GENIUS FORUMS

Daybrown,

Both Unidian and Vic are completely mainstream, and buy into the societal paradigm. Just in case you hadn't noticed. I think so far as Vic's comment about increased IQ, that it is largely a veneer. There is all this exposure to print and media. There certainly isn't any way that humans have suddenly increased their true intelligence by such a fantastic leap in a couple of generations. Surely it represents cultural changes. And even then, as you point out, it sort of ignores all the problem with attention span and mood.

As for me, I am already aware of most of what you are saying re diet and the decline in American health. But I'm jaded. There are the minority who are actively taking matters into their own hands, and then there are the rest who are completely passive and fail to make the most obvious connections, or ask the most obvious questions. They are the source of my livelihood. In my years as a hospital worker, I would say that the major cause of hospital admission is stupidity.

It occurred to me some time ago (and since then I am beginning to see some corroboration) that the cause of much of people's emotional/mental malaise is nutritional, and not just modern stress.

So I guess you don't think the rise in autism is from vaccines?

But my experience of rural people is that they eat worse and have worse health and more obesity - at least in the women - than city people. Even if they do have a few fruit trees and grow a garden. They keep beef cows and don't milk them, nor keep a milk cow, and go to the store and buy all the cheapest crap, including low fat milk from cows who are so exploited that they die in four years. Imagine! This is the cruelty of our society - millions upon millions of slowly suffering animals - pigs who can't turn around and sleep on metal bars above their excrement, chickens so crowded you could cry, a huge mammal like a cow - with a life span of four years. They barely kick out their second calf and they're done. And never get to spend one day with their baby.

Hypocrites - we have humane laws for pets, but not for other highly evolved mammals aka 'livestock.'

I get underground grass fed raw milk from cows who live 18 years.

Is the Michigan Militia a group of highly rational individuals?

I've no idea who they are. I don't keep up with the news too well.

My observations have led me to conclude...that this dusty old world just keeps trudging along.

And it will, but lots of people may be wiped out. 1/3 of some areas in Europe died in plagues. What a scene! But the dusty old world hardly blinked. But for those affected, it was catastrophic. I am just hoping to pick a good spot to ride out some rought times, should they come.

It seems to me that the main reason some sort of collapse may be inevitable, is that technology and wickedness are an impossible, dangerous, even deadly combination. Because, of course, technology gives evil excessive power, and evil is destructive.

LOL. I am "completely mainstream?" I "buy into the social paradigm?" That's certainly the first time I've ever been on the receiving end of those two accusations, and I suspect it will probably be the last. Hehe...

Unidian wrote:LOL. I am "completely mainstream?" I "buy into the social paradigm?" That's certainly the first time I've ever been on the receiving end of those two accusations, and I suspect it will probably be the last. Hehe...

Why? Are you leaving? =)

I wish, hehe... but no, until I find someplace else to post, I'll probably be around. :)

"Mainstream" is such a contextual label. I think Nat is conventional in some ways, within certain limited contexts, but Vic is mainstream in almost every way that one can imagine. Their "mainstreamness" doesn't belong in the same sentence as far as I can tell.

What was this thread about, again?

Iolaus wrote:Both Unidian and Vic are completely mainstream, and buy into the societal paradigm.

I don't know about Uni, but for my part, what you are referring to is my actually dealing with facts instead of making shit up.

Just in case you hadn't noticed. I think so far as Vic's comment about increased IQ, that it is largely a veneer. There is all this exposure to print and media. There certainly isn't any way that humans have suddenly increased their true intelligence by such a fantastic leap in a couple of generations.

Why not? Brain is amazingly plastic. In the modern world, we are bombarded with massive amounts of information, challenged with new ways to think, prodded to stretch our minds, etc. Given that IQ is not fixed at birth, it would be very surprising if IQ didn't increase under all this stimulation.

Brain works like muscles in this regard -- the more you use it, the better it is. Even as simple thing as this -- i remember the cartoons on TV in the 90ies, and today's cartoons are much more intellectually sophisticated. They throw at children cognitive challenges which, when i was growing up, nobody would face that early on. I see what my kids like, and I see them stretching their mind, evidencing intellectual sophistication (subtlety, humor, cleverness, etc.) which would have been very strange in kids that age when i was growing up.

