/lit/ - Literature

i saw donnie darko too op

The most beautiful word is syphilis.

It's beautiful according to some pretentious twat.

If he had said shitting dicknipples was the most beautiful, I bet you'd still be posting that.

Celador.

It's too the proposition of what is "most" beautiful is too subject to individual feeling, anyway.

Celador.

The proposition of what is "most" beautiful is too subject to individual feeling, anyway.

>what is "most" beautiful is too subject to individual feeling, anyway.

Cool, just like 'Genius'!

>>1195661

Nope, because intellect can be measured with a substantial degree of accuracy with adequate intelligence testing.

However, I have a feeling you disagree.

>>1195672

How do you know what you're measuring is intelligence. Honestly, I don't have enough grounding in the field and I'm sure you don't as well. Forgive me if that assumption was presumptuous.

>Tolkien meme
>Chomsky pic
wtfamireading.tiff

Actually, OP, the most beautiful word in the English language is GOOOOOOOOOOOOOSFRABA

>>1195677

This is not my proposition, this is the proposition of centuries of psychoanalytics.

It is widely accepted that abstract reasoning, creativity and critical thinking ability are inherent traits in our character and have nothing to do with socialisation or knowledge.

>>1195693

Chomsky is the god of language and a Tolkien pic would've spoiled it

>>1195677

good lord what are you doing apologising to this cretin what the hell is wrong with you

>>1195698

>mfw a thread about phonaesthetics turns into a thread about psychoanalytics

>>1195698
Keywords being: in our character. Thus, they can't be absolute measures of intelligence. Also,
>it is widely accepted

>>1195698

One thing I do know is that psychology and psychiatry and psychoanalysis have been pseudo-science until the last thirty years. They refused to put anything on an evolutionary footing, which if you're going to be any kind of science based on biology, you have to have.

I don't know anything about the current literature, because it's not my field. But I'd be wary about putting too much stock in anything older than thirty years.

Also, how do you quantify any of those qualities? The science is not as simple and straightforward as you're making it out to be.

>>1195698
>>1195710

sweet jesus so much vagueness and ambiguity

>>1195706

>mfw my original post was about phonaesthetics but the thread was derailed by Deep&Edgy and this guy:
>>1195677

>mfw these two people are most likely the same guy anyway.

Also, my favourite word is magniloquent, which is sadly relevant to this thread,

Swear to god, next person I hear saying cellar door is getting popped in the god damn face.

How was 'cellar door' determined the most beautiful? Was there some sort of process to figure it out?

>>1195724

There's my argument - restrict science majors to the Dept. of Water and Power where they belong.

>>1195724
No, a bunch of people said it and it became a meme that cellar door was the most beautiful phrase, and now it's just a thing that people who think they're smarter than they are say.

>>1195720

Dude, I think you're everyone in this fucking thread. Jesus christ. If you're going to make a story in a thread at least be fucking interesting.

>>1195730

Tolkien said it, and was correct because he was a man of sensibility.

>>1195718

>One thing I do know is that psychology and psychiatry and psychoanalysis have been pseudo-science until the last thirty years.

What are you talking about? Before the last 30 years genetical factors were seen as the greater, if not sole influence on human action.

>how do you quantify any of those qualities?

Through timed evaluation, to see if the person can accurately solve problems using their heightened logic and creativity. The faster and more concise the solution, the more points.

Can we get some actual fucking facts in this thread instead of all this vague bullshit

Source or it didn't happen

>>1195766

First. No. It was not on that footing where people saw genetic factors as primary.

Second. That's a shitty way to create a test. Granted people who can think quicker would be more likely to survive in pre-civilization times. I'd also say that someone who can sit and think and prove the poincare conjecture or can write, fuck I don't know, Moby Dick, is a hell of a lot smarter than someone who can answer simple questions quickly.

Those feats are only quantifiable after you accomplish them.

>>1195779
>Can we get some actual fucking facts in this thread
But there are no facts there are only interpretations :(

don't tell Truman Capote though, he'll shit his pants lol!

>>1195783
>>1195779

My only sauce is Steven Pinker. He talks about the mind professions before thirty or so years ago. He also says that you can quantify the things Truman's been talking about.

I think he's probably correct, but from the tone of the book, I don't think he was talking about traditional IQ tests.

You can test spatial recognition skills, abstract reasoning, there is a good correlation between SAT and how well you perform on similar tests i.e. college. The psychology field does not agree on what intelligence even means, and as such there is not a solid way to measure it. And there won't be anytime soon - because it isn't in anyone's best interests to be able to say conclusively that Joe, the manager of the doughnut shop is smarter than the President of the US. Didn't a researcher recently try to link intelligence with race and almost got crucified until he retracted? You won't see anybody funding these things because nobody wants to know.

>>1195693
correct anon is correct