We are not as smart as we think we are

We are not superior to normal people in terms of intelligence like the common coping sentiment suggests. We are not smart unless we excell in life. Yes, that is right. Intelligence is the massive of the qualities of the ability to accurately construct the model of the objective reality. Those qualities include the speed, accuracy and detail. If you have the ability to do do that, then you know how to manipulate the reality to shift the outcomes however you please. Now why in the world would you deliberately choose not to use such an ability to achieve your desired goals in life provided you actually have it? Generally speaking, It is much more likely that the person who is not using their intelligence to help themselves in life simply doesnt have enough of it than it is that they deliberately refuse to do so out of some principle or belief.

>>84165 The notion that intelligence can only be demonstrated through success in life is a narrow and misguided perspective. I mean, success is often a product of many factors, including but not limited to, privilege, social connections and even dumb luck. Intelligence on the other hand is supposed to encompass a precise range of cognitive abilities like problem solving, critical thinking, creativity whose utility may needs not to be translated to the real-world success. Cognitive biases are systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgement. They often lead individuals to make erroneous decisions (for example, in finance, biases like overconfidence lead investors to underestimate risks, while in medicine, they may result in diagnostic errors; do they consequently lack intelligence because of this natural tendency to biases ? Even experts can fall prey to flawed reasoning when under pressure) Interestingly, research shows that even highly intelligent individuals are not necessarily immune to cognitive pitfalls and it seems that intelligence does not correlate with a reduced susceptibility to cognitive biases. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8763848/ The concept of manipulating reality is also a misleading thought. The idea that someone who is not using their intelligence must simply lack it is a non-sequitur. It is entirely possible for individuals with average or below average cognitive abilities to still use other strengths to achieve success in life. In nutshells, intelligence is just not a necessary nor sufficient condition to reach success.

Intelligence and ambition are two completely separate traits. A person can have both, one or the other, or neither. Also, "success in life" can have entirely different meanings to different people. Thirdly, there is a greater statistical correlation between financial success and education than there is between financial success and intelligence. The educated, financially successful people were simply more ambitious, not necessarily more intelligent. Fourthly, intelligent people can have deficits in other areas, like social health, physical health, and mental health.

>>84165 >Now why in the world would you deliberately choose not to use such an ability to achieve your desired goals in life provided you actually have it? IQ is the strongest correlate with success in life. There are many other reasons, but most of them can be attributed to mental illness. You don't just "choose" things, life isn't a visual novel. Depression, for example, creates negative thought patterns that are very challenging to break. It also makes you withdraw socially and kills your motivation, energy, concentration, and ability to derive pleasure from stuff. Or there's having aspd or subclinical aspd which makes you inclined to be lazy, prone to boredom, less able to form strong bonds, lack long term goals, or not have the impulse control to work under someone. And there are so many more examples. There's also adverse childhood conditions. Or outliers who have a bad lineup of personality traits.

>We are not smart unless we excell in life. This is cope and reddit tier at it's finest

>>84165 Here is my 2 cent opinion: we are asocial skizos and so we have an external point of view on the world, unlike normal people who struggle to fit in. It make it easier to form our own opinions and if we have an independent opinion, we can justify our desire to see ourselves as more intelligent than others (an universal trait).

>>84166 >The concept of manipulating reality is also a misleading thought. The idea that someone who is not using their intelligence must simply lack it is a non-sequitur How so? If I were to be lost in the woods and had a map then using that map efficiently to find my way out would signify that my spacial (one of the compound parts of my intelligence as a whole) is as good (we can't really quantify it) as to allow me to do that. Now in the exemplified situation (getting lost in the woods) how likely do you think is the average person to have the ambition to get out? Very likely. Which makes the idea of the person simply lacking the ability to do so, in case they don't do it, rather than deliberately choosing not to for some other reason, a sequitor How likely do you think a person who hasn't achieved success to simply not have the ability to rather than to not want to (or having some moral principle)

>>84165 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Sidis By OP's definition, this guy was an idiot. He went to Harvard at age 11 (he could have went when he was 9 but they said he was too young), he graduated cum laude at 16. Immediately thereafter he regressed into a life of solitude, because his parents destroyed him mentally by forcing him to study for all of his childhood, he ended up dying alone of a brain hemorrhage (like his father) at the age of 46 in a dingy Boston apartment, having made few public achievements in his life. However, in his own private life he did take to writing pseudonymously about subjects of his interest, and learning languages, and supposedly learned upwards of 40 by the time of his death. But this does not make you "successful".

