NationStates Jolt Archive

Who is the most intelligent person on NSG?

This thread is worthless without a poll.

me

Errr....Max Barry?
<_<
>_>

fass

silly question, it's obviously me

LG. *nod*

Bottle.

I am.

I also happen to be Sparticus.

Depends on what you mean by smart. Overall I'd go The Cat-Tribe.

*hangs around, stroking ego, in the hope that somebody will say me* :p

EDIT: Personally I'd probably say Bottle, Grave N Idle, The Cat Tribes or Jocabia. I'd also vote LG for being the best at concealing his intelligence.

LG. *nod*

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/eek3.gif

Clearly the OP is not, considering his failure at poll-making.

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/eek3.gif

You really do have a smilie for everything don't you? :D

wait...there's intellegent people on NS? :p

You really do have a smilie for everything don't you? :D

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/nuts.gif

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/nuts.gif

Yup, I think LG wins the thread :p

Clearly the OP is not, considering his failure at poll-making.

Meh, stupid people need a poll I suppose:p

Seriously, shut up.

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/nuts.gif

That bag of tricks has to be fucking huge.



OT: I'd have to say either Bottle or TCT, I'd also throw Jocabia in there just for shits and giggles.

LG really gets his own category of Most Mischieviously Intelligent NSer.

Which he auto-wins.

silly question, it's obviously me

but seriously, i'd probably vote for bottle as smartest.

On a related note: Where the hell is TCT?

That bag of tricks has to be fucking huge.



OT: I'd have to say either Bottle or TCT, I'd also throw Jocabia in there just for shits and giggles.

LG really gets his own category of Most Mischieviously Intelligent NSer.

Which he auto-wins.

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/woohoo.gif

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/woohoo.gif

You know, if a BS in Physics is what helped create LG as he is today, I may need to consider getting out of this field...

wait...there's intellegent people on NS? :p

No, just let the people talk. It makes them feel important and smart. :D

You know, if a BS in Physics is what helped create LG as he is today, I may need to consider getting out of this field...

George Carlin once said that he hates all scientists except theoretical physicists because at least they are totally nuts. :)

George Carlin once said that he hates all scientists except theoretical physicists because at least they are totally nuts. :)
You have a BSc in Physics?

We should start a club.

George Carlin once said that he hates all scientists except theoretical physicists because at least they are totally nuts. :)

It's the truth. As scary as that may seem.

It's obviously NOT me. :p

You have a BSc in Physics?

We should start a club.

"The Fifth Force". :)

You have a BSc in Physics?

We should start a club.

oooh a club.

Can I join?

George Carlin once said that he hates all scientists except theoretical physicists because at least they are totally nuts. :)

Anyone that quotes the genius of George Carlin gets my vote.

I officially nominate Lunatic Goofballs as the smartest person on NSG. Any seconds?

oooh a club.

Can I join?

You must be tested. Answer this question:

If you are caught in the event horizon of a black hole, How long will it take you to scratch your butt?

You must be tested. Answer this question:

If you are caught in the event horizon of a black hole, How long will it take you to scratch your butt?

the answer, depending on exactly how you view a blackhole and its event horizon is either:

a) instantaniously

or

b) never

You really do have a smilie for everything don't you? :DLG's had the first two for ages... not so sure about the woohoo one. I'm not sure I recognise it.

Anyway, all of you are out of practice. No one is meant to take a threat like this seriously and everything claims that they are the smartest and then posts their internet IQ score of 168 or whatever.

"The Fifth Force". :)

pft, there's only one force. All the rest is perspective :p

the answer, depending on exactly how you view a blackhole and its event horizon is either:

a) instantaniously

or

b) neverThe answer is 50cm, stoopid.

I can beleive no one's said this yet, but I'm gonna nomanate FreedomandGlory, his words moved me to make some changes in my life.















Namely, after realizing that people like him are out there, I bought new locks for my doors, got a new security system for my house, and picked up a much bigger gun.

This thread is worthless without a poll.

This thread is worthless period.

oooh a club.

Can I join?

Depends. Are you, or have you ever been, a physics major, or insane?

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/eek3.gif

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/nuts.gif

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/woohoo.gif
I rest my case.:)

You must be tested. Answer this question:

If you are caught in the event horizon of a black hole, How long will it take you to scratch your butt?
Depends...is it a Tuesday, or September?

Il Ruffino wins hands-down.

Bottle, TCT or Fass. They all got their strengths... And I happen to agree with 95% of the time, which makes me somewhat biased I guess.

After seeing the 'swift kick in the nuts' smilie, I shall have to cast my vote for LG.

Oh, and certainly not me. I'm just a troll.

"The Fifth Force". :)
oOoOo... I like it.

I can beleive no one's said this yet, but I'm gonna nomanate FreedomandGlory, his words moved me to make some changes in my life.















Namely, after realizing that people like him are out there, I bought new locks for my doors, got a new security system for my house, and picked up a much bigger gun.
That only makes him smart if he's in the business of selling locks, security systems and guns.

Depends. Are you, or have you ever been, a physics major, or insane?

Ooh, ooh! We're insane! Pick us!

Errr....Max Barry?
<_<
>_> Who?

Ooh, ooh! We're insane! Pick us!

Er...insane and old enough to be in college.

Edit: Or have been in college.

The most intelligent person on NSG is the person who, upon seeing a few of the topics, moves on for greener pastures ;)

LG. *nod*

I'm gonna go out on a limb here (always fun), and say......Ashmoria!

Vetalia and some other person i've seen seem very smart as well, however the real mastermind is the one pulling the strings... or the guy sitting under a tree. I imagine that is LG, he always struck me as a natural Derren Brown type.

EDIT: The other person was the one who made a thread a while back, about how brain scans are advancing, and i think it lead to arguing that idealism and realism are two sides of the same coin. Probably Vetalia again knowing my memory.

Who?

[violet]

http://smiley.onegreatguy.net/neener.gif

I'm gonna go out on a limb here (always fun), and say......Ashmoria!

Vetalia and some other person i've seen seem very smart as well, however the real mastermind is the one pulling the strings... or the guy sitting under a tree. I imagine that is LG, he always struck me as a natural Derren Brown type.
Yeah, I find them to be sensible folks.

Yeah, I find them to be sensible folks.
Sensible ain't got nothing to do with intelligence. Well, mostly.


The smartest people on NSG, in no particular order, are Vetalia, LG, Bottle, Melchor Unchained and Cat Tribe.

AnarchyeL is "the" smartest person. As far as I can tell, anyway.

Vittos the City Sacker, Free Soviets, Vetalia, Willamena, The Cat-Tribe, Andaluciae, Xenophobialand, Melkor Unchained, MeansToAnEnd/FreedomAndGlory, and a bunch of others who I forgot to name are up there too.

AnarchyeL is "the" smartest person. As far as I can tell, anyway.

Vittos the City Sacker, Free Soviets, Vetalia, Willamena, The Cat-Tribe, Andaluciae, Xenophobialand, Melkor Unchained, MeansToAnEnd/FreedomAndGlory, and a bunch of others who I forgot to name are up there too.
Wait, what? Why is the troll being nominated for being one of the smartest people on here?

Wait, what? Why is the troll being nominated for being one of the smartest people on here?

His pieces are very well crafted pieces of humour.

I'm also pretty sure he's on of the mastodons of the forum having a little fun.

DCD.

Oh wait, HE GOT BANNED!

Wait, what? Why is the troll being nominated for being one of the smartest people on here?

Since when did trolling imply stupidity?

And I'm pretty sure there's at least some sincerity in what MTAE/F&G says.

AnarchyeL is "the" smartest person. As far as I can tell, anyway.

I forgot about AnarchyeL.

Cat-Tribe

Since when did trolling imply stupidity?

And I'm pretty sure there's at least some sincerity in what MTAE/F&G says.
Well... if there is any sincerity in what he says then shouldn't that rule him out right away as being intelligent?

Well... if there is any sincerity in what he says then shouldn't that rule him out right away as being intelligent?

The correlation between being intelligent and being right is tenuous at best.

Well... if there is any sincerity in what he says then shouldn't that rule him out right away as being intelligent?
Carl Rove

The correlation between being intelligent and being right is tenuous at best.

Especially if you're intelligence makes you realise that there is no such thing as being right:)

The correlation between being intelligent and being right is tenuous at best.
Maybe, but being crazy and consistently wrong doesn't make one smart either.

Especially if you're intelligence makes you realise that there is no such thing as being right:)

Can you be right about that?

Maybe, but being crazy and consistently wrong doesn't make one smart either.

No... but intelligently defending one's viewpoints, however absurd they may be, does.

The correlation between being intelligent and being right is tenuous at best.That's true under either of two circumstances:

1) We use a particularly narrow definition of "intelligent" that clearly differentiates it from such virtues as "reasonableness" and "wisdom."
2) We take "right" in an objective sense that might argue, for instance, that Newton was "wrong" because he did not anticipate Einstein.

Personally, I'm not convinced either approach is very useful.

Oh, and for the record my vote would go to Soheran. I can still run circles around him in an argument, but I'm not convinced that's due to greater intelligence as much as it is to greater study and knowledge. I'd say the relation is so indeterminate as to give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the innate virtue. ;)

No... but intelligently defending one's viewpoints, however absurd they may be, does.
He defends his viewpoints intelligently?!

me, duh.

Absolutely LG.

Can you be right about that?

Your hint at a statement about it not being right can't be right either....

It's logically incorrect to say logic is wrong, blah blah blah.

I really hate that circle, from the bottom of my heart....

Given that one of my friends calls us the "International Supidity Reserve", and others with whom I have no relationship of all reply to any mention of General with derisive laughter, I'm fairly certain that the honor is a rather empty one for whomever attains it.

1) We use a particularly narrow definition of "intelligent" that clearly differentiates it from such virtues as "reasonableness" and "wisdom."

Something of that is at play here, but was not what I was getting at.

2) We take "right" in an objective sense that might argue, for instance, that Newton was "wrong" because he did not anticipate Einstein.

Yes, and this was more in line with my point, though it does not hit it exactly.

No one develops his or her views in the realm of perfect reason... differing levels of exposure, and all kinds of emotional biases, interfere with the thought of even the most intelligent.

If it were true that intelligence led with regular consistency to the truth, or even to a more limited notion of "the best version of the truth yet" or "the truth within the best available means of gathering knowledge", then there would be something of a consensus among intelligent people--a consensus that does not appear to exist.

Somewhat cynically I think that this is because intelligent people are really, really good at justifying their own beliefs, right or wrong.

I'm also pretty sure he's on of the mastodons of the forum having a little fun.

i've thought the same - i think i have a fairly good guess as to who he is, actually.

i've thought the same - i think i have a fairly good guess as to who he is, actually.

Who?

Who?

Seconded.

i've thought the same - i think i have a fairly good guess as to who he is, actually.

Some of what MTAE/F&G has said doesn't sound at all like satire... though admittedly that has almost entirely been on topics where simply repeating a particularly absurd version of the party line didn't suffice.

If it were true that intelligence led with regular consistency to the truth, or even to a more limited notion of "the best version of the truth yet" or "the truth within the best available means of gathering knowledge", then there would be something of a consensus among intelligent people--a consensus that does not appear to exist.Sure it does, with respect to a very great many matters of fact.

When it comes to everything else, I'm not so sure "truth" is a word much worth worrying about.

If intelligence doesn't lead with much consistency to accurate evaluations of truth, we should be crying foul that admissions to MIT discriminate in favor of the intelligent.

If intelligence doesn't give some advantage in evaluating claims to truth, why should we use intelligence as a standard of discrimination in any field whatsoever?

Bottle, TCT or Fass. They all got their strengths... And I happen to agree with 95% of the time, which makes me somewhat biased I guess.

Usch, jag spyr. Jag? Snälla du, jag hatar de här (im)popularitetstrådarna och fastän jag uppskattar tanken, så hoppas jag sannerligen inte att du verkligen tror på det själv att jag skulle vara särskilt begåvad. Ett spån kanske man inte är, men det är allt också.

Fass.

ME! :mp5::mp5:

Sure it does, with respect to a very great many matters of fact.

Maybe... but this is just as attributable to knowledge as it is to intelligence. The same kind of consensus exists, if to a somewhat lesser degree, among people not of exceptional intelligence.

And even where there is a broad consensus in favor of a certain truth--say, evolution, or global warming--there are still intelligent people who refuse to accept it.

When it comes to everything else, I'm not so sure "truth" is a word much worth worrying about.

"Limited protection for the industries of developing nations is important to securing long-term economic growth."

"Increases in the minimum wage, by artificially increasing labor costs, ultimately tend to only increase unemployment by reducing the demand for jobs."

"Public ownership of the means of production, by destroying or degrading the system of market valuation that is the necessary foundation of the efficient allocation of goods, will overwhelmingly tend to lead to economic stagnation and ultimately to totalitarianism."

Are these not matters of truth or falsity?

If intelligence doesn't give some advantage in evaluating claims to truth,

It does.

This "advantage", however, is a pretty flimsy guarantee when it comes to a specific opinion of a particular intelligent person.

With Age Comes Wisdom

I guess that be me... Most of you all are 15 years old... Im a good 10 years older, hence more wisdom....

Maybe... but this is just as attributable to knowledge as it is to intelligence.Actually, it's more complicated still.

There is a tremendous worldwide consensus that some sort of deity exists. There is an inverse relationship between agreement with this consensus and intelligence. ;)

The same kind of consensus exists, if to a somewhat lesser degree, among people not of exceptional intelligence.Yes, but your point was that consensus does not exist on important matters of fact.

And even where there is a broad consensus in favor of a certain truth--say, evolution, or global warming--there are still intelligent people who refuse to accept it.Yes, but "consensus" and "unanimity" are not synonyms.

"Limited protection for the industries of developing nations is important to securing long-term economic growth."

"Increases in the minimum wage, by artificially increasing labor costs, ultimately tend to only increase unemployment by reducing the demand for jobs."

"Public ownership of the means of production, by destroying or degrading the system of market valuation that is the necessary foundation of the efficient allocation of goods, will overwhelmingly tend to lead to economic stagnation and ultimately to totalitarianism."

Are these not matters of truth or falsity?Yes, but you're missing the point.

