Instigator / Pro
11
1526
rating
66
debates
54.55%
won
Topic
#4653

Humans fit into 10 intellect types

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
2
3

After 3 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...

Intelligence_06
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Rated
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Minimal rating
None
Contender / Con
21
1737
rating
169
debates
72.78%
won
Description

1/10: The low functioning autist/down syndrome etc. having type. These types are characterized by having relatively high EQ to compensate for their low IQ. When they don't have relatively high EQ it is for environmental reasons or because they are subhuman and not the true type.

2/10: "The neanderthal". Not literally, but in the sense they are the most brutish stereotypically caveman-like intellect. They tend to have IQs in the lower 80s and have a rigid way of thinking. They tend to be right wing.

3/10: Usually female or gay, this type is the opposite of type 2 and type 4. They gravitate towards creativity and emotion and usually have an IQ in the 90s. They are capable of doing well academically and increasing their IQ or neglecting academics and seeming dumb in that way.

4/10: This type is a more sophisticated type 2.

5/10: This is the first type that is recognized as above average and is the most diverse type. They are in the middle between being left and right brained but can lean either way.

6/10: This is the type that has the highest IQ besides type 10 and 9. They are the autistic robots that lack social and strategic intelligence compared to higher types but can beat the higher types at math.

7/10: These types are creative geniuses. Many artists and inventors fall into type 7.

8/10: This is where true genius begins. Type 8 always has high functioning autism and specializes in logic but doesn't lack right brained abilities.

9/10: These types are always psychopaths who specialize in strategy, cunning and manipulation and are able to emulate empathy with logic.

10/10: These types mirror type 5 but are more specifically smack dab in the middle of being left and right brained. They also mirror a combination of type 6 and type 8 because they always have high functioning autism and have the IQ of a type 6 or higher. They are ridiculous hyper-geniuses who constantly crave intellectual stimulation.

Round 1
Pro
#1
Haven't you noticed how dumb people tend to be more brutish in mentality until a certain point where it cuts off and then they become high EQ for being so dumb? Or how the average feminine brain is less technically able than the average masculine brain but more intellectual (5/10) males are often effeminate or nerdy and less "macho". There is a yin/yang pattern to brain types. A type 7/10 for example is emotionally very yang (masculine) and intellectually very yin (feminine). This leads to an explosive, passionate way of reacting to life combined with a wavy and eclectic way of processing it which leads to artistic genius when properly channeled.

A type 6/10 is the polar opposite leading to a brain that is good at math but mirrors type 1/10 in terms of social skills. The hyper-yin emotions of a type 6 paired with the rigid way they think often leaves them less equipped to deal with life than a type 7. They don't necessarily have hyper-stereotypically-female emotions though, they are often "dull" emotionally. Yin/yang don't perfectly correlate to masculine and feminine in the stereotypical sense and the emotional side of things more broadly deals with how they react to the world and their own thoughts. The intellectual side is how they process rather than how they react, but both ultimately comprise and determine the type.

 This theory has no direct support since it's my theory but I will try to muster sources that support it in the next round.
Con
#2
Arg 1: Literal Concession

Pro has not given any sources on anything. Looking at his R1 argument, it appears that the only 10-category assignment is the one Pro wrote in the description.

There is one problem.
4/10: This type is a more sophisticated type 2
Type 4 is, in Pro's own words, a proper subset of type 2. This means that type 4 and the other classifications are not on the same level. On the primary level which includes the other classifications, there appears to be nine; and if we count sub-classes, who are we to say that there aren't distinct subclasses under the other types as well! Due to Pro not stating said subclasses, we cannot conclude that there are only 10 types of people here. The topic literally cannot be proven as of this point.

tldr: Pro's description for type 4 has singlehandedly undermined the validity of his framework in respect to the actual topic.

Round 2
Pro
#3
Con has misunderstood type 2 and type 4. Type 2 represents the dumb brute type of personality and type 4 represents the average stereotypical male or masculine female. They are both yang/masculine in both emotion and the way they process things but 2 is an extreme yang and 4 is a more moderate but still significantly yang leaning type.

Con's argument was almost equivalent to a forfeit. He doesn't understand the types, he was just looking for a cheap excuse to say "I win".