I think most people ITT missed OP's point (and strawmanned pretty hard--OP did not mention financial success). Many channers have a feeling of superiority over the normal users, going so far as to call them NPCs amongst other things. In a videogame, the player can typically run circles around NPCs by breaking their AI thanks to their superior intelligence: like placing a basket over the NPCs head and stealing everything. Somehow however in real life channers have nothing to show for all that "superiority", in fact, most channers are less succesful than normal users at life *by their own metrics*. Whatever it is that channers think sets them aside from normal users, it doesn't seem to be very impressive or useful. Van Gogh, as myserable as he was, in a way, was extremely succesful. Much unlike the average channer. Personally I think it's all just a coping mechanism, everyone wants to feel special after all. It is painfully normal. If you are so special, if you are so smart, if you are above the average person: what do you have to show for it? Anything at all? 99.9% of channers have NOTHING.

>>84177 Now that was just unnecessarily mean, jeez...

>>84177 >>84165 I agree with these. Channers are gigacopers. My slightly relevant favorite cope of all times is when channers say (and even makes memes out of it) that "autists are immune to propaganda. They tell me that a group of people who started chopping off their dicks because the internet said so, are immune to propaganda. Top Kek.

>>84179 Posted too early, i wanted to add that: 1: this also includes me, i'm also thinking at times that i'm so fuarrrking intelligent, yet i struggle to survive 2: what we would need the most is humility. Humility is a necessary requirement for learning, if you think you are the big soykaf who knows almost everything, you will never learn and never discover your faulty thinking patterns.

>We are not smart unless we excell in life. Yes, that is right. No, we are smart when we show wisdom, when we show some understanding of how the world spins based on our own life experiences, and we know what to do about it. Your parents will always be smarter than you in reality, remember that. If you read lots of books and have a degree or something, but don't experience anything that you "learned" yourself, it'll remain as just it: Information, theories, it may be useful as assumptions, but coming from you, it's just as worthless as lying. >Now why in the world would you deliberately choose not to use such an ability to achieve your desired goals in life, provided you actually have it? Sometimes intelligence comes from recognizing your own ignorance and being in harmony with your own limits and defects, while being fine with the world around you no matter how chaotic or hostile it may be. So why don't smart people try being "successful" in life? Because it's a fallacy, simply. Any person with a three digit IQ knows that true happiness won't come from "winning in life" or having lots of money. Most people on this imageboard (especially /hum/), barely leave home most of the time, so OP is still right: You all aren't as smart as you all think; grow up.

>you tube.com/watch?v=9DbJ-7WvS6w Invidious instances are kaf atm, query "Itzhak Bentov tv interview" instead of clicking my link. >We are not smart unless we excell in life This is Itzhak Bentov, a contractor and intellectual analyst utilized by the CIA, and likely an informative personality pertaining to the inner thought process of the specific bureaucracy he influenced. Predominantly and most explicitly, a man recognized as wholeheartedly the definition of your presentation >Intelligence is the massive of the qualities of the ability to accurately construct the model of the objective reality He says that the most evolved humans end up in mental hospitals because they can't comprehend the stupidity of the animals called "humans" around them. It's likely that comparing them to "average" even diminishes their own self worth: Sympathy is based exclusively on our perceptions. A more evolved human sympathizing with one less-so, and that sympathy being absolutely incapable of being returned in earnest by the stark majority of the humans surrounding them, emotional exchange being crucial to the human experience, they go crazy. It's not our role to prop up these "more evolved" humans, they should not be commended nor revered. It's our role to entice the rest of humanity to make appropriate sexual decisions that we can pull the whole species out from the cultural reverberation of the Dark Ages. To elucidate further: The human experience is not objective reality. This is the core error in your reasoning. Humans more adept at adhering to fiction(culture, myths, politics, etc.) are more successful then those of us who focus exclusively on reality.

>>84177 Financial success is social success is material success and so on. Success is a positive feedback loop between the self and environment. I think the idea of "coping" only works insofar intelligence isn't a trait that makes an environment actively hostile towards those who possess it (or lack certain traits that allow them to succeed in spite of this, like sociopathy), which is definitely the case in a society built around skewed generational power and worthless, but sometimes well-rewarded and always selected for, servitude. The video game metaphor only serves to compound this. Are MOBA pro players or skilled FPS streamers intelligent? I almost want to agree with the sentiment of this thread because it's true to a degree--and cynicism is not only helpful, it's the one positive trait these communities tend to share--though then again everyone believes they're smarter than they truly are and self-esteem is the one thing autists addicted to imageboards chronically lack, leaving a bad taste in the mouth (ultimately, this is punching down).

