Is it wrong for others not to know their place?

[jean-luc sisko]

I would call them obscure, but not particularly abstract. Most of the points you've cited can be "learned" by reading someone else's work and memorizing them.

 

When you can create something abstract, like a way to measure the relativistic influence on light from the origin of the universe through gravitational lenses, then you can tell me that you are able to think in the abstract, and I'll be impressed.

 

 

Really? I would agree. But are you the same guy who said in another thread, where you mentioned that you punch people at will:

 

Is the guy who felt other people deserved to be hit for no better reason than "because I felt like it" really the same guy now telling us that a pertinent part of his superior intelligence is a knowledge of how human society works?

 

 

Except that others should have the "personal feeling" that my intelligence is superior to theirs...

 

Obsecure knowledge is also knowing what the surface temperature of Procyon is, or Wolf 359, or how far away the Pleaides are from our solar system. They are obsecure that they hold little application to daily living. However, they take a great deal of insight to know, as does political theory. Politics is philosophical, and all philosophy requires the ability to critically think, analyse and scrutinise works, ideas and theories.

 

Personally, I think the entire concept of space exploration/observation would only ever make sense if we as a species could gain some kind of tangible benefit from it. If we could discover another Earth-like planet, travel there and establish a colony there, or even colonise Mars, then yes. Other than that, there are more pressing issues on Earth that IMO need more urgent attention paid to them.

[jean-luc sisko]

Actually, I believe you are highly intelligent, and I have no need to take anything away from that.

 

If I ever want to check on the accident record of Quantas Airways, I'll know just who to ask.

 

I don't personally define intelligence as memorising things. But in action, conceptualisation and how one perceives and conducts oneself in life.

 

But definitions of intelligence aside, I still stand that the "value" of knowledge is not in terms of insight and difficulty as you seemingly are citing, since each of these things are relative.

 

And for the point about Britney Spears lmao. yes, i would say that it's BS knowledge, for these reasons:

 

- It takes no special processing or insight to know her tracks or lyrics

- The effects on society of her music are not so far reaching. You can pooh-pooh physical security, and state that linguistics is the ****, but both studies will remain for many years to come, and both stem from basic human traits or needs.

[Malenfant]

I don't have to prove anything. Besides, most persons aged 30 should be accepting of their own talents and abilities, and not say they feel inadequate or resentful for not being as adept.

 

In truth, most persons cannot care about intelligence, i do not.

 

And yes, people often deserve to be punched, c'est la vie.

 

As for simply regugitating information, well you have done this with linguistics. Most students of astrophysics do not develop theories in the subject, at least one that stand the test of time.

 

well that cleared that one up then...

[jean-luc sisko]

hmmm... well it's true. Most astrophysicists don't provide any new insights. Most geologists do not. Most chemists do not. Most biologists do not.

 

But this is by the by.

[flying]

hmmm... well it's true. Most astrophysicists don't provide any new insights. Most geologists do not. Most chemists do not. Most biologists do not.

 

But this is by the by.

 

You seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder about the physical/life sciences...your arguments in many of these posts have centered on trying to convince people that they're less challenging intellectually and/or less interesting than the social sciences.

 

To which I say, hey man, don't sweat it. After all,

 

Why compare oneself to others, it never made sense.

 

What a silly thread. For my part, I don't see much point in putting down the disciplines and interests about which you know nothing in order to try to increase your own stock in strangers' eyes. What a waste of time.

[donnamaybe]

Anyone who uses the phrase "...scorned at..." would never leave me feeling I was a person of less intelligence.

[wierdmunky]

I think it might be unintelligent to diss others' intelligence. Why would you want to discourage the growth of knowledge that goes beyond your own intelligence so that it can exist and provide answers for the rest of us who may be interested, or for the development of future discoveries.

 

Why do you even care what "inferiors" think if you believe that you are responsible for only yourself in this life. Ce la Vie.

If it were not true that you care then you wouldn't have started this thread.

 

"A crucial point about wisdom is its modesty, its humility. Neither intelligence nor creativity nor leadership reserves a place for silence." -Intelligence Reframed by Howard Gardner <<---- Written by a Harvard graduate, professor and researcher of the 7 intelligence theory. He also studies the ways intelligence is "measured" by the normal standards of the popular world, how IQ test inadequately measures the process of intelligences, therefore some people who are smart could fall under the radar because they refuse to conform to traditional ways of learning. Good read.

[jean-luc sisko]

You seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder about the physical/life sciences...your arguments in many of these posts have centered on trying to convince people that they're less challenging intellectually and/or less interesting than the social sciences.

 

I don't believe that at all.

To which I say, hey man, don't sweat it. After all,

 

 

 

What a silly thread. For my part, I don't see much point in putting down the disciplines and interests about which you know nothing in order to try to increase your own stock in strangers' eyes. What a waste of time.

 

What strangers? You "knocked" my interests. Why do YOU knock the interests of strangers?

[jean-luc sisko]

I think it might be unintelligent to diss others' intelligence. Why would you want to discourage the growth of knowledge that goes beyond your own intelligence so that it can exist and provide answers for the rest of us who may be interested, or for the development of future discoveries.

 

Only if others know their place. This is how life works.

Why do you even care what "inferiors" think if you believe that you are responsible for only yourself in this life. Ce la Vie.

 

I don't care what others think. But it's a drag being weighed down since I show a natural talent. nobody should be.

If it were not true that you care then you wouldn't have started this thread.

 

"A crucial point about wisdom is its modesty, its humility. Neither intelligence nor creativity nor leadership reserves a place for silence." -Intelligence Reframed by Howard Gardner <<---- Written by a Harvard graduate, professor and researcher of the 7 intelligence theory. He also studies the ways intelligence is "measured" by the normal standards of the popular world, how IQ test inadequately measures the process of intelligences, therefore some people who are smart could fall under the radar because they refuse to conform to traditional ways of learning. Good read.

 

When have not displayed humility?

[jean-luc sisko]

Anyone who uses the phrase "...scorned at..." would never leave me feeling I was a person of less intelligence.

 

So says the person who uses words such as "effing" in his/her posts. I guess "effing" is Standard English too?

[Malenfant]

I don't care what others think. But it's a drag being weighed down since I show a natural talent. nobody should be.

 

you contradict yourself. you're complaining that others try to drag you down because they're jealous of your 'talents', but then deny that their opinions matter to you.

I would take a guess that actually people dont complain that you're more intelligent than them. I think you would like them to, and are searching for answers as to why they dont.

If we read between the lines of your numerous comments, it appears that you're seeking validation of your own intelligence, which is totally contradicting your first sentance.

 

When have not displayed humility?

 

in pretty much every post you're made. you post in a self righteous manner. The only justification you give about your comments is because you feel that way. thats cool, but dont expect people to agree with everything you say just because it is your opinion.

[Trimmer]

When have not displayed humility?

Let's start with the subject line of this thread.

[sally4sara]

The title alone, that people should know their place, tells a lot about the poster.

 

A person's place is where they can function. If that place were a fixed one, we wouldn't be able to see progress or an accumulation of knowledge continue to grow as a person grows. A person who doesn't know how to play guitar would never be able to learn. We wouldn't even have the word "progress".

So no one can really know where their place is because their function improves with use, qualifying them for a new place that still can't be called their own.

[jean-luc sisko]

you contradict yourself. you're complaining that others try to drag you down because they're jealous of your 'talents', but then deny that their opinions matter to you.

 

Yes, since the accepted norm is that people should take it and accept their own talents.

I would take a guess that actually people dont complain that you're more intelligent than them. I think you would like them to, and are searching for answers as to why they dont.

 

They do complain.

If we read between the lines of your numerous comments, it appears that you're seeking validation of your own intelligence, which is totally contradicting your first sentance.

 

I'm not an egocentric person by nature.

 

in pretty much every post you're made. you post in a self righteous manner. The only justification you give about your comments is because you feel that way. thats cool, but dont expect people to agree with everything you say just because it is your opinion.

 

lol.. There is no fact in the human condition, at least not perpetually absolute fact.

[jean-luc sisko]

The title alone, that people should know their place, tells a lot about the poster.

 

how benevolent are you?

A person's place is where they can function. If that place were a fixed one, we wouldn't be able to see progress or an accumulation of knowledge continue to grow as a person grows. A person who doesn't know how to play guitar would never be able to learn. We wouldn't even have the word "progress".

So no one can really know where their place is because their function improves with use, qualifying them for a new place that still can't be called their own.

 

Growth is part of the human condition, yes.

[jean-luc sisko]

Let's start with the subject line of this thread.

 

I've always been told that people should accept their own talents. Society says this.

 

Ugly people should accept their ugly. Less successful people should accept that some are more successful than they are.

[TaraMaiden]

Yes, since the accepted norm is that people should take it and accept their own talents.

 

That's the problem. I still don't see any evidence of your talent, in anything.

 

They do complain.

They're right to. But I think you misinterpret their complaint. Have you misinterpreted ours?

 

I'm not an egocentric person by nature.

Er...... yes, you are....

 

There is no fact in the human condition, at least not perpetually absolute fact.

So it's a fact then that you're not as intelligent as you assume you are.

as it's not a fact.....

[sally4sara]

I've always been told that people should accept their own talents. Society says this.

 

Ugly people should accept their ugly. Less successful people should accept that some are more successful than they are.

 

Maybe that they should not begrudge those perceived better in some way, but to accept it? Maybe in instances where they can do nothing about it. But in instances where change can be, we'd see no change if everyone just accepted their lot in life.

[jean-luc sisko]

That's the problem. I still don't see any evidence of your talent, in anything.

 

All persons hold talents.

They're right to. But I think you misinterpret their complaint. Have you misinterpreted ours?

 

Misinterpret how?

Er...... yes, you are....

 

No, I am not.

So it's a fact then that you're not as intelligent as you assume you are.

as it's not a fact.....

 

It's a fact of life, since it would take God-like proportions to say anything is wholly absolute.

[jean-luc sisko]

Maybe that they should not begrudge those perceived better in some way, but to accept it? Maybe in instances where they can do nothing about it. But in instances where change can be, we'd see no change if everyone just accepted their lot in life.

 

Change is good, and growth is good.

 

Psychological texts/research, states that self-acceptance is key and acceptance of one's one situation is key.

[sally4sara]

Change is good, and growth is good.

 

Psychological texts/research, states that self-acceptance is key and acceptance of one's one situation is key.

 

People are not so easily mapped that any psych text/research can really say what is best for everyone.

 

For progress to to be made, one has to be unwilling to accept their "place", what the texts and research you speak of has to say matters little in the face of the drive in our species to not accept things as fixed. We'd have never evolved to even have those texts and research telling us what we should do.

and then how smart would you be Smartypants?

[jean-luc sisko]

People are not so easily mapped that any psych text/research can really say what is best for everyone.

 

For progress to to be made, one has to be unwilling to accept their "place", what the texts and research you speak of has to say matters little in the face of the drive in our species to not accept things as fixed. We'd have never evolved to even have those texts and research telling us what we should do.

and then how smart would you be Smartypants?

 

 

Hmm... yet this flies in the face of plenty of standard psychological research corroborating my earlier points. Should you be a psychological professional, you can present plenty of advice representing the contrary argument. What you're saying is akin to stating that depression cannot be alleviated via exercise.

 

The fact is ugly people do let good-looking people have the glory. A psychologist would tell an ugly person to do so. The "ethics" aside does not override the facts of the case.

[Engadget]

I know more about a variety of subjects than they do.

 

And I am a lot mentally sharper.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

I am more smarterer than yous.

 

Oh god that line made my night.

[sally4sara]

Hmm... yet this flies in the face of plenty of standard psychological research corroborating my earlier points. Should you be a psychological professional, you can present plenty of advice representing the contrary argument. What you're saying is akin to stating that depression cannot be alleviated via exercise.

 

I think we are starting to see why people complain around you.....

 

What I'm saying is that it matters little to a species with unrest as part of it's survival instinct.

 

Physical response to stimuli and our ability to measure its worth is different. It speaks in harmony with our well being as a species. The research you offer does not. It is contradictory to our function.

 

And psychology is rife with con artists simply because much of it's theory cannot be proved. It speaks of tendencies, generalizations, vague patterns that can be used to support opinion or guesses.

[jean-luc sisko]

I think we are starting to see why people complain around you.....

 

What I'm saying is that it matters little to a species with unrest as part of it's survival instinct.

 

Physical response to stimuli and our ability to measure its worth is different. It speaks in harmony with our well being as a species. The research you offer does not. It is contradictory to our function.

 

And psychology is rife with con artists simply because much of it's theory cannot be proved. It speaks of tendencies, generalizations, vague patterns that can be used to support opinion or guesses.

 

No, bona fide psychologists say this. There would be no point in medicine if there was no research.

 

You can spout ultra-relativism if you wish, but I have limits, even though I'm a fellow relativist in general. I don't think anything goes, I have a sense of conscience. I bet you'd be the first to complain in an anything goes world.