Top products from r/iamverysmart

We found 28 product mentions on r/iamverysmart. We ranked the 149 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/iamverysmart:

u/the_lust_for_gold · 1 pointr/iamverysmart

>It's a problem because it's not backed by any real research

It doesn't need to be backed by research. It's a bunch of people reporting their own behaviors. If you don't need to file for a scientific study when you tell someone your favorite color, or that you like steak with potatoes. People don't need 3rd parties researching them to know their own sexualities.

>People on blogs and internet forums made all of this up.

This isn't a problem.

>It's completely an issue that the language is not as reputable as the language used by scientists, because people treat it as such.

Again, I haven't seen this.

> Language used in science refers to specific things, used to clear up ambiguity. Language in the internet queer community creates more ambiguity every time it defines something new.

This is subjective.

>It's a continuum and trying to define everyone individually by it not only oversimplifies each individual's sexuality, but overcomplicates the terminology used, and overcomplicating language greatly reduces understanding.

As long as you can communicate effectively to the person you wish to convey a message to, there's no problem with using complicated language. All of the definitions that I've seen so far-- demisexual, homoromantic, etc. are extremely easy for me to wrap my head around.

I can understand someone not getting it, but that doesn't mean that a system that makes sense to so many people and gives comfort to so many people and is helpful to so many people should be tossed out because some people don't understand it.

I don't think the words are trying to describe everyone on the spectrum, because the definitions are so general. It's implied that there are going to be individual differences between people.

>By the current terminology used by this community, I would identify as a cisgendered bisexual heteroromantic gray-a queer. But my sexuality is much more multidimensional than that, so this oversimplifies it. Yet it puts me into a bunch of categories when I could just say "my sexuality is something like 60% traditional and 40% out of the norm", so it overcomplicates it at the same time.

No one can force you to use these terms to describe yourself. If you don't like it, don't do it. 9/10 the people talking about this stuff are strangers on the internet so it's not like they can force you to do what they do and it's probably not productive to look down on them for doing their own thing either.

>And if you could link me to some scholarly articles which actually acknowledge things like demisexuality, I would actually be interested in seeing them, because I can find nothing but blog posts.

Like people say, it's a new concept so you're going to be hard pressed to find academic research about it. 1. It's a new concept that only became popular in the past 5 years or so. 2. There's no money in researching it. It's esoteric. I had a history class where I had to do research on a bunch of different artists. Their works were hanging in museums, but there was nothing online about them. Doesn't mean they don't exist, it just means they aren't popular.

Nevertheless, I was still able to find some textbooks that go over this stuff. Part of me is glad to go and bring this stuff to you, but another part of me is kind of annoyed because whether or not it appears in a text-book, especially in light of what I mentioned in the previous paragraph, has no bearing on whether it is a real thing. The requirement for it to be mentioned in studies is even more confusing considering that so much sociological research on sexual-orientation is based on self-reporting. There are no academic reports about /u/MissInkFTW. Should I assume you don't exist? Another part of me is annoyed because it's pretty easy for me to find these papers. It's unfair to be dismissive when it appears that you're not doing any serious work to find research that supports or dismisses your opinion. :/

In paging through these, I've found that most academic books actually go a lot further than common internet activist lingo does, ie. not only homoromantic, but homoemotional, homoaffectional, etc. These aren't all used to describe sexual orientation though.

There's a limit to what I can personally find and share since I don't have a subscription to any academic journals/sites. :/

Asexuality as a Spectrum

u/tjmac · 2 pointsr/iamverysmart

Yes, it was to provide special needs kids with the education they needed. The creator of the SAT later renounced eugenics and the test itself, but assholes like Termen needed to apply it to the top end so he could keep getting research funding.

I learned about this stuff from Sir Ken Robinson's amazing book on the failed, modern educational system, "The Element."

I think special education for the numinous qualities of the gifted is certainly needed, but much harder to define. The space to let autodidacts teach themselves is probably the best thing schools could do for them.

Dabrowski's Theory of Positive Disintegration is probably the best work I've came across on the subject.

u/austex_mike · 1 pointr/iamverysmart

I am not a Muslim, but I have degrees in Islamic Studies and Middle Eastern language and culture. I respect your take, but I cannot agree with you that Islam was "meant" to be practiced like that.

I suggest a great book from one of my old professors, it's called The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Hands of Extremists. In it there is a great explanation of how we got to where we are today.

u/barsoap · 2 pointsr/iamverysmart

It's a common occurrence in mathematics to come across some Greek you don't know, which then means that you'll have to do "the usual yoga" -- make up exercises and examples until you've worked yourself into whatever you're looking at, as opposed to expecting to understand everything by reading about it.

