Can High Intelligence Be a Burden Rather Than a Boon? 385
HughPickens.com writes David Robson has an interesting article at BBC on the relationship between high intelligence and happiness. "We tend to think of geniuses as being plagued by existential angst, frustration, and loneliness," writes Robson. 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 first steps to studying the question were taken in 1926 when psychologist Lewis Terman decided to identify and study a group of gifted children. Terman 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."
According to Robson, one possibility is that knowledge of your talents becomes something of a ball and chain. During the 1990s, the surviving Termites were asked to look back at the events in their 80-year lifespan. Rather than basking in their successes, many reported that they had been plagued by the sense that they had somehow failed to live up to their youthful expectations (PDF).
*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* (Score:5, Interesting)
I do not know if I qualify as a genius, but I would like to think I am above average in intelligence. I topped my undergraduate class in engineering, scored near perfect score in my GRE (2380/2400, back when it actually included an analytical section with puzzles), and was a graduate student in quantum computing at a top school.
I subsequently dropped out because I realized two things:
1. Most of my classmates were really good at the subject (e.g., people who won International Math and Physics Olympiads). They started their PhDs at a really young age, and were almost bored by the coursework. Homework that I would spend a Saturday doing were completed while still in class by these bored teenagers.
2. Most of them really loved the subject (i.e., people who loved doing physics at the expense of all else, such as dating, money, or having a social life). Or the subject was so easy that they had the time to pursue other things.
I realized I neither loved physics unconditionally nor was I good enough at it to warrant the pursuit of a PhD, not to mention the subsequent post doc and so on. All this happened at the same time that I fell in love with my now-wife, started a company, and subsequently got into management consulting to make money instead.
I do not mean to phrase this as a tautology (i.e., doing a PhD is mutually exclusive from making money or having a social life), but in my experience, the biggest sacrifice was watching classmates who were relatively mediocre (in my opinion) get "business" degrees and do exceedingly well in life in terms of money and relationships.
Most of my cohort completed their PhDs and now have very successful academic careers. I still love math, theoretical physics, and computer science. I keep myself apprised of most of the publications in the field, and occasionally, write a paper or two myself, and I certainly miss the challenge of advanced math and physics. I still envy my peers, and I am sure some of them envy me. But now being in an unhappy relationship, being a parent, having the burdens of a pointless life (the hardest thing I do is a spreadsheet that just helps some fool company make millions of dollars), I question my past choices. So much possibility lay ahead of me, and I gave it all up for what? For a few bucks, beers, and a few lays?
I'm probably considered successful by the measure of the quintessential American dream -- by ~30, I was a rising star at a top management consulting firm, had over 7 figures to my name, owned a large home in one of the best neighborhoods in Boston, and had a beautiful wife and son. I drove expensive cars, wore bespoke suits and expensive watches, spent time mountaineering in the Alps and the Himalayas, and traveled the world. But still, I always felt that I had missed something. That I will never come ahead of time. That no matter how successful I become in life, I will probably never have a theorem named after me or spend my days basking in the beauty of math.
No amount of sex or expensive liquor or material goods can equate the joys of just proving a theorem. I will forever have this knowledge, that I could have been more, and chose less. My life now reminds me of a Pink Floyd lyrics -- "Did you exchange a walk-on part in a war for a lead role in a cage?".
Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* (Score:4, Insightful)
Raise children, help them to surpass you and be pleased that you have helped tip the scale of humanity towards the better side of things
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I could mod this comment up. There is nothing more joyful than giving your children the opportunities that you never had, and helping them accomplish their own success.
Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* (Score:5, Insightful)
The converse side of this coin is that such great expectations can become a burden on the children (or the one "target" child), even if the parent tries to avoid being pushy about it -- a lot gets across that is never said directly, and even through the mere implication of a future look of disappointment on one's face.
Here is what you are missing (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of the activities of my life have been trivially easy for decades. Helping others remains challenging.
