Sociopath Community

ThenFuckit stated: source post

the average person wont become a genius, obviously.

and as someone develops you can see that he wont be a genius(on average)... and as you can see that it decreases his potential to be a genius. overtime. which decreases his potential value.

 

The chance to kill a future genius kid is higher then the chance to kill a future genius adult, if you kill one of these groups at random. Obviously. How are they the same, when the kid has more opportunities and a higher chance, because he has more time to develop, while an adult would have wasted his opportunities(on average, an adult is not a genius, so he must of wasted his opportunities to be one) and has less time for more opportunities?

Holy shit Meta, I can't believe you work with logic to earn your money. Go read what Inky said too. Your illogical mistake is that you assume in your example that the adult wasted his opportunities, while having some sort of illogical faith in the chances of a random kid. The chance of that random adult having wasted his opportunities for becoming great is AS BIG AS as the chance that random child IS GOING TO waste his. The average kid WON"T grow up into a genius either. The chance that a kid might become someone great is NOT bigger just because you don't know it, lmao. Logic says a random kid has the exact chance of becoming a great person as an adult of being a great person, end of story.

ThenFuckit stated: source post

Go sell a child. Go sell an adult. Which is considered more valuable?

I actually think a child would be more valuable in general lol. But probably a lower demand.

I missed this nonsense. Dude, child slaves always costed less than adults. Adults which had already gained a skill (eg blacksmith) were valued the most. The slave masers saw the obvious cold truth: the value of a kid you will have to invest in is LESS than an adult's who already got to grow up and learn skills.

A healthy 18-year-old slave could be bought for $650 in 1845. (About $14,500 in today's dollars.)

That same slave could be sold five years later for $1,000. (About $21,000 in today's dollars.)

That same slave, if he or she were still healthy, could be sold again. In the years right before the Civil War, such a slave might bring nearly $2,000. (About $40,000 in today's dollars.)

Inquirer stated: source post

 

ThenFuckit stated: source post

The chance to kill a future genius kid is higher then the chance to kill a future genius adult, if you kill one of these groups at random. Obviously. How are they the same, when the kid has more opportunities and a higher chance, because he has more time to develop, while an adult would have wasted his opportunities(on average, an adult is not a genius, so he must of wasted his opportunities to be one) and has less time for more opportunities?

I don't get this. A kid has a higher potential (because we don't know how he'll turn out) but the average adult had that same potential once. Since a random kid is going to turn into an average adult, how can the chance to pick out a genius kid be higher than the chance to pick out a genius adult? It should be the same.

i guess you need a picture.

graph 1

As you can see, the more time someone is alive the less opportunities he has. Unless he took opportunities to become the great person that can change the world, then his potential to become a great person to change the world goes down, as illustrated in graph 1.

And in earlier posts i was talking how that even thought the chance to be a great person is small, its value is still high. So each time this chance decreases, a large chuck of the potential value also goes down. And since the entire value of a person is composed of several variables, one of which is the potential value to be a great person, his overall value also goes down.

The main problem is that you do not know how a kid will waste his opportunities. A kid might not waste his opportunities, which is why he has potential value to be a great person. Please not the potential, its not actual value, its only a potential value. So every kid in this world that you pick at random, has this potential. Yes a kid is probably going to be an average person, but you can't be sure of it.
At the same time if you pick a random adult, most adults have already wasted some of their opportunities. So you know for a fact that they have a lower chance to be a great person. For a fact, you are not dealing with might be a great person, you know for a fact they have a smaller chance then any child to be a great person.

So an average adult has a smaller chance to be a great person then an average kid and you know this for a fact. And since the chance to be a great person has a very high value => an average kid has more value then an average adult, since an average adult has 99.999..% to continue to be an average adult, while a kid has 99.995..% to become an average adult(less %, so a kid has a greater % to be a great person).

Edvard stated: source post

 

ThenFuckit stated: source post

the average person wont become a genius, obviously.

and as someone develops you can see that he wont be a genius(on average)... and as you can see that it decreases his potential to be a genius. overtime. which decreases his potential value.

 

The chance to kill a future genius kid is higher then the chance to kill a future genius adult, if you kill one of these groups at random. Obviously. How are they the same, when the kid has more opportunities and a higher chance, because he has more time to develop, while an adult would have wasted his opportunities(on average, an adult is not a genius, so he must of wasted his opportunities to be one) and has less time for more opportunities?