>>84183 Game ladders kinda simulate live. The top isn't simply the best players. It's wintraders, bought carries, exploit enjoyers,... the best cheaters. Most people arent smart but they still want to succeed and lacking the delusion that their natural iq gift should carry them they will do anything to succeed and that gives a far greater advantage. IRL politics are similarly build around preventing fair competition because the winners of the past cant ensure staying on top in a fair environment. Its pretty self evident the west does everything it can again against having a meritocracy. They claim something is for greater good and burden upstarts to harmstring their legs so they cant run ahead and become a threat to the current pole position.

>>84181 >neurosuggesting everyone is just in pursuit of 'true happiness'. (I am incredibly smart, six figure IQ (and counting))

>>84182 the question confused me because it deals with broad definitions and can't just be picked apart, but this is a very cool answer because it is just as broad as the question and goes into detail at the same time

>>84179 To be more accurate, you can do propaganda for autists and other neurodeviants, but you would need to make one especially for skizo, one especially for Aspergers and so on. And that propaganda should have to be everywhere on display and the normal people would see it, and that would break their own propaganda. Guess what? Nobody want to make propaganda for the 1% that no one listen to. Propaganda will always be aimed at the 99% of normal people and we are immune to that one. In theory, we can fall for it but in practice we are mostly immune to propaganda. Including the one designed for those who seek social approval. This obsession with using drugs for everything, even fapping, that's something else. >>84181 Intelligence and wisdom are to the mind what strength and agility are to the body. I agree that the fools who have neither but own a paper that show they were once capable to memorize academia yet want to lecture you on things they don't even know have ruined the meaning of the word intelligence. >Any person with a three digit IQ knows that true happiness won't come from "winning in life" or having lots of money. Any person with an IQ above 50 including you know it's better to have an easy job with 5 figures yearly than a minimum income job at the mart. It is just not the same quality of life. >>84182 Reality is what refuse to disappear when you stop believing in it. Refuse to believe in politic, is it still there? Refuse to believe in the need for people to need a greater meaning and a sens of purpose, are religions gone?

>>84188 >Reality is what [...] you [...] No.

People with narcissistic personality disorder always think they're super-intelligent, even if theu're dumb as a load of rocks. You see a lot of this in dark-triad personalities, where it's combined with manipulativeness and psychopathy. There's nothing funnier than a retard who thinks he's a genius.

>>84190 le dark triad le cluster b le narcissism look ma im so synchophisticated

Intelligence is a just a tool that still has to applied in the right way in order to lead to success. For instance, you have idiot savants that are hyper-fixated on niche domains that tickle their sensibilities and neglect everything else, resulting in a clear disbalance that overall results in poor life outcomes. Success is ultimately about applying intelligence in the right way that ends up being rewarding in a specific social context. If you're an introverted nerd, you'll apply your intelligence to computers or books and neglect the social world, so it's unlikely you will be rewarded for it unless your project ends up being somehow recognized by others. I think what people like Steve Jobs did really well was to recognize intelligence in others and apply it to real world problems that people actually care about, thus resulting in popular tech products that people wanted to buy. Computing suddenly wasn't just this machine to do work, but part of a lifestyle. Lack of success isn't always a sign of a lack of intelligence, but it's almost always a sign of not applying intelligence in the right way, to the most relevant problems that would yield the most reward. I think this is what you would call wisdom, not merely having intelligence but also being able to recursively apply rationality to itself, a kind of meta-intelligence that aims to selectively apply itself to things that are relevant. If you are homeless on the street, in danger of dying of starvation or exposure to cold, you shouldn't be pondering mathematics or philosophy questions but rather where to get food and shelter. That's a situation where it's clear that one problem is more relevant than another, but many people spend their lives getting a PhD or chasing hot girls because they seem important, only to realize very late that they were applying their intelligence to the wrong problems. TL;DR Intelligence - ability to solve problems Wisdom - ability to apply intelligence in the right way, meta-intelligence perhaps

>>84194 wisdom is nebulous because its by definition just "doing the right thing" which really is just "i believe its the right move and agree". So its nothing more than a score how well decision making matches the judges own limited perception.

