I'm not a genius, but I figured out how the ancients established the length of the royal cubit by precession measurements, it is as you say Roman, lots of hard work, like "filling in a coloring book."
I fondly remember the good old days (I guess you are officially a geezer when you start talking that way) when everyone actually liked smart people. It started in 1957 when Sputnik went up and America had to compete with the USSR in the science race. Math majors got dates, jocks were nice to us and even the cholos treated us with respect. I was so lucky that lasted almost thirty years, so I got to experience a fairly normal life when I was young. Nowadays people dislike anyone smarter than they are.Roman said:I think that Bush purposefully sells himself as an idiot. Americans find morons appealing, I guess.
Communication is not my only measure of intellect, but it's my first measure. How else am I to gauge a person's intelligence if they can't express themselves and I can't understand them? Obviously some people have good communication skills but not the other attributes of intelligence, but the communication facilitates figuring that out. If you've sold manure as gold then you're a swindler, but you're still pretty smart to have figured out how to do it and not get caught. Of course you become one of the reasons why ordinary people don't trust smart people, and Mensa should put out a fatwa on you.gendanken said:Have you any clue the piles of manure I've swindled as gold? If communication is how you're measuring intellect, you are therefore measuring the ability to say what's said. Not what is being said.
Making enticing promises requires intelligence. Not in math but in creativity, the same kind of intelligence that drives novelists and poets. Creating campaign promises that entice people to give you their votes isn't much different than creating lyrics that makes people want to buy your CDs. Except for that fatwa thing again of course.Any confident moron can thereby win an election or get a promotion becuase others are measuring the moron's social talent at expressing his stupidity.
And why is that kind of talent not a component of intelligence? You use your communication skills to hear what people say and to read the rest of their bandwidth such as body language. You use your reasoning skills to form a profile of how they think and what appeals to them. Then you use your creativity to devise an approach that gains their confidence. Con men in general are very bright. Now where's that online fatwa template?See how I've got the 'social talent' up there all bold and italicised?
I'll bet they still write well. Saul Bellow was a horrible speaker, I pity the poor kids who got stuck with him as their "celebrity professor for this semester." But his writing won awards. Of course that would have gotten him nowhere in an earlier era when few people could read. The measure of intelligence evolves with civilization's communication technologies. Soon writing will be more important than speaking as we all spend more time in virtual conversations than real ones. And those of us who can find the Shift key and the punctuation marks so people can understand what we write will be the leaders.That said, the brightest people I know are mumblers.
I don't see this. None of the Mensa members I've known have even admitted to being in the society until they were sure they were in the company of a person who could join if he wanted. They don't talk about it among the "commoners." Well okay, one lady with an MCSE flashed her Mensa card at a Radio Shack troll who treated her like a giddy housefrau who thinks a computer is a fancy toaster. And then she asked him in very stilted speech, "Do... You... Know... What... This... Card... Means?" I'll excuse that one.invert nexus said:I believe that many who join high iq societies do so in order to have bragging rights and to validate a sense of distinction within themselves. (A need for validation which I have never truly had, perhaps because of my early and lifelong distinction due to my gifted experiences.)
Yes, I'm much happier to be here in this virtual society where I can choose my forums and talk about science and anthropology. Being in a Mensa meeting where members like Luke and Moz and Sammy D would dominate the conversation, well that's the reason I don't go to those meetings.It is because of the information age that such societies as Mensa have become superceded in their truly practical aspect of networking by their pretentious aspect of class distinction. And this is only strengthened in those societies which exist primarily on the internet, and have entrance exams which are notoriously inaccurate and allow for people to inflate their egos for a few dollars more.