Are there some matters of fact upon which intelligent people disagree--for which, in fact, there is little intelligent consensus?

Yes. But that's not really what the question is here.

The question is, all things being equal, wouldn't you rather ask a smart person than a dumb person?

If the answer is "yes," your behavior belies a belief that there is a correlation between intelligence and rightness about matters of fact.

If you really believe, of course, that there is no such correlation... then, all things being equal, you'd be just as well to flip a coin to decide between a smart person and a dumb one.

This "advantage", however, is a pretty flimsy guarantee when it comes to a specific opinion of a particular intelligent person.No, but that has nothing to do with the correlation as such.

If I have a dumb physicist and a smart veterinarian, I'll still prefer to ask the physicist my question about bosons.

But that only goes to show that there are other correlations at work. To measure a correlation you always have to assume the "all things being equal" part.

And other things being equal, I'd rather put my question to a smart person than a dumb one. In other words, given a choice between the smart physicist and his dumber classmate, I'll choose the smart one. And I think you will, too.

With Age Comes Wisdom

I guess that be me... Most of you all are 15 years old... Im a good 10 years older, hence more wisdom....

Not true. Most are in the 17-30 age range, I'd imagine, and there are several posters older than that.

With Age Comes Wisdom

I guess that be me... Most of you all are 15 years old... Im a good 10 years older, hence more wisdom....

That's an uninformed statement… :p

There you go... you learn something new everyday.... lol

If the answer is "yes," your behavior belies a belief that there is a correlation between intelligence and rightness about matters of fact.

Not one strong enough for me to be entitled to say, "This person is (repeatedly and rather egregiously) wrong. Therefore, this person is stupid"--especially not when the topics discussed tend to be ones where there is little consensus among intelligent people.

Which was my original point.

No, but that has nothing to do with the correlation as such.

Yes, it does.

Not in the sense of "does it exist" or not, no... but, again, the original question was whether wrongness was very indicative of a lack of intelligence.

If the correlation between intelligence and rightness is routinely surpassed by much stronger correlations, then whatever the situation ceteris paribus, when it comes to the practical question of actually evaluating people's intelligence better measures should be used.

I guess that be me... Most of you all are 15 years old... Im a good 10 years older, hence more wisdom....

Actually, I'm 19 1/2. You're only five and a half years ahead of me. :p

Cool Kid, hey please endorse me....

Not one strong enough for me to be entitled to say, "This person is (repeatedly and rather egregiously) wrong. Therefore, this person is stupid"No, but if someone is repeatedly and "egregiously" wrong then one or more of the following statements (and/or others in the same vein) must be true:

He/she is stupid.
He/she is remarkably ill-informed.
He/she is remarkably unwise--in the Platonic sense that he/she insists on sticking her/his nose in on subjects with which other, easily accessible people are much better informed.

especially not when the topics discussed tend to be ones where there is little consensus among intelligent people.If there is little consensus among intelligent people, how can he/she be repeatedly and egregiously wrong?

Fass, Corneliu and LG.

If intelligence doesn't give some advantage in evaluating claims to truth, why should we use intelligence as a standard of discrimination in any field whatsoever?good question.

The human being is a competitive beast.. we like to compare our "attributes".. its like a pissing contest.

and this forum -on average- is a pretty smart group.
so it is a good place to compete.

For example.. I am more exited when a top tier (intelligent++) player is trying to engage debate against me.

No, but if someone is repeatedly and "egregiously" wrong then one or more of the following statements (and/or others in the same vein) must be true:

He/she is stupid.
He/she is remarkably ill-informed.
He/she is remarkably unwise--in the Platonic sense that he/she insists on sticking her/his nose in on subjects with which other, easily accessible people are much better informed.

Or: "He/she accepts something egregiously false as true for reasons that at least in part are irrational, and--in large part because of his/her own capability to construct arguments to defend himself/herself--has not been convinced otherwise."

If there is little consensus among intelligent people, how can he/she be repeatedly and egregiously wrong?

"Homosexuality is unhealthy and destroys the social fabric" is an egregiously false statement... but also one with which plenty of intelligent people would agree, and have historically agreed.

For example.. I am more exited when a top tier (intelligent++) player is trying to engage debate against me.

I also try to increment my intelligence.

Or: "He/she accepts something egregiously false as true for reasons that at least in part are irrational, and--in large part because of his/her own capability to construct arguments to defend himself/herself--has not been convinced otherwise."Doesn't sound very smart to me.

"Homosexuality is unhealthy and destroys the social fabric" is an egregiously false statement... but also one with which plenty of intelligent people would agree, and have historically agreed.Ah, but now you're mixing standards.

The appropriate question is how many intelligent people informed on the relevant subject(s) TODAY would agree, and on this question we find that there is, in fact, a strong consensus that the statement is false. You may as well argue that a person is not stupid because he/she believes the Earth is flat... a statement with which many intelligent people in the world would have agreed at one time.

Thus, my point remains: someone who believes that homosexuality is unhealthy and destroys the social fabric is...

a) Very stupid.
b) Very ill-informed.
c) Very unwise.

Let us consider b) very ill-informed. This is a little hard to believe because it is relatively common knowledge today that the community of educated scholars, including psychologists of all stripes, sociologists, political scientists, what have you... agree that there is nothing inherently unhealthy or destructive about homosexuality.

While many people nevertheless maintain this argument, they generally know that they do so in the face of a contradictory pool of knowledge. Indeed, they only maintain their argument by insisting (to one extent or another) that it is inappropriate to base our judgments of social and psychological fact on the results of scientific attempts to gather knowledge.

Instead, they argue, we should base our judgments of social or psychological facts on things like a holy book written thousands of years ago and the interpretations of the book offered by theologians.

Sounds pretty stupid to me.

c) is even easier. It follows directly from the discussion of b).

Ruling these out, one explanation remains: stupidity.

Ability to construct an argument that you believe does not make you smart.

Ability to construct an argument that other people believe... maybe. ;)

Fass.
I was going to nominate you, but you nominated Fass and everyone knows that Fass is not intelligent. :p

Let us consider b) very ill-informed. This is a little hard to believe because it is relatively common knowledge today that the community of educated scholars, including psychologists of all stripes, sociologists, political scientists, what have you... agree that there is nothing inherently unhealthy or destructive about homosexuality.

Now they do, maybe.

They do now, and not, say, sixty years ago, not because of brilliant new scientific revelations about homosexuality but because of the massive cultural change engendered by the gay liberation movement.

That, if anything, is a rather definitive indication that there is much more at play in what the consensus of intelligent people is than who is right and who is wrong. It took cultural change to provide the space for reason to triumph over prejudice--even in the case of the most intelligent.

Ability to construct an argument that you believe does not make you smart.

No... but the ability to construct a good argument for what you believe might.

The irony is that the more absurd the belief is, the more intelligence and creativity it takes to construct a good argument for it.

I was going to nominate you, but you nominated Fass and everyone knows that Fass is not intelligent. :p

Well, he knows all those long four-letter words. :p And I nominate Vetalia. Or Bottle.

They do now, and not, say, sixty years ago, not because of brilliant new scientific revelations about homosexuality but because of the massive cultural change engendered by the gay liberation movement.Ah, but why then does it seem that the most intelligent, best educated people have led this change while the stupidest, least educated people are the ones dragging their feet?

No... but the ability to construct a good argument for what you believe might.Who says that it's good? Does it convince anyone? Does it score debate points? Or is just hard to answer?

I'm guessing it's mostly the last. And I can make lots of arguments that are hard to answer... usually not because they are good, but because they are so completely awful that few respondents should know where to begin.

The irony is that the more absurd the belief is, the more intelligence and creativity it takes to construct a good argument for it.Not really. Generally, to argue something absurd one only requires a willingness to question basic assumptions of the worldview from which it appears absurd. This may, indeed, require a great deal of creativity--don't think you can sneak that one in unnoticed--but it hardly takes any intelligence at all.

See Quine.

;)

The only rational way to answer this question is by getting everyone to post their IQ.

Generally, to argue something absurd one only requires a willingness to question basic assumptions of the worldview from which it appears absurd. This may, indeed, require a great deal of creativity--don't think you can sneak that one in unnoticed--but it hardly takes any intelligence at all.

Is the idea that we are the result of apparently random and purposeless material events, and that we thus possess no inherent teleological function, not one of the most absurd things ever? - and yet...

The only rational way to answer this question is by getting everyone to post their IQ.Maybe... if only you could trust them.

Even the ones who won't openly lie will all-too-willingly give the lie to themselves by posting results from one of those online "tests" that somehow never returns a value below 130...

:rolleyes:

Is the idea that we are the result of apparently random and purposeless material events, and that we thus possess no inherent teleological function, not one of the most absurd things ever? - and yet...You always have to take context into consideration.

Three hundred years ago? Yes, absurd.

Today? Quite the contrary.

Three hundred years ago? Yes, absurd.

Today? Quite the contrary.

Possibly, but the vast majority of the human race appears to still reject it out of hand.

Ah, but why then does it seem that the most intelligent, best educated people have led this change while the stupidest, least educated people are the ones dragging their feet?

Initially, this was certainly not the case... indeed, there were elements of the opposite.

The "best educated" gays, the ones located most comfortably in the establishment, tended to be least likely to rebel... some of them did precisely the opposite.

Direct action and resistance--which ended up being what actually ignited the gay liberation movement--came from society's margins.

Who says that it's good?

"Good" in that it makes a kind of sense.

Not really. Generally, to argue something absurd one only requires a willingness to question basic assumptions of the worldview from which it appears absurd. This may, indeed, require a great deal of creativity--don't think you can sneak that one in unnoticed--but it hardly takes any intelligence at all.

I think we may be thinking about different kinds of "absurdity."

I used it in the casual "egregiously false" sense of the word more than the "transparently illogical" one.

Possibly, but the vast majority of the human race appears to still reject it out of hand.

I think a big problem is that we confuse random origin with lack of teleological purpose. If God(s) see it fit to give us a purpose, it doesn't matter where we come from or what our origins are...people assume incorrectly that a lack of design in their development equates with a lack of purpose. That's why many people still have a hard time accepting evolution and the development of life from nonliving compounds.

Possibly, but the vast majority of the human race appears to still reject it out of hand.Right, and rejecting things "out of hand" has never been a mark of intelligence.

The only rational way to answer this question is by getting everyone to post their IQ.
This assumes that IQ tests are a good way to measure a person's intelligence and that intelligence can actually be quantified like that.

Initially, this was certainly not the case... indeed, there were elements of the opposite.

The "best educated" gays, the ones located most comfortably in the establishment, tended to be least likely to rebel... some of them did precisely the opposite.We're not evaluating people's behavior, we're evaluating their beliefs, and their justification of those beliefs.

Perfectly intelligent people often fail to act. This has little to do with their intelligence.

Direct action and resistance--which ended up being what actually ignited the gay liberation movement--came from society's margins.So? The question at hand regards the kinds of beliefs, and the kinds of justifications for those beliefs, that I may legitimately conclude to be "unintelligent."

"Good" in that it makes a kind of sense.I don't have time to learn how to read your mind. The question is, what kind? There are many kinds of "sense," most of them completely unrelated to intelligence.

I think we may be thinking about different kinds of "absurdity."

I used it in the casual "egregiously false" sense of the word more than the "transparently illogical" one.Who said anything about "transparently illogical"? I directed you to Quine for a reason: he would say there is no such thing.

If God(s) see it fit to give us a purpose

That's not within God's power... since we have not the slightest reason to care what He thinks.

If I write a book of laws and say that the purpose of humanity is to obey every command in it, that hardly provides us with a purpose... why should it be any different because God does it?

This thread is silly.

This thread is silly.
Of course it is. :D

Perfectly intelligent people often fail to act. This has little to do with their intelligence.

I was merely contesting your claim that the cause of gay rights has been spearheaded by the intelligent and well-educated... which, to the extent that it is true, is only true recently.

Which, again, only confirms my earlier point: intelligence is hardly much of a guarantee against prejudice. When that prejudice is strong, as it was several decades ago--especially when it is strong enough to cause severe personal inconvenience to a person who departs from it--the tendency to justify it rather than question it, even among very intelligent people, is also strong.

I don't have time to learn how to read your mind. The question is, what kind?

Logical sense. Coherent arguments with something of a basis in reality.

Who said anything about "transparently illogical"? I directed you to Quine for a reason: he would say there is no such thing.

The "absurdity" of which I am thinking is not about "question[ing] basic assumptions of the worldview from which it appears absurd"... except perhaps under a very broad conception of "worldview."

Again, it is closer to "egregiously false"... I can think, for instance, of a few reasonable (sort of) arguments for my earlier example of "Homosexuality is unhealthy and destroys the social fabric", and none of them involve radical departures from the basic understanding of reality underlying the usual defenses for gay rights.

You really do have a smilie for everything don't you? :D

So does German Nightmare.
However, LG has a few *special* ones for *special* occasions.

Who is the most intelligent person on NSG?

The clone of William James Sidis.
<<
>>

I was merely contesting your claim that the cause of gay rights has been spearheaded by the intelligent and well-educated... which, to the extent that it is true, is only true recently.Yes, and all I'm interested in is how to judge someone's intelligence right now.

I'm not interested in how I would have judged someone with the same opinions six years ago, sixty years ago, or six thousand years ago.

Which, again, only confirms my earlier point: intelligence is hardly much of a guarantee against prejudice.Who said anything about guarantee? I'm sticking to the "all things being equal" principle.

Logical sense. Coherent arguments with something of a basis in reality."Coherence" and "basis in reality" have nothing whatsoever to do with logic.

If "coherence" is what we're using as a standard of intelligence these days... I shudder to think.

Meanwhile, "basis in reality" would be a place to start, but I'm troubled by the qualifier "something of a." Moreover, the argument smells suspiciously of circularity when we're talking about judging a person's intelligent grasp of facts and now we're resorting to an argument about whether he/she bases this on reality... that is, on fact.

The "absurdity" of which I am thinking is not about "question[ing] basic assumptions of the worldview from which it appears absurd"... except perhaps under a very broad conception of "worldview."Yes, I mean the very broadest conception possible. Again, "Quine" for shorthand.

