And you’re underestimating the intellectual requirements. If you don’t understand how the mechanics work (& I’m talking about the fundamental stuff here, not pinnacle boss mechanics) then no amount of manual dexterity is going to get you particularly far. I agree that a minimum amount of manual dexterity is needed to play various bits (increasing as you get further).
But why would the know it feels wrong?
Because thats what you said.
Trust me bro is nit an argument, and limiting your argument to “but look at this small subset of the group, they do totally fine” is, plainly spoken, bullshit. Though this isn’t the first time you’ve done this. I agree that Aspergers is a thing & that people with Aspergers are intelligent despite being lacking social skills (in the extreme) amongst other things, but I think (hope!!) that you acknowledge that Aspergers is a relatively small % of the autustic population (sadly I couldn’t get an actual answer, but if Aspergers is 0.02%-0.5% of the global population & autism is ~1-2%, then Aspergers is 1%-10% or something of the autistic population. Therefore it’s not reasonable to apply a very specific thing from a small minority to the wider population when the wider population (at least 90-99%).
Yes, but you’re applying the skills of a small group (a fraction of a % of the global population) to a much larger population (~2% ish). Either you don’t understand or you’re being deliberately disingenuous.
Agreed!
We can though easily say that a Affix which provides ‘increased damage’ is sought out even without any form of high comprehension.
We can also easily say a Affix which provides ‘Health’ is sought out without major comprehension as well.
That’s the basics, Life&Damage.
From there complexity rises accordingly, with Health being also split into ward. With Health also having resistances. With Health also having the defensive layers of armor and evasion… and so on.
Same for damage with damage types and the split into increased and more.
LE provides a success route solely by going with as much flat damage on your weapon and as much inc damage on your weapon as possible, no extra thoughts need to be taken to get to empowered. The major way how people fail to get there is by being confused and overwhelmed by all other options available beyond that.
In defenses the primary 2 things you need are ‘Health’ and ‘Resistances’. Once more, very simplistic, that alone suffices even without any form of crit reduction or damage reduction otherwise to reach empowered as well.
So the mandatory parts are severely reduced, and hence if that information is provided accordingly (for example in a Forum, or from someone making a guide) then you’ll see success.
We have reduced the whole itemization progression to ‘baseline items’ hence and only need 4 Affix Types.
Flat damage
Inc damage
Health
Resistance
That’s it. This is acceptable complexity for low IQ.
There further on are 2 decision bases for ‘what to get next?’ if the choice is present.
Am I dieing often?
Aren’t enemies dieing fast?
Which is the split between defensive and offensive measures.
That completely covers the entire road to empowered content without having to think any further itemization wise.
It gets more iffy with skill trees and with passive trees, I concur on that directly before it even comes up. It’s a confusing setup comparatively to the simplicity provided with items. But it’s also not very high as you can literally take anything half-assed and only roughly adherring to a decent build… and get to empowered.
The only difference it makes when we reduce it to those simplistic terms comparably to the game in total then we actually get difficulty. It’s challenging in some areas to achieve success, but it’s not beyond reasonable expectations even.
Also the argument of:
Is factually wrong.
The vast majority of the game can be trivialized entirely by simply ignoring any character progression aspect besides picking up random crap and slapping it on, understanding nothing, not even health and damage… and if you’re supremely competent in solely the aspect of dexterity you’ll succeed.
99% of the attacks in LE can be avoided with a guarantee, very very few exceptions apply where you’re forced to take hits. Which is by the way a design decisions which I’ve critized before already as it provides a faulty presentation of the competence needed to play the game.
You die.
You don’t kill enemies.
The second you see any other player they’re doing excessively well compared.
Low IQ doesn’t remove logic, it just reduces the things simultaneously able to be computed in your brain, while also reducing the speed of computation in your brain (non-optimal processing setup).
Which in culmination leads to severely reduced outcomes in both quality and speed as well as severely reduced outcome in memory retention. This happens since stable neural connections don’t form as easily, they do by extreme input or repetition. We have a case of inherently less repetition because of the reduced computation speed, hence the chance for retaining it is significantly lower.
Quote it. In context. And explain.
This is a false statement simply, you’ve taken information and applied it in a odd way which was in no way/shape or form intended at best, and simply missed to comprehend at worst.
Just because something is prevalent to exist in combination doesn’t mean we cannot take em separately.
To create a coherent understanding you gotta be precise.
Just because you want to put the demand on me to inherently include learning disabilities (which are separate from IQ) into the argument based on a argument solely made up from the basis of IQ is not my problem, that’s your failure to adhere to the framework of the argument.
First off… your knowledge basis comes from studies done quite a long time ago, namely 2019 was the latest count, which was 18%, which is significant already. 1 in 5.
Secondly, Aspergers was for a reason folded into the follow-up of ‘high functioning’ as the definition of it is outdated by now and includes a multitude more people nowadays. Which got even further overturned by changing it further into ‘level 1’, which is solely based on support needs as it was found out that the categorization was absolute nonsense since we now know over 300 types of ASD already, count rising.
If we solely take into consideration the terminology of ‘high-functioning’ then we already reach a 44% count of people included there.
And the people outside of this range were not included in the argument anyway. Stay within the threshold of the argument.
Also your argument of the total population being 1-2% ASD is also a wrong one. 1-2% are diagnosed, with several countries having significant hurdles for a diagnosis, or incentive to avoid a diagnosis at all.
Estomations are as high as 5% of the world population by the way currently (with active diagnosis in the US reaching 2,8% in some areas, despite dark numbers still existing), hence some estimations place the percentile even higher by now as comorbitities formerly excluding a ASD diagnosis (ADHD for example) led to severe counts of misdiagnosis (expected estimations of 50-80% overlap between them after all) and a further severe dark number because in several areas the timeframe needed to even get a diagnosis is absolutely ridiculous (UK has 2 years waiting time for the first appointment. Austria has 11. Germany has 7… as some examples I know currently of).
Not to speak of people seeking a diagnosis are struggling for one reason or another or have passed the capacity to sustain their life from aggregated stress over years/decades with the people having the condition before not even seeking or knowing to seek out a diagnosis… no ‘healthy’ person goes to a psychiatrist, we’re not even advanced enough to do a general mental checkup procedure yet, that’s only existing in medicine, not psychology.
It’s a widespread misconception and your numbers are factually wrong since a few years now, even without taking into consideration the most modern estimations and the achieved knowledge basis.
You brought up the topic of learning disabilities, which Aspergers is one. It’s a diversion from normative brain setup and hence causes a difference to normative learning procedures, specifically in the social aspect as the parsing of behavior happens in a different way.
You combined it in your brain to put them into equivalency from what I wrote, which is wrong.
I specifically said that a learning disability is not the same as low IQ. But a learning disability can cause people to perceive someone as low IQ despite not being so.
I differed from start to end of the whole argumentation line between learning disability and low IQ.
Heck even in the starting post which brought this whole argument on I already do:
Remove the hyperbole of ‘no singular thought’ and then you’re left with ‘even mentally challenged’.
Mentally challenged is not based on a disability, mentally challenged is literally the description of the baseline function of your mental capacity, hence a direct pointer solely to low IQ.
Just because people use terminology willy-nilly without rhyme or reason and not even knowing what stuff means doesn’t mean using it properly becomes false.
The next argument was from Beardus, which only now included a specific individual, which is not included already as the argumentation basis was not made with learning disabilities of any sort in mind.
I ignored this and went into another tangent instead and wanted to provide a different point there since it was based on a specific individual’s capacity which showcased a different issue. So I argumented about that specific issue and didn’t explain the fundamental rule to draw a distinction between learning disability and low IQ.
Then you came with:
Which I’m argumenting about that it is sufficing with the provided difficulty of the gameplay itself to allow success nonetheless. Specifically because of the lack of difficulty we have on the physical aspect of the game.
And YOU conflated IQ in your own post with learning disabilities. It’s gaslighting what you’re doing hence.
To provide the context fully:
You started speaking about IQ and then went into an example of a learning disability. Conflating both together.
From then on the whole argument went into the distinction repeatedly while me being as subtle as a trainwreck about pointing out the difference.
I once again will re-state my argument of it not being about learning disability, as I’ve made clear:
When bringing a new argument (hence separate from the former one, as this one is) you cannot simply conflate it with the former one, you gotta keep the separation active. This is this… that is that.
I even went into the description of why it’s percieved wrongfully in many cases:
Neither dyslexia, dyscaculia, ASD, ADHD nor any other.
Science has shown a inverted curve of learning disabilities and IQ actually which was my other argument, where I took an example from it after you brought it up again:
I didn’t even mention ASD beforehand, you once again did.
Which by now shows me that you’re not aware between the distinction of ‘learning disability’ and ‘intellectual disability’.
What happens regularly is misplacing those terms simply.
A learning disability is a difference in how the brain processes things.
A intellectual disability is the reduction of brain functionality simply.
Sorry to say… but the misinformed one is you there.
To be specific with the current knowledge of IQ ranges in ASD in total:
44% are 85+ IQ.
25% are 71-85 IQ.
31% are <70 IQ.
That statistic is only derived from diagnosed individuals, hence non-including individuals not seeking any diagnosis at all (dark number) or those misdiagnosed, which the estimated percentile is a friggin 75% total.
The average time disparity between first diagnosis and actual proper evalutation is currently 8 years.
With the - obvious - indicator of diagnosis being sought for when any form of issue arises this means that from the mentioned official percentiles we can expect a significant increase in overall IQ range upwards as the higher IQ a individual is the more likely they’re able to function.
There’s also been studies about this phenomenon, where unless autistic burnout happens a significant number is missed entirely.
We got active examples from the CDC numbers even, in 2022 3,2% of children were formally diagnosed, which is already above the ‘true number’ estimations formerly done, and we expect individuals to obviously be missed nonetheless.
