>>16782198
>But at the mid and lower levels it seems to be under constant attack.
Are those, incidentally, the levels where midwit academics keep pumping out mountains of non-reproducible studies, committing fraud and posing as "experts" for a buck? The answer to your question is obvious, but you don't want to hear it because you are the problem.

>>16782198
The reason this board is shit is because the moderators and janitors don't do their job. So the solution is to have some properly moderated spaces where you can have proper discussions without being interrupted and derailed by schizos, morons and others.

>>16782213
You had that back at reddit. Why did you crawl all the way here? Did the moderators there decide that your opinion on [thing] wasn't scientific enough for their taste and ban you? :^)

>>16782231
Only some subreddits have good moderation.

>>16782231
At reddit you get questions like
>are black holes full of dark matter?

>>16782239
>>16782242
Not surprised at all you guys have some knowledgeable "comments" to make about reddit. Updooted.

>>16782198
A theory is only worth it if it analyze/predict correctly. Crackpipe theory flourish as an alternative among the unwitted when science flag gets hijacked by business interest to deciet the masses.
Most extreme follower of extreme belief meet their maker pretty quickly then the rest scatters. The problem solves itself as always.
Why be bothered by passing trends when you can work on the transendental?

>>16782198
This is not what enshittification means, you Dunning Kruger schizo retard.

>>16782198
>posts about socrates
>why minds so weak?!?
JHFC

>>16782231
Sounds like someone got butthurt once by an older mod when they first found reddit in their internet youth.
And then they found home in a room full of butthurting and a couple of guys cosplaying butthurt wondering where all these whiny-ass faggots came from and hoping they'll leave soon.

>>16782292
>Crackpipe theory
Is Crackpipe Theory different from Broken Window Theory?

To prevent "enshittification" you would have to gatekeep entry, or basically establish credibility to keep posting.
You would also need some sort of reputation system in place to prevent mavericks.
Then to stop ban avoidance you would need unique identifiers, which is something a huge number of people would have an issue with, even those who are genuine.
Then what about the school kids wanting a remote homework tutor, and those who are genuine but just post dumb stuff rather than looking it up? Are you going to ban them as well, or subdivide the forum into levels suited to certain levels of purpose, education and intelligence? Sounds like a headache.
It could be done, but then the question becomes "Is it worth it?" So far it look like most people say "no". Besides the moment you start gatekeeping the idiots just go somewhere else. The science gets done regardless, those with genuine interest put the work in, filter the shit out, and educate themselves, the idiots stay in their bubbles, and who cares what the normies think? Its like the old saying about leading a horse to water. In this case you are trying to make it drink when it doesn't want to.

>>16782367
>To prevent "enshittification" you would have to gatekeep entry, or basically establish credibility
Looking forward to the "scientific" establishment doing this.

>You would also need some sort of reputation system in place to prevent mavericks
>Then to stop ban avoidance you would need unique identifiers
Meanwhile, this is something the "scientific" establishment already does.

>>16782198
Institute a Elo score for scientists, peer reviewers, all anonymous.

>>16782367
These are just theoretical problems, not real ones.

>endless nonsense is posted
and you just added to it. be the change you want to see instead of whining about how nobody is doing something about it you fucking dumbass. nobody, i mean NOBODY, is stopping you from making a discussion with all the substance you're seeking, but you can't do it because you're a fucking midwit who needs to incite meta discussion due to lack of any knowledge or interest in a particular science/math field.
>it misinforms the wider general public and detracts people from the true essence of scientific principles
you are not an authority on this shit. you aren't the god of pure knowledge, nor is anyone else. natural discourse will shift according to peoples interests and experiences, and if those don't align with yours, tough shit. stop trying to wrangle some form of consensus like some regulating body.

>>16782387
This is just a lazy reply. If someone made a good thread, it would be shit up by schizos.

Lol, OP asks how to stop online science discussions being trashed.
Immediately the thread gets trashed by the very same assholes OP is complaining about.
Never change /sci/

>>16782198
>At the very highest levels science is probably okay.
absolutely not. de Broglie-Bohm theory was suppressed for what, 80 years? more? cosmology is a sham from end to end. morphogenetics was derided as crackpot pseudoscience until enough people started trying to grow organs in petri dishes and found out you can't do without it. complexity theory seems to have died with Kolmogorov.
it's absolutely tragic, and on the other hand we have mumbo jumbo pseudo-sciences like "psychology" pushed in a big way.

