# On The Lighter Side

5 replies to this topic

### #1 petrushkagoogol

petrushkagoogol

SMIEEE (Jerk who took engineering)

• Members
• 594 posts

Posted 09 May 2018 - 10:15 AM

Postulate - Two people indulging in intelligent conversation in a cafe are more likely to be Indian than Chinese.

Proof -

1. Take a sample of 1 million mensa level individuals from India and China. (feasible).
2. Take the number of people / sq.km. in India and China from (1). It will be higher in India since India is a smaller country than China.
3. Scale that down to ratio / sq. meter.
4. Consider the area in (3) that falls in a Starbucks cafe.
5. You have 2 people F2F sipping cappucino.
6. From (1) to (5) these two people are likely to be intelligent Indians.

QED

### #2 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

412.63 ppm

• Members
• 1241 posts

Posted 09 May 2018 - 07:00 PM

1. Why must an intelligent conversation be that which is between high IQ speakers?  If this is your criteria, then you should have stated it in your hypothesis rather than assuming it as a supporting point.

2. India has a high population/km^2, but it isn't the highest.  This point is almost entirely moot in supporting your claim.  The appropriate argument to be made is that there are more Indians than nearly all members of other nationalities... except Chinese.  If population density is what you are basing your argument on, then you've already failed.

3. This point is simply scaling the ratio, and it doesn't change anything.

4.  Your original proposition didn't constrict our observations to Starbucks, but if you wish this to be the case, then we need to know the distribution of Starbucks in India and China.  If we presume that the use of Starbucks here is a generic reference to places where people meet over hot beverages rather than meals, then we still need to determine the average distribution and number of clients of such places.  You have not provided evidence that the number of face to face interactions in a coffee shop are significantly greater in New Delhi then, for instance, Paris.

5. face to face?  I don't know what F2F is.

6. Likely yes, simply due to population.  However, I don't know how this observation is useful, as it can be reduced to the observation that the number of Indians exceeds the number of most other nationalities.  It is also accurate to observe that a farmer is more likely to be Indian.  And a garbage collector is more likely to be Indian.  And a politician is more likely to be Indian.

Edited by JMJones0424, 09 May 2018 - 07:05 PM.

### #3 petrushkagoogol

petrushkagoogol

SMIEEE (Jerk who took engineering)

• Members
• 594 posts

Posted 09 May 2018 - 10:14 PM

Postulate - Two people indulging in intelligent conversation in a cafe are more likely to be Indian than Chinese.

Proof -

1. Take a sample of 1 million mensa level individuals from India and China. (feasible).
2. Take the number of people / sq.km. in India and China from (1). It will be higher in India since India is a smaller country than China.
3. Scale that down to ratio / sq. meter.
4. Consider the area in (3) that falls in a Starbucks cafe.
5. You have 2 people F2F sipping cappucino.
6. From (1) to (5) these two people are likely to be intelligent Indians.

QED

1. Why must an intelligent conversation be that which is between high IQ speakers?  If this is your criteria, then you should have stated it in your hypothesis rather than assuming it as a supporting point.

2. India has a high population/km^2, but it isn't the highest.  This point is almost entirely moot in supporting your claim.  The appropriate argument to be made is that there are more Indians than nearly all members of other nationalities... except Chinese.  If population density is what you are basing your argument on, then you've already failed.

3. This point is simply scaling the ratio, and it doesn't change anything.

4.  Your original proposition didn't constrict our observations to Starbucks, but if you wish this to be the case, then we need to know the distribution of Starbucks in India and China.  If we presume that the use of Starbucks here is a generic reference to places where people meet over hot beverages rather than meals, then we still need to determine the average distribution and number of clients of such places.  You have not provided evidence that the number of face to face interactions in a coffee shop are significantly greater in New Delhi then, for instance, Paris.

5. face to face?  I don't know what F2F is.

6. Likely yes, simply due to population.  However, I don't know how this observation is useful, as it can be reduced to the observation that the number of Indians exceeds the number of most other nationalities.  It is also accurate to observe that a farmer is more likely to be Indian.  And a garbage collector is more likely to be Indian.  And a politician is more likely to be Indian.

1. Low IQ speakers are more likely to indulge in flippant banter. I can't visualize 2 assembly line workers discussing magneto-hydrodynamics.

2. India has approximately 107 million people less than China, and China is 3 times bigger than India.

3. You have to scale down to a level that befits a coffee shop.

4. Starbucks is used only as a metaphor, to support the illustration. (not literally).

5. F2F = Face-to-Face

6. Here the moot point is intelligent conversation. A garbage collector is by the same token, likely to be Indian. (agreed). But, most certainly, he is not likely to fit in the mensa bracket. (refer point 1).

### #4 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

412.63 ppm

• Members
• 1241 posts

Posted 11 May 2018 - 07:08 PM

1. I wouldn't imagine that the average assembly line worker would be a good target for discussing fluid dynamics.  Knowledge of magnetohydrodynamics is not alone a measure of intelligence, neither is working on an assembly line.

2. So you recognize that your assertion is false.  I was being kind.

3. If you do so, then you need to provide the distribution of coffee shops, the population density, and the average IQ of the populace frequenting the meeting place - none of which you have done.

I guess the problem I have with your claim, besides the fact that you utterly failed to support it, is that it makes assumptions about the intelligence of people based on their nationality and occupation that is entirely unsupported.  Your proof is a string of disputable claims, and your postulate is insulting.

QED.

Edited by JMJones0424, 11 May 2018 - 07:12 PM.

### #5 petrushkagoogol

petrushkagoogol

SMIEEE (Jerk who took engineering)

• Members
• 594 posts

Posted 11 May 2018 - 08:41 PM

1. I wouldn't imagine that the average assembly line worker would be a good target for discussing fluid dynamics.  Knowledge of magnetohydrodynamics is not alone a measure of intelligence, neither is working on an assembly line.

2. So you recognize that your assertion is false.  I was being kind.

3. If you do so, then you need to provide the distribution of coffee shops, the population density, and the average IQ of the populace frequenting the meeting place - none of which you have done.

I guess the problem I have with your claim, besides the fact that you utterly failed to support it, is that it makes assumptions about the intelligence of people based on their nationality and occupation that is entirely unsupported.  Your proof is a string of disputable claims, and your postulate is insulting.

QED.

I think you are reading too much into this

• It is under the Lounge category
• It is in jest ( focus on the title "On The Lighter Side"   )

### #6 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

412.63 ppm

• Members
• 1241 posts

Posted 11 May 2018 - 08:53 PM

Postulate - Two people indulging in a conversation on Hypography are likely to misunderstand each other.

Proof-

1. One participant in the conversation is JMJ0424