Again, it is closer to "egregiously false"... I can think, for instance, of a few reasonable (sort of) arguments for my earlier example of "Homosexuality is unhealthy and destroys the social fabric", and none of them involve radical departures from the basic understanding of reality underlying the usual defenses for gay rights.Now you're really getting circular.

If it is "egregiously" false, there is no good argument in its favor that an intelligent person would espouse.

If you think the argument is "good" or "reasonable," it must be on some other criterion than "convincingness."

I want to know what that criterion is. I want to know what this "sort of" that you keep using is actually meant to communicate.

Then we can decide whether that criterion is an appropriate one by which to judge an argument "intelligent."

Willamena
:eek:
Hey, where is that beautiful creature these days, anyway?

The only rational way to answer this question is by getting everyone to post their IQ.

Never took the test, actually.

I opted out in high school on the grounds that the test is poorly constructed and strongly influenced by cultural issues. I don't think that it's an accurate indicator of anything, besides one's ability to take a test.

No... but intelligently defending one's viewpoints, however absurd they may be, does.

Again it comes back to the sincerity.
As was said, quite a few of the threads they're involved with have a glean of real beauty of craft to them.

If intelligence doesn't lead with much consistency to accurate evaluations of truth, we should be crying foul that admissions to MIT discriminate in favor of the intelligent.

If intelligence doesn't give some advantage in evaluating claims to truth, why should we use intelligence as a standard of discrimination in any field whatsoever?

You know, the truly intelligent would have you guessing the whole time, if that be their aim.

Telling you everything you already know in a way you already identify with DOES NOT qualify the entity doing so as intelligent.

I don't think that it's an accurate indicator of anything, besides one's ability to take a test.

Entertaining that the two people to respond to that took it at face value. I was joking, thus the italics. Go and do a search for the train wrecks of threads that result when people start posting IQ scores. They are worse than you could possibly imagine.

Entertaining that the two people to respond to that took it at face value. I was joking, thus the italics. Go and do a search for the train wrecks of threads that result when people start posting IQ scores. They are worse than you could possibly imagine.

What's more fun is relating your identity in terms of statistics.
<<
>>

You know, the truly intelligent would have you guessing the whole time, if that be their aim.Perhaps. In which case I would criticize them for lacking certain other virtues, such as sincerity or wisdom.

Telling you everything you already know in a way you already identify with DOES NOT qualify the entity doing so as intelligent.No, it doesn't.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Entertaining that the two people to respond to that took it at face value.Actually, I didn't... really. When I said "maybe," I meant it in the sense that we don't even need to consider the question of the validity of the test here, because NS posters are not particularly well known for their honesty in reporting such results anyway.

For the record, I wholeheartedly agree that every IQ test used today is methodologically unsound.

:)

Yes, and all I'm interested in is how to judge someone's intelligence right now.

I'm not interested in how I would have judged someone with the same opinions six years ago, sixty years ago, or six thousand years ago.

Yes, times have changed. But there are still very intelligent people who are also very strongly prejudiced... and more importantly to the general point, there are plenty of other very strong prejudices that interfere with the rational thought of the most intelligent.

Not to mention the countless other interfering factors... lots of very intelligent people refuse to accept animal rights arguments because they like eating meat.

"Coherence" and "basis in reality" have nothing whatsoever to do with logic.

I was not repeating, rather expanding.

Meanwhile, "basis in reality" would be a place to start, but I'm troubled by the qualifier "something of a." Moreover, the argument smells suspiciously of circularity when we're talking about judging a person's intelligent grasp of facts and now we're resorting to an argument about whether he/she bases this on reality... that is, on fact.

Well, on generally accepted facts... facts that his or her opponent is likely to accept as true.

If you think the argument is "good" or "reasonable," it must be on some other criterion than "convincingness."

There are two elements here, I think.

First, they have a "best fit" nature... if I were compelled to argue for the given position, those would be the best arguments to use.

Second, they tend to be clever... they approach the topic from a direction that successfully evades the traditional simplistic responses, and requires more detailed and thoughtful responses to portray the absurdity.

For the record, I wholeheartedly agree that every IQ test used today is methodologically unsound.

:)

I wouldn't go that far, but what is all too often forgotten is that the only thing an IQ test can possibly measure is IQ.

I'm so smart that I'm not even getting involved in this pretentious, time-wasting conversation.

Yes, times have changed. But there are still very intelligent people who are also very strongly prejudiced... and more importantly to the general point, there are plenty of other very strong prejudices that interfere with the rational thought of the most intelligent.

Yes.

But the relevant question is, are intelligent people more prejudiced, less prejudiced, or just as prejudiced as everyone else?

If intelligent people are more prejudiced than others, that would seriously hurt the claim that there is a correlation between intelligence and rightness. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that there is little (if any) reason to believe that intelligent people are more prejudiced than stupid people.

If intelligent people are just as prejudiced as less intelligent people, then we're back to "all things being equal."

Of course, there may be some reason to believe that intelligent people are, however prejudiced they may be, generally (never universally) less prejudiced than the unintelligent. The implications in this case would be obvious.

Not to mention the countless other interfering factors... lots of very intelligent people refuse to accept animal rights arguments because they like eating meat.Yes, but again: all things being equal.

All things being equal, I'll expect that intelligent meat-eaters have a better understanding of animal psychology and the experience of pain, the economics of the meat industry, and the treatment of animals. They may be unethical because they refuse to take this information as grounds for vegetarianism, but I see no contradiction in stating that unethical people can be very intelligent.

Well, on generally accepted facts... facts that his or her opponent is likely to accept as true.That doesn't tell me anything about her/his argument other than that it does not generally include faeries and unicorns.

In fact, supporting something "egregiously" false on agreeable premises suggests that there are even more problems with her/his actual argumentation than had at first appeared.

There are two elements here, I think.

First, they have a "best fit" nature... if I were compelled to argue for the given position, those would be the best arguments to use.Well, that's something at least.

It still doesn't explain how he/she could be "intelligent" while believing things that are "egregiously" false.

If I were compelled to argue that the Earth is flat, I could come up with something. Of the various possibilities, I could certainly pick some arguments that are "best."

But, that's if I were compelled to believe that the Earth is flat. I'd still have to be pretty fucking stupid (or incredibly ill-informed) actually to believe it.

Second, they tend to be clever... they approach the topic from a direction that successfully evades the traditional simplistic responses, and requires more detailed and thoughtful responses to portray the absurdity.Ah, perhaps our disagreement boils down to this:

You equate intelligence with "cleverness." Or at least you include "cleverness" as a category of intelligence.

I do not.

I'm so smart that I'm not even getting involved in this pretentious, time-wasting conversation.Well you are involved now dorkface.

Entertaining that the two people to respond to that took it at face value. I was joking, thus the italics. Go and do a search for the train wrecks of threads that result when people start posting IQ scores. They are worse than you could possibly imagine.

I'm still waiting for my warp drive damnit!

I wouldn't go that far, but what is all too often forgotten is that the only thing an IQ test can possibly measure is IQ.Yes, but given the divergent results across populations for which we have little reason to believe there should be consistent differences in intelligence, there is also good reason to question the methodology at the most basic level: we should question whether IQ is an adequate operationalization of the concept it is supposed to measure, "intelligence."

I'm so smart that I'm not even getting involved in this pretentious, time-wasting conversation.Want a cookie?

:)

Well you are involved now dorkface.
Here, jerkbreath, borrow some of my commas; you seem to be running a bit short, at the moment.

I think I should explain in more detail why finding the "best" argument for a lousy conclusion is not an adequate measure of intelligence: there is a perfectly plausible alternative explanation that does not require us also to believe the dubious claim that there is no correlation between intelligence and the ability accurately to identify the facts of the matter.

If someone holds some bonehead notion and starts trying to get it some attention on Internet forums (or anywhere else), all he/she needs to have is an ability to adapt tactically in order to produce the best arguments.

In other words, it only requires the ability to identify when you've been pwned, coupled with the willingness to change tactics and come back with something else.

Sooner or later you'll stumble upon arguments that people have trouble refuting.

Doesn't make you smart.

...we should question whether IQ is an adequate operationalization of the concept it is supposed to measure, "intelligence."

That was the point I was making: an IQ test delivers a score for IQ, not intelligence.

Here, jerkbreath, borrow some of my commas; you seem to be running a bit short, at the moment.Were, shall, I, put, them?

The only rational way to answer this question is by getting everyone to post their IQ.

I don't even know my IQ. I mean, I couldn't even possibly guess at it. I don't think I've taken an IQ test of any kind since early elementary school.

Of course, I don't really think I'm in contention for this award, so maybe this isn't a problem. ;)

That was the point I was making: an IQ test delivers a score for IQ, not intelligence.Then we are agreed!

Drinks all around!!

we should question whether IQ is an adequate operationalization of the concept it is supposed to measure, "intelligence."We are trying to find smartest, not most intelligent, dorkface.

We are trying to find smartest, not most intelligent, dorkface.I was led to believe that for the purposes of this thread we are regarding them as synonymous, dorkface, because that is how the terms are presented in the OP.

Were, shall, I, put, them?
I've had several ideas over the past couple minutes, but further thought has proven them all to be either grammatical or anatomical impossibilities.
These people (http://www.dailygrammar.com/131to135.shtml) seem to have some more helpful theories.

I was led to believe that for the purposes of this thread we are regarding them as synonymous, dorkface, because that is how the terms are presented in the OP.Well, the OP is a noob. We should expect them to be a dorkface.

If intelligent people are just as prejudiced as less intelligent people, then we're back to "all things being equal."

Yes... but with the recognition that an intelligent person might believe absurd things as a result of his/her prejudices, and not be stupid.

I see no contradiction in stating that unethical people can be very intelligent.

But this very point only strengthens mine.

We can speak of a separation between "belief" and "action"... a very intelligent meat-eater may believe that meat-eating is wrong without actually acting on it.

Along similar lines, a very intelligent meat-eater may refuse to change her belief on the justification of meat-eating regardless of the strength in the animal rights arguments her intelligence compels her to accept.

Being very intelligent, of course, she will not justify her belief to herself and others on the grounds that "meat tastes good"... she knows that this is no kind of justification. She will construct arguments for her position. And particularly good arguments for that position remain grounds for believing in her intelligence.

Thorough, genuine intellectual honesty is much more a product of ethical obligation than it is mere intelligence.

That doesn't tell me anything about her/his argument other than that it does not generally include faeries and unicorns.

I'm speaking generally.

And the point is that the absurd conclusions are not simply founded on absurd premises.

Well, that's something at least.

It still doesn't explain how he/she could be "intelligent" while believing things that are "egregiously" false.

The fact that a person can come up with very good (relatively) arguments for something is indicative of intelligence.

But, that's if I were compelled to believe that the Earth is flat.

Believing the Earth is flat is more egregious than I was thinking of.

Ah, perhaps our disagreement boils down to this:

You equate intelligence with "cleverness." Or at least you include "cleverness" as a category of intelligence.

I think it shows intelligence to present an argument for something in a way that effectively recognizes the flaws in the objections typically leveled against that something.

Even if, in the end, the argument is beset by its own flaws.

buckethead, hands down...

there is a perfectly plausible alternative explanation that does not require us also to believe the dubious claim that there is no correlation between intelligence and the ability accurately to identify the facts of the matter.

I do not believe that there is "no" correlation.

I merely think that the correlation is easily superseded by other factors... and not just "knowledge of the subject at hand" either.

In other words, it only requires the ability to identify when you've been pwned, coupled with the willingness to change tactics and come back with something else.

You can usually tell the difference, though.

The real sign is whether they can adapt when you attack their argument... if it's simply a really good argument they got somewhere else, and not indicative of their own intelligence, they will either leave or repeat it back to you mindlessly.

Well, the OP is a noob. We should expect them to be a dorkface.Indeed.

Much as you should expect that I don't take this thread very seriously. I've just been feeling deprived of decent debate on NS lately. Obviously now I'll take what I can get.

:p

Indeed.

Much as you should expect that I don't take this thread very seriously. I've just been feeling deprived of decent debate on NS lately. Obviously now I'll take what I can get.

:p

Way to insult Soheran...

Yes... but with the recognition that an intelligent person might believe absurd things as a result of his/her prejudices, and not be stupid.Yes. But again, I still think I'm better off trusting the opinion of an intelligent person, all things being equal, than an unintelligent person.

But this very point only strengthens mine.No, you're just getting confused about which point is which. ;)

We can speak of a separation between "belief" and "action"... a very intelligent meat-eater may believe that meat-eating is wrong without actually acting on it.That's right.

Along similar lines, a very intelligent meat-eater may refuse to change her belief on the justification of meat-eating regardless of the strength in the animal rights arguments her intelligence compels her to accept.First of all, these lines are not similar at all. The distinction between belief and action is one thing. But now you are talking about holding contradictory beliefs. That is a very different thing indeed.

As a rule, intelligent people are a) more likely to recognize contradictory beliefs when they hold them, and b) more likely to be bothered by this recognition, than the unintelligent.

Again, this won't apply to every intelligent person. But correlation is about trends. There are always exceptions.

Being very intelligent, of course, she will not justify her belief to herself and others on the grounds that "meat tastes good"... she knows that this is no kind of justification. She will construct arguments for her position.She may, and they may be perfectly good arguments. If they are, perhaps I'll have to consider them.

But I can't do that if you won't tell me what the arguments are, or characterize what it is about them that makes them "good" in a general sense.

And particularly good arguments for that position remain grounds for believing in her intelligence.Assuming they are good for the right reasons. You won't tell me what those reasons are.

If they are good simply because no better argument could be made, that's not good enough for me--at least not in general. It is a relative measure depending entirely on how good an argument can, in theory, be made for a position. Sometimes even the best is made of fail, when the conclusion reached is wholly absurd.

Thorough, genuine intellectual honesty is much more a product of ethical obligation than it is mere intelligence.Yes, that's true.

But the fact remains that, given two equally ethical individuals, I shall expect the more intelligent of them to be the more intellectually consistent--and, to that extent, more consistent in the application of their ethics (to whatever extent they are applied).

I'm speaking generally.I wish you were. Unfortunately, you keep trying to prove your point by hypothetical counter-examples rather than general trends.

