>>720102164

The anon who came up with the breakfast question is a fucking savant, because you can use the ability to engage in hypotheticals as a perfect test of someone's IQ. If they cannot empathize (IE think of someone else and their perspective, opinions, ect) then they are a 'hylic' which is a nice pseudointellectual way of calling them a fucking ANIMAL so self-absorbed and stupid as to be Solipsistic and fail an inversion of the mirror self-reflection test. Realizing these people exist has filled me with an absolute loathing.

If you cannot engage in a hypothetical and be able to empathize yourself in someone else's shoes, IE if you are like 'realboy' in that tweet then you are not fully human, you are an animal.

>>720107147
Not sure if it's an actual study or apocryphal but the old tale that if you have boys and girls and you give them a toy of batman or superman or whatever
>Boys will think 'what would batman do', they'll roleplay as batman and play the toy as if it were batman
>Girls will simply play with the superhero toy as if it were them, tea parties and such