>>16782387
Objectively right.

>>16782392
There are several threads about actual math/science, that are mostly schizio-free for the same reason you're not in them: they're inaccessible to pop-sci tabloid readers and "debaters" of politicized science.

>>16782400
>There are several threads about actual math/science
Are they in the room with you now?

>>16782392
>If someone made a good thread, it would be shit up by schizos
Case in point
>>16782398

>>16782356
It's not. Just a term for whatever fancy assertion.

Hilarious to see you retards prove OP point by doing exactly what he's talking about. Talking shit, being off topic, being off topic, making ad hominems and other fallacies. I swear you fuckwits are just as bad as plebbit. You just can't keep skip something, no, you just have to open your stupid mouths
>Is there any way to beat the enshitification of science.
On the internet? No. Not with respect to its broad usage. Most of its just designed to engage the lowest denominator for click advertising and data harvesting. And for training LLMs.
All you can do is point sensible people towards those few sites which manage to retain their integrity.

>>16782198
>dunning-kruger
You are the enshittification

>>16782499
/thread

>>16782198
>Strong minds discuss ideas,
>average minds discuss events,
Honestly, it should be the other way around nowadays.
Midwits always love to turn an event into an ideological battlefield, where what actually happened is supervened by how that happening roughly maps onto their political beliefs.

>>16782554
I like how you are doing what you accuse others of in the course of making that accusation.

>>16782213
As far as /sci/ is concerned I think the problem is the sort of people who are jannies and mods do not have a strong background in science. If any science knowledge at all. So they are simply unable to distinguish between genuine posts and shitposts. I can see them looking at most of the threads on /sci/ and having no idea whether they are serious or not.
The other thing is if they were knowledgeable enough to delete troll threads and shitposts then the traffic here would drop by 99% overnight.

>>16782425
I am sure you can refute everything I said

>>16782213
The sort of people who could do the job properly aren't going to waste their time endlessly pruning the deadwood

>>16782316
>trying to be prescriptivist about the word "enshittification"
Funniest thing I've seen this month

>>16782354
Not everyone is gay like you

>>16782198
>Practically every internet site is full of grifters and idiots posting "science" videos and blogs which are just some ludicrous bullshit.


Do you have just maybe one example? Just one?

>>16782896
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification

>>16783021
>The point
>Your head

>>16782198
Science has always been like that on some level. People were openly mocking Charles Darwin over 100 years ago.for his theory of Evolution. Even Einstein's Theory of relativity was called absurd. The internet has just given more idiots a bigger megaphone to shout their stupidities.

>>16783091
you are not allowed to science if it goes against belief

>>16782896
He is just being a pedantic retard. Anyone with a brain understands what OP means.
The funniest thing are the shitheads proving OP's point.

>>16783092
True in many cases, especially when it comes to religious nuts and conspiracy schizos
But its more than just that. People who are envious, or attention seeking, or just vanilla assholes also contribute to trashing up science discussions.

>>16782213
That would imply that the moderators and janitors have already solved science and found an indisputable theory of everything to enforce, but no such thing exists, so people can only argue in the meantime.

>>16783154
There is a big difference between people engaging in good faith discussions and those intentionally derailing discussion because they are dicks. This thread is a perfect example. OP stated a clear question open for debate. Yet immediately its flooded with off topic posts and flame bait

>>16783158
What do you mean by perfect and immediately?
Which immediate posts do you think were perfectly off topic?

>>16783095
Words have meaning. Communicating something poorly and then falling back in "haha you know what I mean; don't be a dick!" is intellectual laziness at best and malicious ignorance at worst. Enshittification means something specific and carries a certain baggage. When you describe something that is not enshittification as if it is, you load your argument with irrelevant baggage. And if you cannot see that, then you're the retard here.

>>16783172
Grice's Razor, moron.

>>16783174
Are you OP? Because you're making the same ideological errors. That has absolutely nothing to do with OP's post using a word wrong and me pointing out the consequences of that. Here, let me elaborate. And I'll use caps lock in the hopes you understand (after all, you wouldn't intentionally misunderstand me, would you?)

