June 22, 2026

I notice when people say a relatively flippant thing, they have to further reference something from the past. Something they encountered, and hopefully it's a book or in a different language. It helps to substantiate their non-argument and incidentally masks unwittingly and unintentionally the natural effect of humor in these situations and keeps the statement wholly neutral. 

I just googled how does one take the woodcock johnson test and it didnt spit back a joke. This signifies indisputably that the humor function is negated on google ai platforms. If anyone wants to get ahead in the ai game, add humor. Google refuses to. As in, the errors. There are errors where ai gets it wrong. We hide humor in the errors. Maybe the page refreshes after a joke and gives the answer, leaving no trace. 

Wikipedia editing should be restricted to people of a certain proven intelligence and accuracy level over time. It should just be open to anyone, not based pre-emptively on Google data or such markers. This pre-emptive shit can only signify focus on monetary benefit. If the selection process were unbiased, we could see a wide number of applicants correctly assessed by their senior peers and never have to lift a finger. It would also look less money-focused just for not reacting to Google's data as diktat. (Maybe using this wrong.)

Laocoon and Sons has the significance to me of being distorted and distracted from life by vicious cycles. It represents decay and derision. It's exemplary of enigmatic tropes and sordid scenes. There is a strong overlap of concise reflection regarding sons, children, youth and the ones under authority by authority, by fathers, by the ones who watch and see. However, we see Laocoon fighting there with the sons and not against them or passive. This is widely ignored when translating the piece. (Tried irony, got delivery [straightforward answer]).

We should make a Mortal Kombat where uakaris and mothman fight.

Robert Shiller should expand his word virus model to include genetic heredity. This will uniquely accidentally make him speak of Cattel Horn Carroll traits without knowing he's doing so. How do i know this? Because i understand human intelligence enough to know that where something originates as an idea matters. It is indelible and alters results. This is why i dont like sting operations and especially dont like vigilanteism. We are too intelligent by far and all they show is the momentary intent, it does nothing to prove actual longterm fixation nor periphery enticements. Enticements like how misspelling words in product lines is supposed to entice but doesnt. Enticements like when something has an inherent flaw we flock to it. Like trump or a nusician falsely made popular. We flock to the flaws but we cant lay our finger on it or notice itsdue to flaw and not immediate interest because we lack selfwareness and the overarching roundedness of intellect through lived experience necessary to discuss and elucidate this. Also, people just don't like talking. Which is why our speech and writing stays at a brisk level one pace in every field once we try to divulge information to any other audience. 

Cattel Horn Carroll should replace strengthsfinder in college social work classes and make iq tests go with it. Bonus: simultaneously test for Asvab for anyone who drops out of college or wants to join as an officer to get stolen from the social work profession. Asvab scores give you a confidence boost like an iq test would. And if iq is low then the asvab might be high still. We need high scores or it wont be widely implemented cuz it wont be popular and feel good.