To oversimplify, there are three types of people who rule America. The politically powerful, the intelligentsia, and the rich. They represent three types of power: the ability to win hearts, the ability to win minds, and the ability win wallets.
According to an article promoted by The New York Times, Ashkenazi Jews are genetically more intelligent than other American ethnic groups. Since intelligence can be defined as the cognitive ability to adapt your environment to your advantage, we should expect Ashkenazi Jews to rise to the top of American society, and we should expect lower IQs ethnic groups to be underrepresented among elites, so let’s see if this is the case.
The politically powerful: The politically powerful are probably the least intelligent of the American elites and thus can sometimes be manipulated by the rich and the intelligentsia. Indeed there have been several U.S. presidents who have seemed like puppets for more intelligent advisors behind the scenes.
I define the politically powerful as not just those who have been elected to public office, but rather as anyone who has a large constituency of loyal followers, since virtually any popular American has the ability to be a political force. A good measure of political power is Gallup’s most admired list. A quick perusal of the list reveals, that Ashkenazi Jews are not especially over-represented, but African Americans are. If measured by sheer popularity, African Americans are arguably the most politically powerful group, per capita, in society. I discussed possible reasons for this here.
Blacks have used their political power to achieve certain benefits like affirmative action and a black president. However raw political power is the only type of power African Americans have a lot of; as we will see, they are dramatically underrepresented in the two other types of power.
The intelligentsia: The intelligentsia are those who wield power not by winning the hearts of the masses, but by winning the minds of other elites. They are the columnists for The New York Times, the professor who writes a book that the President of the United States reads before bed, the members of Think Tanks who propose policy, and the intellectuals who provide the white house with expertise.
These elites are not rich or famous and most Americans have never heard of them, but they wield an enormous amount of power behind the scenes because billionaires and presidents turn to them for guidance and read their columns in The New York Times. They also wield power because they largely decide who gets to become rich and powerful in America and who gets to stay that way. If The New York Times decides a certain billionaire, celebrity, or politician is evil, all it takes is a few scathing editorials or exposés that the rest of the media mindlessly parrots, and the elite must resign in scandal. As the saying goes, never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel.
Because Ashkenazi Jews have high IQs, they are dramatically over-represented among the intelligentsia. Despite beig 2% of America, Ashkenaz Jews are an astonishing 50% of America’s most influential pundits. By contrast, African Americans are 12% of America but only 2% of the 50 most influential pundits. This ethnic distribution suggests that the intelligentsia have very high IQs on average.
The rich: Billionaires wield enormous power in America because politicians are enormously dependent on money to fund their campaigns and fund their endless political advertising. The rich also have the power to buy major newspapers, television networks, internet search engines, and fund universities and thus dramatically dictate which intellectuals get hired as influential members of the intelligentsia. Because getting rich demonstrates intelligence (the ability to adapt your environment to your advantage), the high IQ Ashkenazi Jewish population is 36% of the 400 richest Americans, despite being only 2% of America. By contrast, blacks are only 0.25% of the 400 richest Americans, despite being 12% of America
People overrate the power and talents of the Ashkenazis. In America, Ashkenazi Jews have the gift of gab, but are sorely untalented in many other arenas of life such as creativity and the mark of excellence. That’s where gentile Whites come into the picture.
Also, societies where Ashkenazis are mostly influential, they are lacking in excellent-ship.
It’s no surprise to anyone that the Southern Euro Zone and we could say the Nordic Zone as well, have a small Jewish presence, and their societies are more functional than the Anglopshere. The same goes for East Asia, which Jews have very little impact.
Also, in America, secular Jews particularly dislike other groups of people, who come across as their potential rivals or don’t follow their ideologies. Namely, Christian Whites and also East Asians.
They’re enormously powerful. Despite being 2% of America, they are 50% of the most influential pundits. 36% of the super rich. The only area where they’re not especially powerful is appealing directly to the masses, (not a lot of Jews on Gallup’s most admired list; one major exception is Henry Kissinger who was the most admired man in America in the mid-1970s.). But they don’t need to appeal directly to the masses because they are intelligent enough to appeal to those who lead them.
As for creativity; they’re dramatically over-represented among Hollywood screenplay writers.
The cultural output in America, including Hollywood is inferior and overrated at best.
that’s right. if Jews were over-represented for no other reason than their IQs, they would be 6% of elite anything, so maybe 2 1/2 their % in the US.
those who explain Ashkenazi accomplishment by IQ alone are idiots.
Correct. Given that IQ & income only correlate 0.4, & given that Jews are only 0.8 SD smarter than Gentiles, their incomes should be only 0.4(0.8 SD) higher.
Too small an advantage to explain why 2% of Americans are 36% of the Forbes 400 (4.67+ SD above average in income)
Jews clearly have some other advantages beyond overall IQ.
Perhaps they have a special talent for business independent of IQ (business IQ). It would explain why they win more Nobel prizes in economics than any other field
Or maybe they’re more driven or have some other trait
The scariest bunch are the intelligentsia. Why are all western societies cursed by having a stupid, unimaginative and shallow intelligentsia?
Because the masses are dumb downed by them, and also the intelligentsia might not be so smart.
yeah, who needs technology, transportation, and medicine. things were much better during the dark ages
This brings up an interesting, age-old point: why aren’t doctors and engineers considered “intellectuals”? It seems to be reserved purely for wordsmiths and those who make big grandiose social arguments for, e.g. what to THINK about doctors and engineers. Good or bad, etc…
What are Jews in America good for? Maybe when you need a good Jewish doctor or lawyer. Other than that, their talents in other areas are simply not there, because Jews are incapable of civilization attainment.
Also Jews show inferiority when it comes to simple creativity. A good example is during the time of hostility between the Iranians and Israelis from a year ago, when Iran seemed to threaten Israel with nuclear weapons, and the Israelis wanted to strike an offensive. There was a friendly exchange of email messages between ordinary Iranians and Israelis. The Iranians were sending pictures of beautiful ducks to the Israelis, as Netanyahu was calling Iran a nuclear duck. The Israelis only responded to their messages, thanking them.
Most income past 100-200k has more to do with various investments than wages. IQ has less to do with it than risk-taking, social ability, and luck.
The politically powerful are probably not the “least intelligent.” You’re just thinking of popular elected officials. The heads of agencies, attorneys general, etc. tend to be quite bright.
The ‘intelligentsia” is vague. Academia and academics are the true “intelligentsia,” not New York Times columnists.
Jewish American success can be readily explained by a culture valuing hard work.
I don’t really consider the heads of agencies as part of the politically powerful because they often serve at the pleasure of the popularly elected official & don’t have the will of the people behind them in their own right
By intelligentsia i mean those intellectuals who have an impact on policy; most academics are ignored
‘I don’t really consider the heads of agencies as part of the politically powerful because they often serve at the pleasure of the popularly elected official & don’t have the will of the people behind them in their own right’
They don’t all serve ‘at the pleasure of the popularly elected official.’ The heads of independent agencies cannot be removed by a higher ranking executive official save for cause. And not having to answer to ‘the people’ makes these individuals even more powerful.
Further, as Nixon put it, administration</em is policy. The higher ranking official may select an agency head who agrees with him or her about 'cleaning up the environment,' but what actually matters is how the individual does so.
‘Most academics are ignored’
Fine, substitute ‘prominent academics’ for ‘academics.’ The former are most certainly not ignored. In each field, these individuals shape policy.
And not having to answer to ‘the people’ makes these individuals even more powerful.
Perhaps, but it’s a different kind of power than the one I had in mind when I said “politically powerful”. The elites you are describing don’t seem to fit neatly in any of my three categories, though I said from the outset my model was oversimplified.
I took your definition as
‘I define the politically powerful as not just those who have been elected to public office, but rather as anyone who has a large constituency of loyal followers, since virtually any popular American has the ability to be a political force.’
Agency heads have literally hundreds of competent, able individuals to command. Not only do they have policy experts who can draft de facto laws, they have judges who can adjudicate claims and attorneys who can prosecute on behalf of the agency. That’s three branches of government contained in one entity that is not directly beholden to the people. I’m not sure it gets much more powerful than that.
‘If you have the gift it is not hard work’
Chris Langan allegedly has an IQ 6 SD over average. Every PhD or mathematician who has read his CTMU has treated it like amateur hour. So no, even ‘if you have the gift,’ it is still hard work. IQ only corrles .5 with grades. That means ‘work’ in one way or another explains the rest. The Langans of the world, who do -2 SDs of work only end up with ~1.3 SD worth of achievement. Sounds about right, considering how the CTMU is routinely treated like the scribbling of a college student, maybe graduate.
By loyal followers i didn’t mean employees. I meant disciples, fans. That’s why I referenced Gallups most admired list
By politically powerful i meant popular, because if you’re popular enough, you can be president (the sitting president is almost always the most admired man in America )
‘By politically powerful i meant popular, because if you’re popular enough, you can be president (the sitting president is almost always the most admired man in America )’
The President is the most admired man because he’s President or running for President. He’s not President or running for President because he’s the most admired man.
