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: 5, Insightful) by captain normal on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:20PM
"...Terman concluded that "intellect and achievement are far from perfectly correlated"." Maybe many intelligent people see that "wealth and fame" do not lead to a meaningful life.
The Musk/Trump interview appears to have been hacked, but not a DDOS hack...more like A Distributed Denial of Reality.
(Score: 3, Funny) by M. Baranczak on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:39PM
And maybe intelligent people have better things to do than write for "I Love Lucy".
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Tork on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:02PM
Maybe many intelligent people see that "wealth and fame" do not lead to a meaningful life.
Or, more simply, not everything an 'intelligent' person is passionate about is marketable.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mcgrew on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:25PM
Or that the marketable have any interest to anyone with brains. Justin Beiber is news? REALLY?
Why do the mainstream media act as if Donald Trump isn't a pathological liar with dozens of felony fraud convictions?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Tork on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:32PM
Or that the marketable have any interest to anyone with brains. Justin Beiber is news? REALLY?
Before casting stones about who has sophisticated tastes you may want to think about what sorts of porn you and your 'intelligent' friends have stashed on your computers.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:47PM
elderly british ladies are the height of sophistication, my good chap.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Tork on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:57PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Wednesday April 15 2015, @09:23PM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Wednesday April 15 2015, @07:02PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @08:25AM
Things can be appallingly ugly. That's a matter of taste, unrelated to intelligence.
Things can be appallingly stupid. That's absolutely related to intelligence.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday April 16 2015, @03:50PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @04:44PM
Why should I take my hand off of the mouse and put it on the desk? And my other hand is very well placed under my chin to support it, thank you very much.
Oh, and stop making conclusions from you to others; especially if it is about the type of videos they have.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday April 16 2015, @04:59PM
Why should I take my hand off of the mouse and put it on the desk?
I see....
Oh, and stop making conclusions from you to others; especially if it is about the type of videos they have.
It's funny when one guy tries to bullshit another guy about the porn he does or doesn't watch. The point still stands, sorry.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 1) by Paradise Pete on Thursday April 16 2015, @08:42AM
If anything has been amply demonstrated over time, it's that when it comes to DRA* intelligence goes out the window.
*dick-related activities
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Sunday April 19 2015, @02:12PM
My point was that entertainers are not news unless they run for office or do something that affects you (besides entertaining you). It wasn't a statement about talent, it was a statement about being socially important. If Beiber gave his entire fortune to cancer research, then he'd be newsworthy. His getting a DUI or something is not.
Why do the mainstream media act as if Donald Trump isn't a pathological liar with dozens of felony fraud convictions?
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday April 20 2015, @05:52PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday April 22 2015, @02:36PM
It has nothing to do with taste whatever, it has to do with the fact that ENTERTAINMENT IS NOT NEWS whether it's Justin Beiber or the New York Philharmonic. It annoys me when people can't understand that, almost as much as ABC's covering "dancing with the stars" as if that is in any way news.
Why do the mainstream media act as if Donald Trump isn't a pathological liar with dozens of felony fraud convictions?
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday April 22 2015, @05:05PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:04PM
"An intellectual is somebody who has found something more interesting than sex"
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:17PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 5, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday April 15 2015, @08:26PM
There is nothing better than pussy, my man, except maybe cocaine -- and dealing with both still involves plenty of goddamn hassle.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by mcgrew on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:23PM
Indeed, people always ask about the money my books are making, but I don't give a damn about the money. I have a pension and social security, which provides everything I need and most of what I want, for me to be grubbing after money would be stupid. That's why they're free to read or download, only the printed copies are for sale (well, except for one Amazon e'book).
I don't understand folks who put in 80 hours a week so they can drive a Lexus. It's just stupid.
Why do the mainstream media act as if Donald Trump isn't a pathological liar with dozens of felony fraud convictions?
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Thursday April 16 2015, @11:51AM
Hey some of us have expensive hobbies. Do you have any idea how much it costs to restore and maintain an inexpensive British roadster from the 60s?
Now that that is out of the way if I didn't have to worry about money I would probably spend my day either doing what a currently do, creating outdoor maps for hunting, camping, and fishing, or do vintage British racing. Probably all 3 in some combination.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday April 16 2015, @07:12PM
Google Style Mapping with Vintage British Race Cars?
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:24PM
So he thinks that you cannot be excellent as police officer or seafarer? Maybe the police officer has a superb rate at solving crimes? Maybe the seafarer is excellent at whatever special skills you need on a modern ship?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:32PM
Being a cop tends to beat you down in much the same way that being a seafarer can leave you drowning in work. The smart money is on creating puns and becoming a media personality or cult leader.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mcgrew on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:34PM
Smart MONEY? There you guys go, dragging your religion (money) into the discussion. Your religion is entirely contrary to mine, which says that the love of money is the root of all evil.
Someone who loves boats and the sea but hates sitting at a desk who nevertheless passes up a seafaring job and gets a desk job because it will buy him a McMansion and a Cadillac is an idiot.
Why do the mainstream media act as if Donald Trump isn't a pathological liar with dozens of felony fraud convictions?
(Score: 2) by TK-421 on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:53PM
Agreed.
I will add, that the cop and the mariner (where in the hell did seafarer come from?) both have occupations that serve others heavily. Cops, when not shooting fleeing folks, are generally serving the public good. Yes, I realize that recently this can be hard to believe that serving the public good is their purpose, I don't think that part is debatable. The mariner is likely going to either be captain or member of a crew. His/her life will depend on serving the ship and the crew more or less. My point here is that these occupations require acts of selflessness. Speaking for myself, I feel pretty good about life when I take the time to serve someone else without expectation of a reward.