And the point is that the absurd conclusions are not simply founded on absurd premises.So much the worse!!

Absurd conclusions founded on absurd premises could at least hold out hope for logical validity!

But absurd conclusions derived from true premises must necessarily be derived using faulty reasoning. If the premise is true and the conclusion false, logic = bad.

The fact that a person can come up with very good (relatively) arguments for something is indicative of intelligence.No, it's indicative of cleverness. Cleverness, like skilled debate, is not a virtue. It is a knack.

Believing the Earth is flat is more egregious than I was thinking of.Either way, if something is "egregiously" false then the fact that someone believes it is grounds for doubting her/his intelligence. It may turn out on closer examination that he/she is deficient in some other respect, but certainly "stupid" would be a valid, defensible first guess.

I think it shows intelligence to present an argument for something in a way that effectively recognizes the flaws in the objections typically leveled against that something.Or it demonstrates an ability to Google sites offering arguments directed at those "typical" objections.

Intelligence is demonstrated in the ability to take on novel or difficult objections, not commonplace or typical objections.

Even if, in the end, the argument is beset by its own flaws.No, I won't buy that "even if." If an argument for something absurd is beset by its own flaws and its presenter does not see that, I have grounds upon which to doubt his intelligence. Of course, if he does see that then I can only criticize his sincerity.

Way to insult Soheran...Pfft. Quite the contrary.

Soheran is right there to take up the argument with me, on whatever inane and ridiculous topic I choose to make it.

I mean only that I would much prefer to take up a serious argument. I would also prefer to take on a challenger with whom I have fundamental disagreements... because that is truly a challenge.

As it is, Soheran and I tend to agree in our general take on the world... or at least we agree enough that when we choose to disagree we can look upon it as a worthwhile opportunity for play, a chance to savor the fine points of a triviality.

The ability to play at reason (but play seriously) is perhaps the most perfect mark of intelligence I have ever stumbled upon.

;)

First of all, these lines are not similar at all. The distinction between belief and action is one thing. But now you are talking about holding contradictory beliefs.

No. The person accepts not the arguments themselves, but their strength.

But instead of asking herself "Does this mean I should change my opinion?" she merely develops better responses... because she is unwilling to accept that meat-eating is wrong when it means that she must make a change in her lifestyle that she does not desire.

This is close-mindedness, and it is not unintelligent, but rather intellectually dishonest. It is the subordination of truth to whim, but it is also something virtually everyone does to a greater or lesser degree... regardless of their intelligence.

and b) more likely to be bothered by this recognition, than the unintelligent.

Why?

Assuming they are good for the right reasons. You won't tell me what those reasons are.

They are more convincing than most of the alternatives... they take into consideration the typical arguments of the opposition, and respond effectively to them.

Sometimes even the best is made of fail

Yes, and clearly "the best" here is flawed... otherwise I would not call the position egregiously false.

But there is an impressiveness in an attempt that succeeds much better than most of the others do, and requires considerable thought to respond effectively to--and as I said earlier, this impressiveness is not dimmed but magnified by the fact that the position advanced is false.

Yes, that's true.

But the fact remains that, given two equally ethical individuals, I shall expect the more intelligent of them to be the more intellectually consistent--and, to that extent, more consistent in the application of their ethics (to whatever extent they are applied).

But our question has been whether a very intelligent person can believe something egregiously false... and intellectual dishonesty is one way this can occur.

So much the worse!!

Absurd conclusions founded on absurd premises could at least hold out hope for logical validity!

"Logical validity" is pretty useless, at least for the purposes of our discussion.

"All people from Mars are green, Soheran is a person from Mars, therefore Soheran is green" may be perfectly valid, but the capability to make such an argument is not very indicative of intelligence beyond a very basic grasp of logic.

You can go absolutely anywhere with false premises. There is no intelligence involved in being able to demonstrate a particular conclusion with them.

But absurd conclusions derived from true premises must necessarily be derived using faulty reasoning.

Yes, true.

But then, most arguments do not have the concrete force of perfect logical certainty anyway... the world is too complicated for that. Reasonable objections can be made to just about anything.

No, it's indicative of cleverness.

Clarify the distinction... it is possible that we are going on different definitions of "intelligence."

Either way, if something is "egregiously" false then the fact that someone believes it is grounds for doubting her/his intelligence. It may turn out on closer examination that he/she is deficient in some other respect, but certainly "stupid" would be a valid, defensible first guess.

Not if there is other evidence indicating otherwise.

Intelligence is demonstrated in the ability to take on novel or difficult objections, not commonplace or typical objections.

Yes, and this is precisely what really good arguments for absurd things can sometimes do.

Not only that, but they can at times function as wonderful instances of reductio ad absurdum when they incorporate false premises generally accepted as true.

If an argument for something absurd is beset by its own flaws and its presenter does not see that, I have grounds upon which to doubt his intelligence.

The mere fact that a person presents a flawed argument is not grounds to dobut his or her intelligence, since very intelligent people present flawed arguments all the time.

I do not believe that there is "no" correlation.The correlation between being intelligent and being right is tenuous at best.This must be some exotic new meaning for "tenuous at best" with which I was previously unacquainted.

I merely think that the correlation is easily superseded by other factors... and not just "knowledge of the subject at hand" either.That may be, but it hardly makes the correlation "tenuous."

Perhaps I say this only from experience as a political scientist. Looking at the causal factors in human behavior, we often discover extremely significant correlations that are so buried under the mass of other factors in human life that one would never discover them on a casual glance. In other cases, seemingly obvious correlations turn out to be nothing at all, mere artifacts of coincidence.

The key to understanding correlation, again, is the principle of "all things being equal." All things being equal, in comparing two people I should be justified in assuming that the one who is more often correct is also the more intelligent. Likewise, all things being equal, in comparing two people I should be justified in assuming that the one who is the more intelligent will (on any given question) be the more likely to provide a correct answer.

You can usually tell the difference, though.Maybe, but now you're making assumptions about your own intelligence. ;)

It is much easier to tell the difference when you present people with a novel argument and discover how they respond: intelligent people will come up with an intelligent response, less intelligent people will flounder.

If you're only test is "ability to respond to common arguments effectively," I'd say your measure of intelligence is rather indeterminate because there are so many other ways that a person could acquire such a response besides inventing it her/himself according to a rational (not stupidly adaptive) methodology.

The real sign is whether they can adapt when you attack their argument.I'll agree to that, with qualification.

I think there is a variety of "cleverness" that mimics an intelligent response to innovative argumentation. But it is considerably less common than the variety of cleverness required to present effective (which is not to say strong) arguments opposing common or typical positions.

This must be some exotic new meaning for "tenuous at best" with which I was previously unacquainted.

I meant "weak," not "nonexistent."

I explicitly granted from very close to the start of this argument that there is an advantage to being intelligent when it comes to analyzing facts... I think it is just one that is rather unreliable unless you are very careful.

It is far too easy to use intelligence merely instrumentally, to excuse oneself.

The key to understanding correlation, again, is the principle of "all things being equal." All things being equal, in comparing two people I should be justified in assuming that the one who is more often correct is also the more intelligent. Likewise, all things being equal, in comparing two people I should be justified in assuming that the one who is the more intelligent will (on any given question) be the more likely to provide a correct answer.

"I have a tenuous hold on the side of the cliff." Better, perhaps, than being in free-fall, all else being equal. But, nevertheless, tenuous... I am still in imminent danger of falling off.

Maybe, but now you're making assumptions about your own intelligence. ;)

I am keenly aware of my own talents. One of them is objecting effectively to other people's arguments.

When people respond to that in effective or interesting ways, I notice.

It is much easier to tell the difference when you present people with a novel argument and discover how they respond: intelligent people will come up with an intelligent response, less intelligent people will flounder.

Well, I can't know whether or not they have heard my objections before... but generally the "stock" responses to them are not very good anyway.

No. The person accepts not the arguments themselves, but their strength.What exactly does that mean? How can I "accept" an argument's strength without accepting the argument? I suppose this makes sense in the abstract, but in the real world there are always competing arguments: I can only honestly accept the strongest of them.

But instead of asking herself "Does this mean I should change my opinion?" she merely develops better responses... because she is unwilling to accept that meat-eating is wrong when it means that she must make a change in her lifestyle that she does not desire.As long as her responses are not only better than her previous responses but better than the best argument going, fine. Otherwise, she may as well not have developed better responses at all, because she clearly doesn't care about basing her opinion on the strength of argument.

This is close-mindedness, and it is not unintelligent, but rather intellectually dishonest.Actually, whereas you appear to regard cleverness as a species of intelligence, I regard close-mindedness as wholly a species of stupidity. The OED's first definition of "stupid" is "having one's faculties deadened or dulled," and the second entry is "characterized by stupor or insensibility."

To be close-minded is to willfully deaden one's faculties. It does not matter whether you are insensible from nature, nurture, or will. In any case the condition is one of stupidity.

It is the subordination of truth to whim, but it is also something virtually everyone does to a greater or lesser degree... regardless of their intelligence.The subordination of truth to whim is, so far as I am concerned, the best definition of "stupidity" offered so far in this thread.

Why?Who knows? But empirically, intelligent people react more strongly to cognitive dissonance than stupid people. Stupid people just shut their ears and sing "la la la la" until people stop pointing out that they are being inconsistent.

They are more convincing than most of the alternatives... they take into consideration the typical arguments of the opposition, and respond effectively to them.So they are the best of the bad. That doesn't make them good.

Yes, and clearly "the best" here is flawed... otherwise I would not call the position egregiously false.Right. So, again, a person believes something that is egregiously false... they believe so according to a flawed argument (however much better it may be than the alternatives)... and they continue to believe so even after people point out to them (repeatedly, I'm sure) the many flaws in their argument.

And you still want to call this person intelligent?

But there is an impressiveness in an attempt that succeeds much better than most of the others do, and requires considerable thought to respond effectively to--and as I said earlier, this impressiveness is not dimmed but magnified by the fact that the position advanced is false.Oh, I'm not saying I wouldn't be impressed.

The question, however, is what virtue I should suppose to have impressed me.

I say cleverness, and I deny that this is the same as intelligence.

But our question has been whether a very intelligent person can believe something egregiously false... and intellectual dishonesty is one way this can occur.No, our question has been whether someone who believes many things that are egregiously false is likely to be stupid.

I say yes. I do not deny the possibility that I am wrong, because I admit that there are exceptions to every rule.

But the rule stands: someone who believes something that is "egregiously" false, and especially someone who believes many things that are "egregiously" false... is probably stupid; or incredibly ill-informed; or incredibly unwise; etc. Ruling out other possibilities as best I can, I am entitled to conclude that such a person is stupid.

"Logical validity" is pretty useless, at least for the purposes of our discussion.

"All people from Mars are green, Soheran is a person from Mars, therefore Soheran is green" may be perfectly valid, but the capability to make such an argument is not very indicative of intelligence beyond a very basic grasp of logic.No, but that wasn't my point.

My point was that an argument beginning with "Soheran is a person from Earth" (true) and resulting in "Soheran is green" (egregiously false) is indicative of not only a poorly constructed argument, but probably a failure of intelligence as well.

Yet you try to praise a person for starting with true premises to reach an egregiously false conclusion! That's clever, not smart.

You can go absolutely anywhere with false premises.That's right. It's where you take true premises that is interesting. Making them lead to egregiously false conclusions is clever--very clever--but it need not involve any intelligence whatsoever.

But then, most arguments do not have the concrete force of perfect logical certainty anyway... the world is too complicated for that. Reasonable objections can be made to just about anything.Yes. But when one is trying to argue for something "egregiously" false, someone presumably needs more than "reasonable" objections to one's opponents.

Clarify the distinction... it is possible that we are going on different definitions of "intelligence."A bit of etymology may be instructive.

Clever: "The early example suggests relation to ME. clivers ‘claws, talons, clutches’, in the sense ‘nimble of claws, sharp to seize’,"

Intelligent: Comes from a Latin word meaning "to see into, to perceive."

The mere fact that a person presents a flawed argument is not grounds to dobut his or her intelligence, since very intelligent people present flawed arguments all the time.No. But when a person consistently presents not only flawed arguments but flawed arguments in favor of positions which are, to use your word, "egregiously" false... it's hard to reach any other conclusion than that said individual is, well, rather stupid.

:mp5:

Jesus

:mp5:

It is far too easy to use intelligence merely instrumentally, to excuse oneself.That's cleverness, not intelligence.

Intelligence as a virtue is always tied to the end of understanding.

Cleverness as a virtue (such as it is) is always tied to the end of getting the better of others (whether in argument or in any other context).

What exactly does that mean? How can I "accept" an argument's strength without accepting the argument?

I hear an argument... it does not convince me that its conclusion is right, but it convinces me that I must think more about the subject, and perhaps modify my views somewhat.

Otherwise, she may as well not have developed better responses at all, because she clearly doesn't care about basing her opinion on the strength of argument.

But her argument need not be "stronger"... it need merely be strong enough to satisfy her defensive desire not to be unsettled.

To be close-minded is to willfully deaden one's faculties. It does not matter whether you are insensible from nature, nurture, or will. In any case the condition is one of stupidity.

The subordination of truth to whim is, so far as I am concerned, the best definition of "stupidity" offered so far in this thread.

Perhaps our difference, then, is this: I have been thinking of intelligence as a capacity, while you include in it a notion of behavior.

I see nothing "unintelligent" about either close-mindedness or the use of self-excusing logic... both are intellectually dishonest, but neither are stupid per se.

But empirically, intelligent people react more strongly to cognitive dissonance than stupid people.

Yes, but you said yourself that there are two elements to this: intelligent people recognize contradictory opinions more and intelligent people are more bothered by contradictory opinions.

The first is enough to explain the observation that intelligent people react more strongly to holding contradictory opinions.

and they continue to believe so even after people point out to them (repeatedly, I'm sure) the many flaws in their argument.

Most people are inclined to ignore arguments with absurd conclusions, especially ones that require some effort to respond to... so no, not necessarily "repeatedly" at all.

That's right. It's where you take true premises that is interesting. Making them lead to egregiously false conclusions is clever--very clever--but it need not involve any intelligence whatsoever.

I don't see how a person can be both clever and stupid.

