Kamille Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 She's complicating it with a bunch of new age sounding mumbo jumbo where there exist a society where Stephen Hawking and people like him would be considered dumber than Forrest Gump. Give me a ****ing break. Oh. so would you like me to simplify contemporary social theory for you? Again, I will overlook the disqualifying use of "new age mumbo jumbo" to describe what I have to say.
Happy Finally Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 She's complicating it with a bunch of new age sounding mumbo jumbo where there exist a society where Stephen Hawking and people like him would be considered dumber than Forrest Gump. Give me a ****ing break. Give you a break? Intellect is relative and that is what you fail to see, despite your vast roar of your superior intellect. So what if he can tell you the theory of relativity and map it out with equations and (made up person here) Bill can't do that. In a classroom you win. Now put yourself in the wilderness. No classroom. Your book intellect doesn't keep you alive but Bill's survival intellect does....who is smarter you or Bill? Intelligence is relative. Plain and simple. It does not make one a lower mammal as implied by the OP.
Kamille Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 And FYI, no where did I say people would say Hawkings would be considered dumber. In ability studies, the very idea that intelligence can be hierachized is put into question. Intelligence is an ability to meet social norms in particular ways.
Happy Finally Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 I fail to see how I am engaging in a dishonest way. I will grant you the benefit of the doubt. Could you explain how I am not dealing honestly? The answer to that last question is quite easy for me: we only think we are smarter than homo erectus because of our society. Are you smarter than a lion? The lion doesn't think so. And more than often a lion wins. It is relative which is why the OP statement about lesser mammals is absurd.
Mrlonelyone Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Which is why we have to speak in terms of population averages. The average Homo Erectus for half of the time they were on earth was afraid of fire, only knew how to make one or two kinds of stone tools (a hand axe some sharp flakes) and did not even wear clothes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_ergaster (very similar African form of his more famous cousin and believed to be our ancestor) The average homo Sapiens Sapiens. Has no fear of fire and in fact has mastered it totally. Has basic working knowledge of gravity, electricity, and enough mechanics to maintain heavy machinery or operate precision instruments. (even if those instruments are simply being used for something like filing their nails....Homo Erectus could not do that.) We speak in terms of averages which can be generalized.
Mrlonelyone Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 You are dealing dishonestly because you are trying to turn a question of psychometrics into one of sociology. It's like me asking you if Einstein's General Relativity is better than Newtonian gravity and you deciding to say that Newtonian is only disfavored in cosmology because of the society we are in. There exist things that are objective, solid and concrete that have nothing to do with sociology. Intellect is one of those things. To deny that is an affront to all those people who require special education services just to get a decent education. Try saying that the idea of mental disability is just due to socilogy to someone who still needs to clothe and feed their 14 year old child because they never advanced beyond being a four year old. Try saying that to someone who's child is 4 and performs on the Piano and reads at the level of a 14 year old. People at both extremes exist and we are real and that has nothing do to with your social theories!
Happy Finally Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Mrlonely, You argue your point in space. You move from stone to stone hoping to pull something out of space that will prove your point: John Adams and now Homo Erectus to name two stones you have stood on. Neither of them disprove what the OP meant when he said lesser mammals. In fact I think it further proves that he believes he is above everyone else. Intellect and human intelligence is relative. The OP claims he can't meet women because of the lesser mammals. They can't meet his intellect or moral/ethical standard. Yet these three items are relative to time, place and circumstance. The true reason he can't meet girls is because he is a narcissistic arrogant person who believes his brains and moral standards are above the average person.
Happy Finally Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 You are dealing dishonestly because you are trying to turn a question of psychometrics into one of sociology. It's like me asking you if Einstein's General Relativity is better than Newtonian gravity and you deciding to say that Newtonian is only disfavored in cosmology because of the society we are in. There exist things that are objective, solid and concrete that have nothing to do with sociology. Intellect is one of those things. To deny that is an affront to all those people who require special education services just to get a decent education. Try saying that the idea of mental disability is just due to socilogy to someone who still needs to clothe and feed their 14 year old child because they never advanced beyond being a four year old. Try saying that to someone who's child is 4 and performs on the Piano and reads at the level of a 14 year old. People at both extremes exist and we are real and that has nothing do to with your social theories! And to equate the OP or yourself to that is ludacris. If so you wouldn't be here and you definitely still wouldn't be in school still at the age of 30 something.