I DONT FUCKING KNOW WHAT OP IS TRYING TO IMPLY BECAUSE WHEN I READ ENSHITTIFICATION I THINK OF SOMETHING VERY SPECIFIC ACCORDING TO WHAT ENSHITTIFICATION MEANS, YOU MOUTH BREATHING FUCKING IDIOT

and that's why this razor is completely irrelevant. I reiterate:
>>16783172

>>16783180
>ideological errors
That's not what ideological means :^)

>>16783182
Cute. It actually is. I'm not surprised you don't see it though. I'll accept your concession, ungraceful as it may be.

>>16782198
Why would you want to? We have had over a century of modern education, and now we have access to educational material online for just about any scientific topic you want to learn. Yet despite this we still have flat earthers, creationists, moon hoaxers, and an assortment of other batshit insane people who prefer delusions over objective truth.
These subhumans are going to believe in their crackpot ideas no matter what you do. Allowing them into all public arenas is actually desirable because then rational people learn just how utterly fucked in the head these idiots really are.

>>16783184
Ill spell the issue out for you because you're clearly very autistic and I feel bad.

When the other anon said this:
>>16782896
>>trying to be prescriptivist about the word "enshittification"
He was pointing out that, not only is it a faux pas to be prescriptivist about the English language in general, but choosing to be this way about "enshitification" is extra laughable since it's a slang term that's only been documented in literature within the past decade though people have jokingly thrown it around for probably longer than any of us have been alive.

...Then you replied to him with the fucking Wikipedia article on enshitification, demonstrating nothing more than your complete and utter inability to understand the nuance that was communicated.
I don't doubt that you didn't pick up on what OP meant in his original post because you lack reading comprehension entirely.

>>16783191
Let's try this instead. Define enshittification.
Hard mode: no Google
Expert mode: no external resource

>>16783193
>Define enshittification
The process of making something shitty.
>hurr durr but Wikipedia says...
Don't care.
En+shitty+fy+tion

>>16782198
You are right but there still a few places you can go to ask science related questions and get reasonable answers. Quora is one.
Even Khan academy facilitates science discussion, its mostly aimed at high school level, but its very well moderated, the sort of asshole spamming this thread with his definition bullshit wouldn't last a minute there.

>>16782198
The sad truth is that everything has a base tendency to decay. If on top of that, you're attached to the present form of disease at a given time, there's not even a chance to mitiage it.

>>16783197
Wrong.

>>16783206
The funny thing is that this thread wouldn't even exist on any of those forums you listed. It'd be removed instantly.

>>16783217
Assuming you're the same autist:
As has already been alluded to you twice, English is NOT a prescriptive language. There are no authorities deciding what words mean. Some faggot "coining" a term does not mean that is exactly how you must use it from then to all time going forward.

English is descriptive. There's general rules it follows (like the application of the "correct" suffixes and prefixes as modifiers) but the only real rule is this:
English words are defined by the overlap between what is meant when it is said and what is understood when it is heard.

>>16783218
That must mean those forums can't possibly be enshittificated, problem solved, prevent enshittification by preventing any discussion of enshittification.

>>16783207
I think the other anon nailed. It would be possible to have a shit-free site with discussion about science, even the open ended topics, but it would require such constant moderation it just wouldn't be worth it. It would be like swatting flies in the middle of Africa. Swat a hundred and another hundred appear instantly. Where would you even find sufficiently educated moderators willing to give up their time to oversee it?
I reckon /sci/ is so poorly moderated simply becasue of burnout. Its a Sisyphean task

>>16783222
>There are no authorities deciding what words mean.
Ok, but that just means non one will know what you are talking about if you suddenly just decide the word means something different than how it is interpolationarialistic.

>>16783227
See the breakdown I did here:
>>16783197
Any word with the form "en[noun]tification" will be interpreted by anyone with a functional understanding of the English language roughly as "the process by which something is made to take on the qualities of [noun]."
This isn't because that's spelled out to us in a dictionary or some shit. It's because any native speaker of the language is going to be familiar with the suffixes and prefix used.

You have multiple people ITT calling you a retard for not grasping this. Maybe there's a lesson here to learn.

>>16783231
So you are the one arguing that words objectively have meaning because some authority decides what prefixes and suffixes are and what they mean and that enshittifcation means something based on its roots, not by someone redefining to arbitrarily mean something else than the words themselves indicate.

>>16783234
>So you are the one arguing that words objectively have meaning because some authority decides what prefixes and suffixes are and what they mean
No. There is no such authority for the English language. These modifiers have meaning that wee agree on through shared interaction. But you wouldn't understand how that works because you're excruciatingly autistic.

>enshittifcation means something based on its roots
Will generally be understood as meaning*
There's plenty of words whose common definitions do not match their etymologies in a straightforward manner.
Just look how the word "faggot" has changed meaning over time and you should understand why your whole stance is retarded.

>>16782198
>At the very highest levels science is probably okay.
The highest levels were the first to fall decades and decades ago. If you're still blind to the fact that all modern decay is a top-down phenomenon then you're unironically ngmi.

>>16783244
>. There is no such authority for the English language.
Then there is no reason that the roots, suffixes and prefixes have to add up to any particular meaning, it can mean whatever he wants it to mean and you have no real argument because you have argued yourself out of a case by arguing against any objective meaning inherent in words.

>Will generally be understood as meaning*
Not according to you, it can mean whatever any speaker wants it to mean because there is no authority on meaning.

>retarded
Then I will just assume you mean it in the colloquial sense like the kids use the word sick to mean something amazing and awe inspiring and assume you are blown away by how retardedly great my stance is.

OP here.
I admit I am not surprised to find this thread shitted up by a shithead.
By "enshittification" I meant "to shit up". Or to "ruin, trash, degrade". I thought that would be easily understood within the context of my post, especially since I gave this elaboration

>Take this board for example. Endless nonsense is posted. Every thread is derailed by ignorant retards, schizos and Dunning-Kruger contrarians. There is hardly any good faith discussion.

Now I will admit the shithead is technically correct according to the wiki entry he so generously provided. However the Merriam-Webster dictionary also includes a broader definition. Take note of the last sentence
"Enshittification is an informal word used to criticize the degradation in the quality and experience of online platforms over time, due to an increase in advertisements, costs, or features. It can also refer more generally to any state of deterioration, especially in politics or society."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/slang/enshittification

So there we are. The meaning of the word was clear from the context of my original post and another source includes a broader definition which validates the use of that word within the context.

But congratulations to the shithead who has so successfully derailed this thread with a pedantic objection irrelevant to the stated intention of this thread, and an erroneous objection at that. Well done! You proved my point, got me to address your stupid objection, and made a bigger ass out of yourself than you already are. Quite an accomplishment. Whats next? You going to begin another round of enshittification by casting doubts on the validity of the Merriam-Webster dictionary? No, I think you will find some other tangential method to prove yourself an asshole.
How about posting tldr? Yeah, that would be your style.

>>16783248
>Then there is no reason that the roots, suffixes and prefixes have to add up to any particular meaning
As I said...
>These modifiers have meaning that we agree on through shared interaction. But you wouldn't understand how that works because you're excruciatingly autistic.

>it can mean whatever any speaker wants it to mean because there is no authority on meaning.
And I will repeat what I said in an earlier post:
>>16783222
>English words are defined by the overlap between what is meant when it is said and what is understood when it is heard.
In other words: a lack of a central authority doesn't make definitions completely arbitrary.
Mutual interaction. Human beings with functioning brains can derive meaning through context and build an understanding of how their native tongue works by listening to people speak it.

>>16783250
>that we agree on through shared interaction.
No, you learned about suffixes and prefixes in school and you know it, it wasn't just something you picked up on before you had a grade school education, it was dictated to you by an authority figure.

> a lack of a central authority
But there isn't a lack of central authority, you learned the rules of English in a school that uses standardized rules and testing procedures.

>an understanding of how their native tongue works by listening to people speak it.
That isn't how it works, though, in reality, people learn english and its rules through decades of compulsory education by a central government.

>>16783222
>Some faggot "coining" a term does not mean that is exactly how you must use it from then to all time going forward
Lmfao. If you have to put quotes around a word to justify your argument, just take the L.

>>16783223
Ah so you believe the OP contributes to enshittification and is a hypocritical enshittifier complicit in the enshittening of this enshittificated board.

>>16783251
>you learned about suffixes and prefixes in school and you know it, it wasn't just something you picked up on before you had a grade school education,
The concept that people add certain sounds to words and that slightly changes their meaning was absolutely something I picked up on before kindergarten. It would be weird if you didn't.
Now obviously some I was explicitly taught in school. But the vast majority of them, my classmates and I already knew them prior to being spooonfed their definition.
Seriously, ask a 4 year old child if he knows the difference between the word "create" and "creation." He probably will.

>you learned the rules of English in a school that uses standardized rules and testing procedures.
Were you nonverbal before entering school?
Sure. Some formalities are dictated but you more than likely had the basic sentence structure down before your first year of schooling even if you couldn't lay it out in a formulaic way.

>people learn english and its rules through decades of compulsory education by a central government.
No. People genuinely learn English by talking to each other.


Sure. We can preface all of this with the distinction between "formal" and "informal" English. But in reality that distinction only means that "this was how people talked in the previous generation when they weren't being rude."

>>16783249
>due to an increase in advertisements, costs, or features
It never ceases to amaze me how you dumb fucks read the first part of a definition, conclude you're right and ignore the subclause telling you you're wrong.

>>16783245
While agree with you to some extent your blanket generalization is not entirely correct. Much of engineering, medicine, and computer science, as three examples, remain relatively unscathed.
The rot permeates nearly all areas of science, yes, but the extent to which it does varies greatly depending on the subject, and it varies greatly across different institution and various countries. Take Engineering. The tolerance for bullshit in that field is very low in all respects. Its very hard to talk crap on any Engineering thread or forum without being immediately being called out, and censored if persisting. I would say Mathematics is also very similar.

>>16783257
>ask a 4 year old child if he knows the difference between the word "create" and "creation." He probably will.
Yes a child would know two different words are different because they are two different words, they won't necessarily know that there are dozens of other prefixes and suffixes you can add to the root change the meaning even further depending on the meaning of the suffix and prefix until they are explicitly taught the rules of cogitation and what not.

>Were you nonverbal before entering school?
I was parrotting things, I didn't really understand where the words came from and how they are largely interconnected.

>you more than likely had the basic sentence structure down before your first year of schooling
No schooling wouldn't last decades if everyone just institutionally knew all the rules, kids wouldn't be corrected constantly because of their bad grammar and failure to adhere to the rules properly.

>People genuinely learn English by talking to each other.
No they learn how to use some words, but they don't understand how the meaning is derived and how to append all sorts of things to alter the meaning of the words, they just know how to parrot what they hear.

No it means this is how they can acutally use the words to create more meaning instead of arbitrarily making sounds that people have to memorize, its the difference between cuneiform symbols and having alphabets.

>>16783249
You know what I love most about language? Reading between the lines. You know what's communicated between the lines here? That you're absolutely seething

>>16783257
Apostrophes, periods, quotation marks, commas. Look at all that prescribed grammar you're using. Why would you do such a thing? English is descriptive! Down with the prescriptivization!

>>16783269
Obadiah Commastone invented the comma in 1746 and he is the only authority I respect, so I only use the comma and no other punctuation mark

>>16783265
>Yes a child would know two different words are different because they are two different words, they won't necessarily know that there are dozens of other prefixes and suffixes you can add to the root change the meaning even further depending on the meaning of the suffix and prefix until they are explicitly taught the rules of cogitation and what not.
Unless they're exceptionally dim, they're gonna make the connection between words like "running" and "playing" and "jumping" etc.
Obviously certain formalities will elude them unless given formal instruction. But they absolutely understand the basic idea.

>schooling wouldn't last decades if everyone just institutionally knew all the rules, kids wouldn't be corrected constantly because of their bad grammar and failure to adhere to the rules properly.
Realistically, primary schooling only lasts 13 years. But that's beside the point.
Firstly: see what I said about "formal" vs "informal."
Most importantly, though: once you get beyond like 5th grade most of your grammar shit is just focusing on intricacies like what a compound sentence is and how it differs from a complex sentence, subject-predicate shit and other stuff that doesn't actually matter in terms of effective communication.

The rest of your post is just a repeat of the first point so... see above.

>>16783269
I have read things with such symbols in them; that is how I learned to use them.

>>16783272
I CHOOSE TO WRITE IN ONLY CAPS LOCK AND AVOID ANY AND ALL PUNCTUATION AS MY ROMAN LATIN FOREFATHERS DID PAYING HOMAGE TO THE LATIN ROOTS OF ENGLISH AS SPOKEN DOWN BY GENERATION

>>16783274
You're a bit slow on the uptake so I'll rope you in to what's happening here. Your argument boils down to
>English is descriptive, not descriptive so I can use a word in whatever God damn way I fucking please and it is up to you to charitably interpret what I mean
Meanwhile, hypocritically, you follow the rules of formal written English because you know and understand, deep in your heart of hearts, that if you didn't follow these prescriptivist rules you argue against, nobody would understand you. In other words, prescriptivism aids in understanding and that includes grammar, punctuation, letter case and using the correct fucking words.

>>16782213
I wouldn't entirely blame them. Even when they do action a thread the shitposter is usually only banned for a day, and just from that particular board.
The typical shitposter has no interest in whatever is being discussed, they are just there to fill the thread with their crap. So they dont care about a ban, they just move to another board for a while and continue there, then once the ban expires they move back and repeat the whole process.
It must be hugely demotivating for the jannies.

>>16783280
No, he claims that everything he currently knows about english, he already knew as a 4 year old and that doesn't seem too far off the mark if you follow his logic.

>>16783280
>can use a word in whatever God damn way I fucking please and it is up to you to charitably interpret what I mean
Communication is a two-way street.
Yes, you should make an effort to be as charitable in your interpretation as possible. If what was meant by a word is obvious through context then it's a skill issue if you can't parse it out yourself.
That said, it is also on the speaker to make an effort to be understood. If I said "you're a nigger" and I walked it back saying "no, I've decided that's what I call people I respect" then I'd be a moron for being surprised at getting a negative reaction.
That said, "enshittification" is one of those words you really shouldn't have to look up to know what is meant. Even the dude who's credited with coining it used it in the "process by which things are made shitty" sense and just used it to talk about a specific process happening in a specific sector. I highly doubt he would take issue with OP's usage of the word.

>if you didn't follow these prescriptivist rules you argue against, nobody would understand you
I'm not even arguing against grammar rules and a degree of formalism in definitions where appropriate. What I'm arguing against is midwits who take an ostensibly informal word and tell someone he's using slang wrong because Wikipedia says so.

Violating "formal" grammar rules is fine if you're understandable when doing so. I'm sure you could point out a few grammatical errors in my posts that went overlooked because you understood what I was saying.
Playing fast and loose with definitions is fine under the same circumstances.

It depends on context.

>>16783275
Paying tribute to Capsimus Locksimus, the inventor of upper case letters? He was a big authority in his time, but not all authority stands the test of time.

>>16783287
>Even the dude who's credited with coining it used it in the "process by which things are made shitty"
No. See:
>>16783260

>*takes a physical defecation in your Cheerios*
Do you like that enshittification of your Cheerios? I bet you do.

>>16783297
Reading comprehension. I literally addressed that:
>>16783287
>Even the dude who's credited with coining it used it in the "process by which things are made shitty" sense and just used it to talk about a specific process happening in a specific sector. I highly doubt he would take issue with OP's usage of the word

>>16783299
Sorry. That word's been coined already.
You can have enpoopification if you'd like. But I wanted to use that to describe turning thomgs into poop.

>>16783303
I'm a fan of endefecatitation

File: 106 iq complainer.png (72 KB, 1024x561)

72 KB PNG

>>16782198
imagine this place actually did have intelligent people. these intelligent people, upon seeing a thread written by an idiot (regardless of content) would find no benefit to engaging with it. if they did participate, perhaps, just, maybe, they would spend that time calling the op a dumbass. maybe... just maybe it's not that the board has gone to permanent shit (it has, in some capacity)... maybe, instead, it's that dumb OPs get dumb responses. which is why your dumb OP is getting responded to in the way it is. you think it's derailing when really it's dunking on

>>16783316
>maybe... just maybe
Go back.

