Here’s something WANDERER wrote a while ago.

In coming to terms with ones own existence it is obvious that not all are created equal and even individuals belonging to the same species, race, nationality, and family group display a difference between each other- not only on a purely physical level [height, weight, strength, speed] but on a mental one as well [intelligence, wisdom, knowledge, logic] - as to make the very notion of egalitarianism, a naïve idealists dream of a possible perfect utopia. Only the very optimistic amongst us still holds on to this antiquated idea of human parity and most recognize that nature is about progress through inequality, even though we may agree that a supposed facade of equality, under the rule of law, is necessary for civilization to proceed without conflict.
{Some would say that the mental characteristics of a person, I mention above, are just another aspect of their physical being, but that is a topic for another time and I will not deal with materialism or human duality here.}

It is easy to just explain mental inequality as just being an expression of a qualitative variation of intelligence or knowledge but that is a simplistic interpretation that does not take into account all the aspects of mental processes that participate in creating judgment and wisdom.

I am sure many of us know many “smart” people with many diplomas and labels of heightened intellectualism whom nevertheless seem to fall into childish errors or that behave in immature, irresponsible ways on such a consistent, predictable manner as to make us wonder how this is possible at all. Also the disparity of opinion between people of like mental ability and similar general experiences, coming from common cultural and social backgrounds raises the question as to how comparable minds can posses such diversely opposed views and perceptions. It is reasonable to assume that minds with relatively equal abilities using logic and having access to the same general information would come to common answers and a broad unanimity should be possible.

At first glance this phenomenon can be understood by taking into consideration the distinction of perspective by which each individual perceives reality. Since self is the only thing we can ever know for certain-if that- all other perceptions become a matter of subjective interpretation based on genetic predisposition and environmental infections. Logic itself becomes malleable in areas where experience based knowledge is non-existing or feeble such as when dealing with abstract ideas.

But what does perspective really mean and what are its effects on human judgment and opinion?

This is a question that if answered would shed light into the human psyche, explain the diversity of opinion in the world and enable us to deduce which opinion is more respectable, worthy of further consideration, objective and which is superficial, naïve, subjective and most probably erroneous. This is important, in my view, because we as mortal beings have so little time to formulate opinions; we cannot afford to waste it chasing after impossibilities or diverting our attentions to theories that are baseless and improbable except in instances where we wish to practice our imaginations.
{Important, that is, only for those interested in finding truth/reality and not for those just looking for comfort and safety to escape into and then scrambling to find justifications for doing so]

The quality of an opinion is not only the product of intelligence utilizing knowledge but an end result of a series of interlocking, interdependent psychological characteristics of the human animal and the effects of the psyche and environment, it exist in, upon it.

Intelligence is unquestionably vital and knowledge/information is essential in forming correct assumptions, but equally critical is an individuals personal experiences that shape judgment [first hand knowledge] and the fortitude of character [intellectual courage] to deal with many of the perceptions we may be exposed to and accept them.
The level we rise to in the categories of intelligence, knowledge, experience and courage- either through genetic chance or personal effort- sets up a level of awareness called wisdom which is the base on which judgment rests.

In generally encapsulating my position thus far I have deduced that:
INTELLIGENCE fed on KNOWLEDGE prejudiced by EXPERIENCE and COURAGE creates a mental disposition called WISDOM which gives birth to JUDGMENT which expresses itself through OPINIONS.

It would be helpful to analyze each of these pieces of our mental puzzle separately in order to understand them better and explain how one supports and influences the other.


INTELLIGENCE

Intelligence is a term most often used to refer to the minds analytical ability and its overall talent to deduce or induce effectively, given the information at its disposal.
It is a tool of reasoning which requires knowledge to reason by and experience to form logical rules and standards in order to measure reality with.

But intelligence alone is not enough to come to any correct conclusions unless it has access to dependable information through the senses or through indirect accounts and if it manages to maintain its clarity by avoiding the corruptive influences of emotion and ego that often divert its energies and cloud its focus.