Popularity alone is a bad index of political power.
http://twittercounter.com/pages/100
Almost none of the individuals, save the President, has much political power. Popularity among elites is a much better criterion. If you can get smart people to follow you, then you will wield political power. Having a few hundred smart, well-connected individuals as ‘disciples’ (or employees) is worth enough to nearly run a town or city. So…
“his CTMU has treated it like amateur hour”
Langan is a very strange hiQ:er, completely lacking any normal ambitions. And then thinks he’s gonna solve the riddles of the universe from his farmhouse. He is a teenager, and it would work if he were in his teens.
It’s not hard work for talented kids to exercise their talents, as adults they have to work on it, but the gifted jewish children show up as children. Then they and their less spectacularily gifted brothers work hard, sure, which partly could explain their overrepresentation even in relation to their (high) natural capacity.
‘It’s not hard work for talented kids to exercise their talents, as adults they have to work on it, but the gifted jewish children show up as children.’
Yes, they start from an early age. They grow up in a certain culture. They are working ‘on it’ their entire lives.
Twitter counter is a poor measure of popularity among American adults. If you look at the Gallup most admired list i linked to, the most admired people tend to be people widely considered powerful
Elites run the media so its hard to be popular with the public without being somewhat popular with elites
‘If you look at the Gallup most admired list i linked to, the most admired people tend to be people widely considered powerful’
Stephen Hawking? Bill O’Reilly? Glenn Beck? Brad Pitt? Even many political figures on the list don’t have much political power, as many are out of office and spend their time peddling books.
‘Elites run the media so its hard to be popular with the public without being somewhat popular with elites’
So you are maintaining that the Kardashians are “popular” with elites and wield political power?
‘Twitter counter is a poor measure of popularity among American adults.’
The only reason why popularity among adults would matter is because adults have more power than children and teenagers. And that’s the point. Being popular among those with power is what counts. Having legions of loyal children followers (Barney the Dinosaur) < Having legions of normal adult followers < Having legions of smart, powerful adult followers.
If a child starts playing the violin at three it’s not because he tried early, and not beacuse he worked ‘at it’ or even less ‘on it’ 🙂
‘If a child starts playing the violin at three it’s not because he tried early, and not beacuse he worked ‘at it’ or even less ‘on it’’
Do you seriously buy into the myth of kids picking up instruments and instantly learning how to play?
I have never found or seen an example of a child playing an instrument competently without discovering that intensive instruction was involved.
Stephen Hawking? Bill O’Reilly? Glenn Beck? Brad Pitt?
All of those people have enormous power. If Stephen Hawking said “Global warming is a hoax” millions of people would think “Stephen Hawking said it’s a hoax; maybe it is” Bill O’reilly is enormously powerful because he reaches a huge audience of politically active Americans that politicians want desperately to appeal to. Even the Obamas try to stay on his good side by inviting him to various events and giving him a speaking gig at the Kennedy Center Honors. Glenn Beck also is also powerful to a lesser degree for similar reasons. Brad Pitt is powerful enough to make a politically influential movie reach a huge audience.
So you are maintaining that the Kardashians are “popular” with elites and wield political power?
The Kardashians are not on the most admired list. There’s a difference between being well known and being admired.
The only reason why popularity among adults would matter is because adults have more power than children and teenagers. And that’s the point. Being popular among those with power is what counts. Having legions of loyal children followers (Barney the Dinosaur) < Having legions of normal adult followers < Having legions of smart, powerful adult followers.
I agree that having powerful followers is more empowering than having average followers, but I would rather have ten million average followers than have a few dozen powerful followers. The Gallup poll is a good compromise, because making the list proves you have millions of worshipers AND all the worshipers meet a minimum threshold for power (they are adult citizens of the World’s sole super power). I it perfect? No. But it’s a good rough and ready measure.
Further, if an elite worships you, you WILL tend to make the most admired list. Condi Rice was a nobody until President Bush admired her enough to make her secretary of state, and now she’s the third most admired woman in America.
‘Do you seriously buy into the myth of kids picking up instruments and instantly learning how to play?’
Many are self taught, just leave a piano alone with a young “genius” and see what happens. Violin a little harder maybe. When the parents discover that the child can play they, and especially jewish parents, probably get an instructor. The child would learn to play whichever way. Some of the best can’t read scores.
‘All of those people have enormous power’
Afaik political power means the ability to control or influence the behavior of others. It’s being recognized as a legitimate authority. Average people look for outlets and individuals who express their already held beliefs. Bill O’Reilly’s popularity does not equate to him being able to change anyone’s mind about voting. And the same can be said for everyone else I mentioned. Average people simply do not make their decisions in the same way as policymakers, the educated, the productive, etc.
FoxNews has almost no power to change a voter’s mind.
http://mccourt.georgetown.edu/georgetown-study-on-fox-news
Even studies that have found some significant influence have found it to be pretty small, considering the amount of money dumped into FoxNews. 3 percent. So, no difference in the vast majority of elections.
That is why, if you want to capture true political power, popularity among smart people is much better. ‘Smart’ people are more likely to be influenced by another outside individual and make their decisions based on new information or based on the opinion of an authority…maybe it’s because smart people also tend to be in positions that require the exercise of power and so must have justification for every one of their decisions.
‘I would rather have ten million average followers than have a few dozen powerful followers’
If I have twelve higher ups at the DNC and you have ten million people who like you in the general public, guess who’s getting the nomination? Not you. If I have twelve members of top management who follow me, and you have ten million satisfied customers who rave about you, guess who’s getting the promotion? Not you.
‘I it perfect? No. But it’s a good rough and ready measure.’
Forbes and Business Insider run better lists….
Swank, obviously people are influenced by people in media otherwise advertisers wouldn’t spend millions on TV commercials and politicians wouldn’t go on such shows where they risk being asked very awkward questions.
Yes people like O’reilly because they already agree with his politics, and as a result, they are more willing to listen when O’reilly claims that a certain politician is a good person or deserves the benefit of the doubt. O’reilly may have even been instrumental in getting laws passed:
http://www.billoreilly.com/jessicaslaw
You don’t have to influence everyone to have power; if even 1% of American adults worship O’reilly, that’s millions of people he can shape the views of.
“Jewish American success can be readily explained by a culture valuing hard work.”
If you have the gift it is not hard work, whether it is musical, mathematical, verbal or whatever talent. The over-representation of jews that there is, even taking their innate gifts into account, is due to jews more often getting a break, picked up as young if they show any promiss and nurtured. Jews will never give the same mentorship to non-jews, and that is natural. What’s not natural is for others to pretend that is not taking place.
hard work, but some connections, too. They are good with money and keep the money in the family, which doesn’t hurt.
politically powerful are probably less intelligent than the other two, but still smarter than average. John Sununu the smartest of all
SOME connections… lol.
Hard work to ruin nation of others.
Smartpeopleswankynasty shows us the double standard of your ”discuss”.
Europeans are 100 times more pioneering and noble than Jews. It’s interesting they were showing a program about Spaniards in China. Many of them were learning about Chinese culture, writing down information, comparing with their own culture and even participating with the locals to learn more. And Spain is a poor Euro country compared to the other Western nations.
Then I saw a show about Israelis in China. Basically, they wanted to go to China to make money from the locals as businessmen, only cared about eating Chinese food in terms of culture, and often times, they were rude and mean towards the locals. So Saint Occult is correct, Jews act like sociopaths wherever they go.
Hard work is not enough to become great!
East Asians, are also very hardworking, but are not very remarkable or original. They in fact work harder than Jews, but fall short in many arenas when compared to them.
I dislike people who obfuscate information and give people more credit than they deserve.
”So Saint Occult is correct, Jews act like sociopaths wherever they go.”
Please, i choice the nickname ”Santoculto”, without ”americanization”, please! =)
Well, not ALL jews are like that, in all human populations there their own internal diversity, but many them, most than in european and in asian populations, are or ”act” as high functioning sociopath, and most of today jewish leaders could be descript like that. Think in impact in crime rates of a minority of criminal swedish men (non-foreigners because the research analyse crime rates in Sweeden before the greater invmigrastion. Same non-fantasistic analogy, greater impact of a minority of high functioning sociopaths in jewish community and in host countries. I think mental disorders are twice common in ashkenazim than in gentile european and east asian populations. Then, a little group of european highly functioning sociopath can be greater impact in politics, since Macchiavelli, imagine same pattern in ashkenazim.
Sometimes i think in nomadism and ADHD. I read that ADHD correlate with anti-social personality.
I’m reading ”The Anti Christ”. Very interesting philosophical observations made by Nietzche.
Js,
you are almost right. I think ashkenazim are in the first Differently smart than smarter than White goym. And they use this cognitive difference to:
Take the political, cultural and social power,
manipulate “public opinion” to their own goals,
divide and conquer, serving as “cultural agents” or intermediates of useful idiots of the left or the right,
attack potential opponents as “wasps”
And in the end or in other words, modify the environment to themselves.