Mrlonelyone Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Happy I am working on an advanced degree in theoretical physics. I am also a black+American Indian, bisexual bigendered (a type of transgender) person. I have had to deal with all kinds of discrimination. Considering that more than the fair share of people like me end up living on the street or dead that's pretty impressive. There is no point in discussing anything with you any more. As for Kamile she needs to leave her sociology in a place where it is a valid theory. You don't see me trying to write equations of physics to deal with social problems. (except for one tounge in cheek thread a while back.)
Kamille Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 You are dealing dishonestly because you are trying to turn a question of psychometrics into one of sociology. It's like me asking you if Einstein's General Relativity is better than Newtonian gravity and you deciding to say that Newtonian is only disfavored in cosmology because of the society we are in. There exist things that are objective, solid and concrete that have nothing to do with sociology. Intellect is one of those things. To deny that is an affront to all those people who require special education services just to get a decent education. Try saying that the idea of mental disability is just due to socilogy to someone who still needs to clothe and feed their 14 year old child because they never advanced beyond being a four year old. Try saying that to someone who's child is 4 and performs on the Piano and reads at the level of a 14 year old. People at both extremes exist and we are real and that has nothing do to with your social theories! Point taken. However, psychometrics has little do to with ethics and morality. And nowhere did I say there weren't challenges to differentiated mental abilities. Nor did sociology. In fact, sociologist spend a lot of time thinking up ways to remove social barriers to make people's lives easier. Many of them also spend a lot of time trying to figure out how humans can get along better. Psychometrics is no more in touch with some form of hard truths than social theory is. Ethics are not truths. Ethics are beliefs. I'll tell you something: I do believe some people have a better grasp of ethics than others. So I get back to the question, which you never answered: Who gets to decide who has a higher ethical understanding of the world? Why do you feel the OP has a higher ethical stance than anyone else who's posted on this thread, and to whom you felt that you had to explain ethics, morals, and intelligence?
Kamille Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 (edited) As for Kamile she needs to leave her sociology in a place where it is a valid theory. You don't see me trying to write equations of physics to deal with social problems. (except for one tounge in cheek thread a while back.) I angered you didn't I? That doesn't take away any of the validity of my argument - which you never addressed, merely dismissed. If physics were applicable to this discussion, I would welcome your input, using what you know. It just so happens that I work in a field which has thought about: ethics and intelligence. Sociology and political theory are valid theories here. Edited March 23, 2011 by Kamille
Happy Finally Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Happy I am working on an advanced degree in theoretical physics. I am also a black+American Indian, bisexual bigendered (a type of transgender) person. I have had to deal with all kinds of discrimination. Considering that more than the fair share of people like me end up living on the street or dead that's pretty impressive. There is no point in discussing anything with you any more. As for Kamile she needs to leave her sociology in a place where it is a valid theory. You don't see me trying to write equations of physics to deal with social problems. (except for one tounge in cheek thread a while back.) And that's the difference between you and I. I don't consider anyone of those things a roadblock to success. People who use their race, religion, sex or sexual preference as a defense, excuse or means to gain privilege are weak and have no self motivation. People are not smart because they are black/white, woman/man or any combination of the above lead to a certain way of life. There are too many examples that disprove that theory. Those that fail and point to any of those items only do so because it is in easy excuse that society lets them get away with (and I'm not implying that you do these things). If society stopped letting those items be excuses then people would stop using them. And being a minority is also relative....it depends where you live locally. Either way..you still don't compare to a 4 year old who can play the piano and reads on the level of a 14 year old. Your gender, race and sexual preference has nothing to do with that ability. And to even bring it up weakens the argument. It also has nothing to do with the fact you are earning an advanced degree in theoretical physics.
Happy Finally Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 mrlonely, Also instead of addressing what I said about intelligence being relative you bring up your race, gender and sexual preference to try and defer and deflect the conversation. Like I just said in the previous post, those things are irrelevant to intellect. Or do you feel that they are relevant? Inquiring minds want to know.