Holy shit Meta, I can't believe you work with logic to earn your money. Go read what Inky said too. Your illogical mistake is that you assume in your example that the adult wasted his opportunities, while having some sort of illogical faith in the chances of a random kid. The chance of that random adult having wasted his opportunities for becoming great is AS BIG AS as the chance that random child IS GOING TO waste his. The average kid WON"T grow up into a genius either. The chance that a kid might become someone great is NOT bigger just because you don't know it, lmao. Logic says a random kid has the exact chance of becoming a great person as an adult of being a great person, end of story.

I even work with risk assessment, part of the business logic.

Every child has a chance to be a great person. This is a fact not faith. Do you disagree? 
Every average adult has a smaller chance to be a great person then every child. This is a fact, not faith. Do you disagree?
As a child turns into an adult, the persons chance to be a great person goes down. Do you disagree?

Since i have attributed value to the chance to be a great person, the overall value of the person goes down.

Also, the chance of an adult becoming a great person is a different variable then the chance of an adult being a great person, you dimwit.

Edvard stated: source post

 

ThenFuckit stated: source post

Go sell a child. Go sell an adult. Which is considered more valuable?

I actually think a child would be more valuable in general lol. But probably a lower demand.

I missed this nonsense. Dude, child slaves always costed less than adults. Adults which had already gained a skill (eg blacksmith) were valued the most. The slave masers saw the obvious cold truth: the value of a kid you will have to invest in is LESS than an adult's who already got to grow up and learn skills.

A healthy 18-year-old slave could be bought for $650 in 1845. (About $14,500 in today's dollars.)

That same slave could be sold five years later for $1,000. (About $21,000 in today's dollars.)

That same slave, if he or she were still healthy, could be sold again. In the years right before the Civil War, such a slave might bring nearly $2,000. (About $40,000 in today's dollars.)

How does it translate into the sex trafficking industry?

ThenFuckit stated: source post

I even work with risk assessment, part of the business logic.

Get a backup job.

Every child has a chance to be a great person. This is a fact not faith. Do you disagree? 

No. Let's say that chance is X. .

Every average adult has a smaller chance to be a great person then every child. This is a fact, not faith. Do you disagree?

Ofc I disagree. There are adults who WILL become a great person, and the chance of a random adult BEING one of those who became a great person is just as big as the chance of a random kid to become a great person: X.

Arguing against this means you assume the incidence of great people somehow INCREASES, which is illogical. If 1 in 100 adults is great, then the chances of a random kid to become great is X= 1%. If you choose a random adult from the crowd, the chance of them being great is X=1%.

As a child turns into an adult, the persons chance to be a great person goes down. Do you disagree?

Yeah I do. It can very well increase.

Since i have attributed value to the chance to be a great person, the overall value of the person goes down.

You have attributed wrong values.

Also, the chance of an adult becoming a great person is a different variable then the chance of an adult being a great person, you dimwit.

You are overcomplicating it. We were strictly talking adults vs children. I lumped in together the adults who have already achieved their greatness potential with adults who WILL achieve their greatness potential.

How does it translate into the sex trafficking industry?

Is society closer to a sex industry to you, or a work industry to you?

an average normal child has inherently more potential than an average normal adult im just going to add this cuz its a thought stream a normal child will have normal settings parents etc (normal here implies not abusive parents or any external stimulus which might trigger a behavioral abnormality by societies standards) so the child has more to look forward as the adult has likely been using up inferior resources than the child will in the future and thus it will be likely that the child will achieve more as he has superior resources and i.e has more potential.

edit:normal also implies the child will have average intelligence as well

ThenFuckit stated: source post

So an average adult has a smaller chance to be a great person then an average kid and you know this for a fact. And since the chance to be a great person has a very high value => an average kid has more value then an average adult, since an average adult has 99.999..% to continue to be an average adult, while a kid has 99.995..% to become an average adult(less %, so a kid has a greater % to be a great person).

Don't patronize me with super basic graphs, lol.

The potential of a kid is a hidden value. When the kid becomes an adult that potential is revealed, right? It does not change. Given this, the only difference between picking a random kid vs a random adult is whether you get to know their potential (or achieved potential) from the start or not.

This assumes you do not get to groom the kid or that, like TPG mentioned, the resources available to the kid is greater than those the adult had to work with.