I see oriental european jews as different intelligence average profile, different personality and as a obvious result, different moral codes. Northwestern europe have a shame culture. Ashkenazim and other jews in general, no have shame. The bigger advantage of jewish intellect is in human environment, aka, whitey goym masses. Jews not only modify social environment but they need modify own human mind before. As most commerciant, they tend to be very good to understand its prey. Self awareness without truly empathy by Their “””oponents”””. Lack of REAL winsdom.
Jews are culturally inferior compared to Europeans. They are able to exploit Northern Europe and the Anglosphere for 2 reasons.
1) Northern Euro and England have high trust societies that invite low trust individuals to exploit the situation.
2) They have a lot of immigration and lack a strong national unity, in comparison to the Southern Euros.
I would like to add no.3.
3) Southern Euros have a superior cultural legacy that are untouchable from Jewish influence. They are great craftsmen, and they are smart at it, because they don’t sell their creations for cheap money (which means allowing the Jewish parasite to take their things and make money for themselves). Also, Southern Euros represent a form of European Patriarchy (more national unity, less multiculturalism).
Yes, as i read in Peter Frost blog, Northern Europe is a landscape of ”shame culture”, cause by a combination of possible factors, as ulterior northern european suscetibilities (i.e, behavioral traits by found effect, that produce human ”blond and blue eyes”), christianism as ”domestication cultural tool”, i.e, prohibition of cousin marriages, geogaphical isolation that produce selective alienation, basically, you evolved to yourselve but despise possible enemies or competitors.
Secular (or not only secular**) jewish culture is a NON_SHAME culture, exactly the opposite of northern europeans and ”perfect” to exploitation.
Yes, environmentally speaking, seems, is better imagine Stokholm open to whole world than Athens or Rome. Nordicists love to say, ”norses leave its ancestral region and produce civilization in mediterranean area, but today, any scandinavian country have produced any great, really great architeture, different than Northern Italy. Pure meds produce corruption, nepotism, art, emotional ativism. Pure norses is like east asians (japaneses, specially), with a lot of great cognitive traits combinations but with something missing. Hybrids intraeuropeans seems work better, specially in creative achievements.
I think ashkenazim are in the first Differently smart than smarter than White goym.
Also, Ashkenazim is different from Spanish Jews, many of whom assimilated into Spanish society. There is a stereotype to show Jews from Spain were more noble, more honest and keep to their principles when doing things, when compared to Ashkenazim, who are much more sociopathic. I think there are 2 important reasons. Sephardim in Spain was of nobility and they intermarried with the Spanish royalty so they is less inbreeding. Ashkenazim Jews have been inbreeding for many generations within their communities, only until recently. Inbreeding causes bad behaviors, such as tribalism and a propensity to do things that are self serving.
Good theory but some historical ”controversical” relates show us sephardim are not so different than ashkenazim, yes, they seems less aberrant, but (on average, of course) no less different as you are thinking.
Sephardic was forced to convert to christianism in Iberia. They do not convert by ”good faith”.
I think i can be some sephardic blood because my state here in Brazil, during colonial era had the biggest concentration of sephardic jews in world.
They do not convert by ”good faith”.
Yes, you can say that. However, some Sephardics married into Spanish royalty. King Ferdinand and Queen Isabel, both supporters of the Inquisition and the purging of Jewish religion in Spain, had Jewish ancestry.
There were also a few Spanish Jews who became Catholics before the Inquisition. However, this is not to say that the Sephardim converted to Catholic religion in large numbers because it was a good thing for them.
Sephardic Jews were diverse in occupation. Not just parasitical activities they were involved, many of them became craftsmen and also some were in farming.
No surprise that you might have Sephardic ancestry, since Spaniards and also Portuguese forced the Jews to convert to the Catholic religion and many of them didn’t leave the country during the Inquisition.
Again, I think the Southern Europe Patriarchal culture is how you effectively assimilate outsiders, not the Anglosphere Liberalism, where you create different groups and say we are all the same.
Also Santo Oculto, I found this to be an interesting question on this site:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?68586-Spaniards-Jewish-self-haters
Since you are Brazilian of Portuguese extract, you might ask yourself the same question. You might have Jewish ancestry, yet critical of Jews. You have to understand the political culture which is unique in Iberia and I guess the Southern Euro region, which is different from the Anglosphere ideals. Those nations were about unity through culture and religion, not like America or the United Kingdom, with a pluralism culture, yet everyone should be treated as the same.
Also this guy was of Sephardic Jewish background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_de_Torquemada
Yet, he was behind the Inquisition to eliminate the Jewish and Muslim religion, completely from Spain.
Only a sociopath high functioning that could conquer a entire civilization and lost the control. Mass immigration is destroying jewish power in university, more and more highly qualified immigrants immigrate to Amurrica, as chineses. Most secular jews marry out of community. Only useful leftists will can believe in “white” privilege. Most blacks, latinos and muslims in Europe know very well who is the “elite”. Very high risk is one of psychological traits of ashkenazim. most secular jews aren’t soldier. The dominance of parasite in their host is a very sensible and high risk business with higher % of mistakes and dangers. Hardest way as coldplay singing is far to be the best way. Kill host is a low functioning parasite habit.
Most blacks, latinos and muslims in Europe know very well who is the “elite”.
I think this is true. The Muslims who killed the people at the Charlie Hebdo office in Paris, France and also the attack of the Jewish market are good evidence. They did not just attack French people, but the media and the politicians wants us to believe this was the case.
Jews are changing this part of world in a ocean muslim, very stupid to do. Christian or at least, non muslim Europe is a geographical saveguard of Israel existence.
But a lot of Europeans have sympathy for the Palestinians and are angry at Israel for being tough with them. As more and more Muslims come to Europe, Europeans will turn against the Muslims and say “now we know why Israel had to be so tough”
Thus, it’s actually very smart for a Jewish person to want more Muslims in Europe. It helps Israel. Why do you think Netanyahu wanted so badly to come to the march in France, even after he was told not to
Is very higher risk. Is not smart substitute europeans by muslims in any perspective.
yeah, the cognitive elite have been the biggest winners of the post-2008 era. Not just money, but influence, too. This will continue . The jews are overpresented, but they aren’t that powerful or that ambitious .
I don’t know what “cognitive elite” mean. I know i’m not to do part of this “elite”. I no have stomach to this.
a blanket term for the three groups pumpkin mentioned
Yes.
If white people want survive in a jewish social environment modified, need emulate them, without SHAME but with inner dignity and justice.
‘Many are self taught, just leave a piano alone with a young “genius” and see what happens.’
Noise would happen. Everything else would take 10 times longer than it would if that youth had a teacher.
‘Some of the best can’t read scores.’
If they can’t read music, then they aren’t ‘some of the best.’ This kind of exchange is what I’m talking about. A lot of HBDers and IQ-fetishists come off like they watched ‘Good Will Hunting’ one too many times.
Really?? Then, why you prove to yourselve that this novel religious nonsense is true?? How explain COMPLETELY innate talent of savant?? They no need ANY extreme dedication to paint or make spectacular calculus. Tell us, “expert”, what do you think about it. There are fundamental difference between learning and memorization. Musical prodigy do not repeat mechanically what he memorised and learned, because he will improve ( criativity) their knowledge. Average musical talent can improve their talent with hard working, but prodigies to do less effort to go to same level that normal musical talent can go only with hard working. Like, smarter people use “less their brains” to solve problems than ordinary people. Exactly same analogy.
‘COMPLETELY innate talent of savant??’
It doesn’t exist. Savants demonstrate my point more than yours. Savants do the same tasks over and over and over and over again. Their mental deficiencies actually enable them to be content mundanely practicing. By accident, they become proficient.
‘Musical prodigy do not repeat mechanically what he memorised and learned, because he will improve ( criativity) their knowledge’
Everyone repeats what they have heard, even in music. Point me to a renowned anything and a 2 second google search will turn up who he stole from.
‘Exactly same analogy.’
Yes. Fantasy versus reality. Chris Langan is proof that so-called ‘smarts’ will not get you very far on their own.
You are completely retard in psychology. If this is your profession., i recommend to you to change its area of specialization. Many famous cases of savant where savant pianist for example learn completely with only one time all musical notes. It os not hard working and you are ARROGANT and IGNORANT about savant syndrome.
There are many famous tall tales, yes. Your problem is that you believe them and take them at face value. For example, the list is long of so-called individuals who claim or are claimed to have photographic memories, but when push comes to shove, no one can furnish scientific proof of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_claimed_to_possess_an_eidetic_memory
I’m no iq fetishist, I just recognize that some fields of mental excellence are open to people with no training, just raw talent, especially music, maths, chess, but not physics so much, and absolutely not philosophy which requires maturity and common sense.
Correecting: it is not hard working.
I do only SPECULATIONS you do not remember honey??? Prove you, ‘your’ premisses.
I think that you said dislike so-called HIGHER IQ Langan. What contradictions honey.
I don’t know savant is a defect more than so-called “smart” that in reality are DOGMATIC, pseudo-moralists. At least, with a island of genius and a ocean of deficience , they made something productive to society, differently than certain so-called “researchers”.
Prodigies are high functioning savant or very high functioning, same way, autism spectrum is a degree of savantism. Similar etiology, similar biological found effect. Classic Savantism: severe deficience, super higher cognitive specialization.