As for a screen writer, I just don't have enough experience to convince me they have that same opportunity.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by FatPhil on Wednesday April 15 2015, @10:05PM
I would guess that one is a profession with a more sophisticated latinate root, and the other is a job with a more down-to-earth germanic root, but that's a total guess just from an abstract linguistics background.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @11:29PM
We get it dude, you don't hate black people. Just prefix your post with "IDNHBP" to status signal instead -- it allows readers to skip the shit.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @07:04PM
which says that the love of money is the root of all evil.
Money is but a tool. It is the idolization of that tools value that brings upon the evil.
Here is the thing about money. Once you get to a particular place you are 'OK'. That level of 'OK' is very different for everyone. Some people desire to only walk upon marble and have new socks every day. Others are good with an old comfy chair and a book borrowed from the library.
I used to obsess over money. However, once I paid off my house that obsession went away. I was not coveting money. I was coveting a place to live. Money was the tool for that. Coveting money is not that I desire money. I desire the 'power' money brings.
I have recently tried putting some thought into what I do once this job I have 'runs out'. As I have no desire one way or another for another job. Money is of a minor concern but only to make sure those others in my life are OK. I have found a new vice. Sloth :(
You sound like you are in a similar place. You have 'enough' money to do what you want. You at least sound like you have found something to do with your time. Writing holds no flame for me either.
My passion is gone. One of the curses of 'being smart' is I can figure it out. Once I do that I no longer am interested.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @07:50PM
(posting as AC b/c of personal information)
Agree, 100% (just wish my wife could see this POV). Just resigned from a salary position at a small search marketing company because:
a) it was run by an "unethical" man whose business I could not support growing
b) the job was a **total** waste of my skills, talents, and life-work
Currently seeking employment with the USPS because it will let me focus on my true calling (music composition and performance/participation direction), and probably more importantly because at least in delivering mail I'll be providing real value to customers (as opposed to "perceived value" at the marketing job... what a load of BS that "discipline" is).
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mmcmonster on Wednesday April 15 2015, @10:07PM
Possibly. Some people seem to worship the almight dollar.
But to others (and I consider myself one of them) money is a means to an end. Money is freedom. Free to do whatever I want to do and not care too much about the social consequences.
As I save more money for my future, I've noticed that I've become more eccentric and enjoy myself more.
In the future I see myself still working, but just enough to keep me entertained (I truly enjoy most of what I do). Will probably cut down my hours and start traveling more in the next couple years or so. As it is, I'm spending more time with the kids now than I did 5 years ago.
So yes, I do watch my dollars now. But that's because I have a plan to be free in the future.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:30PM
Also, a dumb dog can be blissfully happy in his ignorance till his "unexpected" end. Whereas the smart, knowledgeable and perceptive often have a very good idea that they're in for a very nasty checkmate many moves away. See also the Down Syndrome folk - many people say it should be called "Up Syndrome" :).
Sometimes ignorance truly is bliss. Eating a lot from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil ain't such a wonderful thing...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @05:11PM
I disagree, and for the same reason that began your post:
With perception comes the awareness that we have exceptionally little ability to affect meaningful change. There is even reasonable evidence that self-efficacy is an illusion all together. But that is besides my point. Because someone can be aware of possibilities does not mean that they are capable of making those possibilities happen.
The most obvious and mundane is changing someone else's opinion. How many times have you seen someone convince another to change their opinion? We exercise that skill every day on this and other sites, yet few success stories are to be had. That is just a simple immaterial matter of no significance. Just imagine how hard it is to change anything in the world at large given we can not even change the minds of others. Sure it looks possible, but in reality unless it is some technical change it is far more up to chance than ability.
Because the clever/perceptive/highly intelligent are aware of how low the odds of success are, while people of lesser abilities are not, the people of greater ability are not more responsible, but less. The odds are so small and the pay off so unsure of positive benefit that choosing to try to change anything in a meaningful way for them becomes as foolish as spending all your money on scratch off tickets.
Let the less aware that run on faith or belief take the high risks and leave the more able people to apply their efforts with efficiently.
(Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Wednesday April 15 2015, @07:54PM
>>Just imagine how hard it is to change anything in the world
I can work to change myself. And that is enough. This truth is taught to children in elementary school, but surprisingly few take it to heart.
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @09:03PM
Absolutely I can't stress my agreement enough. The only thing we are directly adjacent to in the Cartesian sense and thus have any certainty of knowledge or control is ourselves. Or rather our thoughts, but that is for another time.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday April 15 2015, @11:04PM
Elementary school teaches pupils what the need to know in order to be a useful cog in the society. If truth happens to be included it's by accident.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @12:01AM
Play nice
Eat a snack when you are cranky
Share
Take naps
Dinosaurs are awesome
Put stuff back where you found it
Spend more time outside
Go to bed at a decent hour
Yep, everything needed to live a happy life right there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @10:27AM
And then corporations take an interest in you(r money), and the message becomes:
Watch sports
Eat a snack whenever you have a hand free
Sharing is piracy
Napping means you're lazy and should be fired
Okay, dinosaurs *are* awesome
No refunds
Spend more time at work
Watch infomercials until you pass out
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Common Joe on Thursday April 16 2015, @05:40AM
No, it is not enough. Not if one wants to live. I want food on the table. To do that, I need a job. My ability to find a job requires me to convince someone in power who has money that requires the services I can provide. And I depend on other people so I can accomplish my job (like the ISP or the electrical companies). I need to convince countless people in my life to make changes in their lives (i.e., change the world) just so I can live. And it's damn hard sometimes.
Case in point: I moved to Europe not so long ago. I just spent the last four months getting through all the paperwork just so I could get tested for a driver's license. It should have only taken a week or so for the paperwork and a couple of weeks to study for the exam, but other people can't get their shit together and it's been one giant ugly ball of mess and incompetence. I had to go and beat people over the head. (I wish it could have been literally.)
If I took the idea to "change only myself and that's enough" only at face value, I'd read books or write programs all day and watch movies at night, but I would literally starve doing that. I have to go out and change the world if I want to live.
