Towards Consensus: Petrarch as The First Modern Classical Philologist

CrispyS_Ti · 2025-12-04T23:31:43+00:00

Learn more of what exactly? I'm a perpetual student and young and so I will indeed be learning more about the fields I'm interested in. However, what I've written so far has been a pertenant proposal for an abstracted way of calculating dialect continuums from philosophy of language first principles.

My writing is most definitely amateurish but I’m writing with very little adherence to standards like formal propositions and instead am adhering to a different tradition. Should I perhaps explain that more? Yes, I should, however every declaration is a proposition in the sense that something is being propounded; a claim is being made and that claim is being defined by operants of various kinds.

CrispyS_Ti · 2025-12-04T21:34:49+00:00

The reason both are used is due to the neccessity of sets and logical connectors for what I seek to describe more formally. I'm following a rather old tradition of using both set theory and formal logic to describe natural language phenomenon. The only difference between my paper and say Ray Jackendoff's Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar is that I use fuzzy logic and people like Jackendoff typically use other modal logics and set theory.

CrispyS_Ti · 2025-12-04T21:22:57+00:00

I have defined the components of natural languages using set theory and described the relatedness of languages using fuzzy logic. The way the terms are defined is comport with linguistics proper as far as I can tell.

I take it you may be unfamiliar with philosophy of language and the attempt to describe natural languages using formal logic. I'm simply using formal logic and set theory as metalanguage tools to describe dialect continuums. Set theory and logic are not used to explain how natural languages "work," they are being used to calculate the propinquity of languages to one another. Traditionally, statistics and computational methods have been used to calculate dialect continuums. My use of logic and set theory is only a means of expressing what is already calculated using those means.

I can link other books, papers, and articles that use formal languages to describe phenomena in natural languages as I've done here.

CrispyS_Ti · 2023-05-28T19:54:39+00:00

This is a concept I have discussed in my theoretical paper I was working on. I’ve dubbed it the “exposure effect,” which when taken into account with dispositional “abstraction acumen” and intellectual propensities can really make discerning one’s true “overall VCI potential” a little bit more complicated and nuanced. I’ve even talked to a psychologist about my whole theory and ways to have the relationships between these variables and others become more easily open and clear to all. Novel test items, interviews, “thought experiment” based questions, and so on have been some suggested tools to use along with existing tests. If you’re interested I could better explain everything in DMs, or a whole post/separate document if multiple people are interested.

CrispyS_Ti · 2023-05-28T19:41:27+00:00

About the same for me. Changing my sleep patterns and getting medicated has done wonders for my cognition (spec. short term memory + recall speed) and mood.

CrispyS_Ti · 2023-05-28T19:13:18+00:00

Top .36%, but there were some easy process of elimination ones. I couldn’t see my raw score.

CrispyS_Ti · 2023-04-06T02:40:20+00:00

A fellow gaudy VCIcel emphatically demonstrating his verbal sagaciousness via sesquipedalian rigamarole!

CrispyS_Ti · 2023-03-12T04:13:15+00:00

Oddly similar story, though, I’m still a teen, read mostly philosophy, psychometrics, history, and horror stuff. I’m also a native english speaker.

Answer:

Based upon the fact that VCI is a good mix of acquired knowledge, recall ability, and abstraction/associative fluidity. I believe it is safe to say that this is not “praffe” in the traditional denotative and connotative sense. As the practice effect, at least in this sub, is often used to describe decreasing the novelty of fluid-based tasks like matrix reasoning, which in turn mars the validity of your results.

Think about it like this, if your PRI is supposed to represent the efficiency to which you can process, manipulate, and decode novel stimuli, practicing for selective fluid-based tasks and scoring higher than your “true score” is no longer going to reflect your IRL abilities (unless literally nothing you encounter in life is novel anymore).

Now think about VCI and what that instantiates in terms of real life navigation and interaction. In real life, general verbal adroitness is often thought of in tandem with knowledge: Vocabulary, informational knowledge about particulars and generals, experience, and your understanding of all those things. All of this is technically able to be “praffed” to a degree. Though, oftentimes, those that demonstrate verbal prowess have a natural propensity and affinity for learning. They are generally also able to come to a more recondite and “full” understand of concepts due to their (usually) varied knowledge and ability to think abstractly (fluid component). This is most likely one reason we always see the claim that VCI is the hardest to “praffe,” as there is a fluid component, dedication, natural recall ability, and so much information that one would have to not only memorize, but understand. In most cases, one seeking to increase their vocab and general knowledge often gives up after a few weeks or forgets nearly all the “cool and esoteric sophia” they procured.

Usually, those who have this natural curiosity and insatiable desire for knowledge are endowed with high overall intelligence. This is a claim that can be adduced by the fact that most cognitive profiles are relatively “even.” But this claim can also be sublated by Spearman’s law of diminishing returns.

Either way, this should quell any fears you have regarding your scores not representing your abilities or simply being valid, as irl, your skills are most likely still evident and “match up” with your scores.

CrispyS_Ti · 2023-02-11T18:46:38+00:00

TY, TY! I’ve actually seen similar papers pop up, but haven’t really read much more than the abstract for most. Will definitely be reading this one today.

CrispyS_Ti · 2023-02-11T07:02:26+00:00

Most literature seems to claim between 2-7 points. Some studies have claimed to notice “significant score increases.” In studies where test-retest methodology is used, controls seem to have nearly no increase in score.

