Discussion At what age did you start developing deeper reasoning and understanding of complex subjects and interactions?

[SlutLiberationFront]

I'm not talking about understand math or anything, I'm talking about understanding philosophical concepts, ramifications, implications, arguments and counter-arguments.
Basically, when did you start to form basis to support your claims?

---

Things like:

• Holding someone's claim(s) to scrutiny.
• Holding [one of] your claim(s) against someone else's scrutiny.
• Being able to argue with someone with a basis for your points instead of just saying "because!" or something like that, using your own evidence, reasoning, philosophical points or beliefs.
• Trying to debunk in whatever way someone's claims or supposed evidences for a point you thought should hold up to scrutiny, with your own points, evidences and logic.
• Collecting any evidence you thought would hold any of your points or arguments from being debunked.
• Talking to someone else with the same points as you or arguments and forming a basis with them and argue against points contrary to what you have, and each taking on each other's points and basis instead of anything else outside the pure argumentation.
• Understanding the totality of actions, I.E. what they would lead to in the long-term, their implications, what they could lead to in several ways and especially their immediate consequences.
• Where a wide range of problems could arise from, their causes, consequences, and what changes they make in people's lives and their livelihoods.
• Understanding that most things are not fast and require a process and multiple steps, development, and being able to understand them.
• Being able to understand philosophical questions on various subjects, not necessarily in too many aspects, could be in whatever subject you were interested in.

---

It's a fact that not everyone develops at the same rate, especially mentally, so I expect a lot of difference in responses, and of course, there are people that are not really capable of that alone and depend on third parties for help in forming points, gathering evidence and trying to hold claims to scrutiny or defending their claims from scrutiny and argue.

 

[Sylvester]

The first time i started getting bullied outside and abused by my family that made me lose faith in morality and wonder about the meaning of life and how i survive in it.

 

[SupremeGentleman48]

Like 25. I was such an ignorant buffoon before then.

 

[Deleted member 40252]

I would say 10 or 11

 

[bigantennaemay1]

I don't know, maybe around 23 or 24, and to be honest, I still have trouble holding my own.

 

[SlutLiberationFront]

@Edmund_Kemper I am interested in your response since your threads are godlike IQ every time and have the best content in the website.

 

[jerkjocky]

I would say 10 or 11

yeah same id say in middle school. but only with other kids. for adults, id say in high school

 

[jerkjocky]

@Edmund_Kemper I am interested in your response since your threads are godlike IQ every time and have the best content in the website.

are you ethnic like him? he posts he hates whites

 

[Pillow City Pimp]

I'm not talking about understand math or anything, I'm talking about understanding philosophical concepts, ramifications, implications, arguments and counter-arguments.
Basically, when did you start to form basis to support your claims?

---

Things like:

Holding someone's claim(s) to scrutiny.
Holding [one of] your claim(s) against someone else's scrutiny.
Being able to argue with someone with a basis for your points instead of just saying "because!" or something like that, using your own evidence, reasoning, philosophical points or beliefs.
Trying to debunk in whatever way someone's claims or supposed evidences for a point you thought should hold up to scrutiny, with your own points, evidences and logic.
Collecting any evidence you thought would hold any of your points or arguments from being debunked.
Talking to someone else with the same points as your or arguments and forming a basis with them and argue against points contrary to what you have, and each taking on each other's points and basis instead of anything else outside the pure argumentation.
Understanding the totality of actions, I.E. what they would lead to in the long-term, their implications, what they could lead to in several ways and especially their immediate consequences.
Where a wide range of problems could arise from, their causes, consequences, and what changes they make in people's lives and their livelihoods.
Understanding that most things are not fast and require a process and multiple steps, development, and being able to understand them.
Being able to understand philosophical questions on various subjects, not necessarily in too many aspects, could be in whatever you were interested in.

---

It's a fact that not everyone develops at the same rate, especially mentally, so I expect a lot of difference in responses, and of course, there are people that are not really capable of that alone and depend on third parties for help in forming points, gathering evidence and trying to hold claims to scrutiny or defending their claims from scrutiny and argue.

7

 

[SlutLiberationFront]

are you ethnic like him? he posts he hates whites

His threads quoting immense studies of extreme importance to every subject related to the blackpill are simply invaluable and reason why they are almost always pinned or end up in the must-read section. He is doing an excellent job in backing up most of our claims quoting extensive, long-term studies, from today and from decades ago, all while cucks just chimp out and seethe about our existence and keep whining that we exist while we mostly back it all up with solid, empirical evidences of our claims and the foundations of our reality, while cucks drown in delusions and just act like apes.

As so many people have pointed out, they never back anything up while we do it, they just throw shit around like monkeys in a zoo laughing at us but none of them dare to debunk any study, because you just can't argue against reality.

 

[1337hikki]

I would say 10 or 11

Around same, my neuroticism gave me high skepticism, introspection and nonconformity

 

[jerkjocky]

His threads quoting immense studies of extreme importance to every subject related to the blackpill are simply invaluable and reason why they are almost always pinned or end up in the must-read section. He is doing an excellent job in backing up most of our claims quoting extensive, long-term studies, from today and from decades ago, all while cucks just chimp out and seethe about our existence and keep whining that we exist while we mostly back it all up with solid, empirical evidences of our claims and the foundations of our reality, while cucks drown in delusions and just act like apes.

As so many people have pointed out, they never back anything up while we do it, they just throw shit around like monkeys in a zoo laughing at us but none of them dare to debunk any study, because you just can't argue against reality.

i asked if you were a fucking white hating ethnic like him, not a bunch of bullshit dude

 

[SlutLiberationFront]

i asked if you were a fucking white hating ethnic like him, not a bunch of bullshit dude

Argue about your issue you have with him to him, not to me, I'm not your therapist.

 

[SlutLiberationFront]

skepticism

That's why it is important to learn about scrutiny very early in life, as older people use it against younger people as a weapon and shut them down because they just don't comprehend it and don't know how to defend against it.

 

[Subhuman Niceguy]

13 -15 as soon as I entered high school.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

23

 

[SlutLiberationFront]

Around same, my neuroticism gave me high skepticism, introspection and nonconformity

That's why it is important to learn about scrutiny very early in life, as older people use it against younger people as a weapon and shut them down because they just don't comprehend it and don't know how to defend against it.

Important to note, they mainly use it to impose respect because of that "respect your elders" bullshit, so they use what they already learned against those that have not learned, overwhelming them, and gaining their control and respect because they are overwhelmed by things they cannot comprehend or have not learned about. It's a weapon they use all the time, but every time they find someone who doesn't fall for their bullshit and stand their ground and they developed reasoning their bullshit falls flat and the respect they want to have at force is lost and every effort in vain.

 

[Subhuman Niceguy]

I'll never forget how foids treated me differently than they treated the other boys. If foids don't validate a boy, he can't become popular.

 

[based_meme]

13 -15 as soon as I entered high school.

Same tbh. My vocabulary wasn't rich at that age, but it was still good, so I'd get my points across without losing the meaning of the content. When I was a kid (6-7) I'd ask a lot of why questions, but couldn't articulate myself properly. For example, I'd ask my dad's colleague what his specialty in medicine was and when he told me I'd ask "why" and he would just laugh like "that's my specialty." He wouldn't complete the blanks and infer that I'm asking, "why did you choose that as your specialty?"

 

[YuiIsMyCope]

tldr

 

[1337hikki]

Important to note, they mainly use it to impose respect because of that "respect your elders" bullshit, so they use what they already learned against those that have not learned, overwhelming them, and gaining their control and respect because they are overwhelmed by things they cannot comprehend or have not learned about. It's a weapon they use all the time, but every time they find someone who doesn't fall for their bullshit and stand their ground and they developed reasoning their bullshit falls flat and the respect they want to have at force is lost and every effort in vain.

Yeah older ppl have the advantage of just being around longer and having more time to form opinions. Non-nt's with high introspection seem to be able to mature faster in that sense. Normie zoomers honestly amaze me sometimes with how little they know about anything.

 

[Subhuman Niceguy]

Same tbh. My vocabulary wasn't rich at that age, but it was still good, so I'd get my points across without losing the meaning of the content. When I was a kid (6-7) I'd ask a lot of why questions, but couldn't articulate myself properly. For example, I'd ask my dad's colleague what his specialty in medicine was and when he told me I'd ask "why" and he would just laugh like "that's my specialty." He wouldn't complete the blanks and infer that I'm asking, "why did you choose that as your specialty?"

 

[TiredofTalking]

I honestly don’t think I have ever grasped any of that lol

 

[HyperVersager_4EVER]

Despite your attempt to elaborate "deeper reasoning and understanding of complex subjects" is still nebulously defined. Some members are thinking about emergence of their abstract thoughts(hence early teens responses) others are thinking about overall life wisdom(hence early 20s responses).
That's why the ages in answers are all over the place.

 

[wei#3959]

Important to note, they mainly use it to impose respect because of that "respect your elders" bullshit, so they use what they already learned against those that have not learned, overwhelming them, and gaining their control and respect because they are overwhelmed by things they cannot comprehend or have not learned about. It's a weapon they use all the time, but every time they find someone who doesn't fall for their bullshit and stand their ground and they developed reasoning their bullshit falls flat and the respect they want to have at force is lost and every effort in vain.

the sooner those elders realize they're p.o.s. the better lol

 

[Caesercel]

College. I went through an atheist phase back then and picked up on a lot of this stuff mentioned. Also got some friends who opened my eyes to seeing the world in a different more critical manner.

Despite your attempt to elaborate "deeper reasoning and understanding of complex subjects" is still nebulously defined. Some members are thinking about emergence of their abstract thoughts(hence early teens responses) others are thinking about overall life wisdom(hence early 20s responses).
That's why the ages in answers are all over the place.

This too

 

[TallCelFag]

Never developed any of those things, low IQ trait

 

[SlutLiberationFront]

Despite your attempt to elaborate "deeper reasoning and understanding of complex subjects" is still nebulously defined. Some members are thinking about emergence of their abstract thoughts(hence early teens responses) others are thinking about overall life wisdom(hence early 20s responses).
That's why the ages in answers are all over the place.

I can't elaborate things that well as I am not very good at putting things to words, but if you want to help me further expanding the thread with your own inputs into the thread to help people understand better and offer more points to explain what it is all about and more examples, and a mod give me permission to further edit it, I'm all in.

@Caesercel if that last part is possible, of course.

 

[Caesercel]

I can't elaborate things that well as I am not very good at putting things to words, but if you want to help me further expanding the thread with your own inputs into the thread to help people understand better and offer more points to explain what it is all about and more examples, and a mod give me permission to further edit it, I'm all in.

@Caesercel if that last part is possible, of course.

Sure why not

 

[AverageBloke]

17-18. When I started reading the newspaper and got into politics

 

[Intellau_Celistic]

When I was a young child. However, it became evident at the age of twelve.

I have a brain lesion, resulting in Dyscalculia and NLD. When I was a young child, I also received academic excellence certificates. However, Mother chose to home-school me due to my ASD symptoms and domestic violence experiences. I ended up spending my time reading dictionaries, medical books, digital encyclopedias and searching for medical information online since Mother was often too busy violently arguing with her husband to help me.

 

[SlutLiberationFront]

@HyperVersager_4EVER would you like to help with more inputs, examples and explanations? Caesercel would allow me to edit it further and expand the thread.

 

[Cope_Time]

Those points are vaguely defined

I can say 18-19

 

[SlutLiberationFront]

Those points are vaguely defined

I can say 18-19

I want to make this a fruitful discussion, but I need help with more examples, further explanation and definitions. Feel free to help me since @HyperVersager_4EVER is not responding and Caesercel said he would grant me permission to further edit the thread to add more information to help people understand better.

 

[Cope_Time]

I want to make this a fruitful discussion, but I need help with more examples, further explanation and definitions. Feel free to help me since @HyperVersager_4EVER is not responding and Caesercel said he would grant me permission to further edit the thread to add more information to help people understand better.

I believe it is because of your questions nature, being dumb or smart are not like white and black, you can't pinpoint a set of behaviors and define them as "being enlightened".

So, the definition of "being enlightened" is vague.

 

[TheDarkEnigma]

When I was around 12 or 13.

 

[HyperVersager_4EVER]

I want to make this a fruitful discussion, but I need help with more examples, further explanation and definitions. Feel free to help me since @HyperVersager_4EVER is not responding and Caesercel said he would grant me permission to further edit the thread to add more information to help people understand better.

I just logged in again ffs
Do not expect anyone to instantly see your responses pls

I believe it is because of your questions nature, being dumb or smart are not like white and black, you can't pinpoint a set of behaviors and define them as "being enlightened".

Basically this. Let's go by some of the examples you already gave

• Being able to understand philosophical questions on various subjects, not necessarily in too many aspects, could be in whatever subject you were interested in.

What exactly is understanding in this context? Even middle schoolers can have a very surface level of understanding aesthetics, logic, determinism, empiricism, rights, morals/ethics, justice, etc. If you mean in-depth knowledge of such subjects as to understand and critique texts written about them even many adults lack that.

Understanding that most things are not fast and require a process and multiple steps, development, and being able to understand them.

Well even primary schoolers know that seeds do not instantly turn into threes. The nuances between induvial steps might be lost, but the concept of gradual transition is learned pretty early.