If you really are "so smart", you are able to see what a disaster this world is today. Well, get busy changing it. You will be up against the most powerful, greedy, selfish & moneyed people on the face of the Earth. Challenge enough for me. What about you?
Re: (Score:2)
Geniuses who talk about their genius rather than their accomplishments are not really geniuses, as intelligence without application is pointless.
Then again, how could one self-assess the difference between being so smart that people can't follow what they're saying v/s being a really bad communicator who isn't really smart? Compound that with American society, in particular, where everyone's told that they're a winner even if they're not...
Are you aware that some people cannot "talk" about their accomplishments because of where they work?
Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* (Score:5, Interesting)
intelligence without application is pointless.
Yet physical beauty without application is highly rewarded.
Re: (Score:2)
Rewarded temporarily is still better than not at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you know any models, or dancers, or anyone else in the performing arts? Even sitting still for a photo takes skill, even if it doesn't seem like it to you.
Calling it "skill" is an insult to human intelligence, and to anyone who graduated in college. It can be acquired in few weeks/months of training. Instead, you need 10 years to become a doctor, 7 to become a lawyer, 7-8 to become a physicist (BSc+PhD).
Anybody can pose for a photograph looking like a lumpy sack of potatoes. Posing for a photograph and reproducing the body language and visual cues that make people desire you or evoke some emotion in people even when you aren't in the kind of mood you are being asked to portray takes a certain talent. Call it social intelligence or whatever but being able to fake body language, moods and emotions is definitely a skill and therefore models and actors are highly socially and emotionally skilled individuals. T
Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* (Score:5, Insightful)
You can get a buff body with a reasonable workout regimen in less than a year, and many elements of your "looks" can easily be fixed (better hair, wearing contacts, getting teeth fixed, dressing more stylishly).
If you have game, then your dick size doesn't matter, because history is rife with examples of men with questionable looks and stunning women.
Ultimately, having good social skills is much more important than any of those things in getting laid.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I made no claims about my own intelligence or angst; only a throwaway joking comment about the self-assessed intelligence of the average Slashdotter.
The third factor (Score:5, Insightful)
I surely wouldn't qualify as one of the 'termites' in the study, but there still things in my life I take to quickly. There is a third metric that I am in my coming to respect even more: motivation and inspiration.
There is a big difference between having the ability to do something, having the need to do something, and having a want and drive to do something. That last one seems to get people much further then being at the very top in intelligence. It also provides a framework of interaction and social connection between peers, if it is truly a passion.
So maybe it takes being the best and brightest to be first chair violinist in a prestigious symphony, but being brilliant alone won't get you there. Meanwhile hundreds of others have a long and successful career they make out of their perseverance.
Re: (Score:2)
And just to be clear on my point, I do not think it's something more then just something that can be given, and may even be something that can be measured.
Yes, fear of an authority figure is one motivation, or want of money, but I don't think that it's capital M Motivation.
Re:The third factor (Score:5, Interesting)
You've likely encountered this quote, but it bears repeating:
Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race. -- Calvin Coolidge, 30th president of US (1872 - 1933)
Persistence is not omnipotent. (Score:5, Insightful)
I can bang my head against a brick wall all I want, but all I will ever get out of it is a broken head.
The trick is to pick a battle you can win, and then buckle down and win it.
I've climbed high in my own life, but that is because my goals were achievable and I had the tools (both born with and the opportunities I needed) to succeed.
There are many who work hard in life but don't get much of anywhere.
That said, working hard is the only way to MAXIMIZE your opportunities and inborn potential. Praise your kids for their hard work, not their brains.
--PM
Re:Persistence is not omnipotent. (Score:5, Insightful)
Persistence doesn't mean trying the same thing over and over until it works. Persistence is trying to achieve your goals over and over again until you're successful. So you might bang your head on the wall a few times, realize that won't work and then try different things until you break it down.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Anecdote does not equal data, but please allow me to share one.