Would you at least grant that a cleverness is indicative of the capacity for intelligence? Certainly it seems to me that most intelligent people are also quite capable of cleverness... and most clever people, especially when pressed, can show intelligence even in the sense you have been using it.

A bit of etymology may be instructive.

Clever: "The early example suggests relation to ME. clivers ‘claws, talons, clutches’, in the sense ‘nimble of claws, sharp to seize’,"

Intelligent: Comes from a Latin word meaning "to see into, to perceive."

Doesn't cleverness require understanding... even if it is purely instrumental understanding?

If we go purely by IQ scores (IRL tests, of coruse, not online tests) my 164 may very well be a winner.

I'm not foolish enough to say that intelligence is based purely on IQ, though.

I hear an argument... it does not convince me that its conclusion is right, but it convinces me that I must think more about the subject, and perhaps modify my views somewhat.Which is to say that you believe there is a stronger argument out there in favor of your view. If you believe this because of your honest understanding of the facts and the stakes in evaluating those facts, your re-evaluation demonstrates intelligence.

If your belief is motivated by prejudice, your re-evaluation of your argument exemplifies clever stupidity. You won't admit to right, but you can come up with a better argument for wrong.

But her argument need not be "stronger"... it need merely be strong enough to satisfy her defensive desire not to be unsettled.Yes, that's all it needs to satisfy her desire.

My contention all along, however, has been that the desire not to be unsettled is... well, stupid. It is virtually the definition of stupid.

Perhaps our difference, then, is this: I have been thinking of intelligence as a capacity, while you include in it a notion of behavior.Oh, I think it's something very like a capacity.

Intelligence is a virtue. To a certain extent, all virtues are capacities. In this case, intelligence is the capacity to perceive and understand the truth of a situation.

I see nothing "unintelligent" about either close-mindedness or the use of self-excusing logic... both are intellectually dishonest, but neither are stupid per se.If you look at intelligence as nothing more than mental acuity, then you are correct. Indeed, this is an all-too-common view.

If, however, you understand "intelligence" as necessarily having to do with "understanding"--as I do, and as a long history of thought has done--then close-mindedness and self-excusing reason are both inherently stupid because they are both obstacles to understanding.

Yes, but you said yourself that there are two elements to this: intelligent people recognize contradictory opinions more and intelligent people are more bothered by contradictory opinions.

The first is enough to explain the observation that intelligent people react more strongly to holding contradictory opinions.Not really. There is no logical connection between recognizing dissonance and being bothered by it.

Still, I don't mean to contradict you. It does make sense that people who are more finely attuned to dissonance should be the more bothered by it, even if this does not follow necessarily. A finely tuned musical ear can pick up the most subtle flaws in harmony and pitch; it should be no surprise that such an ear is the more bothered by extreme dissonance.

Most people are inclined to ignore arguments with absurd conclusions, especially ones that require some effort to respond to... so no, not necessarily "repeatedly" at all.Really? I suppose I must be biased by the many times I've seen conversations with Remote Observer devolve into "shouting" matches as numerous posters try to make him acknowledge the most glaring factual errors or contradictions in his argument.

I don't see how a person can be both clever and stupid.See: Bill O'Reilly.

Would you at least grant that a cleverness is indicative of the capacity for intelligence?No. Sometimes cleverness can be an impediment to intelligence.

Indeed, some of the most intelligent people I know are the least clever. Some of the cleverest people I know are the least intelligent.

To find the two in combination is a true rarity. That's why Plato worried so sincerely about a society ruled by rhetoricians.

Certainly it seems to me that most intelligent people are also quite capable of cleverness.Really? Our experiences must greatly diverge, in that case.

I know a great many intelligent people who have a wonderful grasp of the truth, but who have trouble expressing that truth or answering objections--especially clever objections fired rapidly.

You've never seen a very intelligent, knowledgeable professor freeze in the face of clever criticisms from some dunderhead?

To help you to differentiate between the two, consider the effects of language skill on each:

If you are intelligent English speaker dropped in the middle of Germany, you will still be as intelligent as you were in your home country. You will know and understand the truth of a situation just as well as you did at home. But you will not be clever, because you will have difficulty expressing yourself or answering objections.

Notice that there are many very intelligent people on NS who, due to language difficulties, have no knack for cleverness when writing in English. That's part of why I call it a "knack"... it depends on experience; it depends on the kinds of arguments your audience will find convincing (which varies by audience); etc.

.. and most clever people, especially when pressed, can show intelligence even in the sense you have been using it.I'm afraid there are far too many Bill O'Reilly's in the world for me to be convinced.

Doesn't cleverness require understanding... even if it is purely instrumental understanding?Nope.

If I am clever enough, I can enter any debate and convince people that I am the "winner" without even so much as understanding what the debate is about.

To be clever, all I need to know is how to please my audience.

Again, this is why Plato was so fearful of the clever.

Cleverness is a prerequisite for sophistry.
Intelligence is a prerequisite for philosophy.

If we go purely by IQ scores (IRL tests, of coruse, not online tests) my 164 may very well be a winner.*whips out his (very girthy) 172*

:D

I stand corrected. :(

I stand corrected. :(Oh no!!

Don't take it like that!!

The differences at that range are so indeterminate they're hardly worth mentioning! That's why I thought it was funny!!

*feels bad*

The only rational way to answer this question is by getting everyone to post their IQ.

My IQ is green. :)

This thread is silly.

Which explains why so many people are voting for me. ;)

I'll say Vetalia.

I AM!! I got an IQ of 40 and can speak half a whole language!

*whips out his (very girthy) 172*

:D
Are you a member of MENSA?

If so, you instantly lose.

Are you a member of MENSA?

If so, you instantly lose.

Err...define 'member' and 'of' and 'Are'.

Err...define 'member' and 'of' and 'Are'.
'Do you have card, or indeed turn up to any of their meetings?' would be something approaching my grounds.

Not "could you get in if you wanted to", because I've passed several IQ tests, both IRL and on the internet, including their own practise one to see if you could join or not, with high enough scores to do so.

I simply find it quite distasteful is all.

Are you a member of MENSA?That pretentious, insecure intellectual circle-jerk?

Umm, no. ;)

*waits for the proud members of MENSA to harass him with threatening... um, puzzles*

Yes, well, my penis is a good 20 cm long, and at least 4cm in girth.

Yes, well, my penis is a good 20 cm long, and at least 4cm in girth.Wow, 99th percentile. Good for you. *head pat*

It's good to know that the NS IQ reporting rule holds for other things as well.

Hmmm. I guess we could now take nominations for most pretentious prick. But can females run for that position?

Hmmm. I guess we could now take nominations for most pretentious prick. But can females run for that position?

You can try, but I'd say I've got pretentious pretty well covered.;)

If your belief is motivated by prejudice, your re-evaluation of your argument exemplifies clever stupidity. You won't admit to right, but you can come up with a better argument for wrong.

And your capacity to do so is indicative of understanding... at least insofar as your "better argument" is better in that it is more rationally effective.

The fact that "you won't admit to right" is more of a failure of will than it is a failure of intelligence.

Yes, that's all it needs to satisfy her desire.

My contention all along, however, has been that the desire not to be unsettled is... well, stupid. It is virtually the definition of stupid.

Closing my eyes does not deprive me of my capacity to see. Closing my mind does not deprive me of my capacity to think and understand... and, indeed, does not even prevent me from exercising that capacity, within certain limits.

If, however, you understand "intelligence" as necessarily having to do with "understanding"--as I do, and as a long history of thought has done--then close-mindedness and self-excusing reason are both inherently stupid because they are both obstacles to understanding.

To "understanding" as an end in itself, maybe. Self-excusing reason, at least, requires the use of understanding as a means... and this too is indicative of intelligence.

Not really. There is no logical connection between recognizing dissonance and being bothered by it.

No, but a person who knows she holds contradictory beliefs is much more likely to be bothered by that contradiction than a person who does not.

Really? I suppose I must be biased by the many times I've seen conversations with Remote Observer devolve into "shouting" matches as numerous posters try to make him acknowledge the most glaring factual errors or contradictions in his argument.

Remote Observer is an entirely different case... responding to him rarely involves much thought, because his arguments are neither clever nor intelligent.

See: Bill O'Reilly.

I don't pay much attention to Bill O'Reilly, but my mostly second-hand impression is that his "cleverness" is not characterized by even an instrumental fidelity to reason. That kind of "argumentation" does not impress me, and is not what I am talking about.

O'Reilly and his like dispense with reason entirely. They are not interested in responding intelligently to objections; they are interested in winning. Compare my earlier example of the intelligent meat-eater, who, while also interested in winning, is interested not in winning the popularity contest but in winning by some rational standard.

The "good" argument for her side she searches for is one that is rationally persuasive; the "good" argument searched for by people like O'Reilly is merely one that makes them look good, and their opponents bad.

Both are concerned not with truth as an end in itself; both are merely concerned with justifying their own views. But one searches for a rational justification, and the other for whatever unsubstantive rhetoric will do.

No. Sometimes cleverness can be an impediment to intelligence.

Sometimes "intelligence" in the sense of having the understanding necessary to construct rational justifications can be impediment to "intelligence" in the sense of being able to understand what is true... and that, I suppose, is my point.

Really? Our experiences must greatly diverge, in that case.

I know a great many intelligent people who have a wonderful grasp of the truth, but who have trouble expressing that truth or answering objections--especially clever objections fired rapidly.

Trouble with "expression" has nothing to do with intelligence... we agree there.

Being incapable of defending one's argument from rational, intelligent objections might indicate a lack of understanding of the argument, the objections, or the topic, and insofar as they do may also be indicative of a lack of intelligence (or merely of knowledge and experience.)

Being incapable of defending one's argument from objections designed to obscure and confuse is a different matter, yes.

To help you to differentiate between the two, consider the effects of language skill on each:

If you are intelligent English speaker dropped in the middle of Germany, you will still be as intelligent as you were in your home country. You will know and understand the truth of a situation just as well as you did at home. But you will not be clever, because you will have difficulty expressing yourself or answering objections.

Notice that there are many very intelligent people on NS who, due to language difficulties, have no knack for cleverness when writing in English. That's part of why I call it a "knack"... it depends on experience; it depends on the kinds of arguments your audience will find convincing (which varies by audience); etc.

Skill at expressing oneself, or answering objections, or convincing others, is not indicative of intelligence insofar as it depends not on reason but on form.

But skill at constructing rational arguments, and rational responses to objections--however they are expressed--is indicative of intelligence even when they defend a belief that is false.

I'm afraid there are far too many Bill O'Reilly's in the world for me to be convinced.

You may be right in the case of Bill O'Reilly... but in the process of defending himself or herself from intelligent objections, even a very biased intelligent person can show true insight.

To be clever, all I need to know is how to please my audience.

Then the necessary content of your cleverness depends on what will please your audience.

If your audience is rational, intelligent people, or your audience is yourself and too intellectually honest to accept mere sophistry, intelligence is often a prerequisite.

I guess we could now take nominations for most pretentious prick.

I win.

And your capacity to do so is indicative of understanding... at least insofar as your "better argument" is better in that it is more rationally effective.You're stretching the meaning of "understanding" too far for my taste.

The fact that "you won't admit to right" is more of a failure of will than it is a failure of intelligence.Only if you take intelligence to mean mere mental acuity, which I do not. On my reading, failures of will and failures of intelligence are intimately related.

If you read Plato, he's constantly asserting that no person "knowingly" does evil. It's clear that what he means is something like "willingly," and the crossed meanings are no coincidence.

Closing my eyes does not deprive me of my capacity to see.Close them for long enough and it will!

Closing my mind does not deprive me of my capacity to think and understand.Closing it for long enough will. Just as strength and vision atrophy with disuse, so too does the ability to perceive truth when one has too long deluded oneself with illusion.

Self-excusing reason, at least, requires the use of understanding as a means.No, it doesn't. Understanding perceives the truth of the situation, self-serving reason offers only lies. Your whole (subconscious) intention is to avoid understanding.

No, but a person who knows she holds contradictory beliefs is much more likely to be bothered by that contradiction than a person who does not.That's right. For purposes of understanding, however, I want to be clear that her knowledge does not in itself explain her unease.

I don't pay much attention to Bill O'Reilly, but my mostly second-hand impression is that his "cleverness" is not characterized by even an instrumental fidelity to reason. That kind of "argumentation" does not impress me, and is not what I am talking about.I offer it as an extreme case. His appeal is in "winning" arguments, at least in the eyes of his audience... which only goes to show that cleverness is, as I have stressed, a relative virtue: it depends on the audience.

Within some educated audiences, cleverness may need to more nearly disguise itself as intelligence. In the most educated and intelligent company, cleverness will be completely transparent for its vacuity, and will do the clever person no good at all: in the best of company, that is, one must be intelligent rather than clever.

NS General rewards cleverness a great deal. To a certain extent it will reward intelligence, but notably less so.

O'Reilly and his like dispense with reason entirely.And my point is that cleverness is not reason, it is merely the appearance of reason.

They are not interested in responding intelligently to objections; they are interested in winning.Yes, precisely. Sometimes winning will require a greater pretense to reason than at other times. But it is always a pretense so long as its aim is winning rather than truth.

Compare my earlier example of the intelligent meat-eater, who, while also interested in winning, is interested not in winning the popularity contest but in winning by some rational standard.It is a contradiction in terms to say that one is interested in "winning" according to a "rational standard." The rational standard is rectitude, and to be right is not the same as to win. To the extent that they coincide it is precisely that: a coincidence.

The "good" argument for her side she searches for is one that is rationally persuasive;If she is only searching for it because it is her side, then she is being clever. If she searches for the truth, whether it turns out to accord with her beliefs or not, she is being intelligent.

the "good" argument searched for by people like O'Reilly is merely one that makes them look good, and their opponents bad.Is that not also the motive of the meat-eater? She wants to find an argument that she can present to defend her a priori decision (to make herself look good) and to attack the position supporting vegetarianism (to make her opponents look bad).

The only difference between the two is in the audience they are interested in persuading: mindless buffoons for O'Reilly, logically adept debaters for the meat-eater.

Both are concerned not with truth as an end in itself; both are merely concerned with justifying their own views.That's right. And that's what makes them clever rather than intelligent.

