Friday, December 15, 2023

Are Britain and the US Midwitocracies?

Noah Carl, "Are we ruled by midwits?"
“The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler,” said Machiavelli, “is to look at the men he has around him”. If we look at the men (and women) around our contemporary rulers, what do we find?

Few reasons for optimism, I’m afraid.

In 2011, the Royal Statistical Society asked 97 British MPs a simple maths question: “If you spin a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?” Since the chance of getting heads on one spin is 50%, and the two spins are independent, the answer is just 50% × 50% = 25%. Not exactly quantum physics.

Shockingly, only 40% of MPs got the answer right. (Among Labour MPs, it was only 23%.) Most of those who got the answer wrong said “50%”, which is obviously incorrect when you think about it. Imagine spinning a coin 20 times and getting heads every single time. That would be extremely unlikely. So getting heads twice in a row has to be less likely than getting it once.

The fact that so few MPs got the right answer is particularly worrying in light of what else the survey found: 77% of MPs said they “generally feel confident when dealing with numbers”. So at least 1 in 3 MPs felt confident when dealing with numbers but couldn’t answer a simple math question. They were both innumerate and overconfident – a dangerous combination.

In 2021–22, the Royal Statistical Society asked another sample of 101 MPs the same question. The results were better, but only slightly: 52% of MPs gave the right answer. (In this case, there was almost no difference between Conservative and Labour MPs.)

The more recent survey asked MPs two further questions. First, “Suppose you roll a 6-sided die. The rolls are 1, 3, 4, 1, and 6. What are the mean and mode values?” I’d say this is even easier than the coin-toss question: to calculate the mean, you just have to add and divide; and to obtain the mode, you just have to notice that ‘1’ appears twice.

Remarkably though, only 64% gave the mean correctly and only 63% gave the mode correctly. Again, that’s almost 40% who couldn’t answer the most basic questions about statistics. How they interpret GDP figures, unemployment numbers, and public opinion data is anyone’s guess.

The second additional question was, “Suppose there was a diagnostic test for a virus. The false-positive rate (the proportion of people without the virus who get a positive result) is one in 1,000. You have taken the test and tested positive. What is the probability that you have the virus?” There were five response options: “99.9%”, “99%”, “1%”, “0.01%” and “Not enough information to know”.

The correct answer is “Not enough information to know”, since the probability that you have the virus depends not only on the false-positive rate of the test, but also on the false-negative rate and the prevalence of the virus in the population.

This is definitely the hardest of the three, but still only 16% of MPs got the answer right – which is actually less than if they’d answered at random. Doing worse than chance would be embarrassing in any circumstances, but the country had just been through a viral pandemic where this kind of problem came up repeatedly.

MPs weren’t even required to calculate the probability of having the virus. They just had to realise that it depends on viral prevalence, which is pretty intuitive when you think about extreme examples. If the prevalence is 1 in 10,000, most positive tests will be false-positives. But if the prevalence is 1 in 100, most positive tests will be true-positives.

The MPs did at least do better than the general public – though barely on the last question. 25% of British people got the coin toss question right; 25% gave the mean correctly; 25% gave the mode correctly; and 15% got the diagnostic test question right.

While MPs may have outsmarted the general public on these simple maths questions – an outcome that is less flattering to MPs than it is unflattering to the general public – they did worse than school children in a recent mock exam.

Eight MPs and five members of the House of Lords sat two SAT papers under strict exam conditions. The SATs – not to be confused with the American exams of the same name – are taken by 11 year olds in Britain. They assess basic knowledge in reading, writing and maths.

Past papers can be found online. Examples of some of the harder questions are shown below. As you can see, it’s pretty straightforward stuff – although you do have to answer quickly.

Left: maths questions. Right: English questions.

Incredibly, only 50% of those who took part passed the English test, and only 44% passed the math test. (You may have noticed there are no whole numbers that correspond to 50% or 44% of 13 – the number of individuals who took part. Yet these were the figures reported by the Times. So it’s possible that whoever wrote the press release wasn’t very good at maths.) By comparison, 72% of school children passed the English test, and 71% passed the maths test.

The parliamentarians’ poor performance could be partly down to them having forgotten the meaning of jargon like ‘obtuse angle’ or ‘adverbial phrase’ (though you can usually work it out from the context). And perhaps a different sample of 13 individuals would have done better. Still, performing noticeably worse than 11 year olds is quite an achievement!