A lot of people spew this kind of crap advice. Life isn't black and white like this.
Don't take my rant too harshly or personally. My driving test is today and I'm a bit agitated.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday April 16 2015, @07:09AM
How did the test go? The bureaucracy varies from European country to country, in some places things can and do happen more or less as you expected them to.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Thursday April 16 2015, @03:08PM
Germany is one of the kings of paperwork in the world. And personal experience has taught me that they are no more competent than their American counterparts. (I'll back that up in a moment.)
As for the test: I passed the written test less than three hours ago. (I hadn't taken it at the time of my last comment.) Next step? Another appointment and more waiting.
Initially, we made an appointment with the driver's license bureau. We were told to bring X and Y paperwork. My wife verified that we didn't need anything else. When we got there, the girl swore they didn't need X paperwork so we didn't hand it in, but she absolutely needed Z which had to be translated. (In other words, a wasted appointment.) So we made an appointment to bring in Z paperwork to a third party, then the translated Z paperwork had to be picked up. Then we were going to make another appointment with the driver's license bureau, but they said we could mail it in so we did. Oh... and they wondered why we didn't hand in X paperwork when we were there. So we mailed in X and Z paperwork. Then we waited three weeks. (They said it would take two to process.) Then we called and asked what was going on. They said some person got our paperwork and processed it, but forgot to put it in next person's inbox. More waiting. Finally, we get a letter saying I can make an appointment for the written part of the test.
I had ordered the driving manual a few months ago and studied it some. It was €50 for a very crappy 93 page English translation that came directly from the license bureau. It took me two days to go through the book and another full day to ask my wife's family what certain parts were talking about. (There were a lot of unclear, poorly translated, and poorly formatted things. The whole book was a disaster.) Certain I could finish studying the information in there, we made an appointment for today to take the test. Then, this past Sunday, I spoke with a friend who just got his license. He loaned me his online account (to somewhere) so I could see the actual questions with the real answers. (Germany seemed to be fond of publishing their questions and answers, but only if you know where to look and pay gobs of money.) I found out on Monday that €50 book didn't have all information. On Monday and Tuesday, I went through 993 questions and their answers. Yesterday (Wednesday), I went over the questions I didn't understand fully. (Approximately 200 of them.) Then I took the test today and passed. Fresh from the test with everything we could need, we asked what the next step was. We need to make another appointment to trade in my American license. Apparently, they couldn't do it spur of the moment so that means more waiting. Woo hoo.
I am dog tired. Mentally, it's been a brutal week.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday April 17 2015, @03:32PM
Sorry to hear that it has not gone well - although that is still better than a fail, I think... And I thought the French were the masters of bureaucracy!
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Friday April 17 2015, @03:59PM
Definitely better than fail. Trading in a license instead of doing everything from scratch saves me gobs of time and money. At least I don't have to do a practical driving test too. I'm a safe driver, so everything is good. After all, I'm just like the other 95% of the people out who think they're better than the average driver.
[Looking up bureaucracy] Looks like the word comes from the French sometime about 200 years ago. The Americans and Germans have it down pat and I'm pretty sure the Brits are pretty steeped in it too. Maybe the four countries have some kind of competition thing going?
(Score: 1) by deroby on Friday April 17 2015, @05:08PM
Hmm.. if there is a challenge going on between France, Germany and the UK, that would explain the situation here in Belgium...
I'm kidding... kind of.
My experiences here with bureaucracy are that they are probably not worse than anywhere else, but in all honesty I can't compare really. In fact, each time I go out of the Shengen Area I'm getting the feeling that I'm living a sheltered life.
Then again, here too it sure helps to ask the right people because on your own you're never going to get it right the first time.
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Friday April 17 2015, @06:40PM
You're spot on and this is the thing that gets me pretty frustrated. You walk into a place that should have the answers and if you don't fall into the 80% category, they don't know what to do with you. In my case with driving, it probably works ok if you go through a school of driving for a few months. (Germany is pretty strict.) I have decades of experience driving and Germany is happy to "simply" trade licenses under certain circumstances which is what I tried to do. Unfortunately, no one person seems to be able to give you a single set of instructions to get through on the first shot. They seem to expect the driving schools to help you navigate their bureaucracy. And it isn't just for driving. It seems to be everything: banking, internet setup, apartment hunting... everything. And it was mostly the same way in the U.S. too when I lived there. A few details may have been different, but the mentality was the same.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 16 2015, @03:53AM
Just imagine how hard it is to change anything in the world at large given we can not even change the minds of others.
The two aren't related, unless you attempt to change the world by changing minds. There are other ways and some of them can be far more effective.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @08:37AM
The GP doesn't seem to be aware that there far better ways of changing and influencing minds than in direct discussion/debate (where people are more likely to be ready to be defensive and hold their ground).
Advertising, media etc work. And how the heck does he think ISIS gets so many recruits. Not all of them were born that way, or even were that way when they were children (just ask their parents).
That said this guy sure has a knack of changing minds over a chat: http://guardianlv.com/2013/11/kkk-member-walks-up-to-black-musician-in-bar-but-its-not-a-joke-and-what-happens-next-will-astound-you/ [guardianlv.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 16 2015, @09:21AM
And of course, there was the approach that Davis used, which was to connect to people via a neutral subject, music. That gets to the point you were making, AC, of better approaches to changing and influencing minds.
I think SoylentNews and other discussion forums are useful in that they bring people together without obvious cues that could lead to instant mental rejection. I like to head butt a lot particularly with unusual arguments. I'd say 60-80% of my posts are such. While they aren't likely to immediately convince the people I speak with (especially in the times when I'm in error), I think there is a crucial point to direct discussion, namely, a demonstration to people outside the conversation that there are other viewpoints out there than the standard ones.
