Bill O’Reilly Calls on Congress to Pass Another Gun Law During Heated Segment

[Guest Lester Weevils]

"It is somewhat in the eye of the beholder, but among those mentioned, O'Reilly along with Olberman, Matthews,

Sharpton, seem remarkably talented in picking the wrong answer."

I see the similarity with your bunch, Lester, however, you lost me real quick, not that that was that difficult to do.

Only way I could judge anyone of them wouldn't be by your analogy, because it flew over my head, is by their

market share, and whether I liked them or not.

Thanks 6.8

One obvious explanation-- My analogy doesn't make a lick of sense. Here is another explanation though it borders between dumb idea and joke-- For example take a test containing 100 multiple choice questions. Each question has two answers. Take the test by flipping a coin for each answer, heads for answer A and tails for answer B. In rare cases the coin might earn a very high score approaching 100 or a very low score approaching zero. However the odds strongly favor that the coin will score in the ballpark of 50. The more questions that are on the test, the stronger the odds that the coin will score near 50 using a random coin flip to answer each question.

A guy with a high test score most likely knows his stuff. Occasionally he could get a high score by accident, but accidental high scores are not likely. The guy with high test scores has more intelligence than a coin flip.

Now what about a fella who always scores near zero? On this kind of test, a score near zero is just as unlikely as a score near 100. A guy who scores near zero is stupider than a coin flip, and coin flips don't have any intelligence at all. It takes special talent to be dumber than a coin flip. If a coin flip has zero intelligence, then a guy who is almost always wrong has "negative intelligence"!!!

If you sit next to a "negative intelligence" guy in class and you want to cheat, then look over his shoulder and answer all your questions exactly opposite. You will get a very high grade.

Unfortunately most multiple choice tests have more than two answers per question, and in the real world there are near-infinite possible answers. So we can't cheat in the real world simply by doing the opposite of the guy who is always wrong-- A guy with "negative intelligence". In the real world there are many ways to be wrong. However, given a guy who is almost always wrong, you might improve your odds by picking any answer that differs from the guy who is always wrong. He has eliminated one wrong answer for you, giving you better odds of picking the right answer out of the remaining choices.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

For what it's worth, I think all of them mentioned

are probably pretty smart, so I think the coin flip

would likely reveal that, except it might, depending

on the questions, reveal which are truly smart or

ideologically driven. I know this probably is going

to get disputed, but I think Rush is genuinely smart.

He appears well read and prepares well for a live

audience. That's how he maintains such a large

market share. Beck is probably up there with him

with the smarts, but entertainment factor is very

sophomoric with him. Drama queen. Hannity tries

to come off with his hard working southern grass

roots kind of guy and it sometimes gets annoying

to me. I don't consider that race baited to be very

intelligent. His remarks are very structured and

sometimes require a translator because he answers

with lines that don't fit the questions. Everything

about Sharpton reminds me of a poor canned

presentation, or just talking points. He acts like

an absolute fool, also.

The smart ones are better at their job and became

popular because they can articulate. I would call

Sharpton stuck beneath the glass ceiling, or not

quite able to pass Maslo's first or second level.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk