Intelligent people have 'unnatural' preferences

reply to post by randyvs
Well in their defense there is no evidence that any deity exists.

I fit the profile and would like to add this,history is written by the survivors and in case anyone hasnt been paying attention humans are the first major breach of this rule,we found ways to keep geneticly inferior genes alive and kicking,we kept smart people around when they should have perished and mother nature kept them weak and small as a survival trait or all smart people came from small people and weak people because these are the types that think the most about everything they do.

Leaders carry unique combonations of traits but most people will either be brave or smart,fight or flight,call it what you may,same idea.

It doesnt take a genius to figure out that being one more cow in the herd doesnt really pay off IT IS A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY.Of course smart people buck the trends of less smart people ,what do you think a trendsetter is ?Someone who gets the dummies to follow them,ever hear about politicians?

Originally posted by xFey_Scarlettx
I think intelligence means you're less likely to be led, or won't allow yourself to be led, so you can create new things to amuse yourself, that from the outside can appear to be 'against the grain' or 'weird' to more closed minded folk.

Both yes and no, and since it can be both, it's not a good definition of intelligent behavior.

Yes because of what you said, an intelligent person will see the big or the small picture and take a stand adapted to his/her better understanding, different or not to the majority.

Although, studies show that the majority (that is the collective opinion of a group) is more often right than individuals. Don't forget that the majority can contain highly intelligent individuals that set the pace and direction for others.

No because of other factors than intelligence that play on your behavior. If you take a boy and a girl of equal intelligence, then the girl will still be easier to lead, instruct and teach. The boy's hormone levels - with higher levels of testosterone for instance - will more often push him into opposition and disagreement with his instructors. He will not want to be 'led'.

Same thing goes for solitary vs socially minded individuals. The person that feel less need for a supporting social structure has a greater tendency to defy it.



[edit on 26-2-2010 by Heliocentric]

On that note Noah was a little touched wasnt he?

If religons,and regional governments represent the herds,then I guess the smartys have tossed the rest of us a bone,havent they??

I dont think Noahs godly representative was very popular or there would have been arks all over the place,once again the guy bucking the trends wins the day.Maybe it doesnt matter what the current trend is maybe its more about balance within the individual and within humanity itself.

We would also have to add the word LUCK in front of smart when referring to these people because we are all born with equal potential,it is our environment that enables us to become smarter than others and really this is their gift to us through their self sacrifice ,we have an obligation to use OUR SMARTS TO HELP HUMANITY,not churches,lawfirms and governments,and we are the ones who are most able to see the need for change.

Kind of a coincidence that the majority of these smart people are from developed countries isnt it??

Now do we see why its wrong to even concieve of building a LUXURY CAR.


We are obligated to do a lot better than that with our gifts,like teach people to make this world a humanitarian planet.

Since we now know that the Genesis story of Noah is but a re-hashed copy of the original flood story from the Sumerian civilization, the Gilgamesh, why not reference directly to the original rather than the cheap copy?

Noah's name wasn't Noah, it was Ut-Napishtim.

I use to work as a teacher for 3 years - teaching 3DsMax...

It does not make you any smarter being a teacher...Actually.

I am having trouble being a student now, because i am waiting for the other students to come to me and ask questions.

I just found out this night - after being in a school for 4 weeks - I realized that i am actually showing signs of being totally retarded. but that is because of the reaction of me being at a school with students..

Im still running the Teacher-Program..inside my mind.

It's the way my organism is use to be a teacher - And that does not work being a student...

Programming...Deprogramming..

i just wanted to add that..

reply to post by SaturnFX


I totally agree with you about IQ not really equalling intellect. I've been tested several times and have consistently been at 137-139 for the last 10 years, but I can say with certainty that I'm not that much smarter than the average person. I just see patterns a lot easier than most; that's all IQ tests really seem to determine.

On the other side of the coin, my EQ is laughable.

I'm good with whatever name you like,the name is probably right in only one account and we will never know which one,we got the point of the flood idea and as we know that the bible is really a history book bastardised by religous lazy smartys,we can assume that there really was a massive global flood and that it was in fact recorded and that someone did in fact build a boat or an ark,If I had the money I would be building one myself.