There's a clunky term for a sea change in group consensus called "preference cascade". The idea is that people of certain beliefs are more common than they perceive themselves as being and that due to this perception and perhaps external forces, people conform to the perceived beliefs rather than their actual beliefs. But at certain times, information is revealed that changes the perception of consensus. Then there is a shift in consensus to something which more closely matches the beliefs of the group.
And it is possible for consensus to be way out of line with the beliefs of the people who constitute the group. A commonly used example is a totalitarian regime. Here, the idea is that almost everyone would rather not be part of the regime, but due to the rigid control on speech, they are unaware of how prevalent their beliefs are and are unwilling to act on them as a result. But when someone manages to publicly express discontent then that creates awareness that one is not alone and then revolution happens. The tyranny strives as a survival mechanism to create the appearance of consensus. Should that be broken, then there is a preference cascade to something which more closely matches the actual distribution of beliefs of the society.
For example, I commonly engage people who assume something is true solely because of a vague "scientific consensus". This argument is notoriously common in climate research where most of the research is extremely hard for the layman to understand and there is an institutionalized propaganda machine to further the argument, but it appears in other places as well. Another example of assumed things are moral consensus arguments like the assumption that a social safety net is a desirable thing (because a lot of people would get a piece of the action) or that employers are always blood sucking parasites in the wrong (employers being a despised and envied minority). But these things aren't true just because a lot of people would like them to be true. As a result, merely speaking up publicly gives others the chance to see that there is not universal agreement on this and the possibility of a preference cascade to something which more accurate reflects our true beliefs and hopefully creates a saner approach to reality in the process.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:54PM
And I suspect, hypothetically, an evolutionary psychology(!) based explanation for this.
My pseudoscientific narrative goes like this:
Biologically, happiness and sadness and other positive/negative feelings come from parts of animal brains that are oriented towards positive and negative reinforcement. Inputs like hunger or fear are intended to promote a change in state to fix those issues. We subjectively feel those pressures as unpleasant, unwanted.
Humans are nearly unique in our capacity to look ahead and consider our own feelings in a hypothetical future state. It's partially an artifact of our intelligence. Some smart birds and primates have show similar natural ability to plan ahead as us, so it's not totally unique. But just seeing that state wasn't enough for our ancestors to out-compete their contemporaries. Those whose parts of their brain that cause negative reinforcement to state, if also active in those forecasts, would motivate us to act to prevent them. So we anguish over future decisions constantly, often to the point of neurosis.
We're miserable because of mental adaptations that help keep us from dying, because it's always possible to foresee terrible crises to be averted.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday April 15 2015, @10:12PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Interesting) by VortexCortex on Wednesday April 15 2015, @07:06PM
[With great intelligence comes great responsibility] More so if you also have enough awareness and perception. If you're so clever and knowledgeable and know "X more moves" ahead, you're responsible for a lot more- there's more you might be able to do too to make things better/less crap.
Careful. The guilt of responsibility is easily manipulated.
Awareness doesn't necessarily require higher intelligence, and higher intelligence doesn't necessarily mean being aware of anything important. Typically intelligence drives curiosity and thus smart people tend to find themselves more aware of things like how the media is chock full of lies. Curious discrepancies in reporting led me down the path to (re)discovery that our political system was completely and utterly broken, largely due to an uneducated (not dumb) public. The type of education they needed wasn't book smarts or "genius" or IQ (which just measures how fast you learn, not how good you are at applying knowledge). The type of education they needed was the basic important facts being unreported in the state controlled media.
For a long while (in my teens) I was depressed that I couldn't do anything about it, and almost wished for ignorance. It was very disenchanting and disheartening to have checked the facts for lies and omissions every mainstream media outlet was spewing, and yet be dismissed as "conspiracy theorist" by the wilfully ignorant masses.
Later in life, thanks to BBSs and later the Internet I found that there were other people who were aware of the propaganda too. One famous linguist had been trying to get the word out for decades. [youtube.com] With this new awareness I no longer felt alone; I soon learned to laugh with others while discussing the ridiculousness of it all. The people who are happy to trust media lies at face value are the same with votes that don't matter anyway. No longer burdened with the necessity to do the media's job of making people aware of the reality of the situation allowed me to pick a different sort of battle. I wouldn't be able to change the media narratives or convince most to discard decades of state propaganda fed to them in school. [youtube.com] (Note: Today's schooling doesn't promote intelligence, it knowingly hampers the gifted and free thinking; Watch the video and find out how). It was the more aware (not necessarily intelligent) people who could make a difference. What they need are better tools to gain more awareness easier -- A way to gather information not filtered by the state; A way to compare reporting of events and point out the (more likely false) disparities. In short: I became aware of what part I could actually do to help change things as best I can. It just so happens that machine learning is also primarily concerned with awareness.
Unfortunately, I soon ran into those that thought themselves more aware, but whom had been fed lies and ideologies not based on fact which often sound reasonable on the surface. For example, there were people buying into Depopulation agendas while using Climate Change and environmental preservation to rationalize their extremely flawed views. To them more efficient food and transportation and city layouts were off the table, and only eliminating population would suffice as the final solution. Many of these useful idiots who thought themselves more aware were merely seduced by yet more propaganda. Few demanded we test any hypothesis of their ideology or tried to refute the null hypothesis disproving them; Any event or speaker that confirmed their bias was accepted "fact" no matter how flawed, and any that shed doubt were dismissed as an outlier or liars no matter evidence to the contrary. Having a high IQ doesn't make one immune to cognitive bias. The burden of a little awareness was successfully being used against them to repress rationality and enlist consent for actions furthering ulterior motives. How odd that basic confirmation bias and selection bias is so effective against both above and below average intelligence "intellectuals".
