Question for you scary smart Mofos

[jokerthief]

Do you ever get frustrated at the speed of life? Frustrated that people can't think as fast as you, can't keep up with you? Do you ever lament the fact that you can't communicate the fullness of your persona with 95% or more of the population? Do you ever feel like Harrison Bergeron (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html) and the world is an agent from the Handicapper General's office?

I sense an impatience running through Sklansky's posts. There are many more of you who are scary smart that peruse this forum. Curious, what do you think?

[Voltron87]

i feel this way a lot of the time. i dont work very well in groups because of this.

[Aytumious]

You aren't intelligent enough for me to respond in a way that would be meaningful for you. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Blarg]

Sklansky definitely writes that way. It seems clear that he finds mathematical ability a workably complete definition of intelligence. Coincidentally, it's what he happens to be apparently by far the best at. He's a lot like Bill Gates says he used to be, in that way. Gates changed a bit. I don't think Sklansky can.

Being able to think well requires thinking a lot, and is easier with a backlog of plenty of practice. I do think that you can get better at it if you put more into it, and can definitely lose your edge if your assets lay fallow. Think of all those people who have told you after a summer off in college that they feel stupid, and like they have to somehow mentally catch up to their own previous level after that lay-off. If you are surrounded in the rest of your life with people and situations that make you think, you'll step up closer to the limits of your abilities, and perhaps discover your abilities are greater than you had realized. If you are surrounded in the rest of your life by dunces or just people who don't challenge you in any way, your brain will slowly turn to mush. I don't think you can keep your edge indefinitely without maintenance. Especially as you age, and your natural energy declines.

[diebitter]

It's only frustrating personally if you're trying to specifically lead them through an argument/discussion to get to a conclusion you've already reached.

Otherwise, slow is fine. Different strokes and all that.

[Darryl_P]

That's a cute story which I've seen before and I can definitely relate. In a nutshell it's basically the reason why I'm about as far right as you can get on the political spectrum.

[imported_luckyme]

I'm not scary smart ( top 0.5% is pretty common after all) but as I get older having to explain the simplist logical errors for the bizillionth time before you can get into a real discussion ( not to the same person...usually :-) seems to try my patience more. I've been considered a tolerant and patient person the bulk of my life, but it's slipping away /images/graemlins/frown.gif

So, maybe it afflects even the merely 'bright' people too ?? I recently used the Harrison Bergeron story to illustrate what I think they're doing in the school system but you may have a point.. it could be more general than that.

luckyme,
if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind

[jokerthief]

[ QUOTE ]
I recently used the Harrison Bergeron story to illustrate what I think they're doing in the school system but you may have a point.. it could be more general than that.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think that Harrison Bergeron is multidimentional enough to find lessons in it that relate to a myriad of problems.

[bearly]

lucky, what if you thought you 'were' wrong....?.......b

[ QUOTE ]
Do you ever get frustrated at the speed of life? Frustrated that people can't think as fast as you, can't keep up with you? Do you ever lament the fact that you can't communicate the fullness of your persona with 95% or more of the population? Do you ever feel like Harrison Bergeron (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html) and the world is an agent from the Handicapper General's office?

I sense an impatience running through Sklansky's posts. There are many more of you who are scary smart that peruse this forum. Curious, what do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that my girlfriend is putting makeup on me right now to dress me up like a whore is good enough for me to hate whatever god there is. I've got enough spunk in me to spank off all over a can of beans. Good night.

[David Sklansky]

"It seems clear that he finds mathematical ability a workably complete definition of intelligence. Coincidentally, it's what he happens to be apparently by far the best"

That doesn't mean I'm wrong. However the ability that I think correlates highest with intelligence is not pure mathematical ability. It is more related to finding creative solutions via analogies and clever logic. Which is a good thing because it is that talent, rather than pure mathematical ability, that I am best at.

[kbfc]

Right now, I'd be inclined to agree. I wouldn't be shocked, though, if somewhere down the line, AI research starts to hint that this sort of creativity and ingenuity is actually just the product of incredibly complicated mathematical calculation. If that's the case, the distinction you're making starts to blur.