How this probably doesn't come without a price; witness the famous study about the kids these days being less able to distinguish fine color shades. There's no free lunch, and some areas of the brain are probably molded by the information torrent to process this information rather than distinguish fine color shades. me, i think this would be a perfectly fine trade-off, if it turns out to work this way.

Hypocrites - we have humane laws for pets, but not for other highly evolved mammals aka 'livestock.'

I sympathize with the cruelty complaint, but why single our the livestock mammals as 'highly evolved'? What constitutes them being 'highly evolved', as opposed to not being so? And is it then OK to inflict cruelty upon those who are not 'highly evolved mammals' (e.g. chickens)?

iolaus,

So I guess you don't think the rise in autism is from vaccines?

The rise in autism may be caused by several factors. Besides the nutritional ones daybrown mentioned, there is a study where they correlated autism with watching too much tv.

I wonder in what disease we will see a rise in another generation from too much internet.

i agree with Shahrazad on autism. And yes, the brain is like a muscle, exercise it to make it stronger. But like a muscle, it needs the right kind of nutrition, and homeopathic levels of contaminants during critical times of development can have devastating effects.

I saw a UCTV autism researcher draw on demographic data and case histories to suggest that, for instance, the mercury preservative used in vaccines, did interact with the neurotransmitters to fuck up the wiring, which we now know, less than a year later, is in the amygdala. They are beginning to identify *structural* diffs.

Some years ago the Fins did FMRI scans of their most violent prisoners, and found a constricted neural pathway from the corpus collosum to the prefrontal lobes. They were also able to show that when emotionally excited, such violent men have a marked decline in prefrontal activity, and operate more on the primitive reptilian brain. They really do "see red". The reptilian brain lacks the sophisticated color processing of the primates, so their whole world becomes monochrome. Has a lot to do with why brothels are always decorated in crimson.

So much for Christian dogma; these guys were born damned, not really smart enuf to exercise 'free will'. Others, as Milgram showed, will blindly follow orders that result in the perceived death of others so long as they have an authority figure to put the guilt on. There are enuf of those in the military, Mossad, and CIA to pull off an operation like 911.

Likewise, the media hacks have a job to do, providing the masses with an explanation as quickly as possible, because most of us here know how neurotic Americans are, and the ambiguity could drive them to panic very quickly. The fact that the explanation was not carefully crafted did not matter. As Janis showed in his studies on group think, denial will set in, and all the inconsistencies, in 85% of the subjects, will be ignored. Its that other 15%, some of whom are indeed nut cases, that dont automatically go along with group think.

But as Socrates noted, sometimes its the nut case who sees the emperor has no clothes. If you have worked in residential care facilities like I have, then you know that the pathological can have remarkable clarity of mind into those issues that dont relate to personal delusion. Remember "Rainman"? Remember what his mind could do? In the case of 911, the tinfoil hat crowd is correct. But you dont know that if you dont listen to them, and only listen to the media hacks. who were *paid* to convince all of your friends, who they knew you would go along with.

I dont have that problem; I dont have that many friends, and they dont giva fuck what I think about 911. Old guys who live alone in the country are spozed to be eccentric. Right. Group think does not affect us. Its why Jesus went away into the desert, and Buddha sat under the tree. To get away from the group think. For me, it was not so far anyway. 30 odd years ago, Hippies began moving in because the Ozarks still had a clean environment for them to raise their own kids. That no doubt has something to do with the low rate of childhood mental pathology and the superior performance of the hill town schools. I know other rural areas that all shifted over to agribusiness, and as noted, are just as polluted by fat dumb shits living off the same junkfood. But all the beef I see is grass fed. Chickens are still commonly seen running loose in the yard when you drive by. There's lotsa goats, whose meat and milk are even healthier.

The dairy at Marshall sells milk from grass fed cows that dont get hormones. There's only 1200 people in Marshall. The next town down the line, Leslie, has an organic bakery. Pop 627. Neither town has a McDonalds. Leslie dont have any fastfood joints at all. There is a certain disdain in the area for urban group think.

If there is any significant economic problem with the middle class, the group think will collapse rapidly. In all likelihood, they will start dragging the bastards out to be shot. The power elite suffers from group think like anyone else. How is it otherwise that they would not realize the Laffer curve is not linear, and would reach a point of diminishing returns? Money is like any other commodity; if there's a lot of it around for investment, then the benefit of having it for investment declines. Duh!