Were MPs any smarter in the past? Based on the quality of parliamentary debate, you’d assume they were. But I’m not aware of any test-score data to back this up.

A less satisfactory method is to track their education levels over time. Doing so reveals two countervailing trends: while the percentage of MPs with a university degree has increased, the percentage who attended Oxford or Cambridge has decreased (amongst Conservatives).

Overall, the evidence suggests that our elected representatives could be accurately described as “midwits” – people of above-average but unremarkable intelligence. Their cognitive faculties seems to be particularly lacking when it comes to non-verbal reasoning – a domain that is increasingly important for navigating our “knowledge economy”.

Returning to the quote from Machiavelli, he was of course referring to rulers who appointed the men around them. His point was: judge a ruler’s intelligence by those whom he appoints. But in a democracy, “we the people” rule through our elected representatives. So what does it say about us that we have selected such mediocre intellects to fill that role?

45 comments:

  1. Was midwit the position you used to have? Before you were fired?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Replies
    1. πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ±πŸ˜†πŸ˜†

      Delete
  3. lol. The dimwit Mystere thinks your comeback is hilarious. Now he might respond "I don't see Mystere here".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dervish Sanders December 17, 2023 at 6:39 AM:
      🀑🀑🀑🀑🀑"πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨lol. The dimwit Mystere thinks your comeback is hilarious. Now he might respond "πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨I don't see Mystere here.πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨"🀑🀑🀑🀑🀑

      You burped, Dervish?

      Q-Anon, A Highly Intelligent Commentator And Snarky Dude! December 16, 2023 at 8:47 PM:
      πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ±πŸ˜†πŸ˜†

      ∆∆ I see Q-Anon, A Highly Intelligent Commentator And Snarky Dude! laughing with -FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew here. And I came here, Dervish. I'd laugh too, especially at you, Fartbreath Dervish.

      Delete
  4. I see Mystere laughably still trying to pretend Q-anon isn't his Blogger account. He calls himself "highly intelligent", which is total bullplop. Given that Mystere is a low IQ Imbecil.

    ReplyDelete
  5. πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ±πŸ˜†πŸ˜†

    ReplyDelete
  6. \\...is a low IQ Imbecil.

    From a mouth of low IQ Imbecil AKA Derpy it sound so DAMNING... naaaah. :-))))))))

    It -- hilarious!!! :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0

    And DAMN entertaining. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))00

    ReplyDelete
  7. Continue-continue. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  8. From a mouth of low IQ Imbecil AKA Derpy...

    Nobody who comments here calls themselves "Derpy". Except you. As you have revealed, Derpy is one of your alter egos. So yeah... Derpy AKA the self described foreigner from far far away is definitely a low IQ Imbecil.

    ReplyDelete
  9. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))00

    ReplyDelete
  10. Qtard laughs in agreement.

    ReplyDelete
  11. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    Continue-continue, little Derr Punn.

    Revealing MOAR of your idiocy. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  12. Self encouragement.

    ReplyDelete
  13. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    ReplyDelete
  14. Is it laughing at itself aka "pulling a Charlie Gordon"? Looks like it to me.

    ReplyDelete
  15. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0

    Xontinue-continue, Charlie Gordon.;-P

    ReplyDelete
  16. Self encouragement. And did it accidentally reveal it's real name is Charlie Gordon?

    ReplyDelete
  17. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    Of course.

    Imbecile STILL unable to grok what "pulling Charlie Gordon" mean.

    Cause. In book that Charlie Gordon took pill, and became smarter.

    And that way he became able to grasp how silly was his behavior in before.

    But... there is no such pill.

    And this imbecile will never be able to grasp it.

    And it will only continue-continue "pulling Charlie Gordon".

    Infinitely! :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    ReplyDelete
  18. Qtard: ...unable to grok what "pulling Charlie Gordon" mean.

    I grok it. You do not.

    Qtard: But... there is no such pill.

    That's too bad for you.

    Qtard: And this imbecile will never be able to grasp it.

    I agree. You never will.

    Qtard: ...it will only continue-continue "pulling Charlie Gordon".

    Why do you refer to yourself as "it". You're nonbinary?

    Qtard: Infinitely!

    How? Do you think you're immortal?


    ReplyDelete
  19. \\I grok it. You do not.