I'm faiily intelligent, scoring way above average on tests and in daily life it is really apparent I'm not the slowest banana in the bunch. A friend of mine is quite, well, slow on the uptake. He's not really smart, but he has a certain type of tenacity or drive that keeps him going on and on. I, on the other hand, am quite lazy. Really lazy, just coasting along, I'd say.
He's done things through just sheer mindless pushing on that I would never,
Re: (Score:3)
The trick is to pick a battle you can win, and then buckle down and win it.
Every battle is winnable, it's all about the method. Banging your head against a brick wall endlessly is a sign of persevering with a failing strategy and not picking a battle which is unwinnable.
Bang your head against the brick wall once. No effect? Move on to hitting, kicking it, running into it, smacking it with a hammer, and then working your way up to something that will eventually break the wall. That is the nature of determination.
Re: (Score:3)
The ones with the drive and motivation generally exploit the genius of the highly intelligent. Knowledge is a tool but it takes someone who knows how to use that tool.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Who was a better engineer, Lee Felsestein or Woz? Hard to say. Woz was an unparalleled genius in getting less chips to do the same thing who designed the first popular computer system from chips to OS personally, Felsenstein did pretty much the same thing for one of the first trult portable computers.
Who have the kids heard of? Woz, because he was attached to a genius salesman with the drive to succeed, and they brought in a really smart businessman (Markkula) to do the technical finance/manufacturing shit.
Re:The third factor (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Smart people don't really need to give tests to determine this (within a reasonable range).
If you can't tell how smart someone is without a test, I'll bet I can predict your own IQ test score
Re: (Score:2)
i have to agree with your observations — i have a friend, who is very intelligent and gifted, yet he lacks motivation, and gets nowhere.
without the fire within, none shines without.
Re: (Score:2)
Even worse, intelligent people may be more easily bored, and there is a whole boatload of boring things that are necessary for success.
Re: (Score:2)
Too much of being even moderately bright is banging your head against convention and a society that doesn't cater to you, but the lowest common denominator. A lot of motivation is simply having the will to work out a better method and hoping others will adopt it. Mostly they don't, and remember these are the same people by whom you judge your success. As one of my instructors put it, it doesn't matter if you are the smartest person in the world if no one else glimpses the horizon you see.
Even the very brigh
Re: (Score:2)
I lived in North Dakota for a while. Just about everyone worked on their yard, their house, etc. and thought that everyone else should do and be the same. For instance, the first weekend in April everyone raked up their yards. There might still be some snow on the ground, but it was the first weekend of April and raking your yard was what you DID. Period. And so on.
I didn't do those things. I would rather read or do stuff on the computer or go for long bike rides in summer. I didn't fit the norm. But the th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I worked through high-school French but it never stuck, never for the lack of trying though.
Am I a ADHD patient ?
Read "Outliers" (Score:5, Informative)
this is nothing new: i believe the same study was the basis of the famous book "Outliers", which is a fascinating study of what makes people successful. if i recall correctly, it's completely the opposite of what people expect: your genes *do* matter. your attitude *does* matter. your circumstances *do* matter. working hard *does* matter. and luck matters as well. but it's all of these things - luck, genetics, circumstances *and* hard work - that make for the ultimate success story. bill gates is one of the stories described. he had luck and opportunity - by being born at just the right time when personal computing was beginning - and circumstances - by going to one of the very very few schools in the USA that actually had a computer available (for me, that opportunity was when i was 8: i went to one of the very very few secondary schools in the UK that had a computer: a Pet 3032).
so, yeah - it's not a very popular view, particularly in the USA, as it goes against the whole "anyone can make it big" concept. but, put simply, the statistics show that it's a combination of a whole *range* of factors, all of which contribute, that make up success. just "being intelligent" simply is not enough.