I think he has to be stupid because so many of the things he does are stupid. I suppose one could forgive Truman for getting us mired in Korea because it was a situation for which history had no examples. I can't forgive JFK and LBJ for getting us mired in Vietnam despite having Truman's example to learn from. The Religious Redneck Retard got us mired in Iraq despite having two recent historical examples of the dreaded "land war in Asia" syndrome. This is simply not something a bright person would have done.Amazing as it sounds, I believe his retard act is a ploy to acquire support. The only mechanism by which this can work that I can figure out is that the people think he's stupid but that he has a group of highly intelligent people behind in order to pull the strings and make the decisions.
Advances in hands-on research are indeed often driven by mistakes. I don't think you'll find very many advances in mathematics that you can say that about. The brightest people like Hawking and Einstein do best at the theoretical level, where not making mistakes is an advantage, not a disadvantage.Roman said:The major breakthroughs in science aren't moments where someone shouts "I found it!", but more like "wtf? what'd I do wrong?"
Mickmeister,
Heh.
One of the smartest people I know recently got a 64 on an online iq test!
Ha!
Don't know.
even the cholos treated us with respect.
None of the Mensa members I've known have even admitted to being in the society until they were sure they were in the company of a person who could join if he wanted. They don't talk about it among the "commoners." Well okay, one lady with an MCSE flashed her Mensa card at a Radio Shack troll who treated her like a giddy housefrau who thinks a computer is a fancy toaster. And then she asked him in very stilted speech, "Do... You... Know... What... This... Card... Means?" I'll excuse that one.
Cholo is Mexican-American slang for a gang member. In Latin America it's slang for "rebel." They also use the English slang word "homie" which is a contraction of the older slang word "homeboy" and is more prevalent in the African-American community. In my day--well really almost before my day, in the 1940s--Latino gang members were called pachucos but a pachuco wore an almost formal attire called a "zoot suit." Cholos dress casually.I didn't grow up in the States, what is a cholo?
Nope.Yourself?
Watch them.How else am I to gauge a person's intelligence if they can't express themselves and I can't understand them?
Ah, then.Obviously some people have good communication skills but not the other attributes of intelligence, but the communication facilitates figuring that out.
Years from now, assuming my new life gets its shit together, you will read this post completely plagiarized in the form of a short story written by a pen name.I'll bet they still write well. Saul Bellow was a horrible speaker, I pity the poor kids who got stuck with him as their "celebrity professor for this semester." But his writing won awards. Of course that would have gotten him nowhere in an earlier era when few people could read. The measure of intelligence evolves with civilization's communication technologies. Soon writing will be more important than speaking as we all spend more time in virtual conversations than real ones. And those of us who can find the Shift key and the punctuation marks so people can understand what we write will be the leaders.
3,9,and 13.Furthering the analogy:
What does , , and "The sum of the numerals and the sum of the squares is nine" have in common?
As you say, confidence is key.
I never said confidence was "key", more like a gimmick, and how is neither the intelligence to see the frame of a house in a pile of wood and the conviction to actually build it not required to 'get things done'?And yet, in the end, neither confidence nor iq get things done. Practical nature demand that houses get built.
*bated breath*The major breakthroughs in science aren't moments where someone shouts "I found it!", but more like "wtf? what'd I do wrong?"
Discovery of ribozymes- accident. Antibiotics- accident. X-rays - accident. Archeae– accident. There are dozens more, I just can't be bothered to think them up.
The best high-IQ society is that of dissidents like Kaczynski.
Fraggle Rocker said:I fondly remember the good old days (I guess you are officially a geezer when you start talking that way) when everyone actually liked smart people. It started in 1957 when Sputnik went up and America had to compete with the USSR in the science race. Math majors got dates, jocks were nice to us and even the cholos treated us with respect. I was so lucky that lasted almost thirty years, so I got to experience a fairly normal life when I was young. Nowadays people dislike anyone smarter than they are.
Fraggle Rocker said:Advances in hands-on research are indeed often driven by mistakes. I don't think you'll find very many advances in mathematics that you can say that about. The brightest people like Hawking and Einstein do best at the theoretical level, where not making mistakes is an advantage, not a disadvantage.