But one searches for a rational justification, and the other for whatever unsubstantive rhetoric will do.As long as it's merely a justification, it may appear rational but it is not intelligent.

Even if her argument happens to be right, that does not make her intelligent. It just means that her cleverness stumbled upon rectitude. Plato called it "right opinion" and distinguished it from knowledge.

Sometimes "intelligence" in the sense of having the understanding necessary to construct rational justifications can be impediment to "intelligence" in the sense of being able to understand what is true... and that, I suppose, is my point.Haven't I always told you that arguments about definitions are pointless? :D

Neither of us can claim that there is a single, correct, universal definition of "intelligence"--that one of us is "right" and the other is "wrong."

We can, however, argue about the kinds of distinctions worth making among human endeavors, and attempt to use words to convey those meanings in a sensible way.

It is in this sense that I like to reach back into the mists of time to discover the etymological and historical origins for words that seem to have muddied meanings today.

"Intelligent," coming from the Latin for "to perceive," is most usefully applied to the virtue of seeking and finding the facts of the matter.

"Cleverness," deriving from words for "claws" or "talons," is more usefully applied to describe the desire to "win" an argument--choosing sides early on and seeking only those arguments that support one's existing position.

Being incapable of defending one's argument from rational, intelligent objections might indicate a lack of understanding of the argument, the objections, or the topic, and insofar as they do may also be indicative of a lack of intelligence (or merely of knowledge and experience.)The key word is might. It may also be that one hasn't developed the knack for constructing arguments effectively, though one's own reasons for believing as one does are perfectly intelligent and reflect a strong understanding of fact.

My perception is, no doubt, influenced by my experience as a college instructor who has come across many students with great intelligence who nevertheless failed effectively to communicate their ideas. In some cases, for instance, I offer students the option of an oral exam because they do not express themselves well in written work. When I can sit them down and question them, I can pluck all sorts of fascinating and intelligent thoughts from their heads. I find that often they know more and understand more than the students who write "A" essays--but they couldn't construct a winning argument to save their lives. They just don't have the knack.

But skill at constructing rational arguments, and rational responses to objections--however they are expressed--is indicative of intelligence even when they defend a belief that is false.That's true under one condition: the individual in question is willing to question that belief and to consider contradictory evidence. In that case, her arguments and her responses are indeed rational.

If, however, said individual has already decided what to believe, and the arguments presented (however rational they may appear) are constructed only for the benefit of her opponents (including, perhaps, her own guilty conscience), then I maintain that they are no "rational" in the slightest. They do not depend upon reason, because reason does not shut its eyes to truth.

You may be right in the case of Bill O'Reilly... but in the process of defending himself or herself from intelligent objections, even a very biased intelligent person can show true insight.If by "insight" you mean, "coming to understand something that was not previously clear" then you are correct. If, however, by "insight" you mean nothing more than "offering an effective original response to objections," then you have the appearance of reason but not necessarily reason itself.

Then the necessary content of your cleverness depends on what will please your audience.That's right.

If your audience is rational, intelligent people, or your audience is yourself and too intellectually honest to accept mere sophistry, intelligence is often a prerequisite.Not if you are unwilling to question your own beliefs. In that case, you merely practice the particular kind of cleverness effective against rational, intelligent people.

Of course, truly intelligent people should be able to see right through it. But then again, I'm the one claiming that true intelligence is exceptionally rare.

;)

Hmmm. I guess we could now take nominations for most pretentious prick. But can females run for that position?

fass wins that one too.

Do we mean 'smart' as in 'I agree with this person a lot', or 'smart' as in 'I'm a fawning suck up and want this person to notice me, so I'll name them and talk about how awesome they are, hoping to get some love in return'?

Because either way, I say it's Fass.

Do we mean 'smart' as in 'I agree with this person a lot', or 'smart' as in 'I'm a fawning suck up and want this person to notice me, so I'll name them and talk about how awesome they are, hoping to get some love in return'?

Because either way, I say it's Fass.

smart as in whether its something i agree with or disagree with or just an innane story about his life, i realize that he is smarter than i am.

since for the majority of posters here, its obvious that they are smart but its not obvious that they are smarter than "me" ("me" being the person who is doing the thinking about it.)

fass wins that one too.

Indeed.

Not really. Generally, to argue something absurd one only requires a willingness to question basic assumptions of the worldview from which it appears absurd. This may, indeed, require a great deal of creativity--don't think you can sneak that one in unnoticed--but it hardly takes any intelligence at all.


That's what I do.

You're stretching the meaning of "understanding" too far for my taste.

The construction of a better argument requires an improved understanding of the issues in dispute.

Only if you take intelligence to mean mere mental acuity, which I do not. On my reading, failures of will and failures of intelligence are intimately related.

But this only muddles things... a mathematically brilliant person may be hopelessly closeminded about certain political and philosophical topics (indeed, while perhaps excelling on others).

Does this make her "stupid"? Really?

I would call such a person intelligent; intelligent and close-minded. Well worth listening to and arguing with on topics on which she is not so close-minded.

Closing it for long enough will. Just as strength and vision atrophy with disuse, so too does the ability to perceive truth when one has too long deluded oneself with illusion.

It depends on the means of delusion, I think.

If I delude myself by constructing intellectual defenses, my intellectual capabilities will not atrophy... they are being put to use, and must constantly strive at at least a limited sort of understanding.

No, it doesn't. Understanding perceives the truth of the situation, self-serving reason offers only lies. Your whole (subconscious) intention is to avoid understanding.

You are focusing on ends, I am focusing on means.

Yes, the objective here is security, not understanding. But because the person is rational, because the person understands that "I want to be intellectually secure" is no kind of argument, the process of achieving that end requires understanding.

Instrumental understanding, yes. But understanding. And it is a mark of intelligence.

Within some educated audiences, cleverness may need to more nearly disguise itself as intelligence. In the most educated and intelligent company, cleverness will be completely transparent for its vacuity,

But is it vacuous, really?

As long as that achievement of security requires a good argument, an intelligent argument--even if not the best argument--there is something of substance to it.

NS General rewards cleverness a great deal.

So it does.

But much, much less than any other political forum in which I have participated. Which, to a degree, is why I am here, and not elsewhere.

And my point is that cleverness is not reason, it is merely the appearance of reason.

Indeed, the person in question is not acting rationally. But acting rationally is not a requirement of intelligence, just as acting ethically is not--and this is more or less why I prefer my use of the term to yours. I think making a clear distinction between "can" and "does", between the capacity and its proper utilization, is important.

The person in question does construct arguments which are, objectively, rational and intelligent--which tends to be dependent on having understanding.

It is a contradiction in terms to say that one is interested in "winning" according to a "rational standard."

"I want to win by presenting a rationally, intellectually compelling argument for my point of view."

How is that contradictory?

The rational standard is rectitude, and to be right is not the same as to win.

Indeed not. But a person may desire to win by being as right as possible without upsetting certain precious beliefs... and while not wholly rational, this shows far more rationality than is expressed by the likes of Bill O'Reilly.

The only difference between the two is in the audience they are interested in persuading: mindless buffoons for O'Reilly, logically adept debaters for the meat-eater.

Maybe, but the choice of audience is more significant than you make it out t be.

If my test is, "Can it convince an intelligent, rational audience?"--maybe myself, maybe others--I am acting much more rationally than a person whose test is, "Can it convince a bunch of mindless buffoons?"

And this shows in the arguments used. It is easy, and sometimes even rational, to be convinced by the arguments of a person whose desire is to come up with the best argument for a presupposed position. It may sometimes be easy, but it is never rational, to be convinced by the arguments of a demagogue.

Haven't I always told you that arguments about definitions are pointless?

Arguing about definitions was not my intention; it was rather to agree with you, to say that a certain kind of "cleverness" can indeed be a tool of self-delusion.

Like I said, this has been a large portion of my point from the start... that, to borrow your terminology, the mental acuity required for intelligence always contains with it the danger of very clever stupidity.

To truly be able to see what is "right" requires much more--a certain honesty and seriousness that compels not only the use of intellectual power but its use in the right ways.

The difficulty here is that distinguishing between the two is not at all easy... not in oneself and not in others.

The key word is might. It may also be that one hasn't developed the knack for constructing arguments effectively, though one's own reasons for believing as one does are perfectly intelligent and reflect a strong understanding of fact.

Well, I should clarify that by responding effectively to objections I did not mean being able to formulate one's defenses with linguistic coherence in speech or writing.

I was thinking more along the lines of being able to respond internally... of being able to analyze the strengths in and recognize the flaws of the objection, and through that analysis understand whether it can be responded effectively to, and something of how to do so if it can.

Being able to "perform" for others is a different matter... everyone fails miserably at this at times, especially when the nature of the response is complex enough that it does not fit neatly into the form of the discussion.


If by "insight" you mean, "coming to understand something that was not previously clear" then you are correct. If, however, by "insight" you mean nothing more than "offering an effective original response to objections," then you have the appearance of reason but not necessarily reason itself.

But these two are not at all mutually exclusive.

A person may come to understand something that was not previously clear--indeed, may help her opponent understand something that was not previously clear--in the process of "offering an effective original response to objections."

Like I have said: this shows the instrumental use of intelligence. It shows genuine capacity for understanding, even if the understanding, in this case, in the service of delusion.

Of course, truly intelligent people should be able to see right through it.

Maybe. I am not so convinced.

You admit above, after all, that a person can merely coincidentally have the right beliefs and the right arguments to support them for all the wrong reasons... and this suggests that the distinction is largely internal, not external.

Certainly you can often tell when someone is just being intellectually stubborn, and is unwilling to actually take what you are saying seriously... but this judgment too can be questionable, especially when it comes to a topic where there is genuine uncertainty.

Compounding all of this is the fact that there is immense difficulty in being able to ensure that we ourselves are thinking clearly, with minimal bias... and the honest person must acknowledge that very often we are not.

It may seem to me that an opponent is being willfully stubborn and closeminded... but upon further consideration it may end up being me, not him or her, who is the stubborn and close-minded one.

So which explanation is the true one? Imperfect self-knowledge always leave me hanging, to one degree or another.

But then again, I'm the one claiming that true intelligence is exceptionally rare.

Here, I think, our views are much closer.

"True intelligence" is exceptionally rare... and this is precisely the reason why I insist that "being right" and "being intelligent" often do not go together.

Clever intelligence, self-excusing intelligence, is much more convenient than what you have labeled as "true intelligence", and much more common.

Particularly troubling in this respect is the tendency for political views to, objectively, be based on non-rational factors like genetics or environment... and this can hold true for very intelligent people as well.

The construction of a better argument requires an improved understanding of the issues in dispute.No, it doesn't.

If you understand the issues in debate, you will be right.

I'm not up for a more extended response right now... but I would like to mention that one of my colleagues is sitting here with me, and though equally messed up it was a beautiful moment when I said, "I've been having a prolonged conversation about the difference between intelligence and cleverness," and she responded--immediately--"I believe that cleverness is what Socrates would call a 'knack'."

It's so cool when someone just "gets it." :)

I can't really place judgment on who's the "smartest" person on NS, but in terms of RPing, AMF is definitely king. The guy could be a writer.

But this only muddles things... a mathematically brilliant person may be hopelessly closeminded about certain political and philosophical topics (indeed, while perhaps excelling on others).

Does this make her "stupid"? Really?Yes. Yes, it does.

She has great mathematical acuity, but she is a stupid, unintelligent person.

If I delude myself by constructing intellectual defenses, my intellectual capabilities will not atrophy.You can't delude yourself with intellectual defenses, because to be a true intellectual is to dispense with defenses.

What you are saying is that you can delude yourself with defenses requiring great mental acuity, and your ability to do so will not atrophy. Indeed, you may become better and better at deluding yourself.

But that only means you are becoming less and less intellectual.

You are focusing on ends, I am focusing on means.I know, and that's your mistake. You cannot simply break the two apart and still talk about intelligence.

Is a savant who can multiply six-digit numbers in his head intelligent? No. He's a human calculator.

Being able to perform complex operations, whether with words or numbers, in one's head does not intelligence make.

Instrumental understanding, yes.Instrumental understanding is when I understand how a computer works well enough to fix it or modify it or even destroy its functions, depending on my end. If I delude myself about how the computer works, however, I do not have even instrumental understanding... and I will not see the truth of how to do what I want.

Even instrumental understanding has to be concerned fundamentally with truth. Understanding can never be a tool of delusion: that's a contradiction in terms.

As long as that achievement of security requires a good argument, an intelligent argument--even if not the best argument--there is something of substance to it."Something of substance" is a pretty weak case for "intelligence."

Is there "talent" there? Yes. Is there something impressive about it? Yes. Is there something useful in it? Yes.

Is it intelligent? No.

Indeed, the person in question is not acting rationally. But acting rationally is not a requirement of intelligence,Properly speaking, it is the only requirement for intelligence.

Beavers build dams. Very good dams. Birds build nests, some of them very good nests. Spiders and bees build very impressive structures.

But none of them do so rationally, none of them do so because they know what they are doing... and that is what makes them unintelligent, while even the crappy "forts" I built as a child (which did not last as long as a beaver's dam, to be sure) were, for all their flaws, rationally designed and therefore a mark of intelligence.

To make an argument deluding oneself is not rational. Therefore, it is not intelligent.

I think making a clear distinction between "can" and "does", between the capacity and its proper utilization, is important."Can" a person who habitually deludes herself about the truth easily "do" anything else? I think not.

The person in question does construct arguments which are, objectively, rational and intelligent--which tends to be dependent on having understanding.No. To delude one's self is objectively irrational and unintelligent. This is to avoid understanding. Such a person is afraid of understanding.

"I want to win by presenting a rationally, intellectually compelling argument for my point of view."

How is that contradictory?It's not contradictory. But it is also unintelligent to the extent that its only purpose is to win a debate.

Indeed not. But a person may desire to win by being as right as possible without upsetting certain precious beliefs... and while not wholly rational, this shows far more rationality than is expressed by the likes of Bill O'Reilly.I never said there weren't degrees, and I certainly agree that Bill O'Reilly is an extreme case. To desire to be "as right as possible" without upsetting certain precious beliefs is still pretty stupid, however. It is to admit that one does not want to be right if the truth contradicts what one believes. That is the very definition of stupid.