From what you say I infer that you can do and have done that, as such I doubt you can really put yourself into the mother's shoes -- because this fundamental stumbling block of not learning a thing because you believe you can't ever learn it vanishes once you've had the experience that with some yoga, everything can suddenly very well work out.

How can you invest time and effort into understanding something if you haven't learned that you can understand things that way?

That's btw also why not few people who aced maths in school drop out of maths at university: The smarter you are and the easier and "obvious" things for you are in school, the less likely are you to actually develop that skill. If then on top of that you're arrogant enough to miss the pointers your professors throw at you, you've set yourself up for failure.

Raw intelligence without grit and the wisdom of how to apply it to things amounts to little. And makes you quite likely to end up linked on this sub. Have grit and sufficient wisdom, however, and it doesn't matter much how much raw intelligence backs it up, you'll excel in one way or the other.


Thinking about it, I guess /s would've been a better choice than :) in my previous post. I do get it, I just have enough practice to usually overlook that path.

u/mollystorm · 1 pointr/iamverysmart

The actual book has both colons - I was very surprised to see that. It’s available as a free Kindle Unlimited book on Amazon or for a few dollars without KU. Kindle Link

u/PM_ME_UR_REDDIT_GOLD · 12 pointsr/iamverysmart

I certainly can't speak to the quality of the book, but the cover has these old-school scientific illustrations comparing something (life, i guess) with pinball. That's the kind of goofy metaphor I like to see

u/WatchOutRadioactiveM · 0 pointsr/iamverysmart

I'm currently reading The Stuff of Thought, which has been very interesting so far, explaining how we learn language and the impact words have on thought in general. I would also recommend The Blank Slate, which argues against the idea of tabula rasa (that people are born as blank slates.) The latter is fairly controversial, in terms of the science and findings, but I think it's a very good read. I also found it fairly difficult, mostly because I wasn't familiar with many philosophers, but he also uses challenging language (a lot of big words, basically.)

u/mage_g4 · 1 pointr/iamverysmart

I'm currently reading Why does E=mc^2 by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw and, whilst my brain is melting into a small puddle, it clearly does...

I won't pretend I understand most of the maths (even when they try to explain it in simple terms) but experimentation clearly shows the theory to be correct.

It always seems to me that these loons don't understand how scientists think at all. Scientists love being wrong! Every time they're wrong, it opens up a new thing for them to explore.

u/gyrowze · 5 pointsr/iamverysmart

I think that this (as /u/dolphinmen found) pretty much guarentees that.

u/RRautamaa · 2 pointsr/iamverysmart

The formal modern definition of infinitesimals doesn't really require them to be "truly" infinitesimal. It's defined as a limit, which removes the spooky element from it.

It's pretty strange that he claims being self-taught in college math, but this is literally in the first chapter of a college math textbook (Grossman's Calculus).

u/Zack_and_Screech · 2 pointsr/iamverysmart

If it weren't for the lack of commas, I would swear this was written by Lark Voorhies

u/kingrobotiv · 11 pointsr/iamverysmart

Can confirm, had to buy the illustrated edition just to understand.

u/captain_zerg · 2 pointsr/iamverysmart

Could be. I took discrete math last semester, and we spent a few weeks on cryptography. We used this book.

u/DolphinMen · 27 pointsr/iamverysmart

The author also wrote the critically acclaimed book Boris the Shitting Buffalo.

u/Maniacademic · 9 pointsr/iamverysmart

>Evolution is inherent in unparalleled chao

Okay, this person (or bot?) is obviously churning out fake-deep bullshit, but...Stuart Kauffman? Is that you?

u/Hanginon · 1 pointr/iamverysmart

The author and publisher also don't do that.

He fucked up typing the title.

u/FergusInLondon · 3 pointsr/iamverysmart

I've often noticed a really odd mentality with regards to mental illness; some people seem to be under the impression that - rather than being absolutely painful and agonising - it's in fact positive, and almost romantic. They conjure up images of misunderstood geniuses, or withdrawn personalities that battle in the shadows.

I'll never forget my partners response to reading "An Unquiet Mind"; I'd already read it at that point, but was interested to see how she felt - so I asked her for her thoughts. She stated "it made me feel inferior by virtue of not being mentally ill" - now I'm not particularly sure I'd go that far, but there does seem to be quite a lot of romanticism of mental illness. (IMO An Unquiet Mind isn't the best example, as my main memories from that book was the utter anxiety as she dealt with crippling debt caused by impulsive purchases whilst going through mania.)

Perhaps there is a correlation (although equally, there may be an inverted one), but I know I'd rather have a bit of stability than some intangible IQ points..