UHCM's Two Different Theories

Time Traveler's Paradox (Psychology)
"Stupidity is when you do the same thing for each trial, but you hoped to get a different result."
"Insanity is when you do something different for each trial, but you get the same result."

There would be cases where it would seem that the plot line is forced and leave the audience helpless against that plot. When that happens, three essential groups of rejection can occur, the Type 1, the Type 2, and the Type 3. It is considered the time traveler's paradox because the effort would require to "turn back time" and try to change the circumstances leading up to the event. Type 1 represents the helplessness to the result or "fate." Type 2 represents a conflicting exchange for one person to be replaced by another. Type 3 represents the futility of the result should the result or "fate" be changed without exchange. The point of it is that no matter how much could have changed the line, there is always something else to realign it without the initiator knowing about it. Should that line be broken instead of changed, it will repair itself even though it would be against the initiator's wishes. For freedom to exist, there should be inevitability and inevitability should not be trialed against without risking something precious to happen in a different way.

Type 1: The subject of the changed procedure will succumb to the same result by a different cause.
Example: The Time Machine (2002 version English Science Fiction Movie)
Subject of Example: Emma

Type 2: The subject of the changed procedure will succumb to the different result, but a different subject will succumb to the same result instead.
Example: Stein's Gate (Japanese Animation Series)
Subject of Example: Mayuri Shiina

Type 3: The subject of the changed procedure will be forced into the different result, but is rendered to a lesser state than before and will deteriorate overtime with that loss of place.
Example: Final Fantasy VII (Japanese Role-Playing Game)
Subject of Example: Aerith Gainsborough

===================================================================

Potential of Intelligence and Complexity of Stupidity (Psychology)
"Man has the greatest potential of intelligence, but also the greatest complexity of stupidity."

It is considered a difficult theory to comprehend thoroughly because of the diversity of the sample subjects. The theory is that even though stupidity is portrayed hand-in-hand with intelligence, there is often more things going on in stupidity than what intelligence would imply and vice versa. If I would approach an average joe and ask a difficult question such as, "Are mentally unsound people capable of thinking with more depth than they shown?" or "Are stupid people stupid by their intelligence or by the moment of their circumstances?" I could project my imagination to foresee three possible ways they could answer; path one is that they walk away as they leave it as something they don't know, path two is them trying to answer the best they could and make it as an opinion, and path three as they brush it off or get offended by my question. I see myself as a "path two" person, someone who will answer the best they can and try to make it their opinion. A path one person could be seen as stupid, but they may have intelligence that is more positive and considerable. A path two person could be seen as condescending or smart, but there can be some sign of both intelligence and stupidity. A path three person could be seen as rude or ignorant, but that person may have known about it, and thought it was a rhetorical question. The potential for intelligence is always present, but frequently underestimated by the conflict presented between the speaker and the listener.

The lists below are graded in two different ways; intelligence is graded from low to high by how much they could comprehend while stupidity is graded from low to high by how frequent mistakes are made from not knowing the lesson behind it to knowing about them. From time to time, I see myself graded as Considerable in intelligence and Repeated Offense in stupidity. How would you judged yourself?

Potential Intellect
1. Fair: Has the capacity to learn from something, but would take time to know the basics.
   
2. Decent: Has the capacity to learn from the basics, but would take time to understand it.
   
3. Considerable: Has the capacity to understand the basics, but troubled by the more advanced level of intelligence.
   
4. Beneficial: Has the capacity to learn the advanced level of intelligence, but finds it difficult to transcend from it.
   
5. Awesome: Has the capacity to transcend beyond known knowledge through trial and error.

Complex Stupidity
1. Ignorance: You failed to learn from the mistake and could not be able to do so unless a force changed the view of the mistake.
   
2. Stupidity: You failed to learn from the mistake and yet will be able to learn after doing it again.
   
3. Offense: You have learned from your mistake and did not do it again at all. (Hardest to be ranked as that.)
   
4. Repeated Offense: You have learned from that mistake, but occasionally make the same mistake again.
   
5. Addiction: You have learned from that mistake, but frequently make the same mistake again, despite knowing it is stupid.