It's good to know that I'm not losing my mind and that someone else sees this the way I do, I started to doubt my judgement. I now understand how Turncoat must feel all the time.

Edvard stated: source post

 

ThenFuckit stated: source post

I even work with risk assessment, part of the business logic.

Get a backup job.

Just because you do not understand this extremely simple concept?

Every average adult has a smaller chance to be a great person then every child. This is a fact, not faith. Do you disagree?

Ofc I disagree. There are adults who WILL become a great person, and the chance of a random adult BEING one of those who became a great person is just as big as the chance of a random kid to become a great person: X.

No this is not true.

Lets say there is a pool of people where there are X% great people.
There is X% chance that any random adult there already is a great person.

Now pick a random child, there is 0 chance that they already are a great person. But they have aX% chance to become a great person. Say they have the average parents and money and status and all things are average.
Now wait a few years for the child to develop into an adult and examine these 3 possibilities:
- the adult has no education, no job, he is homeless : does this adult still have X% chance to become a great person? Or is it a much lower value?

- the adult has a normal education and a normal job, just like all his peers, has no specialty whatsoever. Here is where you can argue if he still has X% to be a great person. I think this person still has a high amount chance to be a great person, but i think its less then the starting X%. Because he could of been exception till now, but he has not been and now he has less time to be exceptional.

- the adult was perfect in middle/high school and he was perfect in university, become a scientist in fields that almost no one knows about, except a handful of people on the planet. This person has a higher then X% chance to become a great person.

Clearly the X% chance of a kid to become a great person will change as they age. So a kid has a different chance to become a great person then an adult person has. And on average, this % will decrease.

If 1 in 100 adults is great, then the chances of a random kid to become great is X= 1%. If you choose a random adult from the crowd, the chance of them being great is X=1%.

Yes i do not disagree with this. But i never talked about if an adult is gonna be a great person, or if an adult can become a great person. Those are different values and every value adds to the overall value of a person. The chance to be a great person is a fixed value. The chance to become a great person is a value that changes as you age. On average it decreases.

As a child turns into an adult, the persons chance to be a great person goes down. Do you disagree?

Yeah I do. It can very well increase.

Yes it may. But the average person is not a great person, so on average it will decrease.

Since i have attributed value to the chance to be a great person, the overall value of the person goes down.

You have attributed wrong values.

Maybe i have, but i think a person that changes the world is worth millions of people. Which makes any chance to create such a person very valuable.

Also, the chance of an adult becoming a great person is a different variable then the chance of an adult being a great person, you dimwit.

You are overcomplicating it. We were strictly talking adults vs children. I lumped in together the adults who have already achieved their greatness potential with adults who WILL achieve their greatness potential.

You have to also lump the adults that will not achieve greatness. Those are the majority.

How does it translate into the sex trafficking industry?

Is society closer to a sex industry to you, or a work industry to you?

The question was if i can sell a seed or a tree for more. You used this as an example for people.
So if i am selling a person and i want to sell them for the highest amount of money, i won't care if society is anything. I will only care where can i get the highest value. So if i have an adult and a child and i can only sell one of them, i will look in all industries for each of them and pick the one where they cost the most.

Inquirer stated: source post

 

ThenFuckit stated: source post

So an average adult has a smaller chance to be a great person then an average kid and you know this for a fact. And since the chance to be a great person has a very high value => an average kid has more value then an average adult, since an average adult has 99.999..% to continue to be an average adult, while a kid has 99.995..% to become an average adult(less %, so a kid has a greater % to be a great person).

Don't patronize me with super basic graphs, lol.

The potential of a kid is a hidden value. When the kid becomes an adult that potential is revealed, right? It does not change. Given this, the only difference between picking a random kid vs a random adult is whether you get to know their potential (or achieved potential) from the start or not.

This assumes you do not get to groom the kid or that, like TPG mentioned, the resources available to the kid is greater than those the adult had to work with.

Yes, this is a good point, it is a hidden value. And yes this is the only difference.
So the more correct way to say this, is to say that the variable which attributes great value to a child and not so much to an adult, is not the potential of a child to become a great person, but rather the known potential to become a great person.

If you can know for sure how a child will turn up, you will probably prefer an adult, even if you do not know anything about an adult.
But no one knows that for sure for any child.

If a random kid will turn into an average adult it doesn't matter which one you pick, the end result (how 'great' that person will be as an adult) is the same between the two.