Like a sculptors knife intelligence can facilitate an artist’s work with its sharpness but is not enough, in and of itself, to give rise to great art unless handled with a keen eye, a creative imagination, talent and a subtle hand.

This most precious of all human weapons has been often misconstrued and misidentified as being merely an accumulation of knowledge and the memorization and regurgitation of ideas. Ironically intelligence becomes more pronounced and important where there is an absence of knowledge and where information is shady and weak. It is in ignorance that it reveals its real power and displays how it has enabled man to become a dominating life form on Earth.

KNOWLEDGE

It is said that real knowledge is impossible and that all we have is sensual interpretations of presumably external, ephemeral phenomenon of which we can never be completely certain of. Despite this, these sensual events are all we possess -other than the awareness of self- and a first absolute assumption of a priori knowledge is a necessity if any further progress can be attempted.

The problems of perception are many and furthermore the weakness of our senses, even in comparison to other living beings, is well known to most of us, but the requirement of these sensual events, for the mind to formulate opinion, is unquestionable and fundamental.

Man attempts to circumvent this starting problem of uncertainty by utilizing the process of elimination through a comparison of sensual interpretations by different individuals, in diverse environments coming from a multitude of cultural backgrounds. This plurality of views on a single subject manages to filter out the majority of falsehood and subjectivity but does not eliminate it totally. Individual, social/religious, gender based, historical, racial contaminations may be eliminated in this manner but our species prejudices remain until we discover another intelligent species willing to give us another perspective to test our own.

Since certainty is virtually impossible as to what is real and what unreal we can, at the very least, achieve through empiricism a position of relative certainty within a reasonable constant doubt.

There are presumably two types of knowledge: a priori and a posteriori but more importantly knowledge is only as dependable as the source it comes from. If sensual experience based knowledge is questionable then knowledge that has come through second or third party experiences and accounts is much more so.
If intelligence is a sculptor’s knife or chisel then knowledge is his clay or rock.


EXPERIENCE

Some would say that experience is another term for knowledge and so must be included as just a sensual perception of events, but I will deal with experience here from a purely psychological perspective and show how a richness or poverty of first-hand experience based knowledge influences judgment.

It is, in my opinion, a human unfortunate trait that most individual minds learn primarily from personal mistakes and successes and not so much from another’s. No matter how many second-hand examples we are given or third-hand accounts we are exposed to, a human mind cannot understand an experience as fully or as deeply as when it goes through it itself.

This inability to empathically learn through third party experiences makes experience itself fundamental in the development of character and consequently judgment, since it determines a person’s general outlook on existence and creates a history from which strength and confidence can be drawn. Furthermore the types of experiences a mind is exposed to during its lifetime and especially during the early years, affects the overall quality of the mind and shapes the perspective from which it perceives.

For example, a person that has gone through negative, life threatening, traumatic experiences will be prone to be overly pessimistic, depressive, bitter and cynical while a mind lacking any such comparative negative experiences will tend to be naïve, superficial, overly-optimistic, demanding, selfish, arrogant and self-centered. A man that has never tasted defeat will assume he cannot be defeated and will exhibit the arrogance of one that has never been humbled. A man living a sheltered privileged life will undoubtedly remain an intellectual adolescent full of insecurities and expectations. [Here is a symptom that reveals the ailment of western civilization]

How, if and to what extent an experience affects judgment and character is somewhat determined by the individuals strength of character and ability to cope with diversity which is something that is mostly inherited.


COURAGE

Unavoidably human intelligence is guided and infected with emotion and ego. Our predispositions to a phenomenon due to past events and genetic history influence our general perception of it. If our overall perception is positive we will be inclined to be more open to it whereas if negative we will try to deny, explain it away or ignore it.
Similarly ego influences judgment by placing selfish concerns and personal perceptions on intellectual pedestals. [This is one of the reasons we are unable to learn through second party experiences].