Of course, we dont expect the Republicans to get this, but the liberals never picked up on it either. Why not?

Hello Anna,

First, I did not 'accuse' you of anything, I did what I always do: took in some ideas, combined them with my own musings, and when I was done, hit the 'send' botton. There are advantages and disadvantages to this medium, the disadvantage is that you (plural) will always be a stranger to me, just a disembodied voice out there somewhere. I will likely never sit with you or live in the house next door, we will likely never see each other, our paths won't cross. Because the medium is devoid of all the other signs and signals that humans use, there is endless opportunity for misunderstanding. I take the potential for misunderstanding as a sort of given at this point, with something like 7 years of internet communication.

I don't have even the slightest desire, or even undefined, subterranean intention of offending you or 'disrespecting' you, and although I do like to irritate from time to time, I hope that 1) we who write here are certain enough of who we are and what we believe, and 2) have the strength to let things run off of us 'like water off a duck's back'. The world of ideas is a spacious, convoluted, labyrinthian smorgasboard of all things under the sun. I can't and don't edit what I think too much anymore, and I hope that no one will do that in relation to me. You got to tell it like you see it. And in the end, Does it matter?

So, my post was more like an essay written what you wrote in mind, and also related to some of our other conversations (about those pesky Jews, about conspiracy, etc.) and combined with ideas independant of you, and I guess what I wrote (in its small way) was an attempt to deal on a philosophical question, to wit: interpretation. It is an a priori for me that most of us or even all of us are hobbled in our perception, but especially the superstitious, drooling masses. We want so much to perceive rightly, correctly, accurately, and it's like we are brushing away the fog to do so, but for all that we try, and for all that we come up with models, it seems that we don't and perhaps cannot fully see our world. Our seeing is partial and determined by...doctrine.

Now, I think this is an enormously interesting idea, but if I mention it I don't want you or anyone else to think that I don't appreciate you or them, that I undervalue y'all. Please remember that one of the ideas I first propsed, when I stumbled across the typical anti-semitic constructs here, was that we live in the shadow of a medieval mind-frame. Now that idea, okay, I do submit it sideways, a little maliciously. Described psychologically, that could be taken to mean that when we look out on the world from our little towers, we see not physical entities and physical interrelationships, but 'demons' and devils, and the grand battle of God against the demonic legions. This is as much a paradigm as any other categorization, isn't it? This is the 'worldview', taken as stone-cold fact, of a great many people, am I wrong?

Does it offend you if I ask you---to place it on the table so that we can all look at it---if your interpretation of the world is directed by sub-mental forces? by psychology? by theology? by demonology? I KNOW that mine is, in some ways, so why should it be that I am disrespecting you to ask the question? to chide a little? I don't think any of us have risen above predominating models, inherited models, and I guess I think we are moving through a phase of history where we are 'waking up' (we are therefor all somnombulants) as we attempt to see the world 'clearly'. I honestly do not suppose that I see the world clearly, and maybe it is this that gives me the *arrogant* right to assume that others don't either.

In respect to that, the quote from Gracian is...considerable...on a forum such as this that deals in philosophy and an exchange of ideas. And especially is a world where we are seeing, effectively, shadows. And what's to say of viewing the world---and life and history--through a Christian lens? Doesn't that require some profound thought? The whole notion of history as a means whereby the Saints are avenged, and where the unrighteous pay their (eternal) debt? isn't that an idea that can be examined?

If I agree with you...and also disagree...it is more because I have 'been around the block'. Also, that we see things but what we see is sometimes only an approximation. It is often 'like that', but that can't become an absolute view.

The essentially Christian view of man's activities as essentially evil, and even the definition of 'evil' are slightly problematic, for me. It is not that I am proposing that there are no horrible, evil things (and that the Zionist brain is there, controlling everything, tripping everyone up)(joke), but don't you think that the lens that views, the structure of perception that is viewing, can be or needs to be examined? But if it is not, and if it is that world view that is determining perception, in what way are we seeing clearly? Then, it seems to me, our 'imagination' has taken over, and we have to be vigilant about that.

I am not sure that the world is now more evil than it was at an earlier time, say earlier in the (last) century, and it is not at all impossible, as I see things, that the powers and potencies that direct the world, that own it if you will, might be guiding it...semi-rationally...toward a somewhat stable equilibrium where it could be...better managed. Controlled and 'better managed'. I am not sure if that amounts to 'evil', but you know, there are many different definitions of 'evil'.