That means if we look backwards as 90% of ASD is genetically inhereted we can state that solely from the disparity in percentiles seen from which those numbers above come from we actually have a significant higher number of ‘high functioning’ ASD individuals, to a degree they make up the vast majority.
And yet I can point you to one person on this very forum for which that does not hold true, therefore your assertion is wrong.
Your argument is that even “low IQ” people can do quantum mechanics, yet that is demonstrably false.
Not. On. My. Phone!
And that includes your unfounded assertion that the majority of people with learning difficulties have above average IQ (presumably you mean Aspergers/high functioning autism. Here’s one authority that says you’re talking crap.
No, you mentioned that (per the quote above), "the majority of people with learning difficulties are above average (>100) IQ. Which given the stuff I quoted is wrong.
You didn’t understand what I said, please go back & re-read it. And those percentages don’t even disprove what I said. I appreciate the maths & sentence is a bit convoluted since there wasn’t a single answer to “what percentage of autistic people have Aspergers” (ie, are the high functioning that you appear to believe is what most autistic people are).
For an adult, on the NHS. If you’re willing to pony up the cash to go private (£1k-£2k from memory when I checked with BUPA ~1-2 years ago). It’s substantially quicker for a child. And I think my ex-wife mentioned something about “right to choose” which may help me get it sorted quicker…
Trust me bro!
Truuuuuust me broooooooo.
So you didn’t read any of the links I gave? Ok! TLDR, no.
So you’re happy to provide the paper for that? 'Cause you don’t seem to do that much, merely relying on the length of your posts & “trust me bro”.
No, it’s not. My son took a year or so, not 8.
Faulty logic, but sure bro, I’ll #totes trust you!
Still no comprehension, I leave it at that.
Learn the difference between learning disability and intellectual disability, then we can come back to the topic.
You don’t understand the fundamental differences.
No, it’s not, also explained above with the speed and memory retention
Learn the difference between learning disability and intellectual disability, then we can come back to the topic.
Nope, quite the specific paragraph and you’ll see you read it wrongly.
What you just wrote is nothing I wrote.
None, since that term doesn’t exist anymore.
Yeah, because especially nowadays people just got cash sitting around, especially when they’re ASD and hence are likely to be unemployed.
‘Read what I sent despite me not even understanding what the topic is!’
But yes, I read them. Thanks for providing the percentiles with the AI summary of Google… I mean… couldn’t be bothered to go into actual research I guess.
I agreed to your point about the overlap. Also Google AI summary link.
The second to last link doesn’t even provide a summary but is just the Google page.
The last one is a overall ‘wtf are you even trying to say?’ moment instead where you try to make the assertion that it’s invalid to take a example from a sub-group which can be included in the overall group given you’ve pushed off this example yourself while then linking to the percentile of the size of said group that has no bearing on the argument in the first place.
Come on… what a joke. Waste someone else’s time with your lack of comprehension plainly spoken, not even I’m going to write detailed to such low quality crap.
First the percentiles for all learning disorders:
10-15% <80 IQ
40-45% 80-100 IQ
40-45 100+ IQ
Then the overall world IQ, often stated as ‘100’ is factually wrong. Given countries like India, Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan and Bangladesh have a significantly lower median IQ then 100.
The world-wide IQ as a median is hence between 87-92 IQ. The 100 comes from first-world countries primarily. As for the reason… it’s not a nice one and I won’t get into it, would get political with a reason based on laws created based on which religion is prevalent actually (surprisingly so, only found that out around a month ago).
We get this from the reported median IQ in countries versus their reported population.
As for the specific papers from where you can derive this information from to a degree:
Pizzigallo, E., Cornoldi, C., Buono, S., Città, S., Viola, F., & Toffalini, E. (2023)
DOI: 10.3390/jintelligence11120223
Poletti, M. (2016)
DOI: 10.1177/0022219414555416
Giofrè, D., Allen, K., Toffalini, E., Mammarella, I. C., & Caviola, S. (2022)
Journal: Intelligence (Elsevier)
Cornoldi, C., Giofrè, D., Orsini, A., & Pezzuti, L. (2014)
Journal: Research in Developmental Disabilities
As a few examples.
Then he’s not in the average timeframe world-wide
Since you love Google links so much! Here you go!
AI says 50-70%
Which you’re right! I wasn’t quite proper with the terminology there. It’s a ‘large majority’ and not a ‘vast majority’.
Look what the AI says if you want to type ∞. AI says this and that as an argument only lead to one thing. I had to laugh and my coffee came out of my nose and I have to clean up a terrible mess.
Did it especially because all the examples I should ‘read up on’ were the google AI summaries or just the search page from google itself rather then the sites/documents
I answered it kind there simply, same quality hence.
I simply didn’t bother to also provide easily acquirable papers which relate to my claim for the second percentile example as I’ve already provided a shit-ton of related papers for the first. Which was a jab at the afore AI usage by solely linking to Google AI results.
Why are you giving me flak for that? Shouldn’t you flak the user first using AI as well in that case? Or as Llama said: ‘So you didn’t read any of the links provided?’
