Radio and IQ

[sprinkles]

That's interesting. No, I hadn't heard of that.

You're smart!

I think the world would be smart if people didn't think everyone was stupid.

And I mean actually stupid, not the 'I'm calling you stupid because I'm frustrated with you' stupid.

I once saw a sticker on a motorized scooter that said "CAUTION! This product moves when used." I shit you not, that is the literal sticker that was actually right on the handle bars. That tops the "may contain nuts" warning on packages of nuts.

 

[Stephano]

There are more intelligent people and less intelligent people, that's a provable fact.

Abstract thinking is not an exclusive power of Intuitives. Maybe sensors are not that into theories and speculations, but if they're intelligent enough they understand things like the relativity of space and time. Do you think someone with IQ 80 is able to understand such things? But I know people with IQ 100 and they seem very interested in astrophysics. So, my point is that dull people can't handle information about abstract things, which they can't express in pictures. A discussion about concrete things like "who's got the better car?" is understandable for a large part of population, if you have the knowledge about cars and if you're really stupid you are just open to things you can express with emotions, like friends, sex or even food.

I think the world would be smart if people didn't think everyone was stupid.

No one would be stupid but no one would be intelligent too. Communism?

 

[sprinkles]

No one would be stupid but no one would be intelligent too. Communism?

Well what I meant was stop the superiority, and one would hope that means people stop being anti-intellectual, and also stop the hand holding which just encourages people to be mentally lazy.

 

[Cellmold]

I doubt Victor meant this in MBTI terms, but this does remind me of an idea I was considering on holiday, albeit a not very original one.

Essentially if type statistics can be trusted there are more sensors than intuitives. However I think it is also fair to say that the more rare something is the more it can fall into the odd type of fringe values held by those who are on the fringe themselves. More so if someone is excluded, very often they find themselves an excluded group from which they can then exclude others.

The point is that within type theory, intuitiveness is considered intrinsically superior for certain aspects, (especially that of intelligence), partly because of it's status of exclusion. Ok so far so boring.

So what is my point? Well if we can reason that the lower population of intuitives are the same ones who have created the very abstract pursuits that they favour, in spite of their reduced numbers and popularity, then we can understand that those pursuits are touched in favour of the intuitives, much the same as commonly held sensory pursuits are attributed to sensing types.

However, what if this were reversed? What would happen if the sensing types were the minority? Suddenly an individual perhaps skilled in the arts of practical and manual skills would be revered on such forums as these with the same gusto as the abstract theorist. The evaluation of the value of something is what defines it's importance to us, even among thinking types, but abstraction is not inherently superior to concrete considerations, because we define the value, no outside force does.

So it comes down to a matter of which occurs most or least.

Also the suggested greater numbers of sensing types would contribute to an image of lower intelligence, after all it is more likely to occur on a percentage.

However while many sensing individuals are stupid, not all individual sensors are stupid. In fact, as said above, using a percentage, (assuming accurate typing and statistics), could it be fair to suggest that there could be an equal amount of stupid intuitives as sensing types, but the lower population obscures this facet?

Obviously intelligence and stupidity are subjective, even within a society's judgement which pretends to present such terms objectively, but usually only succeeds in providing a subjective group definition.

In the end though I would say people are best placed to try and understand the point of both sides of the N/S coin. Many unhealthy intuitive's look like stubborn sensing types and many unhealthy sensing types look like stubborn intuitive's.

But ive always valued those whose intelligence is evident, regardless of an abstract or concrete bent and as I get older and experience more and more of what is around me, respect and understanding is realised when concerning those elements which at first were dismissed in arrogance and misunderstanding.

Some intuitive's like to believe they understand a sensate point of view merely because a, (suspected), greater population grants them a larger influence on society, but no society reflects one point of view alone. It is created out of many different influences at once.

Introverted, extraverted, feeling, thinking, sensing and intuition all have a hand to play in a society. It is when a person loses sight of themselves that they strike out at an object for blame, which misses the subtlety of the people within it.

But of course, this is just an idea.

 

[greenfairy]

I think the world would be smart if people didn't think everyone was stupid.

And I mean actually stupid, not the 'I'm calling you stupid because I'm frustrated with you' stupid.

I once saw a sticker on a motorized scooter that said "CAUTION! This product moves when used." I shit you not, that is the literal sticker that was actually right on the handle bars. That tops the "may contain nuts" warning on packages of nuts.

lol

Well I have a theory that our modern world through a combination of factors has severely limited natural selection (primarily since we've disconnected ourselves from the natural environment), and so the collective intelligence has gone down because since people don't really have to test themselves against nature there's nothing to prevent stupid people from surviving. In prehistoric times they would have failed to bring back dinner or provide shelter and suffered the consequences.

 

[sprinkles]

lol

Well I have a theory that our modern world through a combination of factors has severely limited natural selection (primarily since we've disconnected ourselves from the natural environment), and so the collective intelligence has gone down because since people don't really have to test themselves against nature there's nothing to prevent stupid people from surviving. In prehistoric times they would have failed to bring back dinner or provide shelter and suffered the consequences.

