Why doesn’t a spectrum imply total ordering? Seems like an ordinary one-dimensional line (of course in reality, sexuality is not just a spectrum either, it’s some high-dimensional space, but I digress…).
Or do I just not know the word spectrum properly?
Microcosmic example. Take 3 people - a newborn (A), a professor of biology (B) and a professor in philosophy ©.
You’re easily able to argue that both professors are more intelligent than the newborn (A<B and A<C). However, you’re unable to establish (in any meaningful way) whether B<C, or C<B; even B=C is out. This is because both professors have knowledge the other does not, so trying to meaningfully equate or order them in relation to one another is an act of futility.
This is a fun example of a partial order that most of us see every day (in a less extreme form).
My money’s on the biology professor.
I say we let them fight to the death to see which one is smarter. I’m putting extra money on the Philosophy Professor going on a rant about how physical combat has nothing to do with intelligence - and getting struck down in the midst of his soliloquy.
Biology Professor: “Survival of the fittest!”
That’s also part of the reason why IQ scores are deeply flawed. Using a single number to measure intelligence implies there is an absolute order.
Fun fact: Richard Feynman, one of the greatest physicist of the 20th century and legendary physics educator (author of the Feynman Lectures), was invited to join Mensa after he won the Nobel Prize in physics. He declined however, because he didn’t meet the IQ score of 130 normally required by Mensa.
It’s similar with the ASVAB (multisection test for determing qualification for military service). I scored the highest score available, a 99, because it seemed in each section they moved on once they established competence.
The few people who saw my score (I don’t go around telling people) have asked if I was super smart or something (the recruiter called me “professor” and asked if I had a Masters), and I said no, I am just competent at anything I could do in the military. I’m honestly not excellent at any particular thing, and in any given task I’m unlikely to be the best one there for it. But I’m capable of doing any task adequately. As my old trombone instructor used to say, I’m a “jack of all trades, master of none.”
But the test doesn’t care if you’re amazing at anything. It just wants to see if you’re capable of doing anything.
looky here we got us a man who earned a 99 in cleaning out the shithouse. Grab a shovel, “Professor”.
I mean, yeah, I can very competently clean out a shithouse as well as I can competently fix a helicopter. I probably won’t be exceptional at either one (though I absolutely kill it on written tests, I guess).
Gardner’s “multiple intelligences” model is a nicer way to think about intelligence, but it’s not really quantifiable in the same way. (How would you measure how “ecologically” intelligent someone is?)
It’s very appealing to think that we have some sort of “int” stat like a Dungeons and Dragons character, but I don’t think it’s really that valuable. If the IQ/the “g factor” measures anything, it’s probably something about being able to quickly process visual information. I have a relatively high IQ and think that’s the trait I have that is being measured (from the testing they did in the teen torture facility I spent my adolescence in - my high IQ meant that I was a dangerous, manipulative liar of course.)
If you have two and a half hours to spare, I think this Shaun video is a masterwork of science communication.
Put another way: like so may things, knowledge is multidimensional. If you just compared them on knowledge of chess openings, or how many digits of π they could recall, you could rank them more confidently on that axis.
But general intelligence is such a slippery fish compared to isolated trivia.
I didn’t know there was a term for this! Thank you! I try to convey this concept all the time, especially for intelligence and skills, so having a word for it is immensely helpful.
Remind me of the one where they catch a white guy with cheese
Look! I got one!
it’s possible for it to be a total ordering and yet for there to be no gayest person. for example, the open interval (0, 1) is totally ordered and yet has no minimum or maximum. (the maximum would be 1, but it’s not included in the interval by definition.)
The set of humans currently alive is finite though
you got me there
Can sets be dynamic in mathematics?
They can be dependent on time for example, which usually makes things pretty complicated. For each specific point in time, it is constant though.
Don’t ask for more pixels
Why? Because you’re unable to use basic reverse image search or because you’re too lazy and unwilling?
Because they know by doing that they can both get engagement and someone else to find the best quality version for them.
This has the same energy as the observation that the most reliable way to get an answer on the internet is to post the wrong answer.