Most concerning was that the wealthier the intellectual the more "burdened" they felt and more dedicated they were to carrying out deeds required of their insane ideology. E.g., since the masses won't ever be minority of aware and "important" individuals we should try to keep them happy and useful by using propagandizing and "normalizing" education (hold back the intelligent to promote the slower learning); Thus creating a happy working class and having "important" intelligent people privately schooled. This was their rationality for Common Core's federal tracking of personality profiles and "correcting" students with undesired personality traits (like those troublesome, anti-authoritarian, curious and clever hackers who those with secrets most fear -- seriously, watch that 2nd vid I linked). The ends all seemed to justify the means because they bought into scaremongering ideologies.
Fortunately there are enough aware people that I can socialize with others rather than the so-called "intellectual elite" useful idiots who merely think themselves aware, important, and burdened to follow flawed-ideologies to their terrible ends. For example, while the elites believe that normalizing the workforce will help in the transition to their replacement by robotic workers freeing people from menial labour, the more aware of us discuss how this will make those ex-workers useless resource consumers (and targets for depopulation) while making humanity dependent upon mechanical systems and thus easily controlled by those who own the machines. While those unusually proud of their "high IQ" squander it with trivial pursuits the more aware of us discuss forms of alternative education that actually accelerate and accommodate those with a desire to learn, such as home-schooling and curriculum free learning. [wikipedia.org] I know I can't change the entire world, but I can help by finding and helping those curious and dispossessed before they waste their smarts in indoctrination camps dressed up as educational facilities. I can help facilitate awareness, even among the "unintelligent" (you don't have to be smart or gifted to see how you're being screwed).
Sometimes ignorance truly is bliss. Eating a lot from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil ain't such a wonderful thing...
Sometimes, perhaps. However, if you are unaware of your ignorance you can't know to be blissful because of it -- you'll find other things to be equally unhappy about than what you're unaware of. Likewise, selfishly wallowing in bliss doesn't require ignorance. In fact I find even more satisfaction in my "guilty pleasures" now knowing just how selfish they really are, e.g., I enjoy an evening "wasted" playing video games and eating steak knowing the true price of my actions. Future historians who aggregate and filter our archives will rejoice that they have our alternative and more accurate analysis of world events. Those that remain unaware of misinformation are doomed to repeat the history enshrouded by it. I would rather die full of wonder hoping my actions were beneficial than to live in ignorance aware of only my untapped potential while fretting over trivial things. Be careful, sometimes the price of a little blissful ignorance is a life lived in frustrating bewilderment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @08:04PM
Not to take your excellent post lightly, I would like address some select points. The internet at large might just be the system of gaining awareness more easily that you wish for. It is something that I pretend gives my work meaning. Another is related to both the "intellectual elite" and machine learning. We have been focusing on sentience of AI and increasing our own without regard to sapience. It is that we should be trying to maximize. Wisdom, for lack of a better term, I take as being awareness added to intelligence. Technical correctness is great and we have made wonderful strides in that area, but have been stagnant for centuries in applying awareness with it such as your example of automation being great, but also being bad. It is a never ending wonder to me how so many things in the doing annihilate itself or the gains made. That may be some sort of subconscious or even conscious awareness of those with high IQ that pushes them to apply their abilities in realms of triviality, as the end results of trivial things don't particularly matter as much as the process. That might explain why so many brilliant minds have more passion for sci-fi, video games, or debating if this post would have been more well received with paragraph breaks than doing something of actual value ;)
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday April 15 2015, @11:22PM
How does todays schooling de-promote intelligence and knowingly hamper the gifted and free thinking?
How does the federal Common Core track personality profiles? and how do they correct them?
The internet is likely to connect the aware and perhaps gifted and allow them to leave the ignorant in the dust. So perhaps it's a good aid in your goals?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @12:59AM
How does todays schooling de-promote intelligence and knowingly hamper the gifted and free thinking?
Because it focuses almost entirely on rote memorization, and neglects understanding. Math, in the school system, is simply memorizing formulas and applying them to the arbitrary problems on tests and worksheets. Worksheets will consist of the same types of problems over and over, and since schooling is a one-size-fits-all 'solution', you must do them all even if you understand the material. You must do the same material as everyone else in the class even if you're far beyond them, and doing anything 'strange' or 'dangerous' could result in expulsion. Obedience to authority is revered above all else, and if you deviate, you are punished (suspension, expulsion, bad grades); this is true even if the authority is foolish. Schools do not promote creativity or understanding.
In fact, it wasn't much different in the past. Sure, No Fool Left Behind made things worse, and Common Core won't fix anything, but it was about the same.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday April 16 2015, @08:33AM
One problem with the anti-depopulation loons is that their propaganda is even more full of deceitful lies than the depopulationists'. Of course, if you follow the money, you normally end up at the catholic church...
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mhajicek on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:37PM
If more intelligent people are more depressed, a sufficiently advanced civilization may commit mass suicide.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:40PM
You're pretty smart for solving Fermi's Paradox.
...Thanks for dooming us all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @05:53PM
I'm glad I am not the only one that subscribes to that idea.
(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".
Why do the mainstream media act as if Donald Trump isn't a pathological liar with dozens of felony fraud convictions?
(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?
Why do the mainstream media act as if Donald Trump isn't a pathological liar with dozens of felony fraud convictions?
(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.
(Score: 1) by SubiculumHammer on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:58PM
Yep. I'm a Cog-Native too! The depth of your wit is impressive.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tathra on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:08PM
intelligent people are more depressed because they're surrounded by idiots, which makes it extremely difficult to connect with people and make friends. humans are social creatures and require socialization to be healthy, and forced isolation is torture.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:47PM
I don't get depressed by idiots, but they do often annoy me.
Why do the mainstream media act as if Donald Trump isn't a pathological liar with dozens of felony fraud convictions?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @11:58PM
By memory (sorry I do not have a citation), people have a hard time relating to others that are more than 1.5 standard deviations away from them in IQ. So an average person would have difficulty relating to someone roughly 23 points higher and vice versa. Funnily enough that explains why really smart people can't relate to normal people and still cant understand geniuses.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:56PM
Would a sufficiently high IQ have allowed you to finish reading the short article and see that the title is opposite the actual study? The study found that intelligent people are no more or less happy or depressed than anyone else.