    Then... explain. ;-P

    But imbeciles cannot do that. They do not get what it means even.

    Which exactly are what you showing. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))



    \\That's too bad for you.

    Definite "you" instead of "I".

    I'd appreciate pill to became such a dumb ass as you... just to be able to understand it better. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))



    \\I agree. You never will.

    I made that "opening" deliberately. And imbecile happily caught in that hook. Might be thinking being smart.

    Let's make it stay in that delusion. As long as possible. Continue-continue entertaining. ;-P



    ReplyDelete
  20. Qtard: \\I grok it. You do not\\ Then... explain.

    I already did. Several times.

    Qtard: But imbeciles cannot do that. They do not get what it means even.

    It's talking about itself. Again!

    Qtard: Which exactly are what you showing.

    Definite "you" instead of "I".

    Qtard: \\That's too bad for you\\ Definite "you" instead of "I".

    No.

    Qtard: I'd appreciate pill to became such a dumb ass as you... just to be able to understand it better.

    You already took an entire bottle. Or behave as if you had.

    Qtard: \\I agree. You never will\\ I made that "opening" deliberately.

    I don't give a shit.

    Qtard: And imbecile happily caught in that hook.

    Idiot is mistaken. It's moronity does not make me happy.

    Qtard: Might be thinking being smart.

    Smarter than you... But that is a very low bar.

    ReplyDelete
  21. \\I already did. Several times.

    Yes. You said "I did explained" several times. Or something like that.

    But that is not explanation.

    Explanation MEANS providing ADDITIONAL details. FACTS and their RELATIONS.

    Neither was given by you. Which mean that "I already did. Several times." is just YET ONE shallow lie. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    Lie that imbecile still have hope somehow will do that trick of "out-smarting" much more intelligent opponent. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    But, continue-continue.

    Your shallow lies entertain me till no end. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))



    \\Qtard: But imbeciles cannot do that. They do not get what it means even.

    \\It's talking about itself. Again!

    Yep.

    Like that.

    Do it more, MORE, MOAAAAR!!! :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))



    \\Qtard: \\I agree. You never will\\ I made that "opening" deliberately.

    \\I don't give a shit.

    Because you can't? Because that would need amount of smarts way-way above level of imbecile.

    Poor thing. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))





    ReplyDelete
  22. Qtard: Explanation MEANS providing ADDITIONAL details. FACTS and their RELATIONS.

    Which I did. NMP you don't remember. You never do. Though I think you lie. It's one of your games. I explain several times. Then the topic comes up again and you say I never explained.

    I think you're too dumb to understand anyway.

    Qtard: Neither was given by you. Which mean that "I already did. Several times." is just YET ONE shallow lie.

    It was given. You're the one lying when you say I didn't explain. Bet if I explain again you will "forget" again.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Via Google...

    The relationship that exists between Charlie and his bakery co-workers, Gimpy, Joe, and Frank, is now defined. They often use the phrase "pulled a Charlie Gordon" to explain a stupid mistake, and everyone laughs, including Charlie, who simply enjoys their friendship.

    I have never laughed. Only you laugh. I certainly don't enjoy your friendship. Given that we are not friends.

    And (most importantly) you've never cited any "stupid mistake" I made which you are laughing at.

    The obvious conclusion is that you dunno what "pulling a Charlie Gordon" means.

    Additionally, Charlie Gordon got smarter after brain surgery, not pills (as you claimed).

    Charlie Kelly (a character on the program "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia") got smarter after taking pills. But it turned out (in the end) to only be a placebo effect. He was still dumb.

    Is that what you were thinking about? Got them confused due to your imbecility?

    ReplyDelete
  24. \\Which I did. NMP you don't remember. You never do.

    Oh, but that is not a problem, isn't it? Because you can quote em. Naaaah. Cause that is miserly lie of imbecile. Which trying to self-please itself with such delusional make believes. Well, it declare "I believe in facts" not for nothing -- delusional declaration of believing in own delusions.

    Continue-continue. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0


    \\It was given. You're the one lying when you say I didn't explain. Bet if I explain again you will "forget" again.

    And wh that is so much problem to it? Fear to lose ability to explain, if do that too often??? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    Of course, cause you are imbecile -- have too little mental capacity :-))))))))))))))))))))))))

    Go, entertain me more. Say that its because it are smart. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    Whit some imbecilic "explanation" added.

