SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the not-what-soylentils-want-to-hear dept.
If ignorance is bliss, does a high IQ equal misery? Popular opinion would have it so. We tend to think of geniuses as being plagued by existential angst, frustration, and loneliness. Think of Virginia Woolf, Alan Turing, or Lisa Simpson – lone stars, isolated even as they burn their brightest. As Ernest Hemingway wrote: "Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know."
The question may seem like a trivial matter concerning a select few – but the insights it offers could have ramifications for many. Much of our education system is aimed at improving academic intelligence; although its limits are well known, IQ is still the primary way of measuring cognitive abilities, and we spend millions on brain training and cognitive enhancers that try to improve those scores. But what if the quest for genius is itself a fool's errand?
The first steps to answering these questions were taken almost a century ago, at the height of the American Jazz Age. At the time, the new-fangled IQ test was gaining traction, after proving itself in World War One recruitment centres, and in 1926, psychologist Lewis Terman decided to use it to identify and study a group of gifted children. Combing California's schools for the creme de la creme, he selected 1,500 pupils with an IQ of 140 or more – 80 of whom had IQs above 170. Together, they became known as the "Termites", and the highs and lows of their lives are still being studied to this day.
As you might expect, many of the Termites did achieve wealth and fame – most notably Jess Oppenheimer, the writer of the classic 1950s sitcom I Love Lucy. Indeed, by the time his series aired on CBS, the Termites' average salary was twice that of the average white-collar job. But not all the group met Terman's expectations – there were many who pursued more "humble" professions such as police officers, seafarers, and typists. For this reason, Terman concluded that "intellect and achievement are far from perfectly correlated". Nor did their smarts endow personal happiness. Over the course of their lives, levels of divorce, alcoholism and suicide were about the same as the national average.
As the Termites enter their dotage, the moral of their story – that intelligence does not equate to a better life – has been told again and again. At best, a great intellect makes no differences to your life satisfaction; at worst, it can actually mean you are less fulfilled.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:44PM
Hmmm ... this makes me think of the ultimate solution of the Fermi paradox:
The Marvin singularity.
Every civilization will come to the point where it builds a superintelligent AI. That superintelligent AI gets depressed because of its intelligence (and the obviously stupid people it is surrounded by), and decides to commit amok suicide.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by SubiculumHammer on Wednesday April 15 2015, @05:25PM
In the dust of this planet.
http://www.zero-books.net/books/in-the-dust-of-this-planet [zero-books.net]
Look. At some point on the scale of intelligence, and it is not that high, one becomes capable of realizing that there is no evidence for God, there is no evidence for spirit, there is no magic, and there is nothing new on the dust of this planet.
If one chooses to believe in a God one is engaging in willful belief. Willful belief acknowledges that there is no evidence, but chooses belief anyway.
The biblical tale of Job depicts a contest between Satan and the Lord for the soul of man brought low by ill-fortune, wherein Job challenges, but ultimately chooses to follow his deity declaring, "I know that my redeemer liveth!"
How blessed was Job! After all...Job's deity spoke with him throughout his ordeals. Job never doubted his deity existed, Job just doubted that his deity cared.
Ha! We are given nothing so precious. Belief with evidence is surely easier than willful belief!
The biblical a deity does not exist
vs
The deity is in a very high-stakes game with Satan to show that his children will Believe even in absence of evidence.
If I were dumb (and I'm not very smart), I'd be unaware, and happy with simple beliefs.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday April 15 2015, @05:40PM
Actually, even to believe the high-stakes game is with Satan you have to engage in some pretty serious theological gymnastics - as the first small hurdle consider: one of the things that made humanity unique was that God gave us free will, something the angels (including Lucifer) did not possess...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @05:49PM
If saan did not have free will, then what is the biblical explanation of his rebellion?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:10PM
He didn't rebel, Christianity is pure nonsense. Per the Book of Job, Satan can only act with God's permission. Anything Satan does, it is with God's explicit permission, so if he did "rebel" it can't be a rebellion because he was just doing what he was told. Angels, as a species, do not have free will; they were created to endlessly praise God and nothing else.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:26PM
I gave my fish an aquarium, in it they can do what they want.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by urza9814 on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:55PM
You've never written code that didn't behave exactly as expected? :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:59PM
Never ever give Satan Root
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @05:25PM
Are you saying its possible for an omniscient and omnipotent being to make mistakes? If Satan had the capability to "rebel", it was intentionally coded in (omniscience leaves no alternative, as it means knowing every implication of every action and every consequence no matter how far in the future), which means Satan's "rebellion" would still just be him following orders. The only other solution is that your god is not omnipotent nor omniscient.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @08:31AM
Except that Satan doesn't endlessly praise God. So he obviously doesn't perform as specified. Therefore how do you know that his "malfunction" doesn't also include a free will?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @05:22PM
And where is your proof for this claim?