File: Screenshot 2025-09-12 at (...).png (71 KB, 943x675)

71 KB PNG

>>16783316

>>16783320
congratulations. you noticed i wrote at a level i felt you can understand. did it work? oh, i hope it worked. please tell me it worked. you understood, right?

>>16783324
You average reply is actually a standard deviation below the above average text you were criticizing, so it is probably too dumb for them to really understand what you are getting at, why didn't you just type at the same 106 level you knew they were communicating at?

>>16783324
>93
lol

>>16783325
a standard what? retard, this is a science board. science is prescriptive not normative. maybe, just maybe, you need to know your place before you talk to me

File: 132 IQ genius dunks on du(...).png (50 KB, 1025x469)

50 KB PNG

>>16783325
fair enough--i'll be more charitable this time. this board has intelligent people lurking and posting on it (i am one of them). while it's possible this board has gone to shit, it is more likely that dumb posts get shat on. the actual meaningful, thoughtful, intelligent OPs elicit deep, albeit brief discussions and they finish quickly without bickering (i.e., the low IQ screechers get filtered). this OP is an example of a bad one, and the posts dunking on it are proof of this. does it make you feel more intelligent to be spoken to at your level?

>>16783329
Standard IQ deviation, IQ is normalized to 100, dipshit, if you didn't want to talk pseudoscience you shouldn't have brought pseudoscientific psychobabble like IQ to the discussion.

File: cis girls laughing.png (153 KB, 634x650)

153 KB PNG

>>16783325
>93 = average
>106 = above average

>>16783333
Nope, do you not understand how IQ works? Now you are like two standard deviations above the level you are trying to communicate at.

>>16783337
According to the source that was posted and the general definition of IQ and deviation, yes.

File: Screenshot 2025-09-12 at (...).png (79 KB, 1025x736)

79 KB PNG

>>16783333
>101 IQ
lol

File: Pepe L.png (673 KB, 1000x1000)

673 KB PNG

>>16783339
actually filtered kek. no, i will not elaborate.

>>16783339
>Now you are like two standard deviations above the level you are trying to communicate at.
He isn't: >>16783343
He's still below it.

>>16783345
>>16783343
also filtered. still won't elaborate.

File: redditsoi.png (33 KB, 584x841)

33 KB PNG

>maybe... just maybe it's not that the sub that has gone to permanent shit

>>16783263
I agree with you with engineering and computer science, but medicine has been clearly hijacked by monetary interests for quite some time, too.
On the other hand, computer science is on the way out as well. Engineering resisted the decay by being a discipline grounded in physical reality, there's simply too little room for any sort of pseudointellectual mysticism and corrosive ideology. I'm sure it has its own fair share of corrupt ideas, e.g. engineers taking pride in their ability of making structures that "almost" crumble upon themselves yet don't in the name of cost effectiveness -- planned obsolescence by another name, but you can't expect total purity from any human endeavor in any historical period, and even that specific sentiment in particular is offset by the need for safety margins.
Computer science used to have immunity against the rot for nearly the same reason, plus the fact that it was a new and competitive field in which you couldn't hold luxury beliefs for long without getting outcompeted. Now that the infrastructure has all been built and innovation has been slowing down for more than a decade, the field is getting flooded by pseudointellectuals and useless eaters by virtue of it not being a purely physical field.

You're also right about mathematics, it avoids the problem by being grounded in logical proofs. Just as you can't bullshit your way into not making a bridge that instantly collapses, you can't bullshit your way out of a statement not following strictly from its premises.

Still, a field like physics (theoretical, and experimental only by way of being limited to what is theoretically acceptable) is also compromised, and that's usually the first thing one thinks about when talking about "the highest levels of science".

>>16783344
No, I am someone else besides who you were trying to talk to at a 106 level, but your stated goal was to type something at their level they could understand, yet you can only seem to type things at different standard deviations of IQ, so you aren't meeting your stated goal or don't seem to understand what that implies.