Poe’s law I believe
Why would getting engagement matter on lemmyshitpost?
People are trained to serve the algo and do it even in cases where it does nothing.
It’s also why not feeding trolls is a lost art.
Maybe it’s an artistic statement
Let them be :3
Never! (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
┬──┬ ノ( ゜-゜ノ)
Sorry I had to put it back upright, or it would bother me all day
OCD is a spectrum
Since lity is a trum
The spectrum in question:
****trum
So at some point, the original screenshot was posted somewhere that doesn’t allow the words “sexuality” and “spectrum” but “gayest” is a-okay. Interesting.
Internet censorship has somehow become wider and less thoughtful than TV and movie censorship ever was. Including Hayes Code shit.
Let’s not assume that it isn’t allowed unless someone explicitly states that. It’s more like a precaution. We shouldn’t cave to that nonsense but it’s become pervasive. I remember when reddit started autocollapsing comments with certain vulgar language.
X?
Y! Z?
… Oh wait, right, that’s a platform, I keep forgetting.
Formerly known as Twitter*
Now known as shitter.
I still call it Twitter because their emails are still branded as Twitter. I don’t actually use it any more but I do get so much spam through DMs that I’m considering deleting my account. I’m mostly holding it just so nobody squats on my username.
Oh yeah, they still own the twtimg domain and other scripts are downloaded from twitter.com. Looks like they gave it a superficial paint job to shut the big boy’s yap.
X displays those words just fine
The world would be a better place if everyone intuitively understood the difference between a spectrum and a scale.
Wait how do they differ? Aren’t radio waves the gayest waves in the electromagnetic spectrum?
See? Thats exactly the problem.
OF COURSE radio waves are the gayest waves in the electromagnetic spectrum. BECAUSE they are the ONLY gay waves in the electromagnetic spectrum.
What about multiple people at the gayest point?
There can be only one!
Battle royal
*gayest point known to men yet. You never know man.
Still trying to wrap my head around how a partial ordering plays out here. I think it’s fair to say that for any such nonempty spectrum, there exists at least one person about whom it can be said: “nobody is gayer than they are.” Right? (even if 1 or more people are equally gay…)
Its the difference between maximum gayness and maximal gayness. Maximum gayness is being more gay, or at least as gay, as everybody else; while maximal gayness is not being less gay than anybody else (just as you put it). Two people with maximal gayness can have incomparable gaynessess, and thats the key thing about partial orderings, this possibility of incomparability. there could be many maximally gay people. they wouldnt be equally gay, but incomparably gay.
maximal gayness
Like Rattrap and Dinobot?
maximal
Dinobot
I hate you in so many ways right now.
As long as we can put an upper bound on gayness (or more specifically on each totally ordered subset of people under the is-gayer-than relation) this follows from Zorn’s lemma.
It’s also true by virtue of the fact that the set of all people who will have ever lived is finite, but “the existence of a maximal element in a poset” just screams Zorn’s lemma.
I think it’s better to avoid the axiom of choice in discussions about sexuality, as it seems to upset the conservatives.
Sure, there may be a maximal element, but not necessarily a maximum (there might be multiple people of equal and maximal gayness, not just one person).
Also, not relevent to the logic here per se, but last time this went around the conclusion was that a spectrum implies a total order, not just partial.
I’m only familiar with “spectrum” from linear algebra (spectral theory), but I’m not sure that’s how people intend to use the word “spectrum” in this context haha.
this follows from Zorn’s lemma.
Thanks, I’m gonna have to take a closer look at this later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorn’s_lemma
Talking about the amount of alternatives doesn’t specify how many elements are contained in an alternative.
Cum all over my tits, make me your alfredo dipped fucknugget
If anyone wanted explicitly sexual words, they have them now. You’re welcome.
thanks
Sigh *unzips*
That doesn’t sound very gay??
Most of my favorite women can ejaculate and several of my favorite men have tits. Phrased another way, genderfluid ungendered fluids.
All men have tits.
Unphrase unphrase.
Beastiality is a speculum? You do you, bra.
Huh?
Can’t say. I was pretty drunk. Made sense at the time I guess.
I can respect that.