Author ChessPieceFace Posted March 23, 2011 Author Posted March 23, 2011 His ethics are evolved, are of a higher standard than the ethics of others? What arrogance. His belief doesn't make it so. Actions make it so. Looking at the actions in the responses of myself and then those of others, it's very apparent who has the ethical high ground here. I'm not going to respond to page after page of people's trolling to counter the words they put in my mouth, or itemize all of the statements that have been twisted around to slander me. Mrlonelyone, you understand and have said it all very nicely already. Kudos to you. I would just ask -- don't bother getting yourself all worked up over the many people trolling this thread. It's not worth it and they are never going to listen or change. They choose to hijack my thread because they can't stand the idea that someone might be superior to them in any way, let alone have the audacity to mention it. Those out there who would still like to respond to my honest questions, feel free to do so. I'll try to sift through all the other people's nonsense to find your responses. Thanks.
johan Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 I don't think there are any geniuses on these forums.
dispatch3d Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Why do women desire confidence? Because confidence is an indicator of success. It says "I believe in myself; when I do something I will succeed!" Certainly one can be confident and unsuccessful, but it's much less likely that you can be successful but NOT confident. Women, just as men, want to be with someone who is successful. And yes, success can come in many forms and has many gradations, yet it is not completely subjective, as most will agree when someone is very successful or very unsuccessful. Growth in confidence is very important factor in self-betterment, something you say you value. Your debate of animal vs "higher" desires/views sounds faux-Kantian. People are fundamentally irrational, indeed this is what makes them so wonderfully creative; they don't operate using some weired deontological decision tree. This is also why "strong AI" type algorithms are notoriously difficult to create. "Animalistic instincts" are perhaps the most fundamental forces of human nature, as they are the base of what we call "emotions" and allow us to rapidly do very difficult social analysis, unless you have Asperger's type disorder, you should be able to relate. Desire for conformity, against which you rebel (as did many people before you), is also fundamental for existence of societies, as it allows for a scaffold on which higher social relations can grow. In certain places and times push for conformity is very strong and can be destructive, however, I think in the US (and presumably Europe), one can be quite deviant from the norm yet still find one's place in society. I think you are simply using your "rebellion" as an excuse. You claim that you try to self-improve, how do you exhibit this? What are objective indicators of your growth? What, to an outsider, would indicate that you are worth their time? These are all fundamental questions which, I think, may help you realize why you've had so little success thus far. Women don't really desire confidence because of x. At least that's not how I really look at it. It seems like a lot of them freak out a lot, and it takes a very persistent, calm, and "confident" guy to look beyond that. I think I agree about confident people being more successful. Really almost anyone could be "successful" as long as they fit their own definition of success within what they are currently doing. Haha hummm sweet now I'm successful. Conformity definitely hurts overall ingenuity. I really don't like this point at all. The whole earth is flat thing could be viewed as conformity (it really was). Everyone thought the earth was flat, and if you thought different you were burned at the stake. Also, Einstein hated conformity and regularly made public displays against such things. I think he has a hard time seeing things from other perspectives than his own. I guess he's used to being right, and that's the reason for that. In this thread he regularly comes off as a condescending *******. He could easily say I'm smart, or good at stuff, yadayada without being a dick about it yet he chooses to not bother. People act offended and I don't blame them.
Art_Critic Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Alright Genius.. just tell us who you are referring to
Art_Critic Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Dave1234. Now smack your forehead. I'd rather smack yours.. He did think on a totally different plane than the rest
Kamille Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 [smacks forehead] Although, I arrived to LS after the departure of the famous Dave1234. May the legend live on!
LucreziaBorgia Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 ChessPieceFace, I'd suggest starting with someone who also likes and truly 'gets' They Might Be Giants.
NoMagicBullet Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 I think he has a hard time seeing things from other perspectives than his own. I guess he's used to being right, and that's the reason for that. In this thread he regularly comes off as a condescending *******. He could easily say I'm smart, or good at stuff, yadayada without being a dick about it yet he chooses to not bother. People act offended and I don't blame them. I think this sums up this thread pretty well. OP, whether you intend to come across as arrogant or not, you do. That is probably more of your problem in dating and socializing than you realize, more than your intelligence. You seem to be very intolerant of people, ideas, or information that does not conform to your prejudices and beliefs. Mrlonelyone, in your defense of the OP, you have come across as even more arrogant than the OP. Now I'm sorry I defended you in your thread in "In Search Of...." I guess missmac was right after all. Both of you have continued to perpetuate the stereotype of the Arrogant Genius. To all the LS posters who tried to point out this out -- in many, many, many different ways -- thank you for the thoughtful arguments and ideas raised, even if they weren't heard or appreciated by the OP. I was about to give my IQ "cred" here, but realized that's just playing into the OP's wishes that people should conform to how he thinks they should behave. Wouldn't matter, because my opinion doesn't jive with his, so OP or Mrlonelyone would doubtless find some reason to disqualify me.