I think the flood was a predictable and called natural earth event,someone obviously saw it coming and that took technology,but lo and behold the ark is built of wood??What up??

Maybe Noahs tipster was sending him radio or some other technological media,that told him to build an ark because they werent close to help him survive what they saw coming?

What if I was a millionaire and I listened to the bible and built myself an Ark on top of a mountain,what would they say about me if all this current technology and this current history and population disappeared??

I would be Noah!!The name doesnt matter.I would be bucking the trend,and I #e you not ,I would be building an Ark if I could,and exactly as the old texts say to build it,I am sure there was tech back then ,just not everyone had acess,and after the flood history was written by the winner so for Noah is was really HIS-STORY wasnt it??

How do we know that Noah chose to represent pre-flood life as it really was??

After the trauma of the great flood destroying humanity before his very eyes,dont you think he might have been careful what he represented as history? Especially if he thought what man was doing had angered god?Maybe technology angered god?Maybe Noah CHOSE to omitt some of what the pre-flood world was like.

And even if he wrote for hundreds of years straight how could he have recorded even a fraction of what we give these old records credit for recording?

Floods happen for sure on a global scale,one is on its way,just read these forums.Its old news unless you are blindsided by religon and believe that the flood is as much BS as you know the rest is.

This is your fatal error,because history books dont lie ,but preachers sure do.Dont be corrupted by the false sense of security this mistake puts upon you prepare today for what will surely happen tomorrow.

reply to post by cybertroy


Indeed, most of the more intelligent, and I would say almost all (I remember one professor I had who was genius, and very atheist) of the exceedingly intelligent people I have met throughout my life have all believed in God, in some form or another. I consider my self intelligent, and believe in God. Though not many conformed to a specific Dogma, I myself do not follow any "Organized Religion", but believe in a higher deity.

The Unintelligent leanings toward God is to take a Dogmatic belief, such as the Bible, and tout it as historical/scientific/theological fact. Instead of seeing it's allegorical directions of self improvement and spiritual guidance, they take ever mistranslated word to heart on blind faith. Faith in Dogma is imo the lack of intelligence. Faith in a god that transcends that which Humans can explain is an intelligent way of believing in God.

But then again as a Deist I am pretty biased.

I sleep 4-6 hrs a night, usually very late , I am a liberal atheist and I'm kind of a sexually exclusive man.
That freakin article confirmed my super smartness ! I'll order this magazine as soon as it is released. Or is any of you nice enough to get one copy for me and send it to France ?


cheers

reply to post by constantwonder



The problem with this theory is that intelligence is also a result of evolution so it's not possible to say that 'intelligent' people are bucking the evolutionary trend.

To say that being conservative and paranoid is what humans have evolved to be and being intelligent and liberal is somehow escaping from evolution is simplistic and wrong in my opinion.

Compassion, social awareness, cooperation etc are what have made humans so successful, not paranoia and distrust. There are theories that it was those social links and cooperation between groups that meant we flourished while the neanderthals died out.

You could argue that it is the conservative mentality that is more of an evolutionary dead end as it goes against thousands of years of human exploration and cooperation. However, that would be just as blinkered.

Fundamentally, all human traits are the result of evolution.

Kanazawa is expresing his limited view, opinions for the newest trends liberalism and atheism, maibe hes got low self esteem, wants to fit in who knows? everybody on this fourm it seems so. Its always been in fashion, to make yourself fell better with the narow minded, to atack what seems like an easy pray. None of the points he makes are any good, if you believe in god youre less smarter possibly even dum then those that dont. ok whatever dude, might wana try harder next time, or at least bring more opinions and use biger and longer words, some are impressed by that. Never heard of the journal Social Psychology, looked it up and it seems like a kids journal, this is one of the supposed studies I randomly ran into. Genetic Contributions to Antisocial Personality and Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review From an Evolutionary Perspective, were the guy says in big words to be sure another dumass thing, that acording to there flaweles logic and techniques bieng unsocial is genetic, I shiet you not.