So, you could put emphasis on 'confusion and fear', and I see that too sometimes, but I see other things too, and I remember what Walter Kaufmann, in an essay he wrote about modernity and the fears about modernity, the projections and paranoia, that there are many redeeming features to the present, and that we can find them if we look. But if our world view is dominated by superstition and psychological projection, that is something that has to be examined, doesn't it?

I read lots of opinions that arise from 'world views' quite different from my own on these pages, and that do not agree with each other. How am I to reconcile those contrasts? "Behold the Mind!"...and keep beholding it and beholding it. Doesn't this mean that any fixity I arrive at needs to be 'beheld' again? penetrated again? questioned again?

Now, why is it that no one has commented on the combination of the Tibetan Book of the Dead with Machiavelli's Discourses? There is a conspracy to keep this idea suppressed I tell you!

Hi Nat,

I am "completely mainstream?" I "buy into the social paradigm?"

You are not mainstream, but your opinions are. I think perhaps you have made sure that because of your slightly out there spiritual beliefs, you make sure that you are mainstream in other areas, to prove you're not a nutjob.

Vitya,

I don't know about Uni, but for my part, what you are referring to is my actually dealing with facts instead of making shit up.

Yea, sure. You know, whatever.

Why not? Brain is amazingly plastic. In the modern world, we are bombarded with massive amounts of information, challenged with new ways to think, prodded to stretch our minds, etc. Given that IQ is not fixed at birth, it would be very surprising if IQ didn't increase under all this stimulation.

Oh, sure, but that is what I meant by veneer. And definitely, if you lay down certain pathways, others do not get laid.

I sympathize with the cruelty complaint, but why single our the livestock mammals as 'highly evolved'? What constitutes them being 'highly evolved', as opposed to not being so? And is it then OK to inflict cruelty upon those who are not 'highly evolved mammals' (e.g. chickens)?

Did you note my sympathetic comment about chickens? I actually object to cruelty to any sentient being capable of suffering. But it seems to me people would be more likely to realize their error when I point out that just because a cow can't be toilet trained and is too big for the living room, that they are similar in their mammalhood to dogs and cats. If we did to a dog or cat what is done to pigs, we would be arrested and put on the nightly 'news.'

Oh, Alex dear,

You have never offended me.
Perhaps the teensiest bit in one of the comments about it all being due to my dark psychological unconscious negativity and no facts - but not enough to worry about. Carry on!

I'll read the rest of your post tonite when I get back from my hoop dancing class.

Iolaus wrote:

vicdan wrote:I don't know about Uni, but for my part, what you are referring to is my actually dealing with facts instead of making shit up.

Yea, sure. You know, whatever.

Coming from someone who believes in life force, this really isn't a very stinging dismissal at all.

Oh, sure, but that is what I meant by veneer.

ignorant bullshit. The Flynn Effect is the most pronounced for the tests which are more g-loaded (i.e. independent of enculturation and other such influences), so it seems to reflect a rise in the 'true' intelligence, as you had so quaintly put it, and not the 'studying tot he test' effect you seem to imply

vicdan wrote:

Iolaus wrote:

vicdan wrote:I don't know about Uni, but for my part, what you are referring to is my actually dealing with facts instead of making shit up.

Yea, sure. You know, whatever.

Coming from someone who believes in life force, this really isn't a very stinging dismissal at all.

Ha, coming from someone who apparently doesn't, ditto.

Hi Alex,

It is an a priori for me that most of us or even all of us are hobbled in our perception, but especially the superstitious, drooling masses. We want so much to perceive rightly, correctly, accurately, and it's like we are brushing away the fog to do so, but for all that we try, and for all that we come up with models, it seems that we don't and perhaps cannot fully see our world. Our seeing is partial and determined by...doctrine.

Oh, I was right with you right up until...the last word. One, it is not only doctrine but you know that so it's a minor point. But what about those of us who seek freedom and dismantle our doctrines deliberately? We are not all equally blindsided.

when we look out on the world from our little towers, we see not physical entities and physical interrelationships, but 'demons' and devils, and the grand battle of God against the demonic legions. This is as much a paradigm as any other categorization, isn't it? This is the 'worldview', taken as stone-cold fact, of a great many people, am I wrong?