Re: (Score:3)
... or mandatory.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Although Bill Gates certainly had great opportunities and took advantage of them, one pair of traits that is often overlooked now (but not be people in the tech industry in the late '80s and '90s) was that he was 1) exceptionally ruthless; and 2) had the looks of someone who wasn't, just an introverted kid who'd rather be solving calculus problems on his pocket calculator. In fact, by his own admission (much later) he read many biographies of Napolean, and obviously managed to find and read many bios on th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Read "Outliers" (Score:5, Insightful)
bill gates is one of the stories described. he had luck and opportunity - by being born at just the right time when personal computing was beginning - and circumstances - by going to one of the very very few schools in the USA that actually had a computer available
Yes, and by having rich parents. That is the single most reliable predictor of economic success. As such, it is anything but surprising that Gates was successful.
Re: (Score:2)
it's not a very popular view, particularly in the USA, as it goes against the whole "anyone can make it big" concept.
I think that is largely a mischaracterization, both by the well meaning and those looking to discredit certain notions.
I think that firstly, people by a wide margin believe that people should not be -denied- a opportunity. Particularly for arbitrary, non-relevant factors.
Secondly, many people also believe that we can, as a civilization, create opportunity. What efforts go into creating those
Scientific American begs to differ (Score:5, Insightful)
Some ten or fifteen years ago, Scientific American published an article about the positive correlation of "general intelligence" with virtually every measure of success in life.
Like earning enough money to be comfortable, having the emotional intelligence to have a successful marriage, etc.
They showed that "general intelligence" which is correlated with but not directly measured by things like SAT scores, was basically a ticket to (or highly correlated with) a good life, and even good health.
And the article was mighty persuasive.
--PeterM
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What is 'general intelligence'? (Anything like Colonel Panic?)
Yes, if you can't read, can't figure out a bus schedule you are in a world of hurt in this society. It does not follow that being able to understand calculus gives you peace, happiness and longevity. There is going to be some broad mean that societal requirements dictate that you need. Other than than, you are at the mercy of lots of other vagaries of life.
Re: (Score:2)
No need to be a genius (Score:2)
Even being above average means you're surrounded by (relative) idiots. Hell, just stay informed about world events, history, literature, and then stand there in disgust as all people can talk about is the latest episode of "Naked and Afraid". This is by no means a recent thing either; every generation throughout history has repeated the same sorry story.
Re:No need to be a genius (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, studies show that the higher one's intelligence, the more they hold on to their positions, even if shown to be wrong. It is the idiot, that is more readily swayed, than the genius.
That's who demagogues rely on for their support.
There are upsides and downsides to _everything_.
The smarter you are, the more that fact hits you in the face every place you look. There actually are benefits to mankind from religion, not just costs. Same with Capitalism, science and whatever pet aspect of life you completely hate or love.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of a quote, "In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king."
Re: (Score:2)
HG Wells' "Kingdom of the Blind" is a better take on the metaphor. Highly recommended. A sighted man falls into a high, isolated Himalayan valley where the population has no eyes. It does not end well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is true.
CNN had a trivia contest hosted by Anderson Cooper and the contestants were the commentators.
The commentators had become celebrities.
Sell, sell, sell.
It is unfortunate (Score:2)
Unfortunately, this is largely the natural progression of society. Back then, we didn't know how to handle these kids, thus we ham stringed them from the get go. They had the unfortunate luck to be born at a time when we're just awakening to the idea that we should treat children differently than adults, and with absolutely NO awareness that different children require different rearing techniques.
The good news is that, despite all the bullshit,we really have progressed quite far. I doubt, 80 years from now
The problem isn't intelligence - per se (Score:5, Insightful)
(See? I used per se, so I'm... oh never mind...)
Intelligence and being highly observant are great skills both in society and from an evolutionary/survivalist standpoint.
But in a society I've found it brings up two downsides:
Guilt, because your intelligence allows you to avoid pain or achieve a higher level of comfort in society. You weren't "superman" you just made rational choices based upon your understanding of how the system works and now your friends and family are suffering because they didn't and you want to help them which requires more energy and effort or you can't which means your intelligence has limits and all you can do is watch them suffer.
Stress and anxiety. Once you figure out that you can problem solve and improve your quality of life it's natural, like any athlete, to grow and push your boundaries. But intellectual pursuits aren't as cut and dried as physical ones - It's easy to know that you can only bench press 200lbs and that's what you need to work on - Less so when you're trying to solve problems like familial and social discord but nobody will listen or trying to improve your company's fortunes by making proper investment choices. More to the point, I'm an engineer and there's nothing more frustrating trying to solve a problem you've encountered with your design that YOU pushed for, can't figure out why it's not working, might not work AT ALL and the boss is breathing down your neck (oh and the company is on the line). There's plenty of days I've driven by a building crew and daydreamed about just running the earth mover or driving a dump truck.
In an Agrarian society - in a pre-industrialized world these issues just didn't come about for intellectualism - Partially because it wasn't as much of a survival skill. (And that's probably why steampunk is so romanticized today)
Re:The problem isn't intelligence - per se (Score:5, Interesting)
Intelligence in the intellectual, logical reasoning sense is a evolutionary epiphenomenon. It is only weakly selected for. We can tell this because its distribution in the population is so broad. There are no gazelles that run at half the speed of the fastest[*] but there is no shortage of people with IQs that are half the top and still manage to get along (putting "the top" at around 160 and "the bottom" around 80, which is the lower end of the "gets along OK in society most of the time" range.)
Logical, linear reasoning is a trick we've managed to train our bear to dance.
Some people happen to be really good at it. This can be a problem for them because so much of what humans do, and the accounts they give of it, make very little sense to the untutored mind.
We live in the Age of Bayes, and the Bayesian Revolution over the past thee hundred years (which takes in a lot of time before Bayes himself or the recognition that what we were doing is fundamentally Bayesian) has taught us some really important lessons about ourselves. Mostly how damned stupid we have been, even the highly intelligent. We've spent centuries arguing nonsense, from how three is equal to one for large values of three to the dharma of the tao.
In the past century or so we've been calling out the people who are most "intellectually gifted" and expecting them to solve our problems (in a past age it was the pious, or the people "of good family", etc). This has created a bind for them, because for most of that time we've also had no idea why people do what they do (spoiler: mate competition and selection play large roles, although we are still a long way from any kind of comprehensive understanding.)
There are also ethical constraints on what can be done to solve human problems. The utopian projects of the 20th century, despite their profound irrationality in so many respects, were manifestations of this belief that the human intellect had all the right tools for the job of reforming the planet. It didn't work, and that leaves us in the situation we are in today, where intellect is suspect as well as desired.
As such, it isn't necessarily a shock that people identified as "intellectually gifted" should feel less adequate after exemplary lives. Nor is it likely that's going to change any time soon, as we continue to look to the intellectually gifted to save us from ourselves, while steadfastly refusing to spend any time looking hard in a mirror for the source of most human problems.
[*] this may be false... feel free to fact-check me!
Re: (Score:3)
The utopian projects of the 20th century, despite their profound irrationality in so many respects, were manifestations of this belief that the human intellect had all the right tools for the job of reforming the planet. It didn't work, and that leaves us in the situation we are in today, where intellect is suspect as well as desired.
This is an interesting contention. My perception is that some of those great undertakings DID work, and some didn't, but people have become cynical because we've got an incredible amount of technology and yet all of the historical human problems are still with us (poverty, starvation, death from simple diseases, violence, crime).
So perhaps it is the case that we've grown to distrust intellectuals because they overpromised. Or perhaps we've come to realize that technology is only part (and perhaps the easies
Duh (Score:5, Interesting)
"We tend to think of geniuses as being plagued by existential angst, frustration, and loneliness."
This I think comes from identifying 'genius' as someone with special ability but not a popular, cool ability. Exceptional athletes, musicians, and actors are just as much outliers as 'geniuses', but their talents are never liabilities, and only rarely does society genuinely encourage any humility on their part.
I made a graph (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Smart ass.
natural selection suggests high IQ has drawbacks (Score:3)
We have too many people in college / higher levels (Score:2)
We have too many people in college / higher levels of the ivory tower some maybe very smart but at times in some fields when it comes down to real world work experience (out side of the ivory tower) they can be very dumb.