[theBruiser500]

[ QUOTE ]
"It seems clear that he finds mathematical ability a workably complete definition of intelligence. Coincidentally, it's what he happens to be apparently by far the best"

That doesn't mean I'm wrong. However the ability that I think correlates highest with intelligence is not pure mathematical ability. It is more related to finding creative solutions via analogies and clever logic. Which is a good thing because it is that talent, rather than pure mathematical ability, that I am best at.

[/ QUOTE ]

hey david, IQ doesn't mean much unless you make your IQ translate into happiness for yourself. how are you doing on that front? that is something you could be proud about. going over your theories on god over and over again is not very impressive, no matter how right you might be with your high IQ of 150 or whatever it is.

[theBruiser500]

and btw, skalsnky just in case you didn't notice, please let me point out for you that at a quick glance - it looks like your mindless posts on religion are starting to get less responses than they used too. THANK GOD. maybe you will just keep at it though and eventually no one will respond, what an embarassing state of affairs that would be for you. hopefully you will just stop though. or maybe, just maybe you will talk with people about something truly controversial where you could be wrong, get a really interesting coversation going. i doubt that that will be happening though.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
However the ability that I think correlates highest with intelligence is not pure mathematical ability. It is more related to finding creative solutions via analogies and clever logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will agree with David, because I am also far better at that than pure mathematical ability!

[kbfc]

At the rate you're going here, I don't think he's in any danger of losing response volume.....

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
hey david, IQ doesn't mean much unless you make your IQ translate into happiness for yourself. how are you doing on that front?

[/ QUOTE ]

He gets more 23-year-olds than Daniel Negreanu.

[ QUOTE ]
That's a cute story which I've seen before and I can definitely relate. In a nutshell it's basically the reason why I'm about as far right as you can get on the political spectrum.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a very conservative friend who said something similar to me once - that he can't imagine being a liberal becasue the liberals he's used to talking to are often incredibly stupid. However, talking to him reveals that he is actually independent in most of his views, and only agrees with true conservatives about 55% of the time. In other words, it seems to me that his description of himself as a conservative has more to do with hating liberals than with his actual beliefs.

Sorry, I guess I don't really have a point here. Just thought that was interesting.

[Darryl_P]

When you say "true" conservatives, do you mean the ones who call themselves that and have their names on ballots? I'd say those guys are at about 0.55 on the spectrum while the guys who call themselves liberals and have their names on ballots are at about 0.45 (assuming it goes from 0 on the extreme left to 1 at the extreme right).

My observations are that some liberals are very smart, yet for some reason they just identify with the meek, poor, disadvantaged, etc. The unabomber believes it's because of low self-esteem and that sounds like a reasonable theory to me.

Have a look at paragraphs 6-23 in the manifesto (http://www.thecourier.com/manifest.htm)

Here are pps. 12 and 13 just to give a taste:

[ QUOTE ]
12. Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white males from middle-class families.

13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not suggest that women, Indians, etc., ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology).



[/ QUOTE ]

The unabomber is someone who is smart enough to get any advanced degree he feels like getting and so he can see through the posturing, brainwashing, PC BS, and other self-serving and society-serving agendas that universities have. Laymen who sense this but aren't as smart usually run out of arguments because these PC types just pour on the high-tech gobbledygook which invokes the public's primitive instincts (this guy knows big words, he's studied a lot, so he must be smart, and so he must be right) and overwhelms the would-be dissenter into submission.

Guys like Ted and me who can see through it and give proper counter-arguments don't see the point in arguing because the referee/judge is simply the majority opinion, which will always be on the side of the professors (as long as the current system continues to provide a good standard of living, that is). If instead it were a 300 IQ being from another planet, who sees humans as just another member of the animal kingdom, much like we see elephants, say, then I'd make it my full-time occupation to get into these debates.

As far as I know, Kaczynski is generally considered to be a libertarian because his main objective is to destroy the state apparatus, but I don't think he wants to stop there; rather, he would like to make a new system in which high IQ people have advantages over dumdums (more than what they stand to get from their higher IQs alone), but he has never stated this explicitly.

[IronUnkind]

Is your dad smarter than Einstein?

[KeysrSoze]

Funny you say that, Daryl. I often see that the common masses are either typically conservatives or liberals, while the really smart people (not the ivory tower tenured wanna-be intellectuals and news-channel talking heads but the true geniuses at the very edge of the bell-curve) are usually either really authoritarian or libertarian. They're often considered quite mad though. I guess sending bombs in the mail will do that to your reputation.