Why do the mainstream media act as if Donald Trump isn't a pathological liar with dozens of felony fraud convictions?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday April 15 2015, @10:45PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Sunday April 19 2015, @02:03PM
That hasn't been my experience; maybe it's the university culture. Half the folks I worked with held doctorates and almost all of them seemed completely normal to me.
Why do the mainstream media act as if Donald Trump isn't a pathological liar with dozens of felony fraud convictions?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @11:35PM
Yeah, lol. Look at the West in a 100 years, and you might prove yourself right.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:37PM
1. Humans tend to like those dumber than themselves, because they're easy to understand and manipulate if necessary. They tend to fear smart people unless they are absolutely certain the smart person is on their side, because they're unpredictable and thus dangerous. Indeed, that might be one reason alcohol functions as a "social lubricant" - it makes everyone stupider, so everyone feels safer.
2. Smart people understand fully threats and problems that stupid people aren't even aware of or don't know what to make of it. "It's so hot right now" versus "Heavy coal-powered industry is making it hotter every single year, and if we don't do something about that we're going to have a really huge problem on our hands." James Flynn, discoverer of the Flynn Effect, noted that one reason the left-wing activists of the 60's had such a hard time with their parents is that the activists could handle hypothetical reasoning like "How would you feel if you were black?" while white parents couldn't even consider the question.
Both of those frequently leave smart people with full knowledge of a problem that most people don't understand along with a solution to that problem, and a complete lack of power to make that solution a reality.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by TK-421 on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:01PM
Of course, sometimes, the wizards of smart come up with some rather vulgar solutions [nzherald.co.nz] that venture into the realm of sociopathy. [reference.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by lentilla on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:47PM
some rather vulgar solutions [nzherald.co.nz]
Your linked article is perfectly germane to this discussion in that it discusses inherited smartness and also shows how less smart people can completely fail to understand what smarter people have said.
Here's the summary lifted directly "An internationally recognised expert on intelligence warns New Zealand children could get dumber in three or four generations unless women with higher education started producing more babies."
As evidence he supplies some data: women without tertiary eduction have 2.57 babies, women with tertiary education 1.85. So; assuming that "less smart" women produce less smart babies; as time goes on the population's overall smartness will decrease.
But wait, here is my favourite part. In hearing of this, we have a politician coming up with a better solution:
"Rather than talking about encouraging smart women to have babies and dumb women not to have babies, what we do need to do is make the commitment to good quality education."
So apparently the plan is: educate less-smart people more, which will increase their IQ, which will make smarter babies.
*facepalm*
We are going to see a lot of discussion in this thread about smart people being able to see things that others simply don't notice. That statement by a politician is an excellent example of this effect. They appear to be truly unable to grasp what someone said and have come up with a solution that doesn't address the issue at hand. How typical. As Thexalon says in the grandparent of this post:
Both of those frequently leave smart people with full knowledge of a problem that most people don't understand along with a solution to that problem, and a complete lack of power to make that solution a reality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @07:15PM
As evidence he supplies some data: women without tertiary eduction have 2.57 babies, women with tertiary education 1.85. So; assuming that "less smart" women produce less smart babies; as time goes on the population's overall smartness will decrease.
He mentioned higher education in that quote. Does he think all that knowledge will magically be carried over to offspring?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @11:07AM
Education starts in the womb, not in the school.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday April 15 2015, @11:40PM
Establish state sponsored child care and economic compensation for making babies to highly educated women who otherwise just does the math and figures it's not worth their time and money. For the rest make it cool to use rubber at all times. Or free dress credit for combined injectable contraceptive.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday April 15 2015, @11:42PM
Politicians decide on many stupid things. But reality is there to give them feedback ;-)
But it will waste the resources of the commons.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @05:45PM
The feedback loop doesn't work when they're completely delusional and claim reality is a giant liberal conspiracy preventing their perfect ideas from working.
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Thursday April 16 2015, @06:05AM
Actually, there is truth to this. (Not that I expect a politician to get that right. I'm quite sure this statement is by complete accident and it will never be implemented correctly.)
There's an exponential effect if you can get kids educated at an early age. My Mom taught me to read at an early age which gave me a leg up on those who didn't learn to read and comprehend until several years later. (Thank you, Mom.) People who worked with computers at an early age tend to have an easier time interacting with them later.
Not perfect by a long shot, but parents pass information on to their offspring. The payout for that kind of investment won't be obvious for a generation or two. This is a huge reason why poverty (and single family mom working two or more jobs) can be so devastating to the children for more than a generation.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:53PM
Manipulating others is a sign of sociopathy and has nothing to do with intelligence. I did meet one guy who said I scared him because I was "too smart", though, and my daughter says I like to go to bars because it's the only place I can go and be as stupid as everyone else; there may be something to that.
Want to know what it's like to be really smart? Go into a bar sober and drink pepsi, you'll see what it's like to be smart and how annoying normal people can be.
Why do the mainstream media act as if Donald Trump isn't a pathological liar with dozens of felony fraud convictions?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:55PM
Cue for someone to brag about how smart they are in a(n) = n-1
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @08:08PM
Talking about intellectual ability is often taken as bragging even though it is not. Is it bragging to say a person has a specific trait or ability? Only if it is an exaggeration. And how can we know it is an exaggeration without knowing a person far better than we ever could by interacting with them in a news aggregator's comment section?