Autism spectrum: moderade to slightly deficience with higher cognitive specialization.
Prodigies: slightly to inexistent deficience with higher specialization.
Everyone can improve considerably to maximum limit or ( personal) level. But, some people are as waterfall, other can be as passenger ( passing) flow.
Seems vou have envy of talented people, poor soul.
I want understand, why you use adjetives as “smart people” if you do no believe in any drop of genetic influence in human behavior???
adjective is to heritability. Peter IS smart. IS????
You are delirating, Swank.
You not proved its AFFIRMATIONS too. I try again to understand, why ALL, (you are affirming all or at least MOST people who say to be highly innate developed eidetic memory) , all or most this people could be lying about that, what the reason of this attitude?? Liar envious, sick. Completely REAL disguting and REAL amoral of his part.
They aren’t lying. I have no doubt they can perform great feats of memory and whatever-else. The question is how did they get to that level of skill? Something like a ‘photographic memory’ would be a trait that was inborn and allowed an individual to perform memory-feats at an extremely high level. We have yet to observe it. Even Kim Peek’s claims were never verified.
Instead, when actual experts study these feats, they find people using strategies that anyone could use.
I want proves. You are lying, as ever.
“[S]cience has never found a single verifiable case of photographic memory” was on the page I cited.
(…You would not say that a person has aptitude for something and not another, based on the ease or difficulty with learning * and that to a certain person, just a slight study to be able to extend their knowledge to very beyond what was taught, while for another, despite much study and exercise, can not even remember what you learned *…) Plato, The Republic.
”Also Santo Oculto”
=)
” I found this to be an interesting question on this site:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?68586-Spaniards-Jewish-self-haters
Since you are Brazilian of Portuguese extract, you might ask yourself the same question. You might have Jewish ancestry, yet critical of Jews. You have to understand the political culture which is unique in Iberia and I guess the Southern Euro region, which is different from the Anglosphere ideals. Those nations were about unity through culture and religion, not like America or the United Kingdom, with a pluralism culture, yet everyone should be treated as the same.”
I think protestantism is more based on free commerce than catholic regions and can be possible that those have certain ”blood” can understand better the attitude of some people like dishonesty, manipulation, megalomania, etc… As i like to say, ” not so good people can understand better the attitudes of other not so good people than extremely altruistic people”. Very good people tend to be naive. They can’t understand dishonest behavior, they can’t accept that this can exist. We are not so naive than swedish hallstatt. I don’t know if only ”marriage patterns” can explain alone this differences. I think personality have important rule in this variety of human behaviors. My maternal uncle look completely as a famous ”jewish stereotype” and he is a pathological liar, a bright pathological liar, charismatic, talk many times about same subjects (brainwashing technique) which are about their interests, simpathetic (and not REAL empathetic), confiant and nervous. He is a classic description of Mattoid, by Lombroso. Northern europeans seems a end of christian adaptability-evolution. Collective extremes tend to perish in nature. Southern europeans and jews seems less evolved to these perspective, a altruistic christian-like perspective, but evolution and specially, adaptability, is contextual and relative.
”Also this guy was of Sephardic Jewish background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_de_Torquemada
Yet, he was behind the Inquisition to eliminate the Jewish and Muslim religion, completely from Spain.”
Well, some jews observe many problems created by mattoid classes of their own people and try to solve it. Probably, they are more altruistic and empathetic than other group of jews. There are a lot of jewish aberrant behaviors, good and bad phenotypes.
exactly right Santa Clause.
there’s a name for those who value adaptability per se. they’re called sociopaths.
non-sociopaths do what’s right whether it’s good for them or not.
that is, if doing what is right is adaptive, one does it. if doing what is right is maladaptive, one doesn’t do it. might has never made right. it never can.
even adapting to the demands of Nature has a moral element. at one point in man’s economic and technical development it was expedient or “adaptive” to exploit the labor of animals, such that animal cruelty might well have been good for the cruel.
If doing what is adaptive is so morally wrong that you are burdened by guilt, then it’s not adaptive, because feeling guilt is psychologically painful. That’s one of the factors that lowers the correlation between IQ and money/power. Smart people tend to be more moral, on thus must adapt to their own internal moral code in addition to adapting to the external environment. By contrast the sociopath must adapt only to the latter, and thus doesn’t need quite as much IQ to succeed.
to value adaptability or any behavioral trait for any reason other than that it is good per se is evil. to value expedience for oneself over what is good in itself is evil.
fully adapting to the contemporary developed world requires being evil. sociopaths rule the world.
really. don’t trust me. trust jon ronson or steve shoe, himself a sociopath.
You get way too messy arguments if you mix right and wrong into the question of adaptivity. The question of adaptive-yes-or-no should be a non-normative one. Then you can start from either
What is right, then you ask is that adaptive? as Robert GB outlines
Or the simpler approach – Is it adaptive, and then you ask is it right.
Better to take the normative consideration last in other words.
Because my bigger bag??? :$
Then, many blacks are like that. 😉
‘If doing what is adaptive is so morally wrong that you are burdened by guilt, then it’s not adaptive’
Has almost nothing to do with it. It’s all about whatever P makes an individual better suited to an environment. i.e. a soldier who kills on the battlefield is more adapted to the battlefield than a soldier who does not. A soldier who kills on the battlefield to the point of racking up PTSD-level guilt is STILL better adapted to the battlefield than a soldier who does not kill.
A soldier who kills on the battlefield to the point of racking up PTSD-level guilt is STILL better adapted to the battlefield than a soldier who does not kill.
He may be better adapted to the battlefield, but he is not adapting the situation to his advantage (intelligence) because being burdened by guilt is not to his advantage. That doesn’t mean he lacks intelligence (the cognitive ability to adapt), it just means he has a more difficult situation to adapt to.
Intelligence evolved to enable us to adapt to our goals, and our personality and emotions evolved so that the goals we pursue would be adapted to our genetic interests (survival, reproduction, tribalism). If someone starves to death because they feel guilty over eating meat, for example, they might still be highly intelligent, but they have a far more difficult problem to adapt to because they not only must adapt to their physical need for food, but their ethical need for the food to not be meat. They may appear stupid because they fail to adapt, but it’s their personality that is maladaptive, not their intellect. Even the smartest person can’t adapt to maladaptive goals or goals that are mutually exclusive.
‘He may be better adapted to the battlefield, but he is not adapting the situation to his advantage (intelligence) because being burdened by guilt is not to his advantage’
That’s because the ‘adapting the situation to your advantage,’ definition is weird. A better definition is figuring out what is necessary to adapt to whatever environment and the speed at which you can do so — at least if you believe IQ tests are in large part measuring intelligence.
In the battlefield example, a soldier who refuses to kill and lets himself be killed is ostensibly less “smart” than the fellow who learns HOW to kill within his paradigm. A holy pacifist invents the concept of a holy war to assuage his guilt — he’s “adapting his environment to his advantage.”
It all stinks of sociopathy, like Jorge said.
That’s because the ‘adapting the situation to your advantage,’ definition is weird.
It’s just another way of saying intelligence is the mental ability to problem solve
In the battlefield example, a soldier who refuses to kill and lets himself be killed is ostensibly less “smart” than the fellow who learns HOW to kill within his paradigm
Less smart or less sociopathic? Both soldiers have learned how to kill, the difference is one is prevented from doing so by his compassion for others. He’s not an inferior problem solver, he’s just burdened with an additional problem to solve (morality)
. A holy pacifist invents the concept of a holy war to assuage his guilt — he’s “adapting his environment to his advantage.”
He was smart enough to fool himself, but if he’s not that smart, it doesn’t require much adaptability to fool himself
So you can’t just look at whether one solved the problem or not; you also have to factor in how difficult the problem they solved was
‘It’s just another way of saying intelligence is the mental ability to problem solve’
Not really. Adapting the situation to the advantage and figuring out what is necessary to adapt are both examples of problem solving.
‘Less smart or less sociopathic?’
Less smart. An individual who can’t solve his own system to allow for an ethical loophole is less ‘smart’ than the individual who can’t. The motivation to do so may be sociopathic under this paradigm.
‘So you can’t just look at whether one solved the problem or not; you also have to factor in how difficult the problem they solved was’
it actually doesn’t matter. By your definition, the individual who solves the problem is smarter than an individual who doesn’t. It all leads back to valuing adaptability in and of itself leading to sociopathy.
Not really. Adapting the situation to the advantage and figuring out what is necessary to adapt are both examples of problem solving.
If you’re lacking an advantage, that’s a problem. If you adapt the situation to your advantage, you’ve solved that problem. Ergo, adaptability = problem solving ability = intelligence.
Less smart. An individual who can’t solve his own system to allow for an ethical loophole is less ‘smart’ than the individual who can’t. The motivation to do so may be sociopathic under this paradigm.
But not everyone’s moral system is equally easy to solve. His behavior may seem stupid to you because he’s even less sociopathic than you are. By contrast from the perspective of some IQ 85 thug, you should have been smart enough to find an ethical loophole that allowed you to make some easy money mugging an old lady on your way home from work. So everyone has their own moral code to adapt to dictated by personality traits that may be largely hardwired;so you can’t judge someone’s cognitive adaptability without understanding what they are adapting to
‘it actually doesn’t matter. By your definition, the individual who solves the problem is smarter than an individual who doesn’t.
But no two individuals are ever solving the exact same problem. Now most of us are solving roughly similar problems, which is why we find correlations between IQ and real life proxies fro adaptive behavior like income, life span, the ability to stay out of jail, occupational status etc. IQ tests go even further and try to make the problem exactly the same by giving everyone the exact same amount of time and telling them exactly what their goal is, but at the other extreme are moral dilemmas where what one person considers an intelligent solution, another person considers morally repugnant
It all leads back to valuing adaptability in and of itself leading to sociopathy.
Adapting to sociopathic goals leads to sociopathy. Adapting to moral goals leads to saintliness. And adaptability is not something we necessarily value, it’s something we automatically do. Virtually all conscious human behavior, every second of the day, all day every day, is simply a series of adaptations designed to solve an endless series of problems from what to eat for breakfast to how to scratch an itch on your back to how find the phone when it starts ringing. All conscious human behavior is an attempt to adapt our environment to our advantage. Even if you chose not to adapt, you would then have to adapt to that decision, and the decision itself would just be an adaptation to whatever emotion caused you to reject adaptability.
‘If you’re lacking an advantage, that’s a problem. If you adapt the situation to your advantage, you’ve solved that problem. Ergo, adaptability = problem solving ability = intelligence. ‘
No it’s not another way to put problem solving. As I just said, we have two very different things it could be — your definition or simply figuring out how to adapt. Both are examples of problem solving. Ergo, you can figure out how to adapt and one way of doing that is ‘adapting the situation to your advantage.’ Of course there are several other ways to adapt and ‘solve the problem.’
‘ So everyone has their own moral code to adapt to dictated by personality traits that may be largely hardwired;so you can’t judge someone’s cognitive adaptability without understanding what they are adapting to’
But it really doesn’t matter. If you have two equally complex moral systems, the guy who can figure out the logically ‘consistent’ loophole has more smarts than the one who can’t.
‘Adapting to sociopathic goals leads to sociopathy. Adapting to moral goals leads to saintliness’
If we stretch the meaning of adaptability past the point of significance, sure. Adaptability is judged by external success, which is why valuing adaptability on its own leads to sociopathy.
No it’s not another way to put problem solving. As I just said, we have two very different things it could be — your definition or simply figuring out how to adapt.
But behavior that is adaptive for one person is maladaptive for another.
But it really doesn’t matter. If you have two equally complex moral systems, the guy who can figure out the logically ‘consistent’ loophole has more smarts than the one who can’t.
But you don’t always have two equally complex moral systems; that’s the point!
If we stretch the meaning of adaptability past the point of significance, sure
It’s extremely significant.
.Adaptability is judged by external success, which is why valuing adaptability on its own leads to sociopathy.
Yes, but how we judge something is often a very crude proxy for the actual latent trait. But you’re right, we do judge adaptability and thus intelligence by external success, hence we have sayings like “if you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich?” and “a fool and his money are soon parted.” I agree that if one were to overvalue society’s definition of success and intelligence, it could lead to sociopathic behavior. Taking almost anything to an extreme is bad.
Now unless you have a more profound point you’re trying to make, we’ll have to leave it at that, lest the discussion become tedious.
‘But behavior that is adaptive for one person is maladaptive for another.’
Only if we stretch the meaning of the term beyond all recognition. X suite of behaviors will per se be successful or unsuccessful in some environments versus others. The only variable you tried to introduce was ‘guilt,’ which and of itself does not change the behavior required. It only changes the justifications required for the behavior.
‘But you don’t always have two equally complex moral systems; that’s the point!’
And it’s a trivial point because the moral systems people adhere to, under this paradigm, conform their level of ‘smarts.’ If an individual is smart enough to understand and believe X or Y, he’s smart enough to excuse himself under a loophole in that system. The difference comes down to motivation….
‘Yes, but how we judge something is often a very crude proxy for the actual latent trait. ‘
Pumpkin it’s the only way to accurately judge by the definition of that word. Morality as a constraint on behavior is pretty much maladaptve because it hamstrings the ability to ‘adapt’ in the actual sense of the word.
no. the ultimate problem is that human societies and what it takes to “succeed” in them are taken in the same way that adapting to the demands of Nature is taken.
but Nature is necessary whereas the ways of a particular society are contingent.
it is a virtue to adapt to the demands of Nature. it may be a virtue or a vice to adapt to the ways of men.
and one needn’t be living as a hunter gatherer to face Nature. an engineer faces Nature. a natural scientist faces Nature. a medical doctor faces Nature in its grimmest aspect.
but recently one’s ability to master Nature and solve real problems has become less and less important to one’s success, whereas “adapting” to the peculiarities of one’s society has become more and more important.
today, those who make their living doing real work, moving mountains, are few. those who make their living this way because they have talent or expertise others don’t is fewer still.
people like House, M.D. are very rare, but they do exist. but everyone should be like him, and nearly everyone used to be like him. the large organization of strangers is very recent to the human experience, 200 years old.
I remember a lunch with a friend of my dad’s, a Sikh ABD electrical engineer at Intel. he advised me to get a masters in computer science, because all doors would be open to me and all that would matter was can you do the work?
put another way…can you confront the thing and master it? rather than…can you confront the person and master him?
and is it better to be a winner than a loser?
my gay Jewish hero, Tobias Schneebaum gives this epigram from Castaneda in Keep the River on Your Right.
A path is only a path, and there is no affront, to oneself or to others, in dropping it if that is what your heart tells you . . . Look at every path closely and deliberately. Try it as many times as you think necessary. Then ask yourself alone, one question . . . Does this path have a heart? If it does, the path is good; if it doesn’t it is of no use.
we’re all losers in the end.
If one’s morality told him that it was wrong to make a fire in the winter, it would be maladaptive too. Most systems of morality just happen to treat nature as a morally neutral force which gives moral actors wide latitude in reacting and only place the constraints we’re talking about apply is society.
But that’s just a paradigm.
What Jorge wrote reminded me for whatever reason of Zizek’s Desert of the Real.
pumpkin’s “ability to adapt” is far too abstract to be measured. it’s vapor.
if happiness is “one’s advantage” then one would expect, ceteris paribus, that smart people are happier than dumb people.
but all else is never equal. and smart people are not happier than dumb people afaik. and my guess is the smarter one is the more elaborate his thinking on everything, including morality. thus as the smart person adapts give his constraints, he simultaneously puts more constraints on himself.
furthermore if one’s own values conflict with those which prevail in his society it takes more than adaptability or intelligence to be happy. it takes “strength”.
Kierkegaard said:
the crowd is untruth.
but Kierkegaard lived on an inheritance from his 20s to his death. he could afford to think such thoughts.
one simply cannot have a tatemae and an honne completely separate. no one is that strong. that is, even if one knows what he must do in order to adapt, if he adapts only in deed and not in thought he’ll soon be exhausted. only true believers make it to the top. those who have any doubt, though they may be punctilious in ritual, will never advance to the commanding heights. is the pope Catholic?
Only if we stretch the meaning of the term beyond all recognition. X suite of behaviors will per se be successful or unsuccessful in some environments versus others. The only variable you tried to introduce was ‘guilt,’ which and of itself does not change the behavior required. It only changes the justifications required for the behavior.
It changes whether the behavior is adaptable or not. If a sociopath gets away with mugging an old lady, he enjoys his money and thus the behavior was adaptive. If a non-sociopath does the same, the joy he gets from the money is negated by the guilt and shame he feels for his crime, so for him, the exact same behavior is maladaptive, because the cost/benefit ratio goes way up.
And it’s a trivial point because the moral systems people adhere to, under this paradigm, conform their level of ‘smarts.’ If an individual is smart enough to understand and believe X or Y, he’s smart enough to excuse himself under a loophole in that system. The difference comes down to motivation
And what causes differences in motivation? Differences in the cost/benefit ratio of the particular behavior, which is my point: The same behavior that is adaptable for me (i.e. results in a low cost/benefit ratio) could be maladaptive for you (high cost/benefit ratio). .
Pumpkin it’s the only way to accurately judge by the definition of that word. Morality as a constraint on behavior is pretty much maladaptve because it hamstrings the ability to ‘adapt’ in the actual sense of the word.
Lactose intolerance is a maladaptive constraint on behavior but it has nothing to do with one’s mental ability to adapt, it’s just one more problem one must adapt to. Similarly feelings of guilt are also just more problem one has to adapt to, rather than a part of one’s mental adaptability
Don’t confuse the ability to problem solve with the problem that’s being solved. If someone starved to death because the only food was dairy and they were too lactose intolerant to physically digest it, you would never blame their death on stupidity. Analogously, if someone starved to death because the only food was other humans and they were too intolerant of cannibalism to emotionally digest it, you also shouldn’t call them stupid, because in both cases, non-cognitive problems are impairing their behavior.
I’ve defined intelligence as the mental ability to adapt, not the physical ability to adapt, nor the emotional willingness to adapt. The latter two are what intelligence is adapting to.
‘It changes whether the behavior is adaptable or not’
If ‘stealing from old ladies’ is adaptive in an environment, then that behavior is adaptive, regardless of whether it comes with ‘guilt’ for some and ‘no guilt’ for others.
‘And what causes differences in motivation?’
The cost/benefit ratio has nothing to do with adaptiveness. You’re stretching the word way outside of its meaning. An adaptive behavior is per se “beneficial.”
‘Similarly feelings of guilt are also just more problem one has to adapt to’
Which means that an individual who cannot find ethical loopholes is less adaptive than one who can…
‘ Analogously, if someone starved to death because the only food was other humans and they were too intolerant of cannibalism to emotionally digest it, you also shouldn’t call them stupid, because in both cases, non-cognitive problems are impairing their behavior’
In your paradigm they are stupid. Guilt is another problem to be solved according to you. Intelligence is an ability to solve problems — according to you. Therefore, they were unable to solve a problem and died as a result. You’re only avoiding this by making the word far more subjective than it is.
pumpkin’s “ability to adapt” is far too abstract to be measured. it’s vapor.
The Wechsler intelligence scales attempt to measure it. Wechsler’s definition of intelligence was similar to the mental ability to adapt. He said:
Intelligence is the capacity of an individual to understand the world and the resourcefulness to cope with its challenges.
I like to think of the 11 subtests on Wechsler’s original scale as 11 different environments you must adapt to, and the conditions are standardized and the goal clearly defined (unlike real life where everyone has different definitions of success and different physical, emotional, and financial circumstances they are trying to adapt to)
if happiness is “one’s advantage” then one would expect, ceteris paribus, that smart people are happier than dumb people.
And they are on average:
http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.ca/2014/08/the-intelligent-pursuit-of-happiness.html
If you’re using the Weschler as your guide to the definition, then it’s not ‘adapting an environment to your advantage,’ it is as I said earlier: A better definition is figuring out what is necessary to adapt to whatever environment and the speed at which you can do so — at least if you believe IQ tests are in large part measuring intelligence. .
If ‘stealing from old ladies’ is adaptive in an environment, then that behavior is adaptive, regardless of whether it comes with ‘guilt’ for some and ‘no guilt’ for others.
Adaptive means the behavior has a low cost/benefit ratio for the person engaging in it. If guilt overwhelms the benefits, it’s not adaptive.
The cost/benefit ratio has nothing to do with adaptiveness. You’re stretching the word way outside of its meaning. An adaptive behavior is per se “beneficial.”
Beneficial means low cost/benefit ratio
Which means that an individual who cannot find ethical loopholes is less adaptive than one who can
All else being equal that’s true, but some emotions are too powerful and visceral to be rationalized away.
In your paradigm they are stupid. Guilt is another problem to be solved according to you. Intelligence is an ability to solve problems — according to you. Therefore, they were unable to solve a problem and died as a result.
But stupid is relative. You can be too stupid to solve a problem, but if the problem is unbelievably hard, 99.99% of America would also be too stupid to solve if put in the exact same situation with the exact same guilt you feel. So you can be too stupid to solve some problems, yet still have an IQ above 150
another characteristic of smart people, or those who think they’re smart, which militates against their happiness is almost constant guilt that they haven’t achieved their potential, haven’t been all that they could be.
If you’re using the Weschler as your guide to the definition, then it’s not ‘adapting an environment to your advantage,’ it is as I said earlier: A better definition is figuring out what is necessary to adapt to whatever environment and the speed at which you can do so
You’re splitting hairs.
Wechsler is just selling his IQ test. he’s just making shit up.
in reality the most any IQ test can measure is the fabulous g. and psychometrics is fabulism.
another characteristic of smart people, or those who think they’re smart, which militates against their happiness is almost constant guilt that they haven’t achieved their potential, haven’t been all that they could be.
Although there’s a positive correlation between IQ and happiness and IQ and income, the fact that so many smart people are unhappy or poor is indeed a paradox if intelligence is the mental ability to adapt/problem solve. I suppose the explanation is that the world is designed for the normal, and the further you deviate from normality, the more intelligence you need to adapt to a world that is not adapted to you. So while each additional IQ point increases the ability to adapt, it also increases the amount of adapting you must do.
Chris Langan ended up almost being jealous of people with average IQs.
Wechsler is just selling his IQ test. he’s just making shit up
No, Wechsler had a sincere passion for understanding the nature of adult intelligence, even annoying colleagues by obsessing over the topic from every possible angle. That’s not marketing.
in reality the most any IQ test can measure is the fabulous g. and psychometrics is fabulism.
Yes, from a scientific perspective, IQ is simply a measure of g. In fact Jensen argued that psychologists should stop using the world “intelligence” and simply speak of g because g has scientific precision while definitions of intelligence were vague and open-ended. Although interestingly, Jensen felt it was okay to use the word “intelligence” as an inter-species concept, but not for describing variation within a species.
That isn’t what the word means. Like I said you’re just putting square pegs in round holes.
An adaptation per se makes an organism better suited to its an environment. So if X or Y is an adaptation then qua adaptation it is beneficial no further cost/benefit calculus necessary.
If I choose not to do X because the guilt would be “too much” it doesn’t matter — my refusal to do X is maladaptive. Indeed, the guilt is maladaptive, too.
If the guilt results from a violation of logically consistent norms then it’s similar to a WISC subtest and can be solved.
And there is a wide difference between adapting your environment to your advantage and figuring out how to adapt to your environment. One involves making everyone else behave like a Christian and the other involves learning to do non-Christian things.
You should scale back the definition. Understanding the world is good enough.
Smart people are smart enough to both understand the various moralities espoused and that the world does not operate in accordance with them. The inconsistencies, hypocrisy, and unfairness are easier to see.
so if smarter people are happier because they rend to be richer and healthier all else isn’t equal, is it?
A 2005 study of intelligence and emotional health conducted at the University of Edinburgh found no correlation between brains and happiness . According to the results, greater intelligence acts as a double-edged sword when it comes to happiness. On the one hand, smarter people are better equipped to provide for themselves; on the other, those same people may strive continually to achieve more and be less satisfied with the status quo. At low-income levels, the issue of resource acquisition may make a greater impact on personal happiness, but the effects aren’t long-lasting. Just like the fading bliss of new romance, at some point, the happiness honeymoon ends.
Rather than intelligence, the most salient factor contributing to self-reported happiness in the University of Edinburgh study was quality of life.
and as Swank has mentioned I think there are many psychological traits other than intelligence which are adaptive or maladaptive.
so what is called social intelligence and emotional intelligence is very adaptive in the modern world, but pumpkin iirc is against either of these traits having the name “intelligence”.
but pumpkin’s ability to adapt itself sounds more like “street smarts” anyway. and i’ve known enough people with high IQs who didn’t have street smarts to know that g is bollocks.
“Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.”
—Hemingway
An adaptation per se makes an organism better suited to its an environment. So if X or Y is an adaptation then qua adaptation it is beneficial no further cost/benefit calculus necessary.
You love splitting hairs. Beneficial means the benefits outweighs the costs.
If I choose not to do X because the guilt would be “too much” it doesn’t matter — my refusal to do X is maladaptive. Indeed, the guilt is maladaptive, too.
In many situations, guilt is a maladaptive emotion, but intelligence is a cognitive trait, not an emotional one. As I said, I define intelligence as the mental ability to adapt, not the emotional willingness to adapt. Emotions are just one of the many things intelligence must adapt to.
If the guilt results from a violation of logically consistent norms then it’s similar to a WISC subtest and can be solved.
If the guilt is caused by cognitive confusion, then yes, you have a point. My point is make sure you distinguish between cognitive and emotional.
And there is a wide difference between adapting your environment to your advantage and figuring out how to adapt to your environment. One involves making everyone else behave like a Christian and the other involves learning to do non-Christian things.
In most cases the distinction is just semantics. When humans figured out how to make fire, were they adapting the environment to their advantage or adapting to their environment? Both. You can word it however you prefer; both are valid definitions of intelligence.
another psychological trait which is very adaptive is the ability to identify one’s own weaknesses and those characteristics he can’t change or can’t change any time soon. thus he stops banging his head against a wall and finds a niche where his weakness aren’t weaknesses. but even smart people are loath to admit they have any weaknesses.
It’s not hair splitting. What you’re trying to say is that feeling guilt will cause an individual to engage in several other maladaptive behaviors as a chain-reaction from the one adaptive behavior he or she will ‘gain,’ which will make the gain not worth it on balance. And maybe so. HOWEVER…the individual in question is still less adaptive than another individual who can either a) solve the guilt or b) not feel the guilt. Hence, failing to do X for that individual is still maladaptive — he cannot make himself better suited to his environment. An adaptation, by its nature, is beneficial. Failure to gain or make the adaptation is maladaptive. Guilt, no guilt. It’s not ‘different for everyone.’ So the cost/benefit stuff, after we establish that X or Y is adaptive, is irrelevant.