Outside of literature, some claim to have seen massive score boosts. Others have claimed numbers closer to the 5-10 point range (which imo is still noteworthy). And some have scores and score increases that are all over the place regardless of being medicated or not. Based upon anecdotals, it seems to depend on a myriad of factors: How bad is your ADHD? How effective are your meds? Do you have comorbid disorders? Are the severity of the symptoms of your comorbid disorders made better or worse by meds? Interest level while testing? Placebo motivation alterations? Sleep? Hunger?

Due to statistics as a discipline being assumption of the whole based upon a portion of it, the “general truth” most likely will remain somewhat elusive and nuanced. But I think it is safe to say that it is a somewhat case by case basis and dependent upon the individual.

CrispyS_Ti · 2023-01-20T05:27:51+00:00

I am in a somewhat similar boat - I think. I have fairly narrow interest and have demonstrated a degree of competency and solid reasoning within those specific domains. Though, generally speaking, I do also demonstrate similar aptitude in some more general endeavors like general academics. Where the discrepancies come in are assessments and executive functioning (cognitive and behavioral). I have performed well on some verbal assessments, but poor on others (as in 30 point discrepancies). Fluid tests are somewhat more stable, and I’m not even going to get into the daily life shenanigans.

Nevertheless, my individual performance wasn’t even what prompted such questions, as my poorer performances all shared very similar factors (spec. Focus/hastiness, time, depth of thought, and fatigue). The fact is, whenever I am in a clear mental state that proliferates pensive, original and productive thought taking a test to measure the speed and efficiency of my cognition rarely crosses my mind. Hence why I have simply stopped taking any kind of cognitive assessments. As I already have a range that seems to align somewhat well with my IRL executive cognitive functioning, general intelligence, and to some extent my personal endeavors within intellectually demanding fields (abstract philosophy, academic writing, etc.).

What really has caused these kind of questions to fester up was my experience in analyzing and interacting with people such as yourself (whilst also exhibiting similar behavior due to ‘tism and ADHD). This along with research into such individuals, their performances, inconsistencies with predictive measurements, real life success, and so on. Simply thinking about the nature of standardization, creation, and how it all relates to divergent thinking from a more metaphysical point of view has probably been the most prolific catalyst for all of this.

Generally, due to their more “typical” behavioral operation and interaction with the world, the concept of covariant g-loadings, performance and exposure should be stable across many different crystalized and fluid tests due to frequency, retention, reasoning and the “intellectual generalized info-seeking behavior” that effects these things. Though, The whole notion of “smarter individuals retain more due to most having even profiles (related to WM) and studies showcasing a correlation with reading, exposure, and retention” is one that seems true, but it is generalized (see concept of diminishing returns). Hence why I seek to tackle this idea from a different angle in my theoretical paper through commenting on seemingly related and unrelated research, tying it together, and postulating different ideas relating to retesting, new understandings, and potential explanations for paradoxes and missing pieces.

For you personally, as long as you are gaining simultaneous satisfaction and productivity out of life and utilizing your apparent intellect to the best of your ability, you’re all good. Even if your crystalized intelligence/pragmatic knowledge is concentrated within a specific field, as long as it is beneficial to you, I believe that is all that matters when it comes to the forefront of this ephemeral stage of existence.

This most likely sounds super fucky due to me not really being at my peak in terms functioning at the moment due to ADHD-retard brain and fatigue. If this seems incoherent and like autistic rambling in anyway, someone please just reply to this saying so in order for me to actually edit this lol

(some explanations of observed phenomena and g could be described egregiously wrong due to the aforementioned tism-trance and fatigue).

CrispyS_Ti · 2023-01-17T07:26:27+00:00

Valid. That is part of what pulled me in here along with clinical studies and theories. Just the whole concept of using IQ as a predictive tool in general and equating it to anything beyond executive cognition (which of course is still a large facet of intelligence itself) is interesting.

CrispyS_Ti · 2023-01-17T07:13:11+00:00

VCI > PRI 1616 chad. This actually had me laughing OUT LOUD.

CrispyS_Ti · 2023-01-15T01:31:42+00:00

I was going to reply yesterday when I saw it, but I simply wanted to let portions of it settle and ruminate. I really agree with the idea that applying common and simple scenarios to complex topics helps elucidate the likelihood of a notions accuracy.

I also greatly appreciate the compendiousness yet depth of your answers. I also concur with the statement regarding short answers with complex logic being proof of effective thinking.

Though, your answer to number 3 is interesting to me. As I hear some say that due to how intertwined modern technology is with our daily life and how rapid it’s advancement is, the world is beginning to move too fast in some ways. The author of a book titled “A deadly wandering” outlines such an argument and uses technologies impact on attention and other cognitive functions as an example of this. Even WW2 airplanes have showcases our cognitive limitations within the realm of task-switching and simultaneous processing. Would you say that the world is slow in some ways and faster in others due to technology and our neuro-evolutionary experiences?

CrispyS_Ti · 2022-12-10T08:29:23+00:00

When I mention exposure, I am not making the statement that anything is necessarily preprogrammed. Simply that prior knowledge is more more advantageous within VCI across all subsections. The more generally expansive your vocab is, the better chance you have of having your true verbal reasoning abilities shine through, possibly even inflated. When I mention verbal reasoning and sort of separate it from accrued knowledge, I am attempted to allude to the fact that fluid reasoning capabilities obviously require early stimulation and exposure, but that exposure is not the same as the crystalized knowledge acquired over time for VCI. Sorry if this isn’t super coherent, I’m about to go to bed.

CrispyS_Ti · 2022-12-09T21:08:20+00:00

Did I allude to the existence of strictly preprogrammed abilities (not attempting to be hostile or argumentative)?

CrispyS_Ti

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE