I lol'd at the Breitbart link, but I don't think it was fair to challenge your critical thinking skills. I don't think the two are related.

That said you linked to a source that publishes stories such as

'Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy'
‘Political Correctness Protects Muslim Rape Culture’'
‘Video Shows Planned Parenthood Executive Sought to Hide Profits from Baby-Parts Sales’
‘Would You Rather Your Child Had Feminism or Cancer?’

Of course people are going to **** on you for that.

Feminism obv. What kind of ****ed up question is that?

As someone that used to tutor SATs, LSATs, and GMATs, I can tell you this is just not true. A high score (95+ percentile for SAT math. LSAT logic reasoning is a special beast and can keep people in the 90s unless they practice. GMAT also gets into rather esoteric stuff if you want to get higher than 90th percentile) is probably trivial but perfect scores on these exams require specific types of thinking and a lot of practice even for genius level intellect.

i think this is a trump type of behavior from david. trump believes his whole business hinges on the public believing he's a very very wealthy rich rich man. david could very reasonably believe his writing career hinges on him being known and accepted as a very very objectively smart person. this whole challenge is a big negative freeroll for the david sklansky brand. such hubris.

I'd like to think I could win the math sat challenge. David has more time than me though.

LSAT is easy. I don't see how anyone literate would get less than a 170 without being a complete moron or a future lawyer.

I appreciate David laying it all on the line for something he did 50 years ago. Next up is a shortest refractory period challenge based on when he was 20.

By the way it's not necessarily losing your mind it's more that those tests are geared to test the skills and altitude of younger people and they often ignore the benefits of increased experience and knowledge bring to the table. Also you are leaving out the challenge made zero sense in the context of the discussion. People were taking shots at you based on past things you said when you made a mistake. This is fairly standard even amongst people who are friendly and don't believe the other to be silly.

You snap threw down the gauntlet in a way that made zero sense with zero connection. The funny thing is many people have posted stuff from breitbart in the past but it was always with the knowledge they know what kind of site it is. It's pretty common on this forum to be selective about sources when linking to legitimate news because any legitimate story will be covered by many news outlets and thus no need to promote or enhance a pretty horrible and dangerous site. That's it people were taking the piss out of you for being unthinking about that or just ignorant about breitbart and you literally snapped.

I don't say any of this to disuade you from being David. You do you. I often enjoy it.

By the way I just joined PLO university in support of this thread and challenge.

There are like, ethical issues with taking money from the infirm, but David, man, the issue wasn't really your logical skills but more than you never know what you're talking about. Knowledge, not intelligence.

I'm not sure how you'd measure that with a standardized test but it takes someone who doesn't even know the ****ing BASICS of the Trump/Russia connection to imagine a ****ing politician being polite on a state visit "could throw a monkey wrench in the anti Trump movement."

That you followed up on that by "unwittingly" linking to Breitbart is was just icing on the fundamentally having no idea what's going on cake.

a big lol at those who think Brietbart isn't a fine link by the way

and holy logical fallacy with the whole "Breitbart said it therefore it's no good prima facie"

How is a highly measurable open challenge going to meet a taker who is not a "ringer" (escape hatch imo) given the population size of 2p2 readers who are already smarter than average?

Not a reg in this forum but someone mentioned this thread to me

I will take up to 50k action on lsat must be escrowed

IN

Most of our libertarian conservative brethren have started to realize that breitbart is not helpful to our fundamental goals. We need to work together to further our agenda so I hope you will take the time to review breitbart and see how it does not match our libertarian conservative ideals.

I read it regularly already. How does it not, specifically, meet our ideals?

I got $200 I wanna bet on Kid Bobo.

As with any of these threads the smartest bet is usually that no bets will occur.

I don't know if I qualify here because I don't recall ever criticizing your critical thinking scores, just your posting, and I stand by my statement that your posting (at least in politics) is awful.

Anyway, I think the problem is less that you overestimate yourself (although this is certainly possible, probable even, I really have no way of knowing how well you would do on a standardized test today) and more that you underestimate the other posters here.

For example, I would be perfectly willing to bet a relatively small amount on SAT Math (maybe up to $2k) because I'm confident I can get an 800 on it a large portion of the time. It's basically just a question of not making stupid mistakes. I probably wouldn't bet on the LSAT (or I would, but only nominal amounts, maybe a few hundred $$) because I have no idea what's on it.

If I actually thought you were stupid, or even average, or even slightly above average, I would snap take either bet up to like 95% of my net worth.

I can't speak to the LSAT or GMAT but I think the perfect score on the math section of the SAT should be eminently doable from anyone with a math background.

I will bet you $200k that a bet occurs in this thread. Quote this post in this thread and reply "booked" to book.

Here's a multiquote of all the mean things I've ever said about you and your books. Are we on?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ostcount=22578 (couldn't quote from a locked thread, but it accuses you of "an embarrassing misapplication of statistics"!)

you need will#### from PU to take a bet like this.

Yeah but he wouldn't pay.

I would like to challenge Mat Sklansky to a $20 game of Connect Four, is this the thread for that?

This is interesting to me - I was going to say that this thread is a bit harsh, as DS was just hacked off about something and spouted off (like most of us has at some point on the internets) and it didn't seem like a true open challenge. But, this is saying that anyone with a Phd is OK. Seems pretty open.

When is Sklansky going to get over his underachievement complex?

I sort of agree with this. I don't think David has an obligation or anything to do a bet with me or anyone else. People get annoyed and say stuff, it doesn't necessarily mean anything. But if that's what it was, he should retract the challenge.

I nominate tomdemaine!