But I think you exaggerate the medieval mindset, and I think this is far more true of some people than others. As for me, the odd thing you should at least know is that I have not dwelt in negativity these past many years, in fact I have lived and can live in a lovely bubble, but for some reason the battle of good and evil has been continuously impressing itself upon me, I see it everywhere, I see the depth of it. And while most people would probably say that the main tool of evil is force and violence and threat, instead its main tool is decpetion. So I see more deception than most people want to believe. For example, Christians have long said that this world is under the control of Satan - but they think that they are immune in their own minds, and that their church is immune.

I do not think that evil is ultimately real.

Does it offend you if I ask you---to place it on the table so that we can all look at it---if your interpretation of the world is directed by sub-mental forces? by psychology? by theology? by demonology? I KNOW that mine is, in some ways, so why should it be that I am disrespecting you to ask the question? to chide a little? I don't think any of us have risen above predominating models, inherited models, and I guess I think we are moving through a phase of history where we are 'waking up' (we are therefor all somnombulants) as we attempt to see the world 'clearly'. I honestly do not suppose that I see the world clearly, and maybe it is this that gives me the *arrogant* right to assume that others don't either.

What offended me is that after reading many hundreds of pages with what appear to be pretty good facts on the secret side of history, how the wealthy have manipulated events and wars with pretense, in fact they use the pretense of an attack over and over again and all were either fake or deliberately provoked - gulf of Tonkin, 9-11, Pearl Harbor, etc, and when I read about the banking stuff, it removes it from the realm of make-believe. Also, most people don't want to delve into these things, don't want to look at 911 despite widespread doubts and rumors of doubts, despite the steady stream of curruption events in politics. Most peole want to wring their hands endlessly over the holocaust as if it were an unusual, unique event, when holocaust, genocide, massacre is the story of the last 80 years, and our nation has perpetrated a good bit of it. I'm desperately wishing people would wake up to the obvious, and hardly in the mood to devle into the possibility that I have inherited some medieval attitudes.

Supposedly, the founding Rothschild, living in the 1700s, and had 10 children, and set up each of his sons with a national bank of a European country, supposedly his wife said, "If my sons did not want wars, there would not be any wars." Now, did she say that or not?

Having said that, I'm perfectly happy to examine my subconscious contributions. What I can certainly admit, is that I have a lot of visceral fear - fear of catastrophe, fear of being caught unprepared when I should have run, fear of dying. So it is not as if unpleasant or threatening facts do not stir up the subconscious.

In respect to that, the quote from Gracian is...considerable...on a forum such as this that deals in philosophy and an exchange of ideas.

Nonetheless, in a many-a-true-word-is-spoken-in-jest kind of way, I assumed it was a lead-in or suggestion as to where I am coming from, albeit not only I.

And what's to say of viewing the world---and life and history--through a Christian lens? Doesn't that require some profound thought? The whole notion of history as a means whereby the Saints are avenged, and where the unrighteous pay their (eternal) debt? isn't that an idea that can be examined?

Gosh, yes, I could just about write a book on that. I did not know that history was about avenging the saints, altho I wouldn't put it past the Catholics.

The essentially Christian view of man's activities as essentially evil, and even the definition of 'evil' are slightly problematic, for me.

I know a fair bit about western Christianity, but there are huge gaps in my knowledge. I know it is a Protestant fad to emphasize the "utter depravity" of man in his sinful state - but see, this is where the forces of evil - and I don't pretend to know exactly whether we are talking about disembodied entities or what - have triumphed over Christian theology. These kinds of beliefs are exactly the mental chains that keep people imprisoned, and the ironic part of it is, that they are convinced that they are the ones to be liberated. Such beliefs are of hell, and therefore their minds are in hell, and their allegiance is to the status quo: hell.

One of the problems with Christianity (and, I suspect, Islam) is that they have forgotten that spiritual things work spiritually, and instead they have defined so many things as if they work just as things work for us in this dimension. So the way to keep people in hell is to ensnare their minds.

I am not sure that the world is now more evil than it was at an earlier time

Doesn't it seem like we might be on a crescendo course, with both greed/control and awakening increasing simultaneously?

So, you could put emphasis on 'confusion and fear', and I see that too sometimes, but I see other things too, and I remember what Walter Kaufmann, in an essay he wrote about modernity and the fears about modernity, the projections and paranoia, that there are many redeeming features to the present, and that we can find them if we look. But if our world view is dominated by superstition and psychological projection, that is something that has to be examined, doesn't it?