Doh! Natural Selection (Score:3, Interesting)
If high intelligence were an unmitigated benefit, natural selection would have moved the IQ average to 130, 150 or whatever over the eons. There _must_ be commensurate down-sides. Depression? Slower reflexes? Go fetch!
As it is, we just have the Flynn effect of average IQs rising about 1 pt per decade over the past century. That might [or not] be considered as fast evolutionary change.
Re: (Score:2)
Intelligence is a weaker selection trait in the wild then, say, strength, stamina, endurance and mate attraction.
It only becomes worthwhile once you have a stable society and can then pursue such "luxuries" and, even then, it appears to take thousands of years to become critical to society in general and, even now, it's still not considered a "desirable" trait for mate attraction...
Re: (Score:2)
If high intelligence were an unmitigated benefit, natural selection would have moved the IQ average to 130, 150 or whatever over the eons.
Yours seems to be below the average, whatever number that is.
The IQ is standardized such that the fiftieth percentile has an IQ of 100. It's a definition, nothing more.
The inventor, Edwin Armstrong (FM, etc.) . . . (Score:2)
I've come in contact with at least one super genius that I know of, and it was a most humbling experience. I have solved technical problems which previous companies and persons have spent hundreds of thousands, and sometimes millions of dollars, to solve, to no avail. Perseverance prevails when intelligence is sometimes lacking . . .
IQ is linked I income & wealth (Score:5, Informative)
This study [newscientist.com] says "Each point increase in IQ test scores is associated with $202 to $616 more income per year...The median net worth for people with an IQ of 120 was almost $128,000 compared with $58,000 for those with an IQ of 100."
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. (Score:2)
Yes, absolutely.
Society loves a genius, but only long after it is dead.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, also: Genius is simply raw potential. What someone does with that 'potential' is a different matter entirely.
As said long ago, "Genius is 1% inspiration, and 99% perspiration." I am loathe to quote that weenie, Thomas A. Edison, but the idea of his quote is accurate. It is what you do with that potential that matters.
Define Achievement (Score:2)
Personally, I find defining achievement as wealth and fame as problematic.
A cop might be a detective and be great at solving serious crimes -- both intellectually an achiever, and also benefiting his/her community; while still being not terribly highly paid or famous. Or what about someone who chooses a quiet life as a homemaker/parent, and raises smart, confident, self-reliant, happy kids? Just a couple of examples I can think of.
There's a definite western capitalistic/materialistic bias in the study's ass
What? (Score:2)
Next thing they'll tell us that not all the tall people are good at basketball.
The true burden (Score:4, Insightful)
The true burden lies in thinking a "high IQ" means you're better than other people. There are many valuable skills and talents which are not measured by an IQ test, including art, music, empathy, and so on.
The burden is the arrogance of presuming IQ means intelligence. It does not. It is simply one metric for measuring skillsets.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't know, why post?
Re: (Score:2)
Nope.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
"Why the fuck do you make the idiotic claims that you do?"
Useful idiots are useful idiots. Ever notice that those who denigrate European and US culture are almost always leftists? They are communism's "useful idiots".
Re: (Score:3)
Says the US, with both feet in Hitler's toy box.
Well, we did import it at great expense, it would be a shame not to play in it.
Re: (Score:2)
Reflect on that last sentence as pertains to yourself and your initial diatribe.
Re: (Score:2)
So unemployed.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, should be theoretically possible - the heart will keep beating no problem, and removing it shouldn't kill the person until oxygen deprivation starts setting in - people survive heart transplants ll the time. Drug someone enough that the shock doesn't kill them, and they should be capable of surviving at least until the oxygen in their brain is used up.
Of course without the blood pumping they won't have long - as a reference point nitrogen (or other inert gas) asphyxiation can cause unconsciousness wit
Re:What the fuck are you talking about? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: What the fuck are you talking about? (Score:2)
Nothing is as sharp as obsidian. It's still used in some surgery.