Where a wide range of problems could arise from, their causes, consequences, and what changes they make in people's lives and their livelihoods.

"Little Timmy, unfortunately we can't buy you many toys this month since papa's business isn't doing good. If you can just be a little bit patient mommy will buy you toys again later."
A 8yo can make the connection between bad economy>parents buying less toys

Being able to argue with someone with a basis for your points instead of just saying "because!" or something like that, using your own evidence, reasoning, philosophical points or beliefs.

Have you seen kids argue? They "reason" too, although not always in a very cogent manner, magical thinking and such. The cut off point for when argumentation becomes purely factual and quantifiable is left to each individual forum member's initiative here. Even then many adults argue on emotions and preconceptions.
[UWSL]I would love to help OP but I do not think there is a way to specify this thread so that it would universally invoke the same mental image inside everyone's minds, again due to innate open-endedness of the question.[/UWSL]

 

[aeoae]

Between 3 and 4.

 

[SlutLiberationFront]

I want to make this a fruitful discussion, but I need help with more examples, further explanation and definitions. Feel free to help me since @HyperVersager_4EVER is not responding and Caesercel said he would grant me permission to further edit the thread to add more information to help people understand better.

I believe it is because of your questions nature, being dumb or smart are not like white and black, you can't pinpoint a set of behaviors and define them as "being enlightened".

So, the definition of "being enlightened" is vague.

---

It's not being "enlightened", it's being able to sustain your claims and beliefs with either a basis, or empirical evidence of sorte sort or arguments that you think support any of what you claim, observational or material evidences. My mistake if comes across as wrong. It's about how far you could concisely argue about something without derailing or losing the point, being consistent and not letting "open doors" for "smart comebacks in the gotcha!" style because you had strong reasoning and could back up in some way.

---

I want to make this a fruitful discussion, but I need help with more examples, further explanation and definitions. Feel free to help me since @HyperVersager_4EVER is not responding and Caesercel said he would grant me permission to further edit the thread to add more information to help people understand better.

I just logged in again ffs
Do not expect anyone to instantly see your responses pls

I believe it is because of your questions nature, being dumb or smart are not like white and black, you can't pinpoint a set of behaviors and define them as "being enlightened".

Basically this. Let's go by some of the examples you already gave

• Being able to understand philosophical questions on various subjects, not necessarily in too many aspects, could be in whatever subject you were interested in.

What exactly is understanding in this context? Even middle schoolers can have a very surface level of understanding aesthetics, logic, determinism, empiricism, rights, morals/ethics, justice, etc. If you mean in-depth knowledge of such subjects as to understand and critique texts written about them even many adults lack that.

Understanding that most things are not fast and require a process and multiple steps, development, and being able to understand them.

Well even primary schoolers know that seeds do not instantly turn into threes. The nuances between induvial steps might be lost, but the concept of gradual transition is learned pretty early.

Where a wide range of problems could arise from, their causes, consequences, and what changes they make in people's lives and their livelihoods.

"Little Timmy, unfortunately we can't buy you many toys this month since papa's business isn't doing good. If you can just be a little bit patient mommy will buy you toys again later."
A 8yo can make the connection between bad economy>parents buying less toys

Being able to argue with someone with a basis for your points instead of just saying "because!" or something like that, using your own evidence, reasoning, philosophical points or beliefs.

Have you seen kids argue? They "reason" too, although not always in a very cogent manner, magical thinking and such. The cut off point for when argumentation becomes purely factual and quantifiable is left to each individual forum member's initiative here. Even then many adults argue on emotions and preconceptions.
I would love to help OP but I do not think there is a way to specify this thread so that it would universally invoke the same mental image inside everyone's minds, again due to innate open-endedness of the question.

---

I'm sorry, brother, I tagged you because you were showing as online still hours later when I was here, so I thought you were online in the forum, my mistake, pardon me, it was not my intention to bother you tagging you that many times. My bad. In other words, I would gladly take help from both of you in getting more inputs and better examples on this subject for a second thread so everything is more clear and we can discuss and even try to test how far we can scrutinize any claim, especially those that seek to, at any cost, go contrary to empirical and material evidence. If you 2 would like to help me with more thorough inputs, explanations and examples, hit me up in PM and I can make another thread far better than this one so everyone can understand better and have a more fruitful discussion and exchange of experiences. Sorry for the inconvenience, I am not the best when it comes to putting thoughts and feelings to words or describing things in an understandable way.

---

 

[subhuman]

6 years old