers to try to justify that bad idea. Because he's intelligent, he can come up with lots of reasons for justifying it, but because he's arrogant (not stupid), he internally refuses to come up with the counterarguments or respect the ones he hears from others.

This all makes sense, but there is one problem that is not being considered in my opinion. The same inability to accept being wrong can also be attributed to The Dunning-Kruger effect.

"The Dunning-Kruger effect occurs when a person's lack of knowledge and skill in a certain area causes them to overestimate their own competence. By contrast, this effect also drives those who excel in a given area to think the task is simple for everyone, leading them to underestimate their abilities."

Dunning–Kruger Effect - The Decision Lab

Dunning–Kruger Effect explains why the least competent at a task often incorrectly rate themselves as high-performers because they do not know otherwise.

thedecisionlab.com

I am inclined to consider his absolute confidence in his knowledge on subjects he has no training in to this effect, than to consider it just him being extremely smart and yet absolutely ignorant of the subjects he seeks to discuss. It also does not help that he lied about having a PhD in Chemical Engineering from a SCSU, a university that does not confer Doctorates in that area of study. Something simple as that he could have looked up before he made the idiotic claim.

So I would need more evidence to support the idea that he is highly intelligent, because right now everything he has done fits squarely within what I placed above.

 

[#BOTHSIDES]

After a chic said this, I told her she was crazy and then she came back with receipts.

I'm too busy right now to really look at this but I did a cursory glance and I'm like

Here's the link to the patent: US20100271394A1 - System and method for merging virtual reality and reality to provide an enhanced sensory experience - Google Patents

She's telling me to look at the companies that cited it, and she told me that it's proof that a lot of major companies used Terrence Howard's invention. I see Microsoft, Amazon, Hewlett Packard and a bunch of other companies that cited his invention

I ain't gon lie, I'm getting cooked right now! Cause I don't have an answer for this

Can brehs who know about inventions explain to me what the hell is going on??

How’s it debunked brother

 

[Neo. The Only. The One.]

How’s it debunked brother

@Professor Emeritus and other brehs debunk it in the first couple pages of this thread.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

This all makes sense, but there is one problem that is not being considered in my opinion. The same inability to accept being wrong can also be attributed to The Dunning-Kruger effect.

"The Dunning-Kruger effect occurs when a person's lack of knowledge and skill in a certain area causes them to overestimate their own competence. By contrast, this effect also drives those who excel in a given area to think the task is simple for everyone, leading them to underestimate their abilities."

Dunning-Kruger effect is independent of intelligence though. Anyone from high or low intelligence can be subject to it, just so long as they lack experience in a particular field.

What I described regarding TH was pretty much a roundabout way of citing the D-K effect - he doesn't know he's wrong because he has no background in the subject, so he just arrogantly sticks to his made-up theories.

I am inclined to consider his absolute confidence in his knowledge on subjects he has no training in to this effect, than to consider it just him being extremely smart and yet absolutely ignorant of the subjects he seeks to discuss. It also does not help that he lied about having a PhD in Chemical Engineering from a SCSU, a university that does not confer Doctorates in that area of study. Something simple as that he could have looked up before he made the idiotic claim.

So I would need more evidence to support the idea that he is highly intelligent, because right now everything he has done fits squarely within what I placed above.

My evidence of his intelligence is that he can recall widely on a range of subjects, and connect ideas from those subjects in a way that makes sense within his distorted worldview. Of course, his worldview is entirely wrong, so his claims don't make any sense when you evaluate them compared to reality. But they seem pretty decently well put-together if they're solely evaluated on internal consistency. He has to use a lot of logical processes in order to create those weird theories he's making up, he just refuses to apply the same logical processes to evaluating the validity of those theories in comparison to reality.

 

[Neo. The Only. The One.]

Dunning-Kruger effect is independent of intelligence though. Anyone from high or low intelligence can be subject to it, just so long as they lack experience in a particular field.

What I described regarding TH was pretty much a roundabout way of citing the D-K effect - he doesn't know he's wrong because he has no background in the subject, so he just arrogantly sticks to his made-up theories.






My evidence of his intelligence is that he can recall widely on a range of subjects, and connect ideas from those subjects in a way that makes sense within his distorted worldview. Of course, his worldview is entirely wrong, so his claims don't make any sense when you evaluate them compared to reality. But they seem pretty decently well put-together if they're solely evaluated on internal consistency. He has to use a lot of logical processes in order to create those weird theories he's making up, he just refuses to apply the same logical processes to evaluating the validity of those theories in comparison to reality.

I disagree and I have some good points that I really want to debate about the topic of intelligence but I got stuff to take care of tonight. I might bump this thread sometime next week to make those points.