I'm a complete retard and I'm terribly aware of it most of the time I use what I have to do what I can but all it does is highlight how stupid I am and makes me not want to put any effort any longer all of this without considering other people, when there's others involved like professors or employers or coworkers etc it's even worse cause yes I think I'm stupid but they think I'm downright down syndrome from the start and it makes me not want to even bother with it

>>84201 >I use what I have to do what I can That's all any of us can do and it's enough, grasshoppah. Let others think or do what they will. It doesn't have to affect you if you don't let it.

>>84165 >If you're so smart why weren't you born in the social position necessary to capitalize on it?

>>84206 Well, if you were truly smart, you would figure out a way to get yourself to a superior social position, no? Especially these days when social mobility is not only possible, but a common occurrence, both up and down in a single generation.

>>84207 >Well if you're so smart you'd just annul the laws of physics in order to get out of your situation right? brainrotted individualism. everyone's born in a social context and some (most) things are impossible to compensate for except through collective action

>>84208 It seems you've never heard of social engineering. People, much like any other system, behave based on certain rules and observable patterns. If you're sufficiently intelligent, you can study your environment and figure out a way to benefit from it. If that's not possible, you can always escape the oppressive social context and seek a better one. Maybe it's time to simply accept you're not that intelligent. It seems impossible because you cannot perceive a way due to your limited cognitive ability. Ever considered that as a possibility?

einstein had no glamorous birth, he wasn't a slave sure but his family wasn't much. On the power of his merit he attained great fame and status. Ramanujan was the son of like a clothing store clerk, fame and status because of his merit and initiative. Almost all hierarchies even of lowly servants have paths for upward mobility of the promising and effective, this is not sparta and you are not a helot. >>84208 some things are not possible except through collective action sounds like the groupwork everyone is subjected to in school. Guess what, that frequently works out to be the top half of the class or top tenth doing most of the work for the bottom half. Effective collective action is called having an army, and an army needs officers to keep the men in line. Ghandi through his merit organized a collective action that put him and his family on the top of their country.

>>84210 >names 2 examples >both among best in world, neither got rich lol great examples of social mobility Lets be real the system is build against social mobility and the few lottery winners are showcased as examples to give hope. Common success stories are under the hood also not self reliant but relied on connections for funding. Like paypal wasnt the better product, they had banker funding and bribed people into using their product with join get $20 etc. which means $20m for just 1m customers. Not something any garage upstart can do by itself. You can probably get a decent life with 120+ iq as that correlates with smart enough to get a master degree but getting rich is a different manner. There is a reason the smart kids still end up working for banks instead of doing their own thing -poor cant do soykaf without funds and while employed its also their job to build roadblocks for fellow poor smart kids. And finally there is simply good old fraudulent actions: A good example is gamestop stock - when the kids were winning betting on the stock the banks just influenced neobroker phone apps into sales stopped&forced selloffs.

>>84212 named three and the last one seems to have done handsomely for a generation or two after. Maybe intelligence doesn't always breed true, although it sounds as if Einstein's grandson Bernhard Caesar hasn't done poorly for himself either. Aristocracy is meant to manage this problem of course. >the few success stories are showcased as examples to give hope 99.999% of people are dumber than Einstein or Ramanujan. There aren't very many success stories of rare genius because rare genius is rare. If every fourth helot had it the world would be a beautiful garden. >when the kids were winning betting on the stock it was literally a meme bubble. Some idiot banker made a ridiculous bet and lost some money and everyone got in on it for the lulz. If you want to complain about stealing then go talk about income taxes or inflation or something. Where does that money go ? Gender programmes in Pakistan ? Cocksuckers in Columbia ? Maybe robbin' hood did something scummy idk, you're not complaining because you have gambling debts out of this are you ? >common success stories rely on connections for funding smart people make connections, smart people attract the interest of people with money who'd like to have more of it. This actually happens fairly often there is a lot of startup money going around and its not that hard to get. Things aren't perfect by any stretch but cmon

i have little choice in anything. i did not get to determine whether or not i would be intelligent, so i could use it to get what i want out of life.

>>84214 no one does mate that's the beauty of it.

>>84213 gamestop wasnt a meme bubble, one bank shorted heavily (bet on company dead to make money) and some people noticed they could abuse that and drain them because there wasnt much stock around so inflating the price was easy. The morons jumping on it were there for the memes but the move was legit. I have no personal involvement but changing the rules of the game when you lose shows fundamentally how its not about being smarter, cheaters in control simply changed the game when they were about to lose.

Geffory miller explains in his book what success means. Success in the eyes of intelligent people are their intelligence and creativity. The average human, who makes the dominant quantity of population, rules by its mass. Honestly, if the general rule for success should be as wanted, then u have to remove the normal people from passing their genetics on.