A healthy ego will always perceive self as superior and the other as inferior even if it will at times admit to some inferiorities and inadequacies in order to appear to itself and to others as fair, objective, humble and reasonable [social indoctrination].

More often than not the need for self acceptance is interpreted by the insecure ego as self-love [love is always blind to truth] which justifies an unearned egotism and arrogance.
What is needed here is the ability to extricate oneself from perception thusly eliminating the control of both ego and emotion on judgment. This of course is almost humanly impossible to do completely- no matter how fervently eastern philosophies claim to be able to- but the degree of selflessness we achieve in formulating opinion determines our accuracy.
The first and most important ingredient in extricating oneself from the subject being evaluated is courage; it is the sum of the strength of character and intellectual honesty that enables the mind to accept as true the perceptions that are detrimental to it and to accept the limits and weaknesses by first acknowledging their existence.
Self awareness and self-acceptance is the first stage towards a general full awareness; this is only possible through the admittance of ones failings and strengths with no exaggeration either way.

Courage is just as important as intelligence and knowledge in creating sound judgment. It makes it possible to perceive what is, as much as is humanly possible, without being thwarted by what we wish there to be or what we hope there is.

Intellectual honesty through courage is often overlooked when assessing the ingredients of good judgment; it is the one thing that can turn an intellectual into just another babbling fool adorned with diplomas and titles of achievement but acting only as a surrogate mouthpiece for old ideas, either afraid to challenge preconception and institutions or unable to go beyond the work of others.


CONCLUSION

Intelligence, knowledge, experience and courage are interlocked, mutual dependant aspects of what we term wisdom. This predisposition to possibility without succumbing to imagination and instinct allows the mind to be open to new hypothesis without wasting time on improbable, illogical, delusional supposition.

Wisdom focuses the human mind upon probability and eliminates the thinning of human energies on infinite possibility; it does not deny or exterminate any theory but evaluates importance and widens the level of perspective multiple views.
Through this process human judgment is shaped and its accuracy is determined by how high or low we measure-up on the scales of intelligence, knowledge, experience and courage.

The opinions that spring out from our judgment are, inevitably, ones whose consequences we must live with. Whether we run from truth/reality or ignore it is irrelevant; we cannot escape it. No religion, mythology, philosophy or ideology can protect us forever from reality, they can only postpone our suffering or placate its horrible effects by inebriating us or anesthetising our sensual perceptions. The only one real way to deal with truth and reality is to face it.

How accurate our opinions are is relevant in the amount of negatives we are exposed to in the course of our lifetime. How often we are disappointed or surprised by reality; how often we blame others for our own failings and try to escape into fantasy is a good way to measure how reliable our judgment is.
At first the price of awareness may be one we are unwilling to pay and the negativity and loss of stability, comfort and ego may be terrifying to contemplate but through its acceptance real strategies can be formulated to overcome the negatives.

The power of self-awareness and acceptance of reality as it appears will always lead to long lasting contentment in the end if it is utilized correctly.

“You gotta go through hell to get to heaven” as the song says.

You cannot test for intelligence, and a degree is not a function of intelligence, it's a function of hard work, persistence, perhaps obdience. Persistence is more valueable than geius, or intellect, as someone who works hard and who is determined, will accomplish more than someone who breezes through stuff so easily that they never really pay much attention to what they are doing or focus on anything in specific. A lot of the time, people are very smart, but also lack drive and focus. A degree is proof of drive and focus, not intelligence.

If you want proof of intellgience, you have to know their entire life story. How did they get to where they are?

Were they a member of the lucky sperm club or did they get there by pure genius? If you manage to survive in a harsh environment, and become successful, you are intelligent. If you manage to just be born and get a degree, that proves nothing. If you manage to do well on a test, that proves nothing. It's all about how you live your life.

A lot has been said about intelligence and I.Q. and authority figures recently on this forum.

I wonder how all of you decide between whom to respect and whom to disrespect and how you discern between bullshit and plausible opinion.

An authority figure must firstly remain open to criticism and overcoming or else it becomes an authoritarian and a narcissistic fascist.
An authority figure must be judged by its past - by its successes and failings.

We do not accept as an authority on making money someone who has consistently gone bankrupt.

An authority figure must provide evidence that can be tested and validated and scrutinized or else he relies more on faith than on fact to remain an authority.

It’s like a fighter holding onto his title on insinuation rather than by getting into the ring.

An authority figure must be replaceable, or else it is domination rather than an inspiration.
An authority figure must be judged by how it offers ways to progress rather than ways to remain idle.

As such the authority of science in comparison to religion must be evaluated.

I wonder how all of you decide between whom to respect and whom to disrespect and how you discern between bullshit and plausible opinion.

The ones that make me feel good.

Question:
if Y=I+G+C+NX, do I use net I or gross I?

The ones that make me feel good.

Question:
if Y=I+G+C+NX, do I use net I or gross I?Good answer.
So do I.

Use whatever 'I' you can get or makes you feel the best.

A lot has been said about intelligence and I.Q. and authority figures recently on this forum.

I wonder how all of you decide between whom to respect and whom to disrespect and how you discern between bullshit and plausible opinion.

An authority figure must firstly remain open to criticism and overcoming or else it becomes an authoritarian and a narcissistic fascist.
An authority figure must be judged by its past - by its successes and failings.

We do not accept as an authority on making money someone who has consistently gone bankrupt.

An authority figure must provide evidence that can be tested and validated and scrutinized or else he relies more on faith than on fact to remain an authority.

It’s like a fighter holding onto his title on insinuation rather than by getting into the ring.

An authority figure must be replaceable, or else it is domination rather than an inspiration.
An authority figure must be judged by how it offers ways to progress rather than ways to remain idle.

As such the authority of science in comparison to religion must be evaluated.


Blind worship of authority is not a sign of intelligence. Yeah we all tolerate authority, but seriously, blind faith is not a sign of intelligence.

I think authority is perhaps the wrong word. I think there are ways to learn how intelligent a person is based on their behavioral patterns. There are different kinds of intelligence which apply to different situations. A child with ADHD would be a genius in some situations outside of the classroom but be horribe inside of the classroom, as this is a certain type of intelligence which we don't have a test for but which we know not only exists but is important.

We also know that there are all sorts of types of intelligence, emotional intelligence, musical intelligence, verbal intelligence, math intelligence, and social intelligence, and even if we tested them individually it would not for sure show us how intelligent a person is because it depends on the conditions of a test. If you put a gun to someones head they'll do better on the test than if it's just a test for the sake of testing.

I think the best way to judge intelligence is by behavior, a stupid person will behave like a stupid person and will end up in a lot of stupid situations. Drunk driving, bar fighting, and a lot of other situations we'd consider stupid situations. You watch Jerry Springer, and a lot of those situations are stupid situations. We look at it and laugh because we know we'd never end up in a situation so stupid because the ways out of them or to avoid them are so simple.

Intelligence is all about how person operates in their environment in my opinion. You can take a person with a high IQ, and they might be book smart and street stupid, you can take a person with a low education and low IQ, but this person might be street smart and control large criminal operations. It's not that people are smart or stupid based on one test, it's more that there are multiple kinds of smart, and multiple kinds of stupid, not just one.

In this context, all of us have our areas of genius, or where we are talented, as in better than average, and then we have areas where we are just slower than average. Every scientist, or just about all of them had some eccentric weaknesses, or just some aspects of their life that we would consider dumb. When it comes to fashion, would you take your fashion advice from Bill Gates? On the other hand, when it comes to running a business, there is no one else in the world better at it.

In a society where we are all designers, and designers get rich, Bill Gates would be poor, as he is not a good artist, and I don't think he'd be the greatest programmer either, but I do think in a world of greed, where running a business and making rational corporate decisions is a good thing, he's great. I think Bill Gates wold make a great president, a great CEO, or a great founder of a non-profit.