    :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))



    ttttttttvvvvvvvvv\\\\

    ReplyDelete
  25. As I expected, the moron ignored my explanation. Pretended to not see it. Yet it says I should keep explaining over and over. Well, it can go f*ck itself.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Dervish Sanders December 28, 2023 at 7:22 AM "))<πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨
    As I expected, the moron ignored my explanation. Pretended to not see it. Yet it says I should keep explaining over and over. Well, it can go f¿ck itself.
    πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨πŸ’¨"

    You're doing a great job piling on judgement against yourself for eternity, Dervish.

    ReplyDelete
  27. \\ Dervish Sanders said...

    \\ As I expected, the moron ignored my explanation.


    explanation
    /ΛŒΙ›ksplΙ™ΛˆneΙͺΚƒn/
    noun
    noun: explanation; plural noun: explanations

    a statement or account that makes something clear.


    And your that explanation made it clear -- that you doubling down on your moronity.

    Why you unhappy? ;-P

    :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))



    \\I have never laughed. Only you laugh. I certainly don't enjoy your friendship. Given that we are not friends.

    You... from all obviously present here accounts... you seems like thinking that you having RATIONAL discussion with me here.

    While I SHOWED it many-many times -- that you are INELIGIBLE to be in rational discussions. ;-P

    Because.

    At first my hypothesis was that you are sneaky moron. That trying to cover its lack of intellectual proves with some idiotic tricks (like claiming that dictionary definitions SOMEHOW non-applicable, and etc).

    But.

    After that as IT started repeating "I NEVER said" about what IT obviously just said. And even "I dunno"... about most obvious things.

    I was pressed with this obvious FACTS to reconsider -- that you are utterly and completely, not some idiot, or sneaky moron... but full-fledged I-M-B-E-C-I-L-E. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    But.

    Despite your expectations.

    It DID NOT disgusted me, and not distracted me from engaging in conversation... with IT.

    AS IT most surely planned.

    Because... thought there is no end of idiots. In the World. And in the Internet.

    But, so exemplar complete imbeciles... is rare. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0

    ReplyDelete
  28. \\And (most importantly) you've never cited any "stupid mistake" I made which you are laughing at.

    Yeah.

    I DO NOT QUOTE your imbecilic yammering. With COPY-PASTING excerpts. And placing it with adding "//" before it in my comments. AS HERE ABOVE FOR EXAMPLE ^^^^^^^^

    :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    Imbecilic counter-factual lie of imbecile that got bent on doubling down on own imbecility. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    And yeah, you are free to CONTINUE-CONTINUE making stoooopid mistakes AKA pulling Charlie Gordon -- and cite this my comment in OUT OF CONTEXT cuted in pieces quotes -- with imbecilic try to CLAIM that I talking about *myself*, that that was *my* alter-ego or whatever ELSE MY smart ace trick you trying copycating me with -- WITHOUT TINSY LIL BIT of understanding WHY MY words are True and Working... against such an open and obvious imbecile. ;-P



    \\The obvious conclusion is that you dunno what "pulling a Charlie Gordon" means.

    From that same Google

    What do Charlie's friends mean when they say someone pulled a Charlie Gordon?

    What do his friends mean when they say "He really pulled a Charlie Gordon?" He really pulled a Charlie Gordon means someone made a dumb move or was being stupid. They say this because Charlie is not very smart.

    You.

    Copycating MY smart ace moves -- is DUMB. ;-P

    By obvious reason. (many times explained to IT, EVEN)

    But.

    IT is "not very smart".

    Because STILL seems like NOT ABLE to understand that.

    THAT IS -- definite trait of Charlie Gordon -- that was I-M-B-E-C-I-L-E... until it was given a pill that made him smarter.

    AND ONLY AFTER THAT he BECAME able to understand -- how dumb he was before.

    Sure thing -- that will never happen with I-M-B-E-C-I-L-E Derpish SADners. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    And that is MOST hilarious. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0

    UPD: It NOT about laughing. Or being friends. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))



    \\Additionally, Charlie Gordon got smarter after brain surgery, not pills (as you claimed).

    Whatever.

    Like it change anything.



    \\Charlie Kelly (a character on the program "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia") got smarter after taking pills. But it turned out (in the end) to only be a placebo effect. He was still dumb.

