Many years ago, due to abuse, and trying to cope buy abusing alcohol and drugs, I had times, in various settings, where I was exposed to people who fit in the category as described in the article. I asked myself how do people this stupid function and operate in society? Then it dawned on me, they can't and they don't...

It bugs me that the 'street arrow' one bugs me.

Obviously I get what answer is intended by the question, but it's worded just poorly enough that one has to make an assumption to get the "right" answer.

It's all correct.

Third level recursion is impossible for sub-average people? This is just painful to consider. You cant even write fiction without second level recursion (e.g. Snape telling a story about Harry's father being mean is second level recursion). You cant flesh out a world properly without third level recursion (e.g. Snape telling a story wherein he read a novel aloud).

Do these retards never get past the story complexity of See Spot Run because their brains are non-functional?

Edit: Does anyone have sources for this? I'd love to read the research.

The second exercise could be done indefinitely as long as you diagram it. I can see where keeping track of it in your head would get confusing.

Anyways this is really interesting. It is good to know what you are dealing with and helps me understand how some people can be so fucking stupid.

In AI, when teaching about planning, they use the example that a dung beetle will make a plan to roll a ball of shit all the way back to their nest. However if the shit ever falls out of their reach, they won't recalculate their plan. They'll just just keep rolling an empty ball of shit as if it was still there.

They use the example of the level of intelligence of a designed system if it can handle major changes mid plan execution for if they can recalculate to find that the plan won't follow through as originally planned anymore, and redo the plan on the spot.

I CAN NOT COUNT the amount of people I know and have interacted with who can / will make a plan of any kind or life size, will start executing it but WILL NOT change course or the plan if a major or even slight event changes that would make it obvious that the original plan WILL NOT work or play out anymore. Every time I see this I'm like BRUH / DUDE / FAMILY MEMBER. YOU ARE LITERALLY AS DUMB AS A DUNG BEETLE! I don't care what your excuse is! If you can't recalculate and adjust your plan mid execution when a plan changing event happens YOU. ARE. AS. DUMB. AS A DUNG BEETLE!

It is also typical of aspi's. They can state fact but get tripped up on hypotheticals, and usually get angry with the person who made them think of something they can't comprehend. Most can't understand black and white movies either, they can't translate shades of grey to make out colors. Therefore instead of watching the movie, they will get stuck on a trivial item like a stop sign in the picture is grey, not red, and will spend the entire movie trying to work out why it's not red.

After reading this quite awhile ago I actually started noticing similar things in people I know.

For example -

I know someone who simply CAN NOT grasp that if they let their kids make a mess, that it's actually THEM making the mess. They can't grasp that they're LETTING the kids make the mess and therefore really making it themselves by proxy.

Another is I've noticed people who simply can not understand the idea of scale. Ie without being told specifically for specific items to change their behavior on, they will buy single packages at an increased price instead of buying in bulk for an overall lower price. They can correct themselves for single item types if told, but they can not recognize the bigger overall pattern.

Also noticed people who I know who can not, if not at all, stop and think how everyday things they are doing will affect others and what others will think about it. They simply just don't or seem to don't ever consider how what they do affects others around them. Ie they'll make or change plans but won't tell other people who it'll affect.

I appreciate the noting of the "little simulator", though I'm disappointed that there was only a brief mention of it in this and it didn't expand on degrees of simulation development, integration and reliance upon it to function among subjects.

I have not encountered this ability brought up in any discussions I've seen that relate to this topic. Perhaps I've not been reading the proper papers and discussions. All that I've spoken with about it and who I've tried to describe it to are not able to comprehend it at all - they merely dismiss the entire concept outright as just being what they call "daydreaming". Perhaps low-level simulation or basic imagination usage can be thought of as daydreaming.

They can't grasp the complete sensory integration into the simulation to where you appear to "shut off" for one or maybe a few seconds while simulating, or understand the 'distant glassy-eyed stare' while focus is internalized. They make statements that children or people are "in their own world" or "marching to a different drummer" or whatever they come up with to explain away their high IQ and exceptional ability to delve deeply or fully into thought.

They cannot 'imagine' the degree to which the simulation can be developed to where it can be core to every thought, every interaction or every experience that can conceivably be had where every potential interaction or experience is preceded with hundreds and even thousands of potential scenarios being simulated for every conceivable response that someone might have to something that is said or done, or how others might interact with each other and how their interactions cascade with each development being simulated ahead of time. This can be why many can seem 'fake' or not genuine with their emotions or actions at times. They've already experienced the exact situation previously and fully in their simulation, so it kind of has to be recalled and all of the simulations sorted through to designate the simulation that had the proper response to make that would be best for the situation and then "re-enact" it from the simulation, which can also be accompanied by that distant look as that specific simulation is being re-run in the mind parallel to it being enacted - which is another level of simulating.

Even recalling memories can be fully simulated with full spatial and sensory insertion from any viewpoint to where memories are more accurately recalled and more 'real' than when it actually happened. Let alone recalling of the memory, but from another participant's perspective, or to modify the memory as a simulation within the simulation and inserting a participant or additional variable that wasn't present in reality to simulate how the event could have resulted differently or how it might have affected other people if it were them that experienced the situation.

With enough datapoints any event, situation, location or even any individual can be accurately simulated or damn near enough to where it might as well have been an actual experience.

JYup , niggers. They live in the eternal right now , and cannot reflect upon anything