[David Sklansky]

"Is your dad smarter than Einstein?"

The funny thing about that question is that at the beginning of this thread I redefined smartness in a way that would cause me to say that at their peaks, Einsten wins by a nose. Using the definiton I disputed, my father, at his best would have run away with it (as would thousands of others).

My father's professors included:

A Adrian Albert

Arthur Compton

Mortimer Adler

Ernest Nagel

Edward Kasner

Norbert Weiner

Lise Meitner

Look them up. Most are probably in the top 1000 smartest people who ever lived. Certainly the top 5000.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
They're often considered quite mad though. I guess sending bombs in the mail will do that to your reputation.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's really a shame he didn't have more patience. Eventually the system will implode on itself via the economic house of cards collapsing, and then his philosophies would get a wider audience, but I guess he was getting old and figured he had to give his life some meaning. My answer to that is to have lots of kids and pass on the philosophies, so that one (or more) of them (or maybe even the following generation) can capitalize by being an important part of the right movement at the right time. The unabomber never had much time for women, though, and probably that led to his poor choice of implementation methods, which then led to his downfall.

[IronUnkind]

But could your father have ever come up with general relativity?

[Prevaricator]

[ QUOTE ]
Using the definiton I disputed, my father, at his best would have run away with it (as would thousands of others).

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the kind of conclusion that might lead one to believe the premise (your definition) is false...

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
Funny you say that, Daryl. I often see that the common masses are either typically conservatives or liberals, while the really smart people (not the ivory tower tenured wanna-be intellectuals and news-channel talking heads but the true geniuses at the very edge of the bell-curve) are usually either really authoritarian or libertarian. They're often considered quite mad though. I guess sending bombs in the mail will do that to your reputation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a little unclear why there's such hatred of the university as an institution. While there are certainly plenty of elitists, the best universities, in their pursuit of new knowledge, employ creative and sometimes radical thinking in pursuit of novel solutions to difficult problems.

It's as if people have some mistaken belief that universities are blind defenders of the status quo. Conservative political thinkers tend much more toward defending the status quo and universities generally are rarely politically conservative.

I see the majority of people as moderate, with a recent trend toward the right over the last 4-5 years. I see true liberals and conservatives as lying more on the outskirts of political discourse. I don't see why intelligence need be correlated with political extremism like fascism or anarchism (NOT anarchy).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However the ability that I think correlates highest with intelligence is not pure mathematical ability. It is more related to finding creative solutions via analogies and clever logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will agree with David, because I am also far better at that than pure mathematical ability!

[/ QUOTE ]

I will disagree because I'm far better at pinball.

chez

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
the ability that I think correlates highest with intelligence is not pure mathematical ability. It is more related to finding creative solutions via analogies and clever logic

[/ QUOTE ]

Einstein was not a great mathematican ( for the level he worked at) and his strength was more in the areas you cite. The traps in that approach include 'solving from within the analogy'and/or not forming a clean stand-alone theory once the analogy has performed its stimulative role.

One of the best at this is Daniel Dennett. As a 'mere' philosopher he has influenced an incredible range of scientific work in the last 30 years or so. "Intuition pump" is his term for the analogies.

[purnell]

It's pretty easy for me to see how, given the right circumstances, someone who is "scary smart" (think about the loneliness implied by that description) might decide that he is better off dead.

[David Sklansky]

He'd be an underdog but not an out price. He's certainly was smarter than Murray Gell Mann (but probably not Feynman Dirac or Witten).

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
It's pretty easy for me to see how, given the right circumstances, someone who is "scary smart" (think about the loneliness implied by that description) might decide that he is better off dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or that the next agent from the Handicapper General's would be /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Loneliness is more of a problem for extroverts, bright intraverts would tend to have different demons.

[IronUnkind]

Gell-Mann would disagree.

[jokerthief]

[ QUOTE ]
"It seems clear that he finds mathematical ability a workably complete definition of intelligence. Coincidentally, it's what he happens to be apparently by far the best"

That doesn't mean I'm wrong. However the ability that I think correlates highest with intelligence is not pure mathematical ability. It is more related to finding creative solutions via analogies and clever logic. Which is a good thing because it is that talent, rather than pure mathematical ability, that I am best at.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Sklansky, I was hoping you would answer my question in the OP since you are just about the only person I can be 100% sure falls into my "scary smart" category. Do you find the world generally frustrating? Does your high intelligence lead to any other frustrations?