File: Screenshot 2025-09-12 at (...).png (188 KB, 1140x760)

188 KB PNG

>>16783351

File: pepe feels good.png (1.69 MB, 1280x1313)

1.69 MB PNG

>>16783353
please, my sides. stop

>>16783353
The tard is below the IQ threshold where one can reflect on their own goals/motivations.

File: 120.png (60 KB, 200x277)

60 KB PNG

>>16783333
Beautiful, exquisite bait. And with quads to boot. Anonsama, I kneel.

>>16783333
Holy shit, anon. This is magnificent bait. You're the smartest poster ITT by far.

>>16783359
thanks for the support. goes to show my efforts only filter the unintelligent

>>16783359
>>16783361
But that anon clearly only made that seething reply because their bait got reverse baited and they ended up in a double bait ruse, are you that anon by chance?

You could make a case that >>16783316 was good bait, but not >>16783333.

>>16783367
Both are excellent bait. you just got filtered by him

>>16783365
You're welcome, friend. We intelligent people need to stick together and have each others' backs in these times.

>>16783368
No, I just pointed out that 132 is not equal to 106, I am still trying to help him achieve his state goals of making a 106 reply to OP.

>>16783371
Are you trying to same I'm samefagging? I'm obviously not the same poster.

File: pepe silicaa.png (391 KB, 744x402)

391 KB PNG

>>16783371
>I just pointed out that 132 is not equal to 106
correct - it goes in the square hole.

>>16783371
and by the way -- i'm having some real fun filtering you. keep your obsessed replies coming.

ITT.
Samefag devotes much time replying to himself.

Current theories suggest that samefag
1) Has substantial mental health issues
2) Was mercilessly bullied at school and perhaps even sexually abused.
3) Takes genuine offense at OP's post and vows a terrible revenge.

Alternative crackpot theories include
1) Samefag is OP, and disappointed by the lack of shit posting does so himself.
2) Samefag is merely trying to help OP by doing exactly what OP complains about
3) Samefag wants to uncover the extent of /sci/ lack of moderation ( a cunning ploy indeed )

>>16783381
There isn't much to say now that you clearly gave up on you goal of getting a 106 text reply.

>>16783378
Do you spend a lot of your time guiding other guys into your holes?

>>16783386
I'm a girl

>>16783382
i'm not samefagging, schizo. someone else is pretending to do it. probably you.

The rate double derail. A derailment of a derail. Impressive

>>16782917
>Not everyone is gay like you
"gay like me" would mean "not gay".
>Not everyone is ~gay
>ergo, there exists a gay!
Congratulations, Anon. You have proven the existance of OP. Obvious result, but important formalization.

>>16782198
>Practically every internet site is full of grifters and idiots posting "science" videos and blogs which are just some ludicrous bullshit.
Its all part of the filter. Anyone can tell the difference between and noise and signal with critical thinking, having education helps but its not absolutely necessary.

>>16782198
You have spent too much time on places like here and plebbit. They aren't for discussions about any serious topic, they are entertainment platforms.

I dont know whether to be impressed by the accuracy of the OP or by the sheer bloody minded persistence of the retard that spent hours derailing it.
But the lesson here is: If you want to shit all over a /sci/ thread you can do so and nobody will stop you.

>>16783635
Midwit.

What keeps people in line is accountability.

>it misinforms the wider general public
I count this as a net positive. The general public is so dumb it doesn't matter. Its better to have the normies bombarded with conflicting information than just have everyone follow what the government tells them.

>>16784148
even following what the government says would be a massive improvement at this point

>>16784165
Given a survival situation, would you rather be teamed with flat earthers or government boot lickers?

File: 1757345438792715.png (1.23 MB, 1200x1169)

1.23 MB PNG

Socrates was as dumb as the students who learn about him

- Wurr 2025

>>16784182
Flat earthers are more likely to be farmers whereas govt bootlickers are more likely to be urbanites.

>>16782198
Outright fraud is a major factor in this, just have a look at Retraction Watch. The ride never ends. Fraud gives promotions and protection from the institutions. Arrest the fraudsters, send them down for 20 year, send their protective institutions who knew (but instead provided coverup and bonus) through the wringer and make sure that fraud has gruesome and permanent consequences.

>>16784046
>What keeps people in line is accountability.
That is sorely lacking and has been lacking for decades.