>>failed the intellectual test when you defined him as a liberal
I think we’ve had this conversation before late at night. I don’t understand how each individual comes to their personal decisions because I don’t understand the forces that caused them to become that individual. I respect intelligence even when different starting points lead to different endings.
Working at IBM Research and working in human factors for those years made me think a great deal about the mind. That video I did interviewing our greatest scientists about the one that they all respected moved me along that line because his mind SEEMED almost chaotic, but resulted in some of our greatest break thrus. He used to think I understood him and would pin me against a corridor wall and talk at me and then walk away while I stared after him. That’s why I violated all the video standards and just had him rambling for a full minute in the final video. Minds are, indeed, strange things.
I don’t accept that brilliant minds come up with all correct answers, but I also don’t believe that all minds must lead to the same answers. That’s why I believe in individual truths. Mine are conservative. Adams seems to have a more mixed bag. So I’ll respect his abilities while disagreeing with his conclusions.
So I think that again, Baggie, we’ll simply have to respect one another and differ.
Fondly, Mary
Thatâs why I believe in individual truths. This is your fatal flaw, Mairdie.
There are not myriad truths. There is only one truth to every question.
No matter how 'intricate' the mind, if they arrive at a non-truth, then something went wrong in the evidence gathering and/or the thought process.
Its like as if ten people were building a car and nine of the cars didn't run at the end of the process but one did.
Like that.
Smart people cannot be communists. The journey to communism was fraught with bad thinking. They are flawed people.
The end.