Modernity is not the problem, but did you see where yesterday I wrote that if there is significant drive to evil in the world, and also technology, that this is a dangerous situation because technology equals power and the evil seek power. Very simple. A confrontation is inevitable.

It's not that there is nothing else going on!!! Far from it. The world, the universe, the One Being - all amazing and if totalitarianism comes and I am successfully able to live under the radar, that should be all unchanged. But - it could be impossible to enjoy if the wrong physical events transpire.

Yes, fixity of mind is most likely a stasis. The Hua Hu Ching says your mind should be like a pearl rolling around on a large mirror, alighting nowhere.

Now, why is it that no one has commented on the combination of the Tibetan Book of the Dead with Machiavelli's Discourses? There is a conspracy to keep this idea suppressed I tell you!

I noted it, but I haven't read Machiavelli and don't quite picture what you've written.

My soul doth magnify the Lord.

And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name.

And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him.

He hath shewed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart.

He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble.

He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.

He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy:

As he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed for ever.

Coming from someone who believes in a life force, this really isn't a very stinging dismissal at all.

Well now. The life force would be an energy. Everything is energy. When a body dies, surely an energy is no longer circulating. Certainly you see that we are discovering subtle energies and forces. Electric forces in the body and so forth. But you want the status quo. You don't think that we will discover anything new. It's all known now. You substantially understand this world.

ignorant bullshit. The Flynn Effect is the most pronounced for the tests which are more g-loaded (i.e. independent of enculturation and other such influences), so it seems to reflect a rise in the 'true' intelligence, as you had so quaintly put it, and not the 'studying tot he test' effect you seem to imply

Hmmm...but are you actually saying that if you could cradle snatch an infant from, say, 200 years ago and raise it, that it would not have the IQ of the rest of the kids?

So if that is not what you're saying, then it means that we have a lot of stimulation. That is entirely possible. Altho these g-tests are a step in the right direction, I still think that they will be culturally influenced. So we are getting smarter at being members of our culture. I could agree with that.

Iolaus wrote:Well now. The life force would be an energy. Everything is energy.

As I recall, by life force you had meant something rather different from the energy as understood by science -- chemical, physical, electromagnetic, etc. You meant some unscientific NewAgey bullshit.

Hmmm...but are you actually saying that if you could cradle snatch an infant from, say, 200 years ago and raise it, that it would not have the IQ of the rest of the kids?

of course not, duh. Whatever gave you this idea? i am saying that contrary to your claim, people are getting more intelligent, not less.

So if that is not what you're saying, then it means that we have a lot of stimulation. That is entirely possible. Altho these g-tests are a step in the right direction, I still think that they will be culturally influenced. So we are getting smarter at being members of our culture. I could agree with that.

Raven's Progressive Matrices is just about the most culture-neutral intelligence test known, and is also considered to be the most g-loaded. it also happens to be the one showing the strongest Flynn effect.

People are getting genuinely smarter. You have to let of your a-priori belief about how things work, and deal with how they actually are. Flynn effect is not due to culturally loaded intelligence tests and more efficient enculturation.

Alex,

We posted abot the same time, so look above your pst for my reply. I'm not quite getting the relevance of Mary's speech to the angel.

Victor,

As I recall, by life force you had meant something rather different from the energy as understood by science -- chemical, physical, electromagnetic, etc. You meant some unscientific NewAgey bullshit.

I'm not sure there's a difference, but it appears from you sentence that one is not allowed to speculate or intuit something and await or pursue scientific discovery. That is unscientific.

Victor,

From: http://myrsky.net/faust3/danimal-archive-part-1/

Having 1,000,000 times more intelligence inside one’s head might not make a person 1,000,000 times more “intelligent”. It might make one as doddering and ineffective as any corporation or government with 1,000,000 employees. Sure, a large organization can accomplish more, in many important cases, than one individual can. But the large organization is manifestly NOT 1,000,000 times “smarter” in every way. In some instances, the individual is clearly superior, not being bound by the need to expend vast energies at mediating internal conflicts. No organization can focus its entire intellectual capacity on one problem. An upper limit may exist, in fact, on how much intelligence can be focused on one thing at one time, due to the ecological notions I waved around above.