    Did you decide to reveal YOUR CASE here? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))



    \\Is that what you were thinking about? Got them confused due to your imbecility?

    Naaah.

    You accidentally just gave NEW piece of information... about itself? ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  29. And.

    Despite what imbecile tried to claim -- that was NOT any explanation.

    Because.

    \\Qtard: Explanation MEANS providing ADDITIONAL details. FACTS and their RELATIONS.

    But there was ONLY fact (not from imbecile, but from All-Knowing Google) given.

    NOT its relation... to anything.

    And I even do not need to add that it was not RATIONAL LOGICAL explanation... :-)))))

    As IT... NEVER able to.

    Because IT... STILL unable to learn even what FACT is. ;-p

    ReplyDelete
  30. Qtard confirmed that it dunno what an explanation is. Because it is an imbecil.

    ReplyDelete
  31. It dunno what a fact is either. Because it is a moron.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Qtard: NOT its relation... to anything.

    Because your hysterical blindness prevents you from seeing.

    Qtard: ...started repeating "I NEVER said" about what IT obviously just said.

    No. Never did

    Qtard: And even "I dunno"... about most obvious things.

    You can quote? I predict no. Because that never happened.

    Qtard: ...means someone made a dumb move or was being stupid. They say this because Charlie is not very smart.

    That describes you.



    ReplyDelete
  33. \\ Dervish Sanders said...

    \\ Qtard confirmed that it dunno what an explanation is. Because it is an imbecil.

    And you trying to say that there is not alter-egos, writing in place of Derpish Sadners?

    This one have problems with typing. ;-P

    Must be that "Qtard" you talking so much. :-)))))))))))))))))



    \\ Dervish Sanders said...

    \\ It dunno what a fact is either. Because it is a moron.

    And this one... is that Moron?



    \\Qtard: ...started repeating "I NEVER said" about what IT obviously just said.

    \\No. Never did

    And this one either NeverDid... or one who have poor memory -- do not remember previous talks/pther alter-egos?


    :-)))))))))))))))))))))))0



    Seee... might be whole THREE different alter-egos erupted.

    As result of Derr Punn cringing so much. :-))))))))))))))))))))))

    Isn't it FACTUAL TRUTH -- in all accordance with Reality

    ReplyDelete
  34. Qtard: This one have problems with typing.

    Considerably fewer problems with it than you.

    Qtard: Must be that "Qtard" you talking so much.

    Yes.

    Qtard: \\ It dunno what a fact is either. Because it is a moron\\ And this one... is that Moron?

    Yes.

    Qtard: ...started repeating "I NEVER said" about what IT obviously just said\\ No. Never did\\And this one either NeverDid... or one who have poor memory -- do not remember previous talks/pther alter-egos?

    No.

    Qtard: :-)))))))))))))))))))))))0

    Drooling again?

    Qtard: Seee... might be whole THREE different alter-egos erupted. As result of Derr Punn cringing so much.

    Your alter ego Derr Punn is cringing?

    Qtard: Isn't it FACTUAL TRUTH -- in all accordance with Reality.

    Is that what your psychiatrist says?

    ReplyDelete
  35. \\ Dervish Sanders said...

    \\ Qtard: This one have problems with typing.

    \\ Considerably fewer problems with it than you.

    Giving that I started improving my only recently.

    And you... practicing it for how long? From pre-school? With it beaten in you thoroughly.

    For a 20? 30? maybe 50 years?

    Well... it would be a ruin, if it would do MORE mistakes THAN foreigner novice in English. :-))))))))))))))))))))))

    But... this imbecile -- would not see the humor of the situation. :-))))))))))))))))))0

    ReplyDelete
  36. \\Qtard: Must be that "Qtard" you talking so much.

    \\Yes.

    Oh... you finally admitted having alter-egos? :-)))))))))))))))))))))

    Naaah.

    You just frantically trying to use AN OPENING. :-)))))))))))))))))))

    Continue-continue. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))



    \\Qtard: \\ It dunno what a fact is either. Because it is a moron\\ And this one... is that Moron?

    \\Yes.

    Yeah. YET ONE alter-ego? ;-P



    \\Qtard: ...started repeating "I NEVER said" about what IT obviously just said\\ No. Never did\\And this one either NeverDid... or one who have poor memory -- do not remember previous talks/pther alter-egos?

    \\No.

    NewSpeak "Yes"?