Re:What the fuck are you talking about? (Score:4, Insightful)
There was plenty of motivation of the conquering Spaniards to demonize the culture that they were destroying
Re:What the fuck are you talking about? (Score:5, Insightful)
The notion that North American native peoples lived in any kind of harmony with nature is simply false.
Wait, what? That's nonsense. Any kind clearly covers a lot of ground, and some North American native peoples clearly did live in some kind of harmony with nature. They didn't leave it untouched, but they did see themselves as stewards with a responsibility to maintain the land. Again, there's variation between peoples. On the plains they burned down forests to make room for bison. But in other places they set controlled burns which successfully maintained forests throughout thousands of years of continuous occupation.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Giant ground sloth was present before those "with nature" humans you talk about, and died out shortly after. In fact, there's a list of about 50 animals that would have been good hunting or human competitors that died out once they go to North America.
You ideas about what they did are quite trite, and 100% wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. Point a loaded gun at a playful dog and he'll be all excited by the new game.
Apropos of little - what I hate most is the happiness of the stupid.
Re:Ignorance is bliss (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe the reason why geniuses are so miserable is because they look around and find themselves surrounded by morons.
Maybe - it (might) be dependent on several things: definition of genius (high level abilities across a range of fields); reaction to competition.
Not being a genius I'd be guessing - and that'd be ironic given my experience with people who consider me "very intelligent" and then say "I don't understand why you don't waste your abilities" (i.e. why aren't I famous/richer/better fit their stereotype of what "smart" people do). My experience is that the smarter someone is - the less certain they are of their abilities (the more you know, the more you know you don't know). One perception is that society (the average) recognises and rewards those that are not as clever as they claim to be (or good). E.g. Not so smart. If you are so smart why don't you cure cancer/old age? Smarter. Because I can extrapolate. (none of those things would improve the world in which I live) Not so smart You are an idiot.
As someone mentioned earlier in this thread - expectation is an important component. One of the smartest people I know lives under a bush - his family had high expectations for him and got him scholarships in the "best" schools. Their expectations were that he would do much "better" than them (make more money, get more respect). He thought (correctly) that they were ignorant and relied too much on the opinion of those "who appointed themselves as peers". So he went the the "best" schools - on scholarships offered to raise the academic ratings in order to attract the offspring of the wealthy, and not surprisingly was victimized and did not get to join the exclusive boys clubs. I don't know whether the unrealistic expectations of his family or the first-hand insights into the lives and realities of those who society calls successful, caused him to reject societies expected standards. He's clean and healthy - and one of the happiest people I know.... so I have no reason to doubt he's still very, very smart.
Some things he's said:- the very smart are a threat to those that are not so smart - so if you're smart, play dumb; the only way to get smarter is to challenge people who are even smarter (so being surrounded by morons might have several effects); most people are too stupid to know how stupid they are; approval is a prison - pick your jailer carefully; most things are without reason or purpose and the dumbest thing is to search for reason where there is none; happiness is a choice; don't ask me - if you can't work it out the answer is valueless.
My point - if I have one, is that I'm not sure "smarter" people are unhappier because the smartest people I've ever met are not obviously smart (they hide their abilities). There is a myth that those that are much smarter than the average have an advantage - which is like believing that because you have 20 years experience at fighting you can beat someone twice your weight who has no experience. Numbers of people is like the weight of your opponent. It also overlooks the fact that in life we rarely get to chose the games we play - you may be much smarter than your colleagues, but they may have devoted their lives to licking arses - and if you are so much smarter than your boss unless he takes advantage of your superior abilities you are of no greater value than your dumber colleague. You are also more cautious about implementing changes - your dumb colleague is not. Perhaps being smarter means that you are unwilling to shit upstream because of the perceived consequences (you drink that water) - your dumber competition is not so constrained and achieves greater financial success.... Does your extra smart make you aware of this? Does your extra smart make you realise that there is no point in trying to educate your dumber competitor or their customers?
Tricky..