At the same time in other situations you have people who would completely destroy him, he won't be a better artist, he won't have the most social skills, he won't be launching shuttles into space even if he could do some calculus. I don't think he can code as well as John Carmack, I don't think he could design technology as well as Richard Stallman, I don't think he could create the creative commons, I'm sure he has tried to do these sorts of things, but there are some things he just won't be doing, either because it's not in his personality to do it, or because he's not good at it.

So in general, you can really know who is intelligent based on where they are. If someone knows they aren't able to afford college or just arent an egghead, but they join the military instead of a street gang, thats smart in my opinion. If someone decides to become a police officer instead of say, a thief, thats smart. You just have to watch the moves they make in the game of life, as some people make brilliant moves even if they don't seem brilliant when you talk to them. In the end, it's all about making the right moves, and being in a good position at all times on the board.

Blind worship of authority is not a sign of intelligence. Yeah we all tolerate authority, but seriously, blind faith is not a sign of intelligence.

I think authority is perhaps the wrong word. I think there are ways to learn how intelligent a person is based on their behavioral patterns. There are different kinds of intelligence which apply to different situations. A child with ADHD would be a genius in some situations outside of the classroom but be horribe inside of the classroom, as this is a certain type of intelligence which we don't have a test for but which we know not only exists but is important.

We also know that there are all sorts of types of intelligence, emotional intelligence, musical intelligence, verbal intelligence, math intelligence, and social intelligence, and even if we tested them individually it would not for sure show us how intelligent a person is because it depends on the conditions of a test. If you put a gun to someones head they'll do better on the test than if it's just a test for the sake of testing.

I think the best way to judge intelligence is by behavior, a stupid person will behave like a stupid person and will end up in a lot of stupid situations. Drunk driving, bar fighting, and a lot of other situations we'd consider stupid situations. You watch Jerry Springer, and a lot of those situations are stupid situations. We look at it and laugh because we know we'd never end up in a situation so stupid because the ways out of them or to avoid them are so simple.In one word: Adaptability.

Intelligence is all about how person operates in their environment in my opinion. You can take a person with a high IQ, and they might be book smart and street stupid, you can take a person with a low education and low IQ, but this person might be street smart and control large criminal operations. It's not that people are smart or stupid based on one test, it's more that there are multiple kinds of smart, and multiple kinds of stupid, not just one.Exactly.
So Tarzan amongst the apes would be a fool to try to talk to them using human language.

For some reason, I am reminded of the latin auctoritas whenever Satyr uses the word authority. Although the two words are closely related, they are not synonymous. From the way Satyr writes, I get the impression that he is thinking of auctoritas when he says authority. I could be wrong. Like I said, I'm just reminded of the word.

Of course, this is totally irrelevant and off-topic.

Of course, this is totally irrelevant and off-topic.

Um, welcome to sciforums?

And it's cool that you're well read enough to know latin. Don't let the inane banter of us regulars scare you off. We need new blood. And brains.

Um, welcome to sciforums?

And it's cool that you're well read enough to know latin. Don't let the inane banter of us regulars scare you off. We need new blood. And brains.

Well, Roman, I'm actually not new. Also, to tell you the truth I don't know that much latin. I just understand some of the cooler concepts and words. Like, I couldn't translate De Bello Gallico for you or anything. I really don't want to ruin Satyr's thread with this kind of clutter, however, so I'll end this post short.

Thanks.
I prefer greek anyways.

INTELLIGENCE

Intelligence is a term most often used to refer to the minds analytical ability and its overall talent to deduce or induce effectively, given the information at its disposal.
It is a tool of reasoning which requires knowledge to reason by and experience to form logical rules and standards in order to measure reality with.