Maybe, but the choice of audience is more significant than you make it out t be.That's true, but not in the way you have it...

If my test is, "Can it convince an intelligent, rational audience?"--maybe myself, maybe others--I am acting much more rationally than a person whose test is, "Can it convince a bunch of mindless buffoons?"Actually, it's less intelligent to want to fool intelligent, rational people.

If I fool a bunch of mindless buffoons, I have done no real injustice: they were mindless buffoons who wouldn't find the truth whether I were there or not.

If, on the other hand, I manage to deceive intelligent, rational people even as I deceive myself, I have hampered the search for truth of people who might have had a chance at obtaining it... if only I didn't muddy the waters by insisting on arguments for a point on which I was, myself, deluded.

There I have done a real injustice, and I have dragged other people down into my own stupidity. I have made the world a more stupid place. And certainly there is nothing intelligent in that.

And this shows in the arguments used. It is easy, and sometimes even rational, to be convinced by the arguments of a person whose desire is to come up with the best argument for a presupposed position.Yes, and that's the problem, isn't it?

Like I said, this has been a large portion of my point from the start... that, to borrow your terminology, the mental acuity required for intelligence always contains with it the danger of very clever stupidity.Now you're making the right distinctions.

"Mental acuity" is that faculty of mind that provides sharpness to thought, that allows quick and responsive logical leaps.

But that underlying faculty is not the same as intelligence or cleverness, which are too different manifestations of mental acuity.

Intelligence is about perception, which is about truth.
Cleverness is about argument, which is about persuasion.

An intelligent person may also be very clever. But a clever person might also turn out to be very, very stupid. Indeed, I find that this is the norm.

I was thinking more along the lines of being able to respond internally... of being able to analyze the strengths in and recognize the flaws of the objection, and through that analysis understand whether it can be responded effectively to, and something of how to do so if it can.Yes, but there are two different KINDS of strengths and flaws in an objection.

There are strengths and flaws based in how well the objection accords with reality.

Then there are strengths and flaws based in how well the objection can be defeated in argument.

It is not true that to accord strongly with reality is sufficient for an argument to succeed. If it were, the world would be a much simpler place.

A person may come to understand something that was not previously clear--indeed, may help her opponent understand something that was not previously clear--in the process of "offering an effective original response to objections."Yes, that MAY happen.

I contend only that it is more likely to happen when the two people involved are intelligent human beings interested in learning the truth of the matter.

Otherwise, what tends to be made "clear" is only another argumentative strength or weakness... not necessarily (but perhaps coincidentally) a real truth.

You admit above, after all, that a person can merely coincidentally have the right beliefs and the right arguments to support them for all the wrong reasons... and this suggests that the distinction is largely internal, not external.Yes, but a person of intelligence can rather easily see through a "coincidental" argument... usually by pressing for further details or connections to other truths. People who have "right opinion" but not knowledge generally show their true colors rather clearly when one gets them beyond the narrow confines of the argument they have learned.

Of course, some cases are more difficult. I have had students who have memorized the arguments I have made in class, who have likewise memorized large sections of texts and relevant discussions, and who can regurgitate the whole history of Western philosophy, annotated, on an exam sheet.

Yet on trying to have an original conversation with them, it becomes clear that they don't really understand any of the arguments they have memorized, no matter how well they can recite them, how well they recognize objections, or how well they make connections between them. They just repeat things like a really, really well-trained parrot.

Compounding all of this is the fact that there is immense difficulty in being able to ensure that we ourselves are thinking clearly, with minimal bias... and the honest person must acknowledge that very often we are not.That's true, but in today's world we also have to admit that none of us is completely free of racist or sexist bias. That doesn't mean we can't recognize a real bigot when we see one.

It may seem to me that an opponent is being willfully stubborn and closeminded... but upon further consideration it may end up being me, not him or her, who is the stubborn and close-minded one.It shouldn't be so hard.

In the course of your argument, it should be relatively easy to identify whether you are arguing to win, or arguing to learn. Once you start to recognize the difference, it becomes like second nature.

This is not to say, of course, that I never argue to win. But when I do, I do it in the spirit of play... and I only do it with a playmate whom I think is capable of understanding that fact.

smart as in whether its something i agree with or disagree with or just an innane story about his life, i realize that he is smarter than i am.

since for the majority of posters here, its obvious that they are smart but its not obvious that they are smarter than "me" ("me" being the person who is doing the thinking about it.)

speaking of. I know Ashmoria is smarter than me, I am 90% sure she is smarter and wiser than most of the population of NSG.

Fass is pretty gifted......but I haven't decided if he is smarter than me or just better educated.

I can't believe nobody said me. http://tachyondecay.net/guestbook/images/smilies/cry.png

Statistically though......I am more intelligent than most of you [/arrogance]

LG is by far the most intelligent person here.

Soheran, Vetalia, Bodies Without Organs, Bottle, and Xenophobialand deserve honorable mentions though, IMO. Plenty of others too, but I'm lazy.

White Hats and Spiritual Anarchy don't seem to post anymore but they were/are the most terrifyingly intelligent people here.

White Hats and Spiritual Anarchy don't seem to post anymore but they were/are the most terrifyingly intelligent people here.

They both always impressed me. Too bad they don't come around like they used to, no?

If you understand the issues in debate, you will be right.

If you understand them fully, yes. But I said "improved," not "complete."

Instrumental understanding is when I understand how a computer works well enough to fix it or modify it or even destroy its functions, depending on my end.

Right.

And here, understanding of the relevant concepts is sought so as to produce better arguments for the chosen belief... and when those better arguments are produced, that is indicative of that instrumental understanding.

Even instrumental understanding has to be concerned fundamentally with truth.

And so it is, here. It is simply concerned with the truth of how to achieve the end--how to use the concepts to support a certain position--rather than with truth as an end in itself.

"Something of substance" is a pretty weak case for "intelligence."

My point was simply that I don't think a clever person's arguments would be so transparent even in the most intelligent of company... because they need not be vacuous at all.

Properly speaking, it is the only requirement for intelligence.

Understanding is required for intelligence. The strength of will necessary to act rationally is a different matter.

If I close my eyes because I cannot bear to see something, I do not see it... but the problem is not with my sight, it is with my will.

"Can" a person who habitually deludes herself about the truth easily "do" anything else? I think not.

No, but it is still a matter of will. It is something, ultimately, under that person's control.

A person who is simply stupid will never, with all the intellectual honesty and dedication in the world, be able to attain clear understanding of many concepts.

No. To delude one's self is objectively irrational and unintelligent.

Yes--well, irrational, at least. Of the person.

I was speaking of the arguments.

Actually, it's less intelligent to want to fool intelligent, rational people.

If I want to fool intelligent, rational people because that is the only way I can convince my own reason that I am correct, then I am more rational than the person for whom winning against anyone with any kind of argument, however flawed, is good enough.

My reason recognizes that "winning" is not the correct criterion... so I am compelled to do much better than trite sophistry, even if this can convince stupid people.

And certainly there is nothing intelligent in that.

Not if it is done consciously and intentionally, no.

Yes, and that's the problem, isn't it?

Not when they actually have a good argument, no.

Yes, but there are two different KINDS of strengths and flaws in an objection.

There are strengths and flaws based in how well the objection accords with reality.

Then there are strengths and flaws based in how well the objection can be defeated in argument.

It is not true that to accord strongly with reality is sufficient for an argument to succeed. If it were, the world would be a much simpler place.
But these two are not at all mutually exclusive.

I'm not sure what you're trying to demonstrate here.

Yes, but a person of intelligence can rather easily see through a "coincidental" argument... usually by pressing for further details or connections to other truths.

It's true that if a person has merely learned to repeat, and not to think, it's pretty easy to see through their arguments, at least after some time.

But if a person has some non-rational "reason" to take a certain position that also happens to be right, and shores up her belief endlessly with arguments that she actually understands, I don't think that would be so easy to see through at all.

That's true, but in today's world we also have to admit that none of us is completely free of racist or sexist bias. That doesn't mean we can't recognize a real bigot when we see one.

Yeah, but that's a special case in that the bigot is pretty transparently wrong.

If I'm arguing about something where the truth is not so clear, there is much more room for uncertainty for where the bias is.

It shouldn't be so hard.

In the course of your argument, it should be relatively easy to identify whether you are arguing to win, or arguing to learn.

Not when "arguing to win" can include arguing on rational bases, no.

I never argue to win in a serious discussion, in that I don't use arguments I don't think "work" on rational grounds, even if I think they might convince my opponent... but there are more subtle manifestations of "arguing to win" that are not so easy to recognize.

For instance, I also don't tend to abandon positions unless I am convinced that they are wrong, and in and of itself there is nothing irrational about this, but there is a point where it becomes mere close-mindedness.

Where is the line between exhausting objections so as to be thoroughly convinced, and merely persisting beyond the point of reason? I am not sure that it is so easily recognizable.

If you understand them fully, yes. But I said "improved," not "complete."Improved understanding should make you, then, more right.

Hence, one who makes intelligent arguments should tend to be right. One who tends to be "egregiously" wrong does not strike me as one who has any understanding whatsoever.

Understanding is required for intelligence. The strength of will necessary to act rationally is a different matter.Agreed. But a knowing person lacking will is very different than someone who is simply, usually, "egregiously" wrong.

If I'm arguing about something where the truth is not so clear, there is much more room for uncertainty for where the bias is.If the truth is not so clear, you cannot be "egregiously" wrong.

Where is the line between exhausting objections so as to be thoroughly convinced, and merely persisting beyond the point of reason? I am not sure that it is so easily recognizable.What can I say?

Once you get, you get it. It's like one of those 3D pictures.

EDIT: To be clear, that's an issue of self-knowledge. I know when I am persisting beyond the point of reason because I have had much time to observe myself in argument and I have cared enough to pay attention to such things. If you care about being an intellectual and not merely a skilled debater, you will do the same.

But this is becoming circular, and therefore boring.

So.....after 14 pages of debate, have we determined who is the smartest person at NSG?

Hmmmm.......didn't think so!! :p

I think the smartest ones are those that didn't waste too much time on this thread!! :eek:

I think the smartest ones are those that didn't waste too much time on this thread!! :eek:Why? Was it a waste of time?

Who would be the correct judge(s) of whether it was a waste of time? Those who spent their time on it?

So.....after 14 pages of debate, have we determined who is the smartest person at NSG?

Hmmmm.......didn't think so!! :p

I think the smartest ones are those that didn't waste too much time on this thread!! :eek:

Well, anyone smart enough to be considered the smartest, is also smart enough to know that he or she probably isn't the smartest. :p

I will say that I'm very flattered that so many people picked me though. :)

Well, anyone smart enough to be considered the smartest, is also smart enough to know that he or she probably isn't the smartest. :p

I will say that I'm very flattered that so many people picked me though. :)
Yeah, but you are just a goofball and a lunatic to boot.....that is why we luvs ya!! :)

You just keep on comforting the disturbed and distrurbing the comfortable!!

I don't think the thread was a waste of time. If it had served it's original purpose then it would have ben a waste of time. But instead there has been an interesting discussion, or at least one that was certainly interesting to read.

Although i am sure that if i had been involved i would have been outclassed as I am one of those people who can form a good argument when speaking, but lack the ability (except in rare circumstances) to put my thoughts onto paper as it were.

EDIT: To be clear, that's an issue of self-knowledge.

Yes, and as with all attempts at self-knowledge it is particularly subject to bias and distortion.

There is a circularity here: to truly know ourselves, we must be able to look at ourselves with unbiased reason, but the only way we can know our biases well enough to recognize and overcome them is to already know ourselves.

So.....after 14 pages of debate, have we determined who is the smartest person at NSG?

Arguing about who is smartest is far, far more of a pointless triviality than the actual topic of discussion was.

Fass, Corneliu and LG.Wow.
:eek:

Perhaps. In which case I would criticize them for lacking certain other virtues, such as sincerity or wisdom.If criticism be your aim.
You can't assault the intelligence of someone who hasn't shown you all their cards.


No, it doesn't.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Two things - one, the term "you" i used earlier was a general address, and not you specifically, even though i was using your text as the reference for said address.
Two - it certainly does. Flip back a few pages and consider what was said about trolls.

Well you are involved now dorkface.

Oh awesome. I *never* hear that one used anymore. :)

If we go purely by IQ scores (IRL tests, of coruse, not online tests) my 164 may very well be a winner.

I'm not foolish enough to say that intelligence is based purely on IQ, though.
Funny how higher intellect means broader consideration means higher doubt capacity.
:)

Err...define 'member' and 'of' and 'Are'.

No, that'd be of the recently multicultural Rhodes Scholarship members.
:p

Yes, well, my penis is a good 20 cm long, and at least 4cm in girth.

:eek:

Pretty well-endowed compared to the common NSG forum frequenter ... or internet forum frequenter of any kind, really.

fass wins that one too.

Boy howdy. :eek:

Yes, and as with all attempts at self-knowledge it is particularly subject to bias and distortion.Yes. Fortunately it can also be off-set by inherently first-person data reporting. ;)

There is a circularity here: to truly know ourselves, we must be able to look at ourselves with unbiased reason, but the only way we can know our biases well enough to recognize and overcome them is to already know ourselves.Suddenly you're NOT going to allow "degrees" of knowledge on the way to "truly"? Clever... but I caught you. ;)

Arguing about who is smartest is far, far more of a pointless triviality than the actual topic of discussion was.Naturally. ;)

And just for good measure... ;)

speaking of. I know Ashmoria is smarter than me, I am 90% sure she is smarter and wiser than most of the population of NSG.

Fass is pretty gifted......but I haven't decided if he is smarter than me or just better educated.

I can't believe nobody said me.
Statistically though......I am more intelligent than most of you [/arrogance]

thank you!

you need to get better at the subtle demonstrations of extreme intelligence. im not sure what they are but some people here are good at it.

you are definitely smarter at life than most of humanity. that is more important than your having a higher IQ than the rest of us.

most of the people here are well above average. its hard to tell who has the most raw intelligence since that person might not be as good as some at posting or have the years of education that other people have. when everyone is within...say...10 or 15 iq points of each other, its pretty subtle difference.

but then i just had the experience of finding out that someone that i swim with every day who seems like an average kinda guy actually designs and builds seismic experiements that are placed all over the globe including antarctica and tibet. without being in a "smart" context how was i to know how smart he really is?