I am going to either wait until the next round or not even bother with sources since I'm a lazy son of a bitch and it is difficult to find good relevant sources for this.






Con
#4
Con has misunderstood type 2 and type 4. Type 2 represents the dumb brute type of personality and type 4 represents the average stereotypical male or masculine female. They are both yang/masculine in both emotion and the way they process things but 2 is an extreme yang and 4 is a more moderate but still significantly yang leaning type.
Pro has not given the source for this, nor has Pro specified exactly this before. This is what Pro said in the description:
4/10: This type is a more sophisticated type 2.
Nothing more.

This is moving the goalpost, essentially.

Round 3
Pro
#5
I haven't moved the goalpost, Con made the mistake of focusing on one short statement instead of seeking clarification on a theory I didn't fully explain. Now Con has one more chance to accurately debunk my theory and I'm not going to give him enough information to do so. Type 2 and type 4 were always distinct but similar but I didn't fully explain the theory. Con is swinging a stick in the dark trying to strike a pinata that is in a whole different room. It should be understood that he has made 0 progress whereas there are several patterns you may have already noticed which point to my theory being correct:

1: Dumb people are brutish but people with low functioning autism and down syndrome tend to be strangely capable of empathy for being so dumb.

2: Males who are more or less intelligent than average but still close to average are less stereotypically masculine.

3: Math geniuses tend to be socially inept savants but creative geniuses are eccentric but more generally capable.




Con
#6
I haven't moved the goalpost, Con made the mistake of focusing on one short statement instead of seeking clarification on a theory I didn't fully explain.
What appears to be the problem here is bolded. Before stating that the presumptions is not fully fledged out, the opposition has otherwise zero ways of knowing this and can only assume that the previously-established framework is the complete one that will be with the arguments. By merely stating that "I didn't fully explain", the goalpost is both intended to be moved and actually not moved, meaning that this statement is unproductive, and basing an entire round on a statement that does nothing does nothing.

Now Con has one more chance to accurately debunk my theory and I'm not going to give him enough information to do so. Type 2 and type 4 were always distinct but similar but I didn't fully explain the theory. Con is swinging a stick in the dark trying to strike a pinata that is in a whole different room.
Exactly. Basing an entire round on a statement that does nothing does nothing, and elaborating on what doesn't doesn't anything either.

Now again, let's see how ridiculous "I didn't fully explain" is as a remedial attempt.
Pro: Abortion should always be illegal.
Con: That is not true, Abortion should be legal when the mother is in danger!
Pro: Except not, because I forgot to state that this topic explicitly excludes cases where the mother is in danger!
Con: Oh come on.
See? It is indeed moving the goalpost.

It should be understood that he has made 0 progress whereas there are several patterns you may have already noticed which point to my theory being correct:

1: Dumb people are brutish but people with low functioning autism and down syndrome tend to be strangely capable of empathy for being so dumb.

2: Males who are more or less intelligent than average but still close to average are less stereotypically masculine.

3: Math geniuses tend to be socially inept savants but creative geniuses are eccentric but more generally capable.
First off, irrelevant. We are talking about whether if humans fit in 10 types, not what the types are. Well, discussing the latter would have been useful information if Pro actually solidified the proof that there are 10 types. Pro has not, basing the argument on an incomplete framework and attempting to change it midway, while NOT SOURCING it to any study. In all seriousness, we do not know if Pro is making this stuff up or not, and Pro has not established this idealized categorization with any societal data either.

Secondly, all additions to the framework in the second and third round are irrelevant, due to that the description and the title are all that can be expected and agreed upon by anyone who accepts the invitation. Adding anything afterwards would be akin to adding conditions on the contract AFTER signing it. Would you be happy if your boss changes irreversibly your contract so that it says your monthly pay is $1 instead of $1500? Exactly, that is what Pro is doing in essence, just in a less socially negative way, but never straying into the positive half of the axis.

All in all, Pro in R2 attempts to introduce things that was not agreed to be a part of the deal and thus shall be nullified. All Pro's R3 attempts are futile. The same conclusions at the end of R1 are maintained.
  • Because in the description, Type 4 is specifically stated to be a subset of (completely included by) type 2, it is thus false that Pro stated that there are 10 types of personalities on any given level of analyzation.

tl;dr: extend.