But intelligence alone is not enough to come to any correct conclusions unless it has access to dependable information through the senses or through indirect accounts and if it manages to maintain its clarity by avoiding the corruptive influences of emotion and ego that often divert its energies and cloud its focus.

Like a sculptors knife intelligence can facilitate an artist’s work with its sharpness but is not enough, in and of itself, to give rise to great art unless handled with a keen eye, a creative imagination, talent and a subtle hand.

This most precious of all human weapons has been often misconstrued and misidentified as being merely an accumulation of knowledge and the memorization and regurgitation of ideas. Ironically intelligence becomes more pronounced and important where there is an absence of knowledge and where information is shady and weak. It is in ignorance that it reveals its real power and displays how it has enabled man to become a dominating life form on Earth.



If I were permitted to make a remark on this section I would remark that the human species seems capable of some kind of analytical problem solving that is beyond most other species (as far we can know).

A problem that most people make regarding intelligence is that we actually use this kind of intelligence to go through life. We do not. What drives us are more mundane biological urges dictated by ancient structural pathways in the brain in combination with knew ones. During our development these structures are somewhat molded but the basis remains the same. We are filthy apes.

This misjudgement on our behavioural patterns (that they are based on intelligence) causes many problems in our society. Ideas are poored into the human brain that are totally pointless. For example, the question everybody seems to get depressed over nowadays, what should I do with my life, is commonplace.

The idea that you should do something special with you life is entitely based on culture and has no biological foundation in most cases. The answer is simple but unacceptable to most, because it reduces them to what they are. A machine.

The human species cannot except that they are biological machines. Their brains evolved to a level that allowed for a rapid cultural evolution. A side-product of cultural evolution is the general notion that we are special. That there is meaning.

Modern man cannot accept the fact that they are simply biological machines, nor can they see the ultimate beauty of it. It is a lack of logical and analytical vision. The very principle that determins our intelligence prevents us from being truly intelligent.

I thank you all for your attention.

If I were permitted to make a remark on this section I would remark that the human species seems capable of some kind of analytical problem solving that is beyond most other species (as far we can know).

A problem that most people make regarding intelligence is that we actually use this kind of intelligence to go through life. We do not. What drives us are more mundane biological urges dictated by ancient structural pathways in the brain in combination with knew ones. During our development these structures are somewhat molded but the basis remains the same. We are filthy apes.

This misjudgement on our behavioural patterns (that they are based on intelligence) causes many problems in our society. Ideas are poored into the human brain that are totally pointless. For example, the question everybody seems to get depressed over nowadays, what should I do with my life, is commonplace.

The idea that you should do something special with you life is entitely based on culture and has no biological foundation in most cases. The answer is simple but unacceptable to most, because it reduces them to what they are. A machine.

The human species cannot except that they are biological machines. Their brains evolved to a level that allowed for a rapid cultural evolution. A side-product of cultural evolution is the general notion that we are special. That there is meaning.

Modern man cannot accept the fact that they are simply biological machines, nor can they see the ultimate beauty of it. It is a lack of logical and analytical vision. The very principle that determins our intelligence prevents us from being truly intelligent.

I thank you all for your attention.

If a lack of meaning in one's life makes it difficult for one to survive, then it is proper for an individual to attempt to find meaning in their life. The fact that there is ultimately no real meaning is pointless, since without a sense of some kind of meaning the individual no longer has the will to live, which is ultimately the only purpose that any living thing has.

If a lack of meaning in one's life makes it difficult for one to survive, then it is proper for an individual to attempt to find meaning in their life. The fact that there is ultimately no real meaning is pointless, since without a sense of some kind of meaning the individual no longer has the will to live, which is ultimately the only purpose that any living thing has.

Not true. People can easily fly through life on automatic. They don't need a higher goal. That's just a recent cultural influence.

But I think choosing the right goals gives more life-satisfaction.

Not true. People can easily fly through life on automatic. They don't need a higher goal. That's just a recent cultural influence.
I never said anything about a "higher goal". I mentioned meaning. Meaning as in a context beyond simply existing. The vast majority of mentally healthy people have some kind of meaning in their lives, regardless of whether it is very philosophical or not.