 

[Lord Beasley]

I could tell he definitely was exaggerating some stuff. He's obviously crazy but the craziest person I know is also the smartest person I know.

I could care less about the VR patent. I was much more interested in the Lynch Pins and his theory on planet formation.

Beethoven was a pure nut, but he made timeless music crazy mfs is like 4D clocks

 

[Uachet]

Dunning-Kruger effect is independent of intelligence though. Anyone from high or low intelligence can be subject to it, just so long as they lack experience in a particular field.

What I described regarding TH was pretty much a roundabout way of citing the D-K effect - he doesn't know he's wrong because he has no background in the subject, so he just arrogantly sticks to his made-up theories.






My evidence of his intelligence is that he can recall widely on a range of subjects, and connect ideas from those subjects in a way that makes sense within his distorted worldview. Of course, his worldview is entirely wrong, so his claims don't make any sense when you evaluate them compared to reality. But they seem pretty decently well put-together if they're solely evaluated on internal consistency. He has to use a lot of logical processes in order to create those weird theories he's making up, he just refuses to apply the same logical processes to evaluating the validity of those theories in comparison to reality.

His self-consistent ideals still do not overcome the fact that the simple mathematics he was taught in grade school, like the multiplicative identity, are lost on him. I can understand if he was never exposed to this knowledge, but this man was via childhood all the way up to college where he quit because his Professor would not accept his hairbrained ideals (according to him).

I can't accept just having a logically self-consistent theory as him being very intelligent, when he choose to ignore all of the work that was done before him to come up with his own unsupported ideology and mathematics. He may have a logical process to his thinking when creating his ideas, and they may be self-consistent within the framework he created for them, but that still does not negate the fact that he is absolutely wrong and that the solutions were all within his grasp, but he was too arrogant or (I believe) stupid to see them.

Add in his penchant to lie about things that can easily be verified, and yea I can't accept the take that he is very intelligent. Gift of gab, yes. Charismatic, for sure. Highly intelligent, doubtful.

 

[010101]

SCI~FI*

 

[™BlackPearl The Empress™]

I mean, yeah, there's plenty of brilliant people who are crazy. I think he is intelligent. The main issue is just that he hasn't gotten any background on the subjects he's trying to speak on, and instead of trying to build a foundation from which he could figure out some cool stuff, he started with nonsense and built off of that.







His theory on planet formation is wrong at every level.

1. He starts off by assuming that planets all come from the sun. But they don't, and there's no reason to believe that they did. He seems to just make up the idea, then assume it to be true.

2. He states that the Earth is drifting 0.6 inches further from the sun each year, and since he assumes the Earth came from the Sun, the Earth must be 93 trillion years old. But the Earth is only 4.5 billion years old. The ENTIRE UNIVERSE is only about 14 billion years old! If you do the same "extrapolation from the speed they're moving" thing with the universe, you find that it was all at the same point in space about 14 billion years ago. But if the universe was all at the same point in space 14 billion year ago.....then how could the Earth have been slowly moving away from the sun for 93 trillion years? It's complete nonsense.

3. A normal theorist, when they come up with an idea that turns out to be at complete odds with the data, will abandon the idea. All of our science and theories - the dating of rocks on Earth, the dating of asteroids that hit Earth, the understanding with have of solar formation, the understanding with have of galactic formation, the understanding with have of the speed of the universe expanding - they ALL show that the universe and everything in it is no more than a few billion years old. So the sun/earth can't possibly be many trillions of years old.


There's so many other levels at which the theory fails, but that should be the easiest to understand. His entire timeline is off by a factor of more than 5,000. Every line of evidence proves him wrowrongI

I just said I thought the ideas were interesting. I'm already familiar with the concepts. I don’t need you to manplan planetary science and geology. I took both courses in college and passed with an A.

Not everyone is stupid, thanks.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I just said I thought the ideas were interesting. I'm already familiar with the concepts. I don’t need you to manplan planetary science and geology. I took both courses in college and passed with an A.

Not everyone is stupid, thanks.

Bragging about your credentials while giving the time of day to utter nonsense isn't the wave.

He claimed the Earth is 93 trillion years old based solely on arithmetic with no scientific evidence or reasoning whatsoever. And he cited a random New Age painter from the early 1900s as his backup. That's scientology-level nonsense at that point.

You just referred to talking about science as "manplan".

 

[Diunx]

I just said I thought the ideas were interesting. I'm already familiar with the concepts. I don’t need you to manplan planetary science and geology. I took both courses in college and passed with an A.

Not everyone is stupid, thanks.

Jesus get the sand out of your c*nt.