It's also ironic that such people are called savages. I mean if you go to the jungle and meet the people that live there, they know what to eat and know what can kill you and have names for plants and animals that many have never even seen before. Some modern person from society might call these people dumb savages because they don't have computers and electricity, but these people are smart in a different way - they can survive on their own where others would probably die in a week without the 100 necessities that they don't know how to make themselves.

 

[1487610420]

what's next, "would you like some fries with that IQ"?

 

[greenfairy]

It's also ironic that such people are called savages. I mean if you go to the jungle and meet the people that live there, they know what to eat and know what can kill you and have names for plants and animals that many have never even seen before. Some modern person from society might call these people dumb savages because they don't have computers and electricity, but these people are smart in a different way - they can survive on their own where others would probably die in a week without the 100 necessities that they don't know how to make themselves.

Inorite? Technology has allowed humans to become lazy, and laziness leads to dull wits.

 

[Mole]

Inorite? Technology has allowed humans to become lazy, and laziness leads to dull wits.

Au contraire! Technology gave us the printing press in 1440 leading to universal literacy in developed countries.

And literacy gave us the literal individual, and indeed the literate genius, and even notational music.

Literacy gave us a counter intuitive habit of mind leading to counter intuitive science, counter intuitive economics, counter intuitive democracy, counter intuitive abolition of institutional slavery, counter intuitive emancipation of women, and the counter intuitive prosecution of child abuse as I write.

And we can go back even further and the alphabet gave us the Roman Legions and Roman roads and acquaducts and Pax Romana for almost a thousand years.

The reality is that tribal life is short, sharp nasty and brutish.

 

[EcK]

what's next, "would you like some fries with that IQ"?

Statistically the dish would be an alcoholic refreshment.
(Keeping in mind that correlation is not causation)

 

[sprinkles]

The reality is that tribal life is short, sharp nasty and brutish.

And our life is long, dull, mindless, and full of using our 'intelligence' to fix all the shit that our 'intelligence' fucked up.

 

[EcK]

It's also ironic that such people are called savages. I mean if you go to the jungle and meet the people that live there, they know what to eat and know what can kill you and have names for plants and animals that many have never even seen before. Some modern person from society might call these people dumb savages because they don't have computers and electricity, but these people are smart in a different way - they can survive on their own where others would probably die in a week without the 100 necessities that they don't know how to make themselves.

You can always look at everything in multiple ways, each uncovering other aspects of the situation, adding to the data pool.

Look at homicid rates for example, the reason why rousseau is my shit list with descartes (oh, descartes :slapping: ) primitive societies despite lower populations (with bigger groups our brains just sort of lose the capacity to put everyone in empathy s "in group" and has to use simplistic categorization over more reliable personal rapport. Division of labor is similar, a human cant specialise in all, so we keep the minimum info and have specialists. "Primitive" like societies are too simple for that. They also dont have the complex legal system (leviathan) we have to limit lex talyonis and other fun stuff
Ok so yeah. Homicids, highest in primitive societies. But the us, long and perhaps still considered as a superpower and hugely influential for its relatively young history/identity also has humongous homicid rates.

What is then civilization, if not the ability to work and live together to control our environment an modify it as it suits us. I guess its a matter of multiple factors balancing each other out.

If a race had waged war across the stars yet spread through the galaxy. Wouldnt we call it a civilization. Violence is inherent to homeostatic beings living in env. With limited ressources.

 

[Mole]

The Neurotic

And our life is long, dull, mindless, and full of using our 'intelligence' to fix all the shit that our 'intelligence' fucked up.

This is the view of the Romantic Movement which is a reaction to the Enlightenment.

The Romantic Movement gave us the New Age with astrology and mbti, while the Enlighenment gave us modern medicine.

But alas, the Romantic Movement is a fig leaf for neurosis.

 

[sprinkles]

You can always look at everything in multiple ways, each uncovering other aspects of the situation, adding to the data pool.

Look at homicid rates for example, the reason why rousseau is my shit list with descartes (oh, descartes :slapping: ) primitive societies despite lower populations (with bigger groups our brains just sort of lose the capacity to put everyone in empathy s "in group" and has to use simplistic categorization over more reliable personal rapport. Division of labor is similar, a human cant specialise in all, so we keep the minimum info and have specialists. "Primitive" like societies are too simple for that. They also dont have the complex legal system (leviathan) we have to limit lex talyonis and other fun stuff
Ok so yeah. Homicids, highest in primitive societies. But the us, long and perhaps still considered as a superpower and hugely influential for its relatively young history/identity also has humongous homicid rates.

What is then civilization, if not the ability to work and live together to control our environment an modify it as it suits us. I guess its a matter of multiple factors balancing each other out.

If a race had waged war across the stars yet spread through the galaxy. Wouldnt we call it a civilization. Violence is inherent to homeostatic beings living in env. With limited ressources.

Did you know that in some parts of Asia, rice farmers are also duck farmers? They don't need pesticides because the ducks eat the bugs, and they don't need fertilizer because the ducks do that too, and they can also eat the ducks and their eggs.

When something like that stops being effective, I don't take it as a sign that the method isn't good enough. I take it as a sign that there's too damn many people around.