[David Sklansky]

Basically yes.

[David Sklansky]

"Gell-Mann would disagree."

Don't think he would. And I base my original statement on Mark Weitzman who was his student. (My observations about extremely smart people by the way is that unlike very smart people, they are quick to realize when someone is even smarter.)

[ QUOTE ]

The fact that my girlfriend is putting makeup on me right now to dress me up like a whore is good enough for me to hate whatever god there is. I've got enough spunk in me to spank off all over a can of beans. Good night.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must be a dummy, because after reading all the posts in this thread that is the only one I found to be interesting ( no offense OP).
Details???

My biggest frustration with being relatively intelligent is that I am asked to teach family members and friends things that I just picked up on. Things like grammar, and similar topics....

I wasnt taught, so I struggle to teach them.

(oh and please, please dont look for grammar errors in this post. This is a forum.)

[jokerthief]

[ QUOTE ]
My biggest frustration with being relatively intelligent is that I am asked to teach family members and friends things that I just picked up on. Things like grammar, and similar topics....

I wasnt taught, so I struggle to teach them.

(oh and please, please dont look for grammar errors in this post. This is a forum.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you expound on who, why, and how someone came to ask you to teach them grammer? That's an odd thing to teach someone.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]

Norbert Weiner


[/ QUOTE ]

First, it's Norbert Wiener and second yes, he is definitely among the most creative, intelligent minds ever.

well, I have twin male cousins, who I have come to look after as brothers. My uncle seems to think Im pretty intelligent, and so he asks me to help them with school from time to time.

The way I understand the world is by learning the concepts behind everything, the "why" and not the "what". This is not how many people I have come across learn.

I just picked grammar because I recently had to help one of them with it in an essay, and I found it difficult to do so.

[bearly]

dan dennent was a professor of mine in grad school---long time ago. no mere philosopher, whatever that might be. it was unclear what his 'vision' was , but he was developing his own perspective even then..........b

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't think he would. And I base my original statement on Mark Weitzman who was his student.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gell-Mann's arrogance and jealousy are well-documented, Weitzman's opinion notwithstanding.

[ QUOTE ]
My observations about extremely smart people by the way is that unlike very smart people, they are quick to realize when someone is even smarter

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is universally true, then Gell-Mann is at least as smart as Feynman.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
dan dennent was a professor of mine in grad school---long time ago. no mere philosopher, whatever that might be. it was unclear what his 'vision' was ,

[/ QUOTE ]

A mere philosopher would be somebody working in a field held in low regard by many. A 'mere' philosopher ( which is how I characterized Dennett) is somebody who proves the stereotype wrong.

DS states -
[ QUOTE ]
the ability that I think correlates highest with intelligence is not pure mathematical ability. It is more related to finding creative solutions via analogies and clever logic

[/ QUOTE ]

Dennett is in top form by that criteria. In a forum that tackles consciousness, mind/brain, evolution, free will, etc, I'd expect Dennetts work to be almost mandatory reading since his influence on the thought on those topics has been enormous.

I've enjoyed his books on several levels,
luckyme

[David Sklansky]

Don't think he would. And I base my original statement on Mark Weitzman who was his student.


Gell-Mann's arrogance and jealousy are well-documented, Weitzman's opinion notwithstanding.

You misunderstood. I was only talking about Mark's opinion of his intelligence.

[IronUnkind]

Oh, okay. Thought you were talking about Mark's opinion of Gell-Mann's opinion of your opinion of your father's intelligence. If you parsed that sentence, by the way, then you are extremely smart.

[bearly]

it is interesting that you should mention the influence of prof. dennet's wk. uc irvine at that time was heavily focused on the issues you mentioned; even to the exclusion of much of what is called 'traditional philosophy'. many of the professors---k. lambert, s. munsat, g. brittian, e.h.kluge--were more outwardly dedicated to these 'new' directions. modalities of thought and semiotics were just part of the day to day musings. i was bothered the first year, it was so non-traditional. i got w/ it tho. irvine was one of the first departments to recognize this divergence and to split the direction of study into 2 seperate curricula. one evolved into studies along the lines of what dan and the others were into, the other was strictly mainstream/traditional. sorry for the ot, but i thought some might find it interesting.................b