Also, it's not just a "recent" cultural influence. Are you telling me that, in the past, people lived simply because they were already living? That they had no context to their lives? No meaning, no purpose? I highly doubt that. And, if you're saying that culture is a recent phenomenon, then I'd have to agree with you. However, before a time when we can identify anything resembling "higher" culture, people were more concerned with making sure that they remained alive. They were on the fringe of survival, which is the reason why they probably didn't need any kind of meaning. They didn't have time to think about it.

I never said anything about a "higher goal". I mentioned meaning. Meaning as in a context beyond simply existing. The vast majority of mentally healthy people have some kind of meaning in their lives, regardless of whether it is very philosophical or not.

Also, it's not just a "recent" cultural influence. Are you telling me that, in the past, people lived simply because they were already living? That they had no context to their lives? No meaning, no purpose? I highly doubt that. And, if you're saying that culture is a recent phenomenon, then I'd have to agree with you. However, before a time when we can identify anything resembling "higher" culture, people were more concerned with making sure that they remained alive. They were on the fringe of survival, which is the reason why they probably didn't need any kind of meaning. They didn't have time to think about it.

You are basically saying i am right?

I think the best way to judge intelligence is by behavior, a stupid person will behave like a stupid person and will end up in a lot of stupid situations.
That's not just intelligence, it's also discipline, which comes from the experience part.
Intelligence is all about how person operates in their environment in my opinion.
That's actually a combinations of all the things mentioned in the first post.


If someone decides to become a police officer instead of say, a thief, thats smart.
Police officers get paid crap. If you can get away with being a thief or robber, it's much easier to get rich form that than from being a police officer. The only thing it would be is prudence, and if you can get away with stealing and robbing, it's unneeded prudence. Everyone is good at what they're good at, it's smart to become something you will be successful as, not what society would like you to be. Napoleon and Hitler both went from regular soldiers to being rulers, because they minipulated their own talents.
You cannot test for intelligence, and a degree is not a function of intelligence, it's a function of hard work, persistence, perhaps obdience. Persistence is more valueable than geius, or intellect, as someone who works hard and who is determined, will accomplish more than someone who breezes through stuff so easily that they never really pay much attention to what they are doing or focus on anything in specific
Mathematics are purely unbiased mental excercises, the perfect test of actual intelligence.

You are basically saying i am right?
No, I'm saying most people today aren't on the fringe of survival, so they don't have the benefit of a distraction to keep them from finding a meaningful existence.

No, I'm saying most people today aren't on the fringe of survival, so they don't have the benefit of a distraction to keep them from finding a meaningful existence.

Why would that be a benefit. Clearly it isn't. See for instance what religion has done to mankind.

Why would that be a benefit. Clearly it isn't. See for instance what religion has done to mankind.
Oh really? What exactly has religion "done" to mankind?

wars, oppression, rape, murder, mindcontrol, crowd control, obstruction of science, waste our time etc etc.

wars, oppression, rape, murder, mindcontrol, crowd control, obstruction of science, waste our time etc etc.Yes, but their intentions were ‘good’.

I know.
Instead of judging something or someone by how it is or how it acts or how it behaves or what it creates, let us judge it by what it says it intends.

-Then, I can kill my neighbor and not go to jail because I intended to save him from the misery of living.

-Then, I can treat someone like shit and justify it by saying that I ‘love them’.

-Then I can build an ugly, unstable house, with my own two hands, and be judged as a good builder because I intended to build it strong and aesthetically appealing one.

-I can intend a masterpiece without ever actually producing one.

-I can intend to be ‘good’ without ever being so or never understanding or defining what ‘good’ means.

Let us not judge communism by how it was or how it was established or how it affected men and history, but let us judge it by what it intended.
Had not Communism the most noble of intentions?
What about Nazism?