I've been thinking much the same thing myself, and I don't think "true" intelligence is growing as rapidly as the history of IQ tests show. I am seeing more and more stupid decisions made by people in power, which might just be because I'm more aware of what is stupid and what is not, but I don't think this is the whole reason. Admittedly the massive levels of freedom we have these days makes it harder for rationality to tame our egos, so an increase in irrationality could be expected.

Sure some people are now more free from irrationality such as religion and other traditions and are now "allowed" to think more intelligently, but the masses almost seem to be going the other way. In them I'm seeing an increase in memory capability, but not necessarily rationality. One can get good marks on an IQ test with better memory, but one is not neccessarily more truly intelligent.

Admittedly, in relation to the average teenage kid, I am sensing a far greater degree of seeming intelligence in relation to social issues than when I was their age - but is this rote type learning from soaps, the internet or is it real intelligence?

edit; and then there is this problem Snooze or Lose

vicdan:

Clarity in perception of reality is a measure of ones Intelligence. - By me.

By my reasoning then, one of us is not as intelligent, as the other. I have IQ of 148. What is yours?

You, are getting ready to write that you don't belive me, right? =)

hsandman,

I thought you were ignoring me, you dumb fuck! And now you 'un-ignore' get into IQ dick-measuring contest with me?.. You are an utter idiot, and a pathetic one at that.

hsandman wrote:vicdan:

Clarity in perception of reality is a measure of ones Intelligence. - By me.

By my reasoning then, one of us is not as intelligent, as the other. I have IQ of 148. What is yours?

You, are getting ready to write that you don't belive me, right? =)

No, idiot, I am not. I have known people with higher IQs be almost as dumb (I am trying to think of some high-IQ type be dumber than you, but i am failing at the moment). As those who have known me for a while can attest, i generally have a disdain for IQ as a measure of real intelligence; at best, it's a proxy measure when nothing better is available. Once your IQ is above a certain point (about 130), the actual number matters very little. One of the world's greatest physicists, Richard Feynman, had an IQ of about 125. Mine is about 30 points above that, but i am no Feynman.

You are an idiot because no matter your IQ score, you don't use your intelligence well. You are ignorant of the basic realities of the world, and you refuse to employ sound methodologies in investigating them. You choose to be stupid, and no IQ score is going to help you. The very fact that you try to brag about your IQ score, exposes your intellectual impoverishment. The fact that you expect me to try to claim that you couldn't possibly have such an IQ score (and hide thast claim in a lame font trick) exposes that even farther. Evidently you think your IQ so stratospherically high as to be unbelievable. You haven't had much contact with the really intelligent people, have you?..

IMO, intelligence -- real intelligence -- is far more than the ability to crunch data and manipulate patterns, which is largely what IQ tests measure. In a study of scientists conducted a little while ago, it was found that above IQ of about 130, which is roughly the brainpower it takes to understand the requisite concepts, the actual IQ score played very little role in one's accomplishment as a scientist. Other factors -- drive, curiosity, work ethic, etc. -- play a far greater role.

vicdan:

IQ of about 125. Mine is about 30 points above that, but i am no Feynman.

Got me beat there.

(I am trying to think of some high-IQ type be dumber than you, but i am failing at the moment).

:-)

The very fact that you try to brag about your IQ score, exposes your intellectual impoverishment.

The fact that you expect me to try to claim that you couldn't possibly have such an IQ score (and hide thast claim in a lame font trick) exposes that even farther. Evidently you think your IQ so stratospherically high as to be unbelievable.

I, agree, it was pretty lame, but you are a bit of enigma for me. I like tests. Besides I would have to put all those people who quote you also on ignore to miss your strange posts. =)

You haven't had much contact with the really intelligent people, have you?..

No, I have not. :-(

IMO, intelligence -- real intelligence -- is far more than the ability to crunch data and manipulate patterns, which is largely what IQ tests measure. In a study of scientists conducted a little while ago, it was found that above IQ of about 130, which is roughly the brainpower it takes to understand the requisite concepts, the actual IQ score played very little role in one's accomplishment as a scientist. Other factors -- drive, curiosity, work ethic, etc. -- play a far greater role.

You are an idiot because no matter your IQ score, you don't use your intelligence well. You are ignorant of the basic realities of the world, and you refuse to employ sound methodologies in investigating them.

That is what I wrote for you too, only in one sentence. :-S...