>>84225 >The average human, who makes the dominant quantity of population, rules by its mass. yes this is because of 'democracy', a system designed to make newspaper men the leaders through trickery by playing to the virtue and decency of the aristoi who will give away their power in the name of kindness and fairness. When europe conquered america, 100 conquistadores were worth thousands of their foes. This is not a question of the power of the masses and whether they need to be pruned down, its a question of assertion of might over 'muh rights'.

Saying "intelligence" wants to omit the sensing aspect of consciousness. To be well-developed cerebrally would not mean average goal setting. Practically, I'm pretty well adjusted around what surrounds me. It is the result of luck that came after very risky decisions made in desperation. I can see myself not lucking out.

>>84228 For awhile, I remember trying to become dumber, more animalistic, after seeing relevant "success stories". Ended up being neither my original self nor a normal person. It is not a result of intelligence, but rather of psychological aptitude. That I could not emulate someone who "just fits".

>>84226 How would this be changed, i welcome any idea.

When I was very young, I scored 169 on an IQ test administered by my school. I did well in school as long as it didn't require homework, which I wouldn't do. I was expelled from high school for non-attendance. I got married and worked in a warehouse, as a janitor, and in a mailroom. My wife left me and I got a job doing field service for a telecommunications company for a long time. I decided I didn't want to work any more, so I went homeless and lived in the woods for a while. I developed severe arthritis and started receiving SSD. I've lived in a studio apartment in a bad part of town for the last fifteen years. I never leave it unless I absolutely have to. I guess intelligence didn't lead me to fame and fortune like it was supposed to. Not that I care.

>>84226 >When europe conquered america, 100 conquistadores were worth thousands of their foes. This is not a question of the power of the masses and whether they need to be pruned down, its a question of assertion of might over 'muh rights'. They had infectious diseases, technology that had been developed for hundreds of years, and anti-aztec native allies

>>84243 >hey had infectious diseases, technology that had been developed for hundreds of years, and anti-aztec native allies as did their foes.

>>84228 >To be well-developed cerebrally would not mean average goal setting More evolved human detected. People incapable of stepping outside their own mind(ego, narcissism, etc.) aren't capable of fully observing the world around them, because they refuse to recognize that their experience is not shared by everyone else. In toddlers this is known as "Theory of Mind" and while it's expected to develop at ages 3-5, it's interesting to note how few adults actually possess the intellectual faculties necessary to express it in adulthood. Some examples >I know what I saw >You're telling me what I heard? >But I was there. These are often the "arguments" presented by people who claim to see ghosts, and they are attached to the same mentality as the OP, >"My reality is the only reality." This is at it's core the issue that needs to be fixed in all humans before we can sustain Utopia; These are at the root 'less evolved humans.'

>>84255 why should one trust someone else over themself? Between assuming someone else is lying and you lying to yourself they will of course rather trust their own senses. And society is soykaf because people are obedient not because they refuse to cooperate. Warfare would be impossible if everyone was a disobedient freak. Its the obedient ones that enable present society.

>>84256 they refuse to cooperate with you, they cooperate with the authority you dislike, and are obedient for it. it's just a matter of perspective.

Hello. I listened to lain the other day. I was very impressed by the interesting content, which seemed to predict the current state of the web. I'm Japanese. This anime is not well known in Japan, so I was surprised to learn that it is very popular overseas.

>>84258 The writers of Lain knew what was going to happen, they knew the plan of the future. "Predictive Programming".

>>84166 fpbp OP lain is being terminally contrarian as always. Intelligence can often lead people to a gross nihilism which causes them not to use it for success. Or ironically the inverse, feeling you don't need higher ambitions because you appreciate what you already have like being a neet or something. IQ is just pattern recognition abilities. It's a misunderstanding that there is a correlation with how "smart" or correct someone is. It's a tool that could be used for those things, but it can also lead you to become an /x/ teir rambling schizo who sees patterns in things that aren't there. >the government lies to maintain control over society >everything the government says can be used for control >the government says the earth is round >therefor the earth is flat and they're hiding something beyond the "ice wall" >>84174 I'd say this trait comes from having a worldview only we can experience. We see things differently and thus some paths or facts are clear to us which are hidden to the average person.

>>84289 >>84166 If people cannot use their intelligence productively, that means they're not smart enough to use their intelligence productively. Which means we are not as smart as we think we are - the smartest of humanity are still not smart enough to make the world a substantially better place.