(Score: 1) by CamOfGallifrey on Wednesday April 15 2015, @05:01PM
The issue can also lie in social skills and how they develop. A child with advanced perception and mind set is a bit of a freak to the rest of the children, which leads to ostracizing. Some adapt, some don't. Often a sense of entitlement or arrogance sets in, and this is hard to shake as they grow older. Once you're older, most people catch up to the child prodigies to some degree are on a much more similiar level, but you can consider some damage done. Add in that they are still people with the same desires and dreams and motivations, just more capable to adapt and leap forward and this all shouldn't be a surprise that they still do what some would consider mundane. The idea of them seeing happiness, that could be attributed just as easily as being more realistic and saying they are content instead of estatic.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday April 15 2015, @11:45PM
A child with advanced perception don't want to waste their time with idiots? And thus will get less social training.
(Score: 3, Funny) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday April 15 2015, @05:02PM
Slartibartfast: I'd far rather be happy than right any day.
Arthur Dent: And are you?
Slartibartfast: No. That's where it all falls down of course.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GeminiDomino on Wednesday April 15 2015, @05:51PM
"It is best for man to be middle-wise,
Not over cunning and clever:
The learned man whose lore is deep
Is seldom happy at heart."
--The Havamal (Elder Edda, ca. 13c.)
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @08:10PM
Neither is it news to say that the universe is made of stuff, yet we talk about dark matter with great interest. The refinement of ideas in one area is just as newsworthy as in another.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:11PM
Please stop buying into this pseudoscience. I cringe whenever I see it. As if we could provide a simple number that tells people how intelligent someone is based on simplistic tests when we don't even understand intelligence. To people who arbitrarily assume that making more money, doing better in school, or other such things equates to intelligence, IQ makes sense; to people who realize all of that is arbitrary, not so much. Even many people on sites such as this buy into the IQ scam, and it is sad.
And save the typical illogical ad hominem attacks, please.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @08:13PM
Again, IQ is the best we have. It is not very good, but it is better than nothing. To say that IQ is pseudoscience just because it is not very good is to say that Newton was engaged in pseudoscience because he did not account for things he did not understand. It is a small step away from pure subjectivity, one that is in the right direction.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @10:05PM
Again, IQ is the best we have.
That doesn't matter! If the "best we have" is abysmal garbage (which IQ is), then relying on it is foolish. I reject this 'solution' because it is pseudoscientific if you try to use it to measure someone's intelligence. Pseudoscience doesn't become better just because we don't have another solution; that just means we need to look for other solutions, not accept pseudoscience. That's just bad reasoning.
It's not even comparable to what Newton did, as physics isn't so arbitrary and subjective. The social 'sciences' are a joke in comparison.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @12:03AM
You have a lot to learn. Both about physics and making do with what we have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @12:40AM
If what we have promotes ignorance (as pretending that IQ is a measure of intelligence does), then we shouldn't make do with it; we should scrap it, as it is actually harmful. If a new invention killed the user 100% of the time, despite there not being a 'better' invention like it, it should be rejected. We can get along fine without pretending that IQ measures intelligence, so I'm not sure why you fools seemingly think society would fall apart without this IQ nonsense.
And if you think physics is comparable to the social 'sciences', you're a damn fool. The levels of rigor, bias, and objectivity are different.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @03:50AM
You thought I did, and you are a damn fool for assuming it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @06:20AM
Well then, I'll simply disregard the content in your previous post.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @12:10AM
So you reject a system because it is arbitrary and subjective by not having any system at all and being completely arbitrary and subjective. That's just bad reasoning. Look, if you are starving you would not look down on food that tasted abysmal, then why do it intellectually too? Unless you are prepared to propose a better system, your childish musings on abysmal garbage and jokes are just that.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @12:37AM
So you reject a system because it is arbitrary and subjective by not having any system at all and being completely arbitrary and subjective.
There is no way to measure someone's intelligence, so don't pretend there is. Since there is no current way to measure intelligence, I reject everything that claims to do this and fails, including completely arbitrarily and subjective methods (which IQ basically is anyway).
Look, if you are starving you would not look down on food that tasted abysmal
Not comparable. We won't die just because we don't use a piece of garbage like IQ and pretend it's an indicator of intelligence.
Unless you are prepared to propose a better system, your childish musings on abysmal garbage and jokes are just that.
I see it is popular to call something "childish" as a way of showing that you think it is false. All that means is that even a child can come up with objections to IQ; you have been beaten by children. Remember, arguments stand on their own merits, and labeling something "childish" does not make it wrong.
I don't need to come up with a "better" system to reject a terrible system. I believe promoting IQ as a way of measuring intelligence promotes ignorance, and is therefore overall harmful, so getting rid of this idea would be an improvement in and of itself. Nice non sequitur, though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @03:52AM
You are truly delusional.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @03:56AM
Syllogistic logic isn't what you think it is. Your hypocrisy and ignorance is deafening.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @06:24AM
You are truly delusional.
Syllogistic logic isn't what you think it is. Your hypocrisy and ignorance is deafening.
Nice counterarguments. Or lack thereof, as the case may be. The word "hypocrisy" seems popular, even if someone didn't contradict themselves at all; using it instead of an actual argument sure does make things easier.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @08:43AM
FTFY
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @04:47PM
As far as I know, the only method we have is IQ, which is what is being criticized here. Do you know of another method?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday April 16 2015, @06:33PM
IQ . . . it is not very good, but it is better than nothing
No, it isn't! And just saying "yes, it is" is not very intelligent, is it?
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday April 16 2015, @12:06AM
Being able to realize and do things others simply can't, is beneficial. If you can make elementary particles (or energy) do things you find fascinating. Realize mathematical truths. Or just make any electronic device do your bidding right away. Or bend the financial system to benefit you. Perhaps use the social sphere to your ends. Sure cognitive ability gives you useful possibilities?
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:13PM
"Here I am, brain the size of a planet, and they ask me to take you to the bridge. Call that job satisfaction, 'cause I don't. Arthur"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mcgrew on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:17PM
"We tend to think of geniuses as being plagued by existential angst, frustration, and loneliness. Think of Virginia Woolf, Alan Turing, or Lisa Simpson"
Two of those three are FICTIONAL CHARACTERS, and Turing, the only real person, wasn't plagued by anything except his sexual orientation and people's reaction to it. Had he not had the misfortune of being born homosexual, I doubt he would have committed suicide.