Mod parent up, please! (Score:2)
That's not to say the study was totally useless, but the objection is fairly striking. Today. Oh well, indeed the decision to run the study was taken 80 years ago -and really it shows...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're too lazy to look it up [wikipedia.org]? Just because we can't define intelligence to 5 digits of precision doesn't mean it isn't a useful concept. We can still talk about a correlation between X and intelligence, as long as the correlation is strong enough that it will hold for any reasonable definition of intelligence.
Re: (Score:2)
You're too lazy to look it up [wikipedia.org]?
Looks like you're too lazy to look it up too. We don't know, and can't agree upon, a proper definition of intelligence. And it makes a difference what exact definition is used in a study. The definition of "intelligence" used in this study is IQ [wikipedia.org], so your link is to the wrong article.
I suspect we won't be able to clearly define intelligence until we create a general AI...
Re: (Score:2)
No, because there is all kinds of intelligence that is not measurable by IQ tests. For example, a huge chunk of our brains is the visual cortex, but for some reason people don't consider it a sign of intelligence to be able to be able to distinguish basic objects like apples or elephants, or to recognize spoken words (especially with background chatter), or to hold a meaningful conversation. Yet anyone who's tried to have a computer do it knows what a PITA it is. Speaking of computers, just about every math
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to see how an IQ in the top 10% of the population can be called mediocre...
The way the economy works people tend to sort themselves into groups. Top 10%, for example, would be 120; but most of those 10% have college degrees. Since the mentally handicapped don't go to college, and it actually takes some skill to get through, college grad IQ is gonna be above 100. Most sources I read show 110-115. And 120 is not that much more then 110. Moreover if you're actually in the 120 group you'll probably be associated with highly analytical people who score very well on tests. You're an eng
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you have a low tolerance for stupidity,
The stupid are fun to watch.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to have social skills that help you convince others you are more intelligent than them.
Maybe. But you need social skills to not make the 'average' people think you are shitting on them. There are a lot of not outstandingly brilliant but hardworking and productive people that you will meet. And you will be better off working with them, even if that means keeping a lid on your genius, than trying to convince them that you possess it (even if you do).
Re:The biggest problem: the "long view" (Score:5, Interesting)
I can relate to that. People who live more in the moment are happier, because the long view always involves decline, death, and dying. I'm petting and really enjoying my dog, and somewhere I'm thinking how I might have another eight years before I have a 120 pound problem who is pissing and shitting huge logs everywhere, who is going to be a royal bitch to dig a hole for one day. I'm having sex with my wife, and somewhere I'm thinking how much it's going to suck looking at her when she's 80. The big picture long view always seems to have a down side, and it's depressing.
I can relate to the expectations thing too. Everybody looks up to you, and a lot of them are jealous of you, and it makes it that much harder to choose an ordinary life. I'm a truck driver, and I like my profession fine, but I constantly feel a need to apologize for not owning the trucking company or being a professor or something; for not aiming higher in general. I've found a lot of people don't like me, because they don't think they're good enough for me for some reason, and yet I feel the same toward them. I'd love to just be normal, and not have to think so much about everything. Too much knowledge can be crippling, instead of helpful. It's hard to invest in a business idea, knowing every conceivable way it might fail, and what all the odds are.
My mother was even more intelligent than I am, and she died young, of alcoholism. She was a miserable woman.
Intelligence is overrated. One side effect for me is that I can never enjoy the opiate of a nice handy sky daddy to make me feel less infinitesimal in the scheme of things. We evolved to see sky daddies in everything, and I have the same need in my brain as any other human, but there's nothing to plug into it. I haven't found the religion yet that wasn't just totally inconsistent and goofy.
Re: (Score:3)
That has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with outlook and perspective. Lets just say, I'm a pretty smart guy and the best piece of advice that I was ever given was to focus on the now. It is easy to foresee problems and possible scenarios and it is good to take measures to prevent the obvious. However, the sooner you realize that shit happens that you will never be able to plan for or there are simply various inevitable outcomes that will be sad and painful that you simply will not want