We have a monolithic society and loads of violence because there are too many people. Small societies can work because small societies do work. Failures of a large society are not failures of methods, but failures in the size of the society - just like rats that will eat anything and everything, including farm animals, entire houses, and each other when their numbers are unchecked.

 

[sprinkles]

This is the view of the Romantic Movement which is a reaction to the Enlightenment.

The Romantic Movement gave us the New Age with astrology and mbti, while the Enlighenment gave us modern medicine.

But alas, the Romantic Movement is a fig leaf for neurosis.

It's not about Romanticism.

I do not like it when anyone gets marginalized, and I do not suffer haughty intellectuals.

I can get behind practical intelligence and problem solving. I will not get behind elitism or progress for the sake of it. If one ignores the implications of modern medicine, or splitting the atom, and only care about it because it brings intellectual superiority, then I say they are not nearly as smart as they think.

 

[EcK]

Did you know that in some parts of Asia, rice farmers are also duck farmers? They don't need pesticides because the ducks eat the bugs, and they don't need fertilizer because the ducks do that too, and they can also eat the ducks and their eggs.

When something like that stops being effective, I don't take it as a sign that the method isn't good enough. I take it as a sign that there's too damn many people around.

We have a monolithic society and loads of violence because there are too many people. Small societies can work because small societies do work. Failures of a large society are not failures of methods, but failures in the size of the society - just like rats that will eat anything and everything, including farm animals, entire houses, and each other when their numbers are unchecked.

I understand your point and it has its merits. However statistics show us than small societies (but we'd have to define societies better in this case) are in fact less functional than larger ones.

 

[sprinkles]

I understand your point and it has its merits. However statistics show us than small societies (but we'd have to define societies better in this case) are in fact less functional than larger ones.

How so? What's less functional?

Also I'd posit that if a small society is indeed less functional, 9 times out of 10 a large society is responsible for it, either from exploiting them, creating a modern presence and then abandoning them, or pushing them out from useful land and resources - and often all three.

 

[EcK]

How so? What's less functional?

Also I'd posit that if a small society is indeed less functional, 9 times out of 10 a large society is responsible for it, either from exploiting them, creating a modern presence and then abandoning them, or pushing them out from useful land and resources - and often all three.

Well of course. Competition is at the heart of life, cooperation is a more recent thing
edit: and is used in.... a competition for resource and control over the group (species/interspecies) against the rest of the environment.
Then there is cooperation and competition within the species for supremacy of a given gene set / meme set over available resources (minds, food, mates, influence, mana...)

 

[EcK]

How so? What's less functional?

Also I'd posit that if a small society is indeed less functional, 9 times out of 10 a large society is responsible for it, either from exploiting them, creating a modern presence and then abandoning them, or pushing them out from useful land and resources - and often all three.

We are, replicators. In mind and spirit we would spread at an exponential rate if left unchecked.

With unlimited resources it would take a few weeks to fill the universe with bacteria for example (i'd do the math to get you an exact range but 'm working on something now so I have 30 seconds at a time to spare).
If these societies were so functional (at acquiring resources and reproducing, because at the end of the day that's what animals do) why didn't they turn into civilizations etc.

There is nothing wrong with these cultures, just as there is nothing wrong with the guy who finishes last in a run.

However in a world where everything constantly evolves. where environments change and fitness to environment has to follow you have to admit that currently the hum, well what we could call the 'developped and developping meta civilization' that is what we see on most maps and where airlines land and people have bank accounts etc (yes, I know some guys get governement pension in the jungle but im not trying to argue the fine points due to limited time (but you are more than welcome to take it upon yourself to ask for answers, it 's fair, just explaining my setting to give context to my side of the conversation) Are more successful at acquiring resources and reproducing culturally and in terms of genepool than these 'small societies'.

WHich means that if the bigger societies can reproduce more and assuming that the total sum of resources we can extract from our surrounding is limited at some point these smaller societies HAVE to die out (except if kept 'unnaturally' alive in preserves BY these larger societies).

I would say that something with a structural expiry date on it, doomed to die, a culture that is not trully free to define itself isn't trully a functional independent entity.

( situation 1: where they don't die / are engulfed in the long run is mayhaps if the rest of the world just leave the world alone and invade the rest of the universe, but then again it would also be 'up to the bigger society' the smaller ones are powerless to define their own destiny)
(situation 2: humanity as a species change (we're talking massive social and genetic engineering here) and loses its drive for expansion, living in perfect harmony with nature and such in a 0 growth pattern )

that is what i meant in a nutshell

 

[sprinkles]

Well of course. Competition is at the heart of life, cooperation is a more recent thing
edit: and is used in.... a competition for resource and control over the group (species/interspecies) against the rest of the environment.
Then there is cooperation and competition within the species for supremacy of a given gene set / meme set over available resources (minds, food, mates, influence, mana...)

Yes, and yet there are ancient tribes who have maintained their solidarity and culture for thousands of years. Competition happens. Raids happen. They some times kill each other. But rarely do they break homeostasis because they integrate all aspects of living, including illness and death.

No species does this quite like the modern human - not even other humans.