What will it look like?
>>69317957it's the iphone. retards are buying them and you can detect them really easy
>>69317957A website that encourages you to enter a small number of characters and displays your utterings for all the world to see.
Is anyone studying the "Dick, from the Internet" phenomena? Have these mad people always existed (and unless faced with it, most sane people remain oblivious to it) or have these mad dicks come into being by falling into some kind of foolish Internet social niche?
>>69318132I see those every single time I bring up veganism, but not that often otherwise.
>>69318132I think most people here are play acting - imitating or mocking the Dick. The real Dicks probably have some kind of emotional disorder and often seem to have related cognitive deficiencies. In some kind of bizarre inversion of a practical order, probably because of the way 4chan is designed, the Dicks seem to have significant cultural influence and they set the tone of what can be discussed and how it is discussed.
>>69318203Out of /g/, /k/, and /x/, it seems to be most pervasive by far on /g/. Why do you suppose that might be?
>>69318337Hmm, is "it" most pervasive on /g/? What are "its" characteristics? >>69317957A better, more focused question might be: What would "Retard Detection Technology" *for 4chan* look like?
>>69318337/g/, on average, has a high rate of Dunning-Kruger.Some actual knowledge from programmers who pass by, but average ni/g/ is a gadget normie.The knowledge, which has to be pre-digested by the programmer, makes our specimen stare in wonder for a moment, then feel that self-satisfaction of knowing something about the world that others do not.Then fabricated opposition (b8) comes and lets him show off his knowledge.This combination creates a /pol/-like 105 IQ genius who has deciphered the secrets of the world and can, with absolute certainty, predict opinions of everyone else in the thread. That's because everyone but him must agree with him or be like the strawmen he has beaten.You can incredibly reliably summon those by mentioning veganism. Even if you disagree with the practice itself, you'll notice that most of the opposition to veganism comes from completely clueless retards who speak with extreme conviction that only someone who skimmed a wikipedia article on nutrition can have.
>>69317957why do retards need to be detected? so what if some of them are the source of disease and calamity. people adapt to that stuff and it creates novelty. complex systems are robust that way.
>>69318501Then there's this guy who keeps saying Dunning-Kruger like he's asserting a fact. What do we call him?
>>69318501>105 IQ>geniusIs this what Dunning Kruger feels like?
>>69317957There needs to be a way to accumulate analyses like these >>69318501. Each analysis needs to be grounded with references to actual posts/threads (https://catalog.neet.tv/g/). Then the analyses can be evaluated. It gets complicated pretty fast but there definitely needs to be some kind of meta-4chan sociotechnical system. Building that seems like a lot of work just to study retards...
>>69318132They're all over the place. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmZOZjHjT5E
>>69318463>"Retard Detection Technology" *for 4chan*Posting in desktop threads
>>69318567>>69318617You seem irritated (mad?). Is the Dunning–Kruger description a little too close to home and exposing for you? In a well ordered world you would get the supervision and decision support you need. You should appreciate that and those who are building this Brave New World Order that will manage you and your kind.
>>69318720In your mind, what are "desktop threads" and how do they pertain to the technology board /g/?
>>69318716>muh drumpf video
>>69318784LOL! But you shouldn't say things like that in public. ;)
>>69318863Use your words like a big boy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YersIyzsOpc
this is the most based and legit thread to ever be posted on /g/
>>69318595Funny. But i think I'm on point. There's some people who use that to dismiss any certainty anyone may have. It's very ironic. >>69318784And he's completely oblivious.
>>69319025>But i think I'm on point.You mean ironically or what?Because if you unironically mean >>69318567, you're the exact Dick that everyone is talking about.
>>69319025There is a large class of poorly developed people who are sincerely incapable of knowing that they are low-functioning. It is not in their ability or their agenda to honesty assess themselves. To resolve this problem and make the distinction, a third-party analysis is required. That third-party must be impeccably functional and beyond corruption - a synthetic system.
>>69319072>you misinterpret, exaggerate and attack people like they're morons OK so you're missing context because you didn't read the post I replied to then? Just look at that opinion. The way to detect DK is to know the subject. There's no other way. So basically anon here has asserted himself superior to a significant number of board members. Enough to have the certainty to make this claim.Is it clearer now? That's why I think it's ironic. I really didn't think it was that hard to see what I meant. >>69319113Thank you.
>>69319245>Enough to have the certainty to make this claim.You're so incredibly certain of this, Dick.
>>69319270Did you not see how qualified my use of language were? 'Enough' isn't a good way to express a limit stringently.
The tone of feelings-based "reasoning" suggests poor cognitive functioning and that implies a lack of epistemological sophistication. That's a "Dick" signature. ;)
>>69319328Another "Dick" signature can be found in the agenda. If the priority is to win, dominate, defeat, etc. rather than to develop understanding or resolve discrepancies - if the goal is self-gratification and self-promotion over truth and rationality, then I think it's probably a "Dick".
>>69319310Funny how you still managed to avoid noticing that you're pretending to be superior to someone, just because he noticed that he's superior to someone else.You keep asserting certainty that is absent in the posts you're replying to, claiming that observations are dogmas, but in your case it must be OK because you single out someone.You really need to work on self-awareness.
>>69319310Smells like a retard.