Author ChessPieceFace Posted March 23, 2011 Author Posted March 23, 2011 ChessPieceFace, I'd suggest starting with someone who also likes and truly 'gets' They Might Be Giants. Ha. Cute! 15 pages until it was even recognized. OP, whether you intend to come across as arrogant or not, you do. That is probably more of your problem in dating and socializing than you realize, more than your intelligence. You seem to be very intolerant of people, ideas, or information that does not conform to your prejudices and beliefs. Yeah, the thread is just overflowing with tolerance and non-arrogance from everyone but me right? The majority of people's posts here are a collective joke, one long endless flame. You have illustrated my points about the terrible faults in humanity better than I ever could have. It's sad that none of you get the punchline. But again, thanks to those few of you who actually possess any amount human decency and showed it in your responses.
MarlyStar Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 "...Anyway, I have been wondering if I'm just too cerebral or detached from my emotions etc. to bother with dating.." I cannot read 18 pages of responses, so this has probably been covered. It doesn't matter how smart you are, you still need to develop compassion, empathy, social skills, life skills, flexibility, etc... You still have to be able to bring something to the relationship. You still have to go through all the developmental stages such as learning to get over yourself. IQ is not a shortcut through life, it's only a possible shortcut to the top of whatever area you are superior in: be it engineering, philosophy, sports, music, etc.... There are also unmeasurable geniuses as well, in humor, empathy, and common sense, life skills, etc... I think I qualify to answer your question by your own criterion because I belong to Mensa and am not of 'lesser intelligence'. However, by placing that caveat at the end of your initial post, you revealed a little bit of what your problem is. That was offensive and dismissive and arrogant. Everyone has to bring something of value to a relationship. The thoughts floating around inside your head are probably not of value to anyone except your employer or another person who is thinking the same thing as you. You have to have something to offer someone else. Do you? And it's true you probably want someone who matches your superiority in some area. Einstein outranked everyone in his field, but was never going to find a woman to match him intellectually--but he did find a woman who was uncommonly organized and cheerful and understanding of him, and they had a reasonably happy marriage. A problem that a lot of high IQ people have, especially men, is in the social sphere. Their social skills are undeveloped. Yours clearly are. Sometimes it's just neglect, or believing that you are too special to have to deal with the stupidities of other people (and no matter how smart you are, you have your own stupidities, so be humble, Einstein had his, they are famous). Have you developed empathy? Are you interested in other people (not just their ideas but the whole person?)? Sometimes social skills are undeveloped because of organic problems like augsbergers or something on the autistic syndrome. There's also avoidant personality disorder and schizoid personality disorder, which may or may not be organic--but definitely interfere in your ability to have relationships. My stepfather, a brilliant successful realtor (he's the one who devised all those junk fees that are added to your mortgage), had augsbergers. No one knew that for most of his life. He was in therapy for 40 years (yes FORTY years, at least once a week, often twice), and he finally learned people skills around the age of about 55 or 60. He's 84 now and has a happy marriage (his 4th) that's lasted over 20 years (a record for him) and actually has friends he really likes and who like him. He doesn't really understand all the rules of social interaction, but he's learned he's happier if he follows them. If you are 35 and haven't been on a date, your life is lopsided. It's not all the inferior stupid people out there who are depriving you. You are not a victim of your brillance. IQ is spread evenly among men and women. High IQ women are interested in high IQ men, it can feel like dating a child if you are too far mismatched in IQ, and it doesn't go far. But even a high IQ woman will reject you if you haven't developed maturity, empathy, social skills, etc... In fact, the more intelligent a woman the less likely she is to be impressed by your intelligence. Ironic, huh? Learn to appreciate the gifts other people have, admire them, and your dating situation will take care of itself.
MarlyStar Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 BTW, if you are 'detached' from your emotions you are going to be crippled in many areas of your life, not just romantic. Emotional intelligence is more important than IQ in creating a happy balanced life. If you score low on emotional intelligence, you may want to see a counselor and work on it. You still have emotions even if you are detached from them, and they are still ruling your life just like they are ruling anyone else's. Don't be afraid of emotions. Make friends with them.
Recommended Posts