Clarity in perception of reality is a measure of ones Intelligence.

You are a curious thing indeed. =)

Hey, what do you think of Matt Groening? (I love his sense of humour) Did you know simpsons were based on his comic strip life in hell? (link)

There are the problem of dyslexia, innovation, & depth. If you are shallow, conformist, and consistent, the corporations have a place for you. The IQ test was designed to some extent to identify these qualities for them.

But now, being able to do quick ballpark calculus in the back of your mind while looking over a situation just dont matter so much any more. We have computers to give quick and more accurate numbers. Being 3 or even 4 standard deviations above the mean dont mean much any more.

The real money to be made is having the intuitive sense to recognize what problems a customer base has, then being able to think deeply about a solution before rushing to market with it. Chinese & Indian engineering will put millions of new cars on roads that are already jammed, at the very time when the price of oil is rising progressively faster. Zat make any sense?

We call that neurotic denial; The IQ level can be at genius level, but the action really stupid. The successful business model will maximize production without people having to drive at all. That rather than paying them enuf in an urban area for them to drive to the theater, restaurant, doctor, or whatever, design an office park that already has all those services within walking distance. With the staff living above the store.

Corporate group think is too hung up on the dollar value of the salary, rather than vertical integration that provides the lifestyle the staff wants. High IQ does not help.

daybrown: HFS! You think within 100 - 300 years? Why is it that the future is never here, and yet no one seems to know what it looks like, to note that fact?

Very likely future scenario, from my perspective too. Possible, with the emergence of real AI. That is why we live in "Interesting times."

daybrown wrote:There are the problem of dyslexia, innovation, & depth. If you are shallow, conformist, and consistent, the corporations have a place for you. The IQ test was designed to some extent to identify these qualities for them.

What about the fact that oats contain more protein than other small grains, especially the tiny, tiny grains like miniature durum wheat, for example. I also mite mention corn, notorious as flatlander feed, not known for increasing the IQ of pigs, but after all, who wants swine that can do maths, at least correctly.

But now, being able to do quick ballpark calculus in the back of your mind

Which reminds me, I've been wondering, do you think that when they build those huge new sports stadiums they start with a ballpark estimate?

while looking over a situation just dont matter so much any more. We have computers to give quick and more accurate numbers. Being 3 or even 4 standard deviations above the mean dont mean much any more.

Three or four standard deviations were crucial when we lived in small agricultural groups of 73-98 individuals. The kings quickly learned that the harem principle wasn't going to cut it genetically. Demographics. The Roman broadsword, metaphorically speaking. Southeastern Ozarks. Up through the ground came the bubblin' crude. Oil, that is. Black Gold. Texas T.

The real money to be made is having the intuitive sense to recognize what problems a customer base has, then being able to think deeply about a solution before rushing to market with it. Chinese & Indian engineering will put millions of new cars on roads that are already jammed, at the very time when the price of oil is rising progressively faster. Zat make any sense?

When this happens I'm going to do my Madd Maxx thing out between other farmer's back forties in that no man's land alley. I've got a semi trailer full of seed wheat and charcoal buried in an embankment by a farmer's pond. Lotsa ducks land thereabouts which I'm going to shoot and eat. Didja know duck meat is good brain food?

We call that neurotic denial; The IQ level can be at genius level, but the action really stupid. The successful business model will maximize production without people having to drive at all. That rather than paying them enuf in an urban area for them to drive to the theater, restaurant, doctor, or whatever, design an office park that already has all those services within walking distance. With the staff living above the store.

The greatest general, pound for pound, on either side was arguably Nathan Bedford Forrest. In the saddle for the entire war, he revolutionized mobile warfare for all time with his unorthodox methods. Who knows how the course of history may have been changed had he been given an entire corps, or command of the whole Army of Tennessee, say, before Chickamauga, when Rosecrans' forces were divided three ways. He would have taken them in detail; no other opportunity like this presented itself on any front at any time in that conflict. Or in the French and Indian War.

Corporate group think is too hung up on the dollar value of the salary, rather than vertical integration that provides the lifestyle the staff wants. High IQ does not help.

The second most overlooked general mite be the highly intelligent Patrick Clebourne, an Irish immigrant who commanded possibly the best infantry division in the West until his death in the disastrous Confederate charge at Franklin, Tennessee, December 1864. Neither he nor Forrest were much schooled in any military or academic sense.