It only seems subjective because how we define ‘success’ in society can be multi-faceted and subjective precisely because in many ways it is removed from ‘evolution.’ However, it’s an evolutionary term, so…survival and reproduction are the guideposts. Of course, this is why trying to apply Darwin to social settings is a bit much…
‘My point is make sure you distinguish between cognitive and emotional.’
But if this individual’s guilt arises from a cognitively constructed system, then it becomes a cognitive problem, and I’m unsure why that wouldn’t be the case with a “complex” moral code.
‘In most cases the distinction is just semantics. When humans figured out how to make fire, were they adapting the environment to their advantage or adapting to their environment? Both.’
One is a subset of the other. Adapting the environment to your advantage would always be a type of adaptation to an environment, but it’s not vice versa. When it comes to nature, man’s main means of adaptation has been the former. But in society, all bets are off. Sometimes you go with the crowd, sometimes you make the crowd come to you, and because morality concerns itself with people-people interaction, it’s anything but a trivial distinction.
One is ‘just following orders’ during the Holocaust. The other is organizing resistance.
‘but pumpkin’s ability to adapt itself sounds more like “street smarts” anyway.’
The presence of many ‘high IQ’ libertarians is proof that several high IQ individuals —- millions — lack street smarts.
and as Swank has mentioned I think there are many psychological traits other than intelligence which are adaptive or maladaptive.
Not all psychological traits are mental abilities. Intelligence is the mental ability to adapt, not the emotional willingness to adapt.
so what is called social intelligence and emotional intelligence is very adaptive in the modern world, but pumpkin iirc is against either of these traits having the name “intelligence”.
I’m against the term emotional intelligence because it confuses the distinction between emotion and intellect. I believe emotions generate the problems that need to be solved and the intelligence does the problem solving, so it’s important to understand the difference. Many tests of so-called emotional intelligence appear to just be personality tests, so the concept has created more confusion than clarity.
But I like the term social IQ. There’s definitely a cognitive component to social skills as evidenced by the Theory of Mind (ToM) impairment in autistics, so social cognition is definitely part of intelligence, but it’s important to not confuse social IQ with personality traits which may be even more important to interpersonal interactions, even though they’re separate from intelligence.
but pumpkin’s ability to adapt itself sounds more like “street smarts” anyway. and i’ve known enough people with high IQs who didn’t have street smarts to know that g is bollocks.
But it’s so much more than street smarts. Street smart people can adapt the real world to their advantage by getting rich, so on one level, they seem way more adaptable than some nerdy scientist who makes less than six figures. And yet it’s the nerdy scientist who might have a breakthrough discovery that solves humanity’s biggest problems and adapts the environment to our collective advantage on a massive scale.
And so in the common langugage, both the scientist and the rich are honored for their intelligence. The rich are honored with expressions like “if you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich?” and “a fool and his money are soon parted” and the scientist is honored with expressions like “it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out”.
Because both making money and advancing science demonstrate adaptability, culture honors the intelligence of both activities.
But if this individual’s guilt arises from a cognitively constructed system, then it becomes a cognitive problem, and I’m unsure why that wouldn’t be the case with a “complex” moral code.
Because humans differ in basic emotional sensitivity, quite independently of the cognitive systems they construct. Some people are just cold blooded evil psychopaths; others are loving and compassionate.
But I agree that if someone feels debilitating guilt because they misunderstood some moral system, then yes, that’s stupidity.
One is a subset of the other. Adapting the environment to your advantage would always be a type of adaptation to an environment, but it’s not vice versa. When it comes to nature, man’s main means of adaptation has been the former. But in society, all bets are off. Sometimes you go with the crowd, sometimes you make the crowd come to you, and because morality concerns itself with people-people interaction, it’s anything but a trivial distinction.
Regardless of whether you go with the crowd or make the crowd come to you, you’ve arguably adapted the environment to your advantage because you’ve made the crowd accept you. But to avoid ambiguity, I’ll just say intelligence is the mental ability to adapt situations to your advantage which is similar to the exact words my high school chemistry teacher used when he gave me the definition:
https://brainsize.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/what-is-intelligence-2/
.
criminals of all races have more children than billionaires.
criminals of all races have more children than billionaires.
In an age where almost everyone can survive long enough to have children, it’s no longer a sign of cognitive adaptability. Just the opposite, the most adaptable people remember to take advantage of birth control & adaptability itself may be negative correlated with sex drive (r-K theory).
This is a paradox of course, because cognitive adaptability (intelligence) is the ultimate evolutionary adaptation, yet from an evolutionary perspective, has become maladaptive in the modern era. But that’s because intelligence can only solve the problems we are motivated to solve. Humans never evolved a strong motivation to have kids because the sex drive was strong enough for kids to happen accidentally. Now that humans outsmarted nature by figuring out how to have sex without getting pregnant, motivation to have kids in their own right might be evolving .
It’s not a misunderstanding. It’s failure to invent. The ‘holy war’ concept is an example. It’s a way to solve a problem.
And if you go with the crowd you aren’t adapting the environment to your advantage. An adaptation makes X or Y more suited to environmental conditions. Adapting an environment to your advantage is making X or Y environment more suited to your conditions. Going with the crowd and gaining acceptance is not making the group more suited to your conditions. What you’ve done to gain acceptance is drop all of your conditions.
‘ it’s no longer a sign of cognitive adaptability’
But the word itself delimits its application to survival and reproduction. That’s the problem and that’s why social darwinism is jive. As I have said, you are stretching the meaning of the word beyond all recognition.
It’s not a misunderstanding. It’s failure to invent. The ‘holy war’ concept is an example. It’s a way to solve a problem.
But as long as you understand that someone who rationalizes away their guilt by telling himself he’s fighting a holy war is not necessarily more inventive than someone who can’t rationalize away the guilt. The latter person may simply feel the guilt too strongly or be too rational to accept a religious argument.
And if you go with the crowd you aren’t adapting the environment to your advantage. An adaptation makes X or Y more suited to environmental conditions. Adapting an environment to your advantage is making X or Y environment more suited to your conditions. Going with the crowd and gaining acceptance is not making the group more suited to your conditions. What you’ve done to gain acceptance is drop all of your conditions.
It’s a continuum. The person who can gain the crowd’s acceptance while maintaining his values is more adaptable than the person who can gain the crowd’s acceptance only by sacrificing his values who is more adaptable than the person who is rejected by the crowd despite sacrificing his values. I don’t really care whether you say “adapt to your environment” or “adapt your environment to you”. What matters is the underlying concept: intelligence is the mental ability to minimize your cost/benefit ratio.
But the word itself delimits its application to survival and reproduction. That’s the problem and that’s why social darwinism is jive. As I have said, you are stretching the meaning of the word beyond all recognition.
The dictionary defines “adapt” in multiple ways:
: to change your behavior so that it is easier to live in a particular place or situation
: to change (something) so that it functions better or is better suited for a purpose
: to change (a movie, book, play, etc.) so that it can be presented in another form
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adapt
I’m using the second definition, though all three are examples of intelligence: Intelligence is the cognitive ability to change your behavior so that it functions better or is better suited for a purpose. In other words, intelligence is the cognitive ability to use your behavior to your advantage, or more simply, intelligence is the cognitive ability to take advantage of your environment. The key term being “cognitive ability”: if behavior is maladaptive for physical or emotional reasons, that needn’t imply stupidity by my definition.
Now ultimately intelligence evolved because it allowed us to survive (and by extension reproduce) but that doesn’t mean every intelligent person will behave in ways that enhance survival, because intelligence was not the only behavioral trait that evolved for that purpose. Emotions did too. Emotions evolved so that we would be motivated to survive; so that survival would be our primary goal, and then intelligence would figure out how to adapt our behavior to meet that goal. But if one’s behavior is maladaptive at the Darwinian level, you have to take the time to decide whether the malfunctioning is occurring for cognitive or emotional reasons. Only if it’s the former should the person be considered stupid. If it’s the latter, “mentally ill” is a more appropriate description
Yes, you are correct. But Spain’s Jewish problem was really a national unity issue, not because of Jewish aberrant behaviors. It was more of a Muslim problem. Muslims were more dangerous to the Catholic rulers than the Jews, so the Spaniards kick all the Muslims out of Spain. They allowed Jews to convert to Catholicism and stay in the country. No multicultural nation becomes powerful and functional, when you have different demographics with different agendas that you find in Anglosphere countries and certain Northern Euro nations. Of course, Jews love these countries, because their cognitive profiles are more compatible with “outsider” thinking, which is more suited for them.
”They aren’t lying. I have no doubt they can perform great feats of memory and whatever-else. The question is how did they get to that level of skill? Something like a ‘photographic memory’ would be a trait that was inborn and allowed an individual to perform memory-feats at an extremely high level. We have yet to observe it. Even Kim Peek’s claims were never verified.
Instead, when actual experts study these feats, they find people using strategies that anyone could use.”
You never answer my questions, why*** You consider yourself as ”smart”. Your environment was superior to other who AREN’T smart** Your cultural environment was superior during its childhood** You ARE intelligent, SMARTER than others** Your ”iq” is higher than Obama**
Then, you already test its affirmations for yourself*** Try and tell me what was the result his experience, =).
I’m debating with a irrational, dogmatic and religious person, because all pseudo-atheists liberalists, are like that. Exactly same patterns (dogmas) and move mountains to prove ”their” point of views. But to prove the obvious, you no need great effort to do, the objective reality is easy to see. Observation and analysis.
If a savant person as you said before, aren’t able to do mundane things, how can be possible that they can be apt to develop sofisticated strategies to learn super quick certain cognitive activity******
You cannot explain how prodigy children can learn to read and write with less than 2 years old when the normalcy is that literacy happens during 4 to 7 years old.
‘You consider yourself as ”smart”.’
I’ve actually made no remarks on my IQ or ‘smarts.’ I may have said something I did at one point or another was ‘smart,’ or consistent with ‘smarts,’ but it was just my opinion. If you ask pumpkin, me and jorge are idiots. So two different opinions — and you know what they say about opinions.
‘Your ”iq” is higher than Obama**’
I never said my IQ was higher than Barack Obama’s. I have no idea. All I know is that Barack likely has a high IQ.
‘If a savant person as you said before, aren’t able to do mundane things, how can be possible that they can be apt to develop sofisticated strategies to learn super quick certain cognitive activity’
I already told you that I don’t believe they learn ‘super quick.’ I believe they apply brute force to whatever task is at hand. Repetition that would tire normal people out doesn’t phase them. If I had to guess, I would say that this type of endurance is common in ‘autistic’ individuals and in high achievers generally.
‘You cannot explain how prodigy children can learn to read and write with less than 2 years old when the normalcy is that literacy happens during 4 to 7 years old.’
Read and write what?
Like I said, saying that a child can learn to read or write early on is meaningless. They are vague terms. I’m not saying it’s impossible, I’m just saying that the fires behind these smoke clouds tend to be much smaller than you’d expect.
”I’ve actually made no remarks on my IQ or ‘smarts.’ I may have said something I did at one point or another was ‘smart,’ or consistent with ‘smarts,’ but it was just my opinion. If you ask pumpkin, me and jorge are idiots. So two different opinions — and you know what they say about opinions.”
Personal opinions without any relation with reality is a simple factoid made by our own minds. Even, most of my speculations are based on something related with reality, with objective truth.
But, but, but… in other posts here you say that my comments are vague speculations while their comments are based in fact. Now, you use humility tactic. 😉
”Religions” are based on opinions or factoids. This blog is to debate about ”facts spectrum” where some facts are near to reality and others will more distant. I question to you if you consider yourself as ”smart”, because if its answer was positive then you would be flagrantly hypocrite because you deny the right to others to be pride about itself, intelligence, race, color eyes, but maintain this right to yourself.
Doesn’t matter the diversity of opinions but the diversity of RIGHT opinions OR more near to reality-opinions.
”I never said my IQ was higher than Barack Obama’s. I have no idea. All I know is that Barack likely has a high IQ. ”
I did not ask seriously.
”I already told you that I don’t believe they learn ‘super quick.’ I believe they apply brute force to whatever task is at hand. Repetition that would tire normal people out doesn’t phase them. If I had to guess, I would say that this type of endurance is common in ‘autistic’ individuals and in high achievers generally. ”
Savant minds are over specialized, to music, to paint, to do math calculus… Yes, AND this similarities are not DIRECT product of culture or environment.
”Read and write what?
Like I said, saying that a child can learn to read or write early on is meaningless. They are vague terms. I’m not saying it’s impossible, I’m just saying that the fires behind these smoke clouds tend to be much smaller than you’d expect.”
Great part of psychologists agree with me because they observe this in its professional routine. You show to be highly ignorant about psychology.
I don’t deny anyone the right to be smart. I just think that being smart is something you become more than something you simply are.
Even if culture and environment reign supreme this doesn’t mean just anyone can become Feynman.
and that is the position of Flowers for Algernon and its movie Charlie. after the surgery Charlie is put through a crash course “smart studies”.
Indeed, they learn but
this learning is super higher specialized, is explain why they learn super quickly. Savant aren’t as normal mental deficient. You can accept that* Understand that**
Savant not only learn to normal levels, they learn super quickly to super levels, a genius levels, and surprise, some them can be creative. Savant syndrome is a dead-end of environmentalist determinism.
”“[S]cience has never found a single verifiable case of photographic memory” was on the page I cited.”
Like thoughts, we can’t SEE thoughts to prove that it there. Photographic memory is based on self-report like many other cognitive things like emotion. But, it there. You affirmations are to prove that ”whites and blacks aren’t cognitively discrepant”. You are a prostitute, sneak poisonous. A kind of ”person” like you are completely useless, only to advance the bad agendas.
”I don’t deny anyone the right to be smart.”
And you can’t.
”I just think that being smart is something you become more than something you simply are.”
MORE or COMPLETELY MORE?? I think that intelligence is not ”i’m” but ”i have”, but, when you appropriate something, you become like that.
”Even if culture and environment reign supreme this doesn’t mean just anyone can become Feynman.”
What it mean???
gene + tics= ??
Pumpkin,
i think that when you said ”intelligence = adaptability”, you are unconsciously affirming that ”higher functioning sociopathy” is a higher manifestation of intelligence. But, we are social specie… Empathy is very very important and even psycho-ones need to other people to survive (parasite or,and shoot). Then, empathy is one of the most important traits that define human intelligence.
i think that when you said ”intelligence = adaptability”, you are unconsciously affirming that ”higher functioning sociopathy” is a higher manifestation of intelligence.
When I say intelligence = adaptability, I mean intelligence = cognitive adaptability. And a sociopath is not really adaptable in any sense, he’s just emotionally (not cognitively) well adapted to a society full of trusting people. There’s a difference between being adapted, and being adaptable, and there’s a difference between emotional adaptations and cognitive adaptations.
But because my definition of intelligence is Darwinian, I think it’s perfectly natural for you to think of sociopaths, because nature, survival of the fittest, is a cold blooded game where strong animals exploit and kill weak animals to advance their own interests, so naturally, when you imagine intelligence in its original context, you’ll think of machiavellian intelligence or evil genius. The irony is that intelligent people are more moral than dumb people, even though intelligence itself probably largely evolved to allow life forms to exploit and kill each other.
Generally can be like that, but in many non-human species, altruism and empathy, can be correlated with ”altruistic behavior predisposition”.
Nope. When you talk very well about Oprah and Obama, you show us that is not very able to detect ,remotely, somebody who can be sociopath.
”Fittest” in human context would ‘people with predisposition to be longer live’ and not to be a famous and great asshole, in a human context.
Don’t there original context, there our context, that we are more or less adapted. ”Darwinian context” probably doesn’t implies to be a parasitic person, Darwin disagree with you.
Other thing that i thought, don’t exist differences among ”emotional” and ”cognitive” adaptations because are the same. Intelligence is observed and treated as divided bio-identity. You have personality, intelect AND intelligence. Nope, both are same thing. When we accept that can be smart without have real justice sense, then we can accept ”our” sociopoliticians.
No, intelligence and emotion are two distinct concepts. Intelligence is that which thinks, reasons, knows, and understands. Emotion is that which feels, wills, and wants. Intelligence is the ability to problem solve. Emotions are the problems we are trying to solve. If I want food, that is a physical or emotional desire. Then I use my intelligence to figure out how to get food.
Empathy is very very important and even psycho-ones need to other people to survive (parasite or,and shoot). Then, empathy is one of the most important traits that define human intelligence.
But keep in mind there are two kinds of empathy. Emotional empathy and cognitive empathy. Emotional empathy is compassion for what someone else is feeling, and cognitive empathy is the ability to understand what someone else is feeling. Sociopaths/psychopaths lack emotional empathy, Autistics lack cognitive empathy.
Cognitive empathy is a defining trait of human intelligence. Emotional empathy is a defining trait of human personality. A psychopath is emotionally impaired, not intellectually impaired.
Like other comment that i write above, same thing, personality and intelligence correlate each other, are in same domain. Can’t be trated as separate things. I know the differences and the existence of two kind of empathies. Personality influences intelligence and intelligence influences personality, and the stronger was the personality, the stronger will its influence in intelligence.
will and not was, grrrrrrrrrrrr
Like other comment that i write above, same thing, personality and intelligence correlate each other, are in same domain. Can’t be trated as separate things.
Of course they can. Intelligence is an ability. Personality is not an ability.
In a savage capitalism, high functioning sociopaths will more adapted than empathetic people.
Yes, and high functional sociopaths do better in countries with less national unity and more diversity. This is the reason as to why Jews cannot impose their will in Southern Euro nations.
The jewish control in Southern euro countries is less direct or seems less direct, but the systematic supression of Golden dawn in Greece show that you no need of jews if you have useful idiots to do the work. The most important is not the number of persons, but the control of key positions in society like media. In nature, parasites are Always little than their host. Southern euro country in some aspects are worst than North, like native ethnic (identitarian) fertility rates.
But Southern Euro region has less diversity and more national unity. The Jew parasite is only effectively functional in more multicultural environment.
I disagree partially with you. All Southern euro countries are changing to non-monolitic mode.