At the bottom of the summary (article?) it states, and this cannot be emphasized too much, Over the course of their lives, levels of divorce, alcoholism and suicide were about the same as the national average. This DISPROVES the "smart guy's angst" theory.
As to Hemingway, not only has my experience differed from his (my experience parallels what the study said), I don't understand why people think he's so great, I find the writing tedious. OTOH look at some seriously smart people -- Isaac Asimov, for example. I see no sign of angst in his life, although I know his divorce wasn't fun; they never are. Look at Stephen Hawking, he seems happy even trapped in that chair. My former boss was the smartest guy I ever met, and he was happy.
As to "ignorance is bliss", that hasn't been my experience, either. The most disturbed souls I know are a dumb as a post and dirt poor. Money won't buy happiness, but lack of it will buy misery.
Why do the mainstream media act as if Donald Trump isn't a pathological liar with dozens of felony fraud convictions?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @08:16PM
Depression is higher in people that test as having a higher IQ, which only shows that the article was poorly written not that the underlying thought is wrong.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday April 16 2015, @12:49AM
Perhaps his homosexuality was a consequence of some other factor like high surge of testosterone during pregnancy that improved his analytical skills so he could actually do those fantastic things he did.
His bad luck were to be born in a narrow minded society that bothered too much with what people did among consenting adults. (Fucking morons to waste such talent!)
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Sunday April 19 2015, @01:53PM
I don't think it's known why some people are homosexual, but I agree if he had been born 40 years later he probably wouldn't have killed himself. We might all be speaking German, too.
Why do the mainstream media act as if Donald Trump isn't a pathological liar with dozens of felony fraud convictions?
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday April 19 2015, @11:54PM
He might actually been quite critical to the Bletchley Park such that it's perhaps a choice between speaking German or having a brilliant scientist (say in computational biology)..
Perhaps it's like destiny or the master plan telling us we can't have both. But societies doesn't have to be so narrow minded either. But if the society were more developed then there would perhaps not been any war either.
Faustian choice? ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @03:40PM
Virginia Woolf was a real person:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Woolf [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1) by srobert on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:50PM
I was serious when I described Mensa as "a self-help group for people afflicted with high IQ's".
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday April 16 2015, @12:52AM
Self help group to deal with the duds that they have to contend with before they find intelligent life.
(Score: 2) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Wednesday April 15 2015, @07:12PM
Guess I'm not clever. I read the summary several times, and can't make any sense out of it. It seems like a lot of social-science mumbo-jumbo to me. I always go back to Wittgenstein - can you abstract "intelligence" into some sort of ontological thing by itself? No. You're intelligent about something. Intelligence only exists in relation to understanding something. Everyone is different. Everyone has different definitions of achievement. Can you abstract out "achievement" into a first-class thing?
This is why I live in a basement and never see sunlight, folks, because the world is too crazy. If I go up there, I start going crazy. It's safer to sit down here and eat pizza rolls. A drone brings them to me.
PS they also lose points for using a cartoon character who isn't Ahsoka Tano as an example. Really?
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @08:33PM
If you have read Wittgenstein then surely you understand the concept that language has no meaning outside of the context in which it is used. In the sense you are using for intelligence, it is treated as a thing. In the sense that the summary is using the word intelligence, it is a potential; an ability to potentially understand as opposed to understanding something itself just as values are potential motivators but not motivations themselves.
That is a faulty intensional statement. Knowledge or awareness could replace intelligence and retain the same meaning. That might show (not saying that I am unequivocally correct) that intelligence as portrayed is not a product of specific relation but one of general relation. I can't be intelligent in assembly language. I can be knowledgeable in assembly language. I can't be knowledgeable in doing. I can be intelligent in doing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @07:28PM
"Cleverness is like bagpipes - a hellish screech that only sounds good to the person making it."
http://oglaf.com/naja/ [oglaf.com]
Warning - *NSFW site*
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday April 16 2015, @12:59AM
Perhaps BBC Future got it wrong about the "Termites". Intelligence is the ability but not drive. So a person with low IQ but high drive could surpass the former. And intelligent people can perhaps figure out what goals that are worthwhile to pursue more than normal people?
Perhaps the results of the "Termites" would make more sense if they were correlated with drive? and interests?
(Score: 2) by TK-421 on Thursday April 16 2015, @01:24AM
I think you are on to something there. I agree that drive can be a big equalizer. How do you measure it though? Seriously. I can think of how I would measure it in say an interview. You can ask them when they have had to push through something they didn't like. What is something they had to learn in order to achieve a certain accomplishment. These are ways of measuring the outcome of drive.
How do you measure drive potential?
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday April 16 2015, @01:33AM
Whatever makes people curious? and make them delve deeper into that area of knowledge because the person finds it stimulating?
Test how rewarding it is to delve deeper? and into what specific subject?
Seriously, the drive to crack crypto is a hard one because you really has to pass through literally mind numbing exercises to get at the goal. And do a lot of futile exercises to get it right and not ever be sure of success.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TK-421 on Thursday April 16 2015, @01:58AM
I accept all of that except for the curiosity. The Insane Clown Posse were curious [google.com] too but they absolutely lack drive and intelligence.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday April 16 2015, @02:20AM
A car with a lot of fuel but no motor or driver tends to not get far..
It's usually about several factors being present.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @05:53PM
Seriously, how do magnets work? It's like fucking magic. Magnetism, like gravity, is one of those things we just have to accept because it is. "The universe made it that way" is no better an explanation than "God did it".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @05:52AM
The universe didn't make anything.
When you don't know the answer to something, it's best to just admit that you don't know, rather than making up some nonsense and calling it the answer. Lots of people don't get that.