Came to realise something akin to this with age. All those normal people I despise? That I'm "smarter" than? They're happier and more "successful" than me. >>84242 Somewhat of a similar experience, but on a lesser scale (smart kid, left school early, worked in a warehouse 'til my partner left me, briefly homeless, government money but now work part time to afford a small unit). You must be a bit older though. Are you satisfied with your life? The weird thing about stopping the drugs recently--which I thought might provide the lucidity to achieve more "goals" in life--was realising I actually don't want/can't handle more than this. I feel as content as one reasonably can in this situation, but I do wonder if I might feel differently in another five, ten or more years. >>84258 >This anime is not well known in Japan, so I was surprised to learn that it is very popular overseas. Interesting!

drug addicts and people with down syndrome are happier than you >if you were smart you would be more successfull you're not older than 25 thinking like this when you're not getting your hands held by your parents or the government you'll see things for what they are this thread is retarded just like this whole board

>>84165 Nah mate, this chan hosts some of the smartest, most intelligent people on the planet. None of your demoralizing bullshit is going to convince me otherwise.

>>84294 >Are you satisfied with your life? Pretty much, except for the health issues. My happiest time was the period I spent homeless. >The weird thing about stopping the drugs recently... I was lucky enough to have avoided being involved with recreational chemicals, except for the usual experimentation as a teenager. >I do wonder if I might feel differently in another five, ten or more years. I can say that I'm glad I did what I wanted to do instead of what I was supposed to do.

>>84302 >Nah mate, this chan hosts some of the smartest, most intelligent people on the internet. Fixed. Yes, we are more intelligent than famous people with two neurons and a blue check mark and the one second attention spam tictoc herd. Hooray! >My happiest time was the period I spent homeless. I can respect a man who value immaterial wealth above comfort.

>>84181 >three digit IQ knows that true happiness won't come from "winning in life" or having lots of money. What is this true happiness anyway that can't be fulfilled or at least supported by having money?

>>84255 See also: >"I understand what you're saying; do you understand what I'm saying?" (actual response after I felt we were talking past each other and tried to get the other party to pivot to a mutual demonstration/confirmation of understanding) >failure to realize that the mental sensation of knowing is not the same as actual confirmed knowledge, no matter how certain it feels, or that something making sense in your head doesn't mean it makes sense anywhere else, as would be discovered upon externalizing the seemingly sensible logical flow -- which will never happen, as they already know what they know. "I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."

Channers are the most stupid retards you will ever meet. Their entire culture is contrarian. That's all they live for. If Linux ever became popular they'd go back to using DOS or whatever retarded system. They denounce the normal users but they are normal users living in a fantasy bubble like those retarded punk kids who dress the same and conform and complain about teh n0rmies. Majority of channers are spineless cowards with no values. They are the worst kind of bootlicker. Worthless Nietzschean last men hopping on their small world living in a sea of junk not caring about anything because they've convinced themselves being a soykaf brained loser is a good thing. They complain about Twitter SJWs but actually they are worse since channers believe in absolutely nothing. The real reason they hate SJWs isn't the values its that they find it laughable that people can actually believe in something even if its dumb. All they want to do is jerk off and eat chicken. They are mindless zombies.

I thought this for awhile but I also dont think it. If we are partaking in a system that is rarted or that doesnt value intelligence or values something else instead than intelligence isnt king. I think you could respond to this with but an intelligent person could change the system to be one that does value such things, which I think yes to a degree but not entirely. An intelligent person might throw some ideas out there and then some years down the line they pick up steam and lead to some change, but that intelligents persons life might see no success. Im not going to bother defining what intelligence is but anything that could be said about the current definitions could also be said about using success as a definition. Its really only useful retroactively and also neglects any number of hardships. A very intelligent person might figure their way out of some horrible situation that a normal person would flounder in but that intelligent person is still not gonna be successful compared to someone who was never in it, they are using their brainpower to get to a stable place that was taken away from them. Someone whos just of average intelligence who couldnt figure their way out of a box might be working for some tech firm while this person who got out of something most wouldnt and is giving speeches to inmates or whatever.

>>84179 >a group of people who started chopping off their dicks The vast majority of them don't chop off their dicks. Stop using this meme, it will just embolden them in their beliefs because "heh, le heckin transphobes are le misinformed". Why not use accurate criticism about things these people actually do, such as >chemically castrate themselves, thus making themselves lifelong patients and potentially causing other health issues