/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10600784
So everybody except white people is socially retarded and difficult to educate? Do you have any idea how tightly knit many "non-white"societies are? Why would you even say that?

>>10601857
I didn't choose that to be the case, but it is.

Sorry for the trip, posting from mobile.

>>10601587It is to hide away the fact that whites instinctively hate everyone who isn't white cognitively. The tiniest difference from the white standard in cogniion, behavior, body language, etc means whites will see you as a threat.

Whites have different emotions, aspies have trouble expressing their feelings because, white languages don't provide adequate vocabulary, other languages do: https://mandarincorner.org/survival-chinese-30-words-to-express-feelings-and-emotions/

the corresponding body language is also different, often completely reversed (looking at you means good, looking away means bad, giving essentially rsverse feedback to non whites)

each domain processed holistically, the combined, in whotes it is reversed, each domain is divided into separate objects, and matched and processed as one indivisible whole
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12960375

This causes problem with context, since non whites process the sentence as whole, then try to put it in context; whites see context as who is saying it, with what expression, etc with the meaning nor divisible from those and call that "context". The processing of language seems to be shifted somewhat, non-white combining morphemes into words and words into sentences, whipe whites combining letters into words and words into semtences, making the languages inflexible, requiring massive vocabularies. Also tone is available for words in non-whites, while white languages almost never use tones in vocabulary; both meaning that cognitively non whites will have trouble learning to speak white languages (and the reverse, I assume) despite linguists insisting otherwise. The Asperger syndrome was invented to mask that fact, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

This was me

>>10592859 #
No. Option 1 has zero chance of $0 and 100% chance of one million, AND Option 2 has 100% chance of $1000, OR your ability to predict is is not perfect.

>>10592859 #
No. Option 1 has zero chance of $0 and 100% chance of one million, and Option 2 has 100% chance of %100, OR your ability to predict is is not perfect.

>>10592859
No. Option 1 has zero chance of $0 and 100% chance of one million, AND Option 2 has 100% chance of %100, OR your ability to predict is is not perfect.

>>10592763
I get that, but you create the paradox by assuming something fundamentally impossible; think of it this way: if I had any chance of getting the $1000 + $1,000,000, you prediction would not be 100% accurate.

This is essentially quantum mechanics; both options are in superposition until I pick and take a look. If I have any ability of knowing what prediction you made, it prevents you from making the correct prediction; the better chance I have to know what money is in the second box, the lower your ability to predict my decision, therefore there is no paradox.

This is essentially quantum mechanics; both options are in superposition until I pick and take a look. If I have any ability of knowing what prediction you made, it prevents you from making the correct decisionj the better chance I have to know what money is in the second box, the lower your ability to predict my decision, therefore there is no paradox.

>>10573477
There is absolutely no rational reason why it should work.