    Or that is your default, prime ego? Of a crazy bonker residing in an asylum? :-)))))))))))))



    \\Qtard: :-)))))))))))))))))))))))0

    \\Drooling again?

    How should *I* know??? :-))))))))))))))))))))

    Go consult with your alter-egos.

    They are much closer, and can see it with their... err, your eyes... drooling that face in a mirror, or not. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))00



    \\Your alter ego Derr Punn is cringing?

    :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))



    \\Qtard: Isn't it FACTUAL TRUTH -- in all accordance with Reality.

    \\Is that what your psychiatrist says?

    And that body... Derpish SADners... trying to say that it NOT a crazy bonkeer???

    But FRoM WHERE then such idea could come to it -- that it need to consult with psychiatrist -- what is Reality????

    :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    As I said -- behavior -- tells only Truth. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  37. Qtard: And you... practicing it for how long? From pre-school?

    No. Had a typing class in high school. But typing on a computer keyboard is different than on a smartphone keyboard.

    Qtard: With it beaten in you thoroughly.

    No.

    Qtard: For a 20? 30? maybe 50 years?

    No. Far fewer years that I've had a smartphone.

    Qtard: Well... it would be a ruin, if it would do MORE mistakes THAN foreigner novice in English.

    Language has nothing to do with typos.

    Qtard: But... this imbecile -- would not see the humor of the situation. :-)))))

    Apparently the imbecile does see humor here. Otherwise why is it laughing?

    Qtard: Must be that "Qtard" you talking so much\\ Yes. Oh... you finally admitted having alter-egos?

    Obviously you meant "I'm" instead of "you".

    Qtard: Naaah.

    I didn't think you would.

    Qtard: You just frantically trying to use AN OPENING.

    That you are Qtard?

    Qtard: Continue-continue.

    Yes. I will.

    Qtard: \\ It dunno what a fact is either. Because it is a moron\\ And this one... is that Moron?\\ Yes\\ Yeah. YET ONE alter-ego?

    No, you have many, not just one.

    Qtard: ...started repeating "I NEVER said" about what IT obviously just said\\ No. Never did\\And this one either NeverDid... or one who have poor memory -- do not remember previous talks/pther alter-egos?\\No\\ NewSpeak "Yes"?

    No.

    Qtard: Or that is your default, prime ego? Of a crazy bonker residing in an asylum?

    Wrote "your" when it meant my"?

    Qtard: :-)))))))))))))))))))))))0\\ Drooling again? How should *I* know???

    How could it not know?

    Qtard: Go consult with your alter-egos.

    About your alter egos? Why?

    Qtard: They are much closer, and can see it with their... err, your eyes... drooling that face in a mirror, or not. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))00

    Impossible. How could I be closer to you then you? You think I see you when I look in the mirror?

    Qtard: \\Your alter ego Derr Punn is cringing?\\ :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    Looks like a YES to me.

    Qtard: Isn't it FACTUAL TRUTH -- in all accordance with Reality\\ Is that what your psychiatrist says?\\ And that body... Derpish SADners... trying to say that it NOT a crazy bonkeer???

    I dunno your alter ego "Derpish SADners". You tell me.

    Qtard: But FRoM WHERE then such idea could come to it -- that it need to consult with psychiatrist -- what is Reality????

    You need to do it more often.

    Qtard: As I said -- behavior -- tells only Truth. ;-P

    Yeah. Your behavior is definitely that of a crazy person.

    ReplyDelete
  38. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    Derpish SADners tring to overwhelm me with its imbecility. :-)))))))))))))))))

    thinking I will be responding all its junk loonie babbling. :-))))))))))))))))

    Or... it still think it is rational discussion? :-)))))))))))))))))

    ReplyDelete
  39. A rational discussion with you? A babbling moron. Absolutely not.

    Your non response to most of what I wrote -- that must mean you are silently agreeing.

    ReplyDelete
  40. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0

    Derpish SADners -- master of imbecilic backbites! :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    ReplyDelete
  41. Yeah, that alter ego of yours, Derpish Sadners, is definitely a master of imbecility.

    ReplyDelete
  42. That is your recognition? As fellow master? ;-P

    Naaah. That is just another confirmation of your imbecility. :-)))))))))))))))))))))

    But... continue-continue. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    ReplyDelete
  43. No imbecilic backbites here? :-))))))

    ReplyDelete