Very interesting article, S&F for you.

I really don't want to sound like I'm bragging, because it's just simple fact, but I pretty much fit this description 99% and my last IQ test scored 145.

I'm agnostic, I hate organised religion, but can't say whether there is or is not a God, as it cannot be proven (although I would air on the side of the negative).

I'm fairly liberal, but open to other political ideals, if they make societal and personal sense.

I'm very nocternal. If I don't have to be in work the next day, I tend to go to bed at about 3-3.30am and get up about 11am. BTW, I also just thought my bio-clock was screwed up until I read this. Even when I do have to get up to get to work for 8.30am, I've always said I'm not fully alert until mid-day.

As for my sex life, well, that's between me, the Mrs and the gimp

IQ tests dont say much, I look at them like crossword puzzles, like one of the posters said Einstien couldent tie his shoes. Humans are deficient in many ways, there are limits to what a mind can grasp and a brain operate. Alot of what we judge ourselfs by is meaningles, being smart is questionable, it all relates to situations. Einstien was a genius in relativty but his genius was realtive to his situation in that time/period/space he lived in, a difference in one and he would be considered retarded. Look at Archimedes, he was a genius, and what happened, got killed in the roman expasion of greece, I quess everything is realtive, or at least time and humans are. Goes to show, the pen is mightier then the sword, as long as u dont have to fight someone whos got a sword with a pen. Thats a good way to end up dead.

Originally posted by one4all
I fit the profile and would like to add this,history is written by the survivors and in case anyone hasnt been paying attention humans are the first major breach of this rule,we found ways to keep geneticly inferior genes alive and kicking,we kept smart people around when they should have perished and mother nature kept them weak and small as a survival trait or all smart people came from small people and weak people because these are the types that think the most about everything they do.

Sharp intake of breathe there! Are you saying that smart people are genetically smaller? I think you are being highly stereotypical. Presumably when you see somebody with a six pack you assume that that's also their IQ!

Guess what some clever people (like me IQ 136) also exercise and have done weights etc in order to be good at our sport which we enjoy!.....shock horror oh my god what is going on. Likewise there are some clearly less intelligent people who look like they are starving (but aren't).

Beware of cognitive dissonance.

Originally posted by randyvs
Despite the fact I can't see this thread being in Sci and Tech. I plainly see a disbelief in God as a mark against anyones intelligence. Any claim that God does not exist, gets an automatic five marks against. No one can sensibly make that claim. Not Dawkins, no one.
I very simply describe myself as a follower of Jesus Christ.



[edit on 25-2-2010 by randyvs]

Well said.
2nd Line.

reply to post by Heliocentric


Same thing goes for solitary vs socially minded individuals. The person that feel less need for a supporting social structure has a greater tendency to defy it.
I can add something to this since i'm a solitary individual, If I feel less need for a social stucture I dont defy it I leave it, after all if it does not fit why try. The type to defy it would be one who wants to fit in but is unable due to not understanding were he or she fits in. defying is an expression of that, it would be a social animal that would feel that urge.

reply to post by galadofwarthethird


I don't think it's quite right to say that IQ tests don't say much. What they do is gives an overall perspective of intelligence, whilst indicating a person's strengths and weaknesses throughout all cognitive abilities, including spacial awareness, language skills, mathematical skills and problem solving abilities. A good IQ test will not only give you an IQ score, but will also analyse the answers to judge where a person excels.

I do agree, however that you can have a genius in a certain feild, who is a complete moron in other areas. A perfect example of this are many people with Asperger's Syndrome, a mild form of Autism, who often present amazing gifts in many fields, such as maths and music, but find many every day and social situations very difficult. It has often been postulated BTW that Einstein may have had asperger's, along with many of history's great minds.

Basically, if someone has a high IQ, then they are intelligent, with proficiency across the board, but if someone has a very low IQ, then they are probably not very smart at all. Anyone displaying incredible abilities in 1 or 2 areas, would bump their score up to an average to high level, although it would be picked up and a specialised test would be created to test the level in that field.