>>69319408Another excellent analysis. You seem to have the high-functioning mind of a modern human. Greetings and salutations!
>>69319408>explaining what you think >pretending to be superior I don't think these are the same thing. I haven't even said that anon is wrong. >you keep asserting certainty that is absent You mean conclusions like. >/g/, on average, has a high rate of Dunning-Kruger Are weak claims? It's just measured /g/ to a supposed average. I don't need to repeat myself about the preconditions for this measurement. >claiming that observations are dogmaI don't, I'd like for you to point to where precisely I do that. But you've struck on the problem both me and anon recognize. He in this post >>69319113 where he essentially explains DK and what's required to make a solid claim of it. It's hard. To make the claim you'd need a truth to believe in. In this case anon has measured by himself. I wouldn't call it dogma. You don't normally call something dogma when it's a personal belief. My personal belief about DK is that it's almost pointless to bring up. It often ruins discussions because it's not addressing arguments. It's also not verifiable here so it really doesn't land you anywhere even if there was a point to proving it. When I see people bring up DK it's usually just disruptive, seemingly intentional. To dismiss the arguments with noise. A far better behavior in my option is to say why you don't want to participate. It's way more likely to convince the person that you're right when there's already arguments on the table. And when there isn't it's not steeling them against you with a personal attack, which bringing up DK is often perceived as. I think the view that you take that I'm asserting superiority might motivate that because when I asked to classify anon I meant it as a joke. Eluding to classifying everyone who does something. The comic obviously makes it to a humorous point by pretending that annoying people online are somehow fully dedicated to this character.
if 4chan is the petri dish, where is the laboratory?
>>69320304I mean there is 4chan's read-only JSON API (https://github.com/4chan/4chan-API) and all of those public archive sites, there must people people using that stuff, right?
>>69320304A reasonably effective "laboratory" would probably need a private (paid) API to 4chan that includes IP address and browser data per post.
>>69317957finally unplugging the universe's power cord while everyone is still inside it.
>>69318463Any analysis that would inform reasonable decisions and just actions would require long-term, high-resolution records that are based on calibrated instrumentation that is deeply grounded in physical reality.
>>69318296>The real Dicks probably have some kind of emotional disorder and often seem to have related cognitive deficiencies.I suspect it is very common - it may be some kind of human sub-species.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentimentalityhttps://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sophistry
>>69320458Tardzilla: The Tantrum Menace, said what?
>>69317957How dare you create a thread that challenges the validity of humanity's beloved, vicious imbeciles!
how do you distinguish a retard from a child?
>>69320970I think "retard" here is a term of convenience for a developmentally malformed person. A child that is showing signs of developmental deformity needs the careful application of behavioral orthotics, cognitive prosthetics, and moral guidance to correct the misgrowth. A deformed adult needs supervision, management, and containment to cope with the misgrowth.
Reptilian Scientists are going to imprison us!
>>69317957If anyone can figure out a way to build that technology, corporations and governments would pay billions for the ability to identify and solve human resource problems.
>>69322057Does 4chan monitor and assess its volunteer moderators and janitors?
>>69322233Obviously not, but I suspect they coordinate with backchannel communications and rich database access.
It already exists. All of us on earth right now are retards, the actual smart people disappeared millennia ago
>>69322233Dude, /g/ gets its mods from fucking /v/
>>69322557Are you saying: 1. retard detection technology already exists.2. everyone on earth right now is retarded. 3. smart people disappeared millennia ago.Can you assemble your theory in a way that is causal, reasonable, and not cognitively dyslexic?
>>69322702Have you ever met a smart person?
>>69322592The technology forum is more influenced by gamer personalities and dramatic style than STEM topics and culture?
>>69322800We are /v/'s garbage heap
>>69322718The indications of intelligent, smart people are all over the place, but to answer your question - I don't really see it at this moment.
>>69322800You mean the consumer technology forum
>>69323144If you had been here for more than 10 minutes yes
>>69323244Maybe the order should be:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentrismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentimentalityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effecthttps://rationalwiki.org/wiki/SophistryWe're getting close to a model of the /g/-tard's psyche stack.
>>69323049>consumer technology forumYou mean /g/ - Consumerist Whore Board
>>69323294missing gender dysphoria
>>69323394Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
>>69318501>but average ni/g/ is a gadget normie>>69323353>gender dysphoriaSo /g/ is like /k/ except it's for the fatherless mama's-boy type sissies?
>>69320654I think I've seen DARPA BAA's requesting stuff like that.
>>69318652>>69320349A few Python hackers could probably put something together in a weekend if it doesn't need to scale.
>>69324494You will need a database guy, yes? :)
>>69318296I think people that think they're just imitating the Dick end up becoming one without realizing it.
>>69318863The ultimate retard detection system is the MAGA hat. The hats end up on the heads of retards. If you see someone with the hat on, then the hat has done it's job and you can safely know that the person is an idiot.
>>69320427I used to run a scraper on /b/ back when they had post ids. You could tell that one person made a set of posts in one thread because the posts shared the ids, and then you could look for posts in other archived threads with the same filenames, and then recurse to build up a large connected set of one person's posts over time. (Obviously you'd have to filter out really common file names. Limiting it to the default timestamp filenames usually was good.) It was mildly interesting.