chasm

It depends...average in regards to what?

Dude. I am the only one in the room right now. I think that means I am the BEST :)

Can anyone say "vacuous?" :-)

Hmm, I'm pretty sure we can all say "vacuous" ... but I'll assume that was rhetorical (kinda like the question in the post).

For those needing hand-holding, ie. those throwing out words like "vacuous", this was simply an attempt to get people thinking about where they stand in relation to others. A catalyst to promote observation and potentially introspection as people examine how they came to be where they are. Maybe people will ask themselves questions like:

Am I part of the below average sub-group? What do I need to do to be above average in this group?

Even though I think I am above average in this group, would the other people in this group agree?

Is this group an accurate proxy for a larger group (national, global, etc.)?

Does EVERYONE think that they're above average?

If it didn't do any of that for you, sorry. Sometimes, as they say, "it is what you make of it".

Lori, I have no doubt that if you are the only one in the room, you are DEFINITELY the best person in it :-)

HOLY MOSES! Lets see, when I read the original question, I took it as based on intelligence. From a knowledge, ability to learn, and common sense stand point, I believe I am above average. Currently, I am one of 5 people in the room, and I believe myself to be one of two people I would put in this category.

I do not believe I am Einstein by any means. However, I have not come into contact with too many things that I cannot understand if 1) I WANT to understand it, and 2) I put in the time. These two kind of go hand in hand. Ive had this conversation with several people lately. I believe from a collegiate stand point, given time and desire, I could be in the top 10% of any undergraduate class. Thats not to say I would be the absolute top student, just as good as the upper students in the class.

In addition to all this, from a "life" stand point, I have lagged a bit behind in the indendpence category, so I would say I am a bit below average there. However, I have knowingly made this choice. I feel like when it comes time for me to be completely independent, I will be better off than many that moved out more quickly. Life is short, I try to appreciate and get the most out of every moment I can.

ntch, ntch, ntch. so defensive... sounds like someone is below average in the temperament department! :-)

Hmm, and here I thought I responded without getting too defensive. You called my post "vacuous" or as my buddy webster prefers it, (in deference to those scrambling for a definition) "marked by lack of ideas or intelligence". I completely let the fact that you question the intelligence of my post slide and responded directly to the more fundamental objective of my original post. I won't question whether YOU'RE intelligent enough to participate in the post if you don't question the intelligence of the post in the first place.

On a related note ... I've loved the "intelligent" posts on PD lately. I believe they were preceeded by an earnest promise of "I vow that there will be more posts in the future".

Since then, there have been two posts, no? They've consisted of a link and a jumble of words that may or may not have resembled a sentence.

I'm just saying that maybe we shouldn't be throwing stones from that large, vacuous, glass house of ideas called PD :-)

I am the best in every room I'm in. If I was anymore awesome the surgeon general would have to tattoo a warning on my forehead. Oh, and being in a room with no one to compare thyself with but the Fillman brothers makes it easier as well. I especially love Jon's post trying to rationalize his own sub-average self. You sir are a tool.

First of all, while Robb's objection to the ambiguity of the question is SOMEWHAT valid, there is nothing wrong with this type of question. It leaves you to take the question anyway you like and will create a lot of dialogue.

Kyle, I dont think we want to start an argument of Fatzinger vs Fillman. While I consider you to have a brain that allows you to think above eating and breathing, Im not sure your small brain can handle an argument against the vast amount of knowledge I possess. For one, you are a democrat. I bet you use elevators all the time!!!

Empty words and empty threats. I'm definitely not a democrat (but way to use your inept powers of observation heh). Incidentally, for someone who says so much and yet so little, I would expect nothing less than your black and white categorization of assuming everyone is either a republican or a democrat. You are an inspiration to bi-partisan b.s. everywhere. Also, I happen to like elevators. They are excellent listeners and love to cuddle.

I find it ironic that you claim you are below average in independence jon, while in the same post claim that life is short and you want to get the most out of every moment that you can. You see, I would argue that my moving out more quickly only facilitated my gaining a vast wealth of life experiences. These are only different opinions, and no one is right. But, that's mine :)

Jeez. If Tom were to consult his Webster's a second time, he would notice that vacuous can also mean "devoid of matter, or inane." With that, I was not insulting the intelligence of the post or the post-er. I merely saw no reason for a response to a question that obviously has no answer.

It is somewhat humorous that because I made a quasi-whimsical remark, (barely expecting a response, mind you), that the post-er now questions my intellience. On some perverse level, I enjoy it; when people look down at me, I take the time to remember what is more important in life-- sardonic comments and the last word? Or feeling comfortable with one's self. I'll take the latter and let all think what they will.

On a related note, PD has not had many posts of substance lately (the past several months) because its founding members are either: 1) lazy, or 2) reluctant to write for an audience that rarely comments. I think it's prolly a little of both.

To quote "I merely saw no reason for a response to a question that obviously has no answer".

Ahh, but you did choose to respond.

It's a shame that Gar's not around for this. He happens to enjoy philosophy and I'd wager that he'd have something to say about "a question that obviously has no answer".

This isn't a blog, it's a message board!

And I'm obviously the smartest person on it.

haha, J, you're only the smartest person on your OWN blog in your OWN little world :-)

"'I merely saw no reason for a response to a question that obviously has no answer'.

Ahh, but you did choose to respond."

Clarification: I responded in a manner that the blog-tyrant deemed inappropriate or to quote myself "vacuous."

Sidenote: This discussion has already taken up more consideration than it deserves.

Final thought: Put eight mentally retarded individuals in a given room, all with the IQ of 65. All white, from middle-class families, living in a stretch of town-homes on the good side of Anytown, USA. Each has the same amount of schooling and worldly experience. Each is quite friendly and enjoys eachother's company.

Now you tell me, who the FUCK is the head of the pack?

Further clarification:

"I merely saw no reason for a response to a question that obviously has no answer".

"I responded in a manner that the blog-tyrant deemed inappropriate or to quote myself "vacuous."

Seems inconsistent to me.

In response to what you said Lori, I do see your point. However, from my perspective, I have been able to enjoy freedoms longer, due to not having financial tie downs to living expenses. Dont get me wrong I do pay bills, just not toward housing. One example of something I have been able to do since I am still at home is buy a motorcycle and learn to ride, which I couldnt have afforded if I was paying for housing.

As for the rest of this argument:

To the extent that the original question can be taken anyway you want it, I agree Robb, there is not a an easy specific answer for anybody. However, I find it intriguing to write what I think I am like, and also what other people view me as. I am not afraid of defending myself, or stating proudly who I am. That shit just doesnt bother me.

Secondly, if indeed you listed every possible category in life and credited each with a scale of some sort, you could definitely come up with an average. Its just not defined by the question. I think everyone needs to be less defensive about the specifics of the question, and instead actually open up and discuss the question at hand with whatever criteria you see fit.

btw - "blog-tyrant" seems a bit harsh. I didn't censor the comment. I didn't delete it or any others. I simply countered it. But I digress ... back to the original question and the hypothetical group of IQ=65ers.

In order to translate that example into a form more consistent with the question, you've got to say that YOU are in a group with seven others of similar intelligence, worldly experience, etc.

Now, where do you think you stand? Are you too biased to make a logical, impartial decision? Would everyone in the group come to the same conclusions? Are the other seven people in the group making the same calculations that you are or would each individual still have its own judgement of personal value based on personality / psychological traits (even given their remarkably similar backgrounds)? From inside that group, are you capable of determining whether the group is an accurate proxy for a larger population or would that completely skew your impression of the larger world?

It's all about personal perpective / image from within a group and not about being an outside observer.