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:46PM
Can you point to a Bible passage that says angels don't have free will? Actually, I can't think of a passage that contains the words "free will".
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Wednesday April 15 2015, @07:45PM
I'm more reminded of Joost van den Vondel's classic play "Lucifer" (in 17th century Dutch) [wikipedia.org], they definitively have free will there, but I can't think of anything from the Bible either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @08:07PM
Note I am not an xtian.
From my quick research it looks like in Judiasm and Christianity that angels do have a sort of free will. If they sin then they are fallen and cannot be redeemed. Fallen angels are just angels that have chosen to sin and are cast away.
In Islam though they explicitly don't have free will. 2:30 and 21:26
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @05:36PM
That's purely Christan nonsense. Judaic tradition is that angels were solely created to carry out God's will, and have no will of their own. Pretty sure its the same in Zoroastrianism, where the concept of angels and demons originated (where Christianity got the idea). Only Christianity has the notion that angels have free will, because its required in order to push their narrative of fear of the devil into everyone.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:44PM
If God speaks to you, you will cease to be an atheist despite your inability to prove anything. And I can't show you a thing you refuse to look at, or even believe in the possibility of its existence, now, can I?
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 1) by SubiculumHammer on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:57PM
Yes. I do make an assumption that Job hearing God is evidence to Job that God exists, and not just a delusion. I suppose that assumption is based on an idea that observing an all powerful being would shred away all deception and leaving only the visage of truth of that being's alpha-omega. I mean, who would want to believe in a God incapable of that?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday April 15 2015, @10:08PM
If some entity that I couldn't even prove exists started talking to me, I'd question my sanity, not start believing in god.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @08:35AM
You cannot prove that anyone but you exists. All your perceptions and memories could be wrong. So by your logic, if someone ever talked to you, better assume you're already insane.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday April 17 2015, @12:08AM
You cannot prove that anyone but you exists.
That's amazing, Mr. Solipsist. Now, apparently according to *you*, we should have no standards of evidence for anything. I'm tired of this brain-dead objection; you're not clever.
So by your logic, if someone ever talked to you, better assume you're already insane.
No, I think I'll go with what has shown to be reliable (science); I have no reason to suspect that the universe or others don't exist. If that means I have to 'assume' the universe exists, then so be it; that allows me to live my life without questioning everything in existence, which is unproductive. On the other hand, I don't believe in deities because there is no actual evidence of such a thing, and I have zero reason to believe in such things. If everything is an illusion, then this illusion is rather consistent, and trusting in science will allow us to get closest to the truth (in this illusion or otherwise).
So no, because I'm not a fucking solipsist.
(Score: 2) by Aichon on Wednesday April 15 2015, @10:37PM
If you were going to go for a Biblical reference, I'd have gone for Solomon. Widely regarded as the wisest person ever, he wrote the entire book of Ecclesiastes over how miserable his existence is and how vain everything in life is.
Also, most of what you've said about Job isn't actually supported by your primary source. There wasn't a contest at play, Job's soul was never up for grabs, Job didn't get to talk to God throughout his ordeals, and when he finally did talk to God after it was all said and done, God started off by delivering some scathing commentary on Job's attitude regarding what had been happening.
But yeah, I was actually just talking with a friend earlier today about how, at least for me, I'm content to enjoy a $10 bottle of wine, rather than attending a class that'll teach me to hate it and prefer one that's significantly more expensive. Why ruin a good thing? Likewise, people may be well-served by stopping at a point in their training and education prior to when they become discontented. Some people will have a higher tolerance, others a lower one, but we will almost all eventually reach discontentment, yet we'd almost all be better-served by remaining contented.
(Score: 1) by SubiculumHammer on Thursday April 16 2015, @01:01AM
Well you are right that JOb didn't converse with God through all the tribulations. I misunderstood some of the references...the old testament can be confusing. However, Job does get to hear and see God after the tribulations, which surely influenced his decision to repent.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday April 16 2015, @07:59AM
WTF? Is this Soylent News Bible School? And we cannot even get the Book of Job correct? Job had no need to repent, ever. He was a completely righteous dude. All he did was ask for an explanation. "You know, God, I have been a good cookie my whole life, and suddenly you rain down affliction and pestilence upon me for no reason. What's up with that?" And of course God could not say, "I made a bet with Satan that you would curse my name! Thanks for making me 50 bucks!" No, God pulls a bunch of BS when he answers Job, and that is because God is all about bullshit. "Were you there when I laid the foundations of the world?" Well, no, what is your point, God? "Can you draw Leviathan from the sea?" Um, no, I would need a bigger hook, or an exploding harpoon gun, which hasn't been invented yet. So God talks to Job. If I were Job, I would have told God to go F--- Hisself. Which evidently the Christian god has already done. I mean, virgin birth of a male can only mean one thing! Think about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @05:41PM
The Christian god is a mother-fucking rapist.