If criticism be your aim.
You can't assault the intelligence of someone who hasn't shown you all their cards.Sure I can, though my likelihood of accuracy is clearly dependent on (among other things) the proportion of their cards they have shown.

Two - it certainly does. Flip back a few pages and consider what was said about trolls.Alas... I'm just not that interested. :)

:eek:

Pretty well-endowed compared to the common NSG forum frequenter ... or internet forum frequenter of any kind, really.Or... umm, anyone, for that matter.

I think I already pointed out that this would be 99th percentile, length-wise. And while I'm sure we have some people around NS who are 1/100, given the general culture I find any particular claim impossible to believe... and I'm sure as hell not going to ask for evidence!!

Hence, we shall forever remain in the dark. Thankfully, I'm sure.

Fass is pretty gifted......but I haven't decided if he is smarter than me or just better educated.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12955830&postcount=40

Or... umm, anyone, for that matter.

I think I already pointed out that this would be 99th percentile, length-wise. And while I'm sure we have some people around NS who are 1/100, given the general culture I find any particular claim impossible to believe... and I'm sure as hell not going to ask for evidence!!

Hence, we shall forever remain in the dark. Thankfully, I'm sure.

Isn't that what "Face"book is for? :p

Sure I can, though my likelihood of accuracy is clearly dependent on (among other things) the proportion of their cards they have shown.


Not everyone has the same number of cards, nor do you know how many cards any particular person is holding. So you are, in effect, completely in the dark.

That said, it is a well established fact that no-one on NSG has an IQ of less than 180. Where is my warp drive?

Bah, I don't feel like reading through the thread that no doubt descends into incredible sucking up. Still, I don't suppose someone received a majority of votes by any chance?

Not everyone has the same number of cards, nor do you know how many cards any particular person is holding. So you are, in effect, completely in the dark.On that argument, I can never be the judge of anyone's intelligence, ever. For that matter, I shouldn't be able to make any other judgments about a person, either.

I find that blatantly absurd. There is always some probability that my judgments are in error, but one can learn by experience to judge that fairly reliably as well.

I suppose this is more an application of Bayesian probability: even if the number of "cards" is potentially infinite, I can still make reasonable guesses based on what I've seen.

That said, it is a well established fact that no-one on NSG has an IQ of less than 180.Ah yes, I forgot. 180 IQ and 20-cm cocks. How could I forget?

Where is my warp drive?It fell into my time machine and a quantum fluctuation resulted in their fusing into an artificial intelligence with one, and only one goal: destroy the human race.

Oh well. There goes the planet.

Suddenly you're NOT going to allow "degrees" of knowledge on the way to "truly"? Clever... but I caught you. ;)

If I didn't, I would say that we have no potential for self-knowledge at all... which, since only with self-knowledge can we fairly judge our perceptions of the external world, makes most other kinds of knowledge rather difficult, too.

I am not that much of a skeptic. Just cautious. And trying my best to avoid having my pride taint my intelligence.

Ah yes, I forgot. 180 IQ and 20-cm cocks. How could I forget?.

Even the women have 20cm cocks online!

It fell into my time machine and a quantum fluctuation resulted in their fusing into an artificial intelligence with one, and only one goal: destroy the human race.

Oh well. There goes the planet.

Perhaps if it sucked up some Omega particles then it would have a more spectacular result.

On that argument, I can never be the judge of anyone's intelligence, ever. For that matter, I shouldn't be able to make any other judgments about a person, either.

You can't be the judge of someone's intelligence. You can only be the judge of whether or not they are likely to act in an intelligent fashion as you understand it.

It fell into my time machine and a quantum fluctuation resulted in their fusing into an artificial intelligence with one, and only one goal: destroy the human race.

Oh well. There goes the planet.

This is why the US is doomed. Sloppy manufacturing standards. :mad:

I am not that much of a skeptic. Just cautious. And trying my best to avoid having my pride taint my intelligence.That's a good start. When you learn to recognize your own pride when you see it, you're five steps closer to avoiding its tainting your intelligence.

Though, in line with Rousseau, I would distinguish two different kinds of pride:

Amour de soi, or a healthy self-love associated with the pride of working hard to accomplish one's goals, etc.

Amour propre, or a self-preferential love that thrives on distinguishing one's self against others and which coils up into envy against those who have or do more.

If you want to avoid the French, I loosely translate these as "pride" in the first case and "vanity" in the latter. Pride, in this sense, is a normal, healthy thing -- think of it in terms of self-esteem. Vanity, however, is a disease.

(These aren't perfect translations, but it's better than "good pride" and "bad pride.") :p

Even the women have 20cm cocks online!

THIS IS SPARTA!

Even the women have 20cm cocks online!Hmm, I've seen that site.

Are they planning an invasion?

Man the defenses, I say!

You can't be the judge of someone's intelligence. You can only be the judge of whether or not they are likely to act in an intelligent fashion as you understand it.Good enough for me.

Wow.
:eek:
Wow indeed!!

The Cornman has a friend. :D

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12955830&postcount=40

I totally knew that. I know a lot of stuff Fass knows, only he knows a lot of stuff that I don't know. Which is why I said he is definitely better educated than I.

Wow indeed!!

The Cornman has a friend. :D
Don't know if you heard ....
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/08/canada-security-service-suspected-us.php

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=12ed8fea-bef6-4648-9ae1-1015e95ca87a&k=97840

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070811.warrar11/BNStory/National/home

Sure I can, though my likelihood of accuracy is clearly dependent on (among other things) the proportion of their cards they have shown.True, as that is what most people do.
And the more experience we have, the more we know what to expect with a future similar encounter.
And again, and again ...


Alas... I'm just not that interested. :)
Fair 'nuff. Just that i've found there's a few trolls who have struck me as quite intelligent here, even if it's just a matter of craft and flexibility, and perhaps more being clever than intelligent, but i try to give respect where it's due.

On that argument, I can never be the judge of anyone's intelligence, ever. For that matter, I shouldn't be able to make any other judgments about a person, either.

I find that blatantly absurd. There is always some probability that my judgments are in error, but one can learn by experience to judge that fairly reliably as well.

I suppose this is more an application of Bayesian probability: even if the number of "cards" is potentially infinite, I can still make reasonable guesses based on what I've seen.

Ah yes, I forgot. 180 IQ and 20-cm cocks. How could I forget?

It fell into my time machine and a quantum fluctuation resulted in their fusing into an artificial intelligence with one, and only one goal: destroy the human race.

Oh well. There goes the planet.

That's a pretty good post. :)

Bah, I don't feel like reading through the thread that no doubt descends into incredible sucking up. Still, I don't suppose someone received a majority of votes by any chance?

Hanging chads.

BTW - is that Katherine Harris lurking over there, astride a mustang, in that lurid, tight maroon shirt? :retch:

Even the women have 20cm cocks online!

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/5/5a/ASL-OldObese.jpg

Hey "old man", good to hear people respecting you. :)
Even if you are evil.

Good enough for me.

That's sort of the whole problem with this thing though, isn't it?

That's sort of the whole problem with this thing though, isn't it?

Are we better at demonstrating the concept through our challenges ... as some do here, through trolling or something like it, or by rational debate and discussion that mostly has us gleaning things through inspiration to appreciate and, i suppose, make communion with viewpoints we perceive as complimentary to ours?

It still only tends to show one facet of several.
I, for example, rarely speak the way i type, and my memory is only in glossing lightly and in increments of the vast data source at my fingertips.
Whatever social circumstances i find myself in at times don't really do justice one way or another about my intellect - i oft find that other people are talking about things that don't involve me, that i don't have any useful input about, or i simply don't know a lot of anything helpful about.
And yet in other instances, i'm told by any number of people i should take on a professorship of sorts and make it easier for people to understand things (although, admittedly, my typing is not always in that persuasion). I usually reply that it's not too hard to find, if you keep some persistence in your question and intellect.
*shrug*
I don't necessarily feel smarter, and any time i do, it doesn't take long before i run into some kind of situation that readily reminds me how much i don't really know.

Are we better at demonstrating the concept through our challenges ... as some do here, through trolling or something like it, or by rational debate and discussion that mostly has us gleaning things through inspiration to appreciate and, i suppose, make communion with viewpoints we perceive as complimentary to ours?

It still only tends to show one facet of several.
I, for example, rarely speak the way i type, and my memory is only in glossing lightly and in increments of the vast data source at my fingertips.
Whatever social circumstances i find myself in at times don't really do justice one way or another about my intellect - i oft find that other people are talking about things that don't involve me, that i don't have any useful input about, or i simply don't know a lot of anything helpful about.
And yet in other instances, i'm told by any number of people i should take on a professorship of sorts and make it easier for people to understand things (although, admittedly, my typing is not always in that persuasion). I usually reply that it's not too hard to find, if you keep some persistence in your question and intellect.
*shrug*
I don't necessarily feel smarter, and any time i do, it doesn't take long before i run into some kind of situation that readily reminds me how much i don't really know.

Well, all I know about you is that you know how to drill wells and fix things. In my book that makes you one thousand times better than a college professor. (And I say this as a guy who can still do burmeister soils from a split spoon sampler).

Make things. That's what makes the world a better place.

Well, all I know about you is that you know how to drill wells and fix things. In my book that makes you one thousand times better than a college professor.Hey!

This is a college professor who may not have much experience drilling wells, but I do pride myself on my ability to fix most anything that doesn't require heavy machinery!

How's that, now? My parents were notoriously cheap, and to them an intelligent, able-bodied child meant free repair services... for life, it would appear. :rolleyes:

Well, all I know about you is that you know how to drill wells and fix things. In my book that makes you one thousand times better than a college professor. (And I say this as a guy who can still do burmeister soils from a split spoon sampler).

Make things. That's what makes the world a better place.

*bows*
Thank you.
:)

I can only say, about myself, is that i am incontent and/or satisfied to stay with the facts and understanding that i have, because i feel incomplete not only from various situations i intimated earlier, but because it's in my very nature to strive to learn and understand. Much to the chagrin of some folks who are close to me, i'm sure.

And, as far as i know, i'm not sure i could do burmeister soils from a split spoon sampler. :)

Hey!

This is a college professor who may not have much experience drilling wells, but I do pride myself on my ability to fix most anything that doesn't require heavy machinery!

How's that, now? My parents were notoriously cheap, and to them an intelligent, able-bodied child meant free repair services... for life, it would appear. :rolleyes:

My apologies, folks, i wasn't trying to incite any strife or conflict. Truly.

I should add that it took quite a while to overcome my own klutziness (which i still haven't overcome completely), to the degree that i could be helpful/useful in such a context.

I suppose i'll outgrow the use of my limbs and back for hard labour, and then, hopefully, my mind will be sound enough to be of equitable value to both some form of employment and my own esteem.

thank you!

you need to get better at the subtle demonstrations of extreme intelligence. im not sure what they are but some people here are good at it.

you are definitely smarter at life than most of humanity. that is more important than your having a higher IQ than the rest of us.

most of the people here are well above average. its hard to tell who has the most raw intelligence since that person might not be as good as some at posting or have the years of education that other people have. when everyone is within...say...10 or 15 iq points of each other, its pretty subtle difference.

but then i just had the experience of finding out that someone that i swim with every day who seems like an average kinda guy actually designs and builds seismic experiements that are placed all over the globe including antarctica and tibet. without being in a "smart" context how was i to know how smart he really is?

my general area of smartness is not well reflected in this forum, I am better at things that I can't really show you people :p

However, I just found out a few weeks back that one of my friends (not a close friend, but a we go to the same homeschool co-op friend) is actually a real life rocket scientist. I always knew she had some type of doctorate in science, so I knew she was well educated, but to actually know a real rocket scientist is so.......awesome. She doesn't work anymore outside the house though, so there really wasn't any way for me to know.

However, I just found out a few weeks back that one of my friends (not a close friend, but a we go to the same homeschool co-op friend) is actually a real life rocket scientist.I know a rocket scientist... who happens to be a real prick about it.

My uncle: he used to work for NASA, now he works for some weapons manufacturer. Last I heard from him, he wanted to hire me (based on my math degree) to analyze wind-tunnel data on parts for assault helicopters. Good money, too... but I just pictured myself going to prison for sabotaging one of the damn things, and thought better of it.

Anyway, when his second wife divorced him my mom went to support him at a custody hearing for their son, and she took me along for the ride. I'll never forget the way he lost his case--or at least, how he ensured that if there were any doubt in his favor, the judge would not give it to him.

When explaining something to my uncle, the judge employed the common expression, "You don't have to be a rocket scientist to..."

My uncle interrupted:

"Excuse me, Your Honor... but I am a rocket scientist."

Prick. Fortunately (and obviously) he got what he deserved. ;)

EDIT: Actually, this anecdote makes a nice conclusion to my argument...

Rocket scientist? Yes. Smart? I think not. :)

Yeah, it's so cool to be a rocket scientist. Each degree makes you twice smarter, and this one thrice.

On topic: The smartest person here is one of those who have never clicked this thread.

Don't know if you heard ....
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/08/canada-security-service-suspected-us.php

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=12ed8fea-bef6-4648-9ae1-1015e95ca87a&k=97840

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070811.warrar11/BNStory/National/home
Yes I did hear.......how sad. What is even sadder, is that I have received some emails from some friends complaining that he got $10 million from the government for his ordeal. Those emails really pissed me off and I told them so!!

Hmm, I've seen that site.

Are they planning an invasion?

Man the defenses, I say!
Are you talking about the one with the clams in Boston Harbor who started growing huge schlongs because of what the red anti-barnacle paint was doing to them?
:confused:

Erm, if so, can you provide a link? I was thinking of that one pic where the guy's holding the clam up by it as a nation flag.

Yes I did hear.......how sad. What is even sadder, is that I have received some emails from some friends complaining that he got $10 million from the government for his ordeal. Those emails really pissed me off and I told them so!!

They were complaining?

CIA admission, even. And still that BS that passed this week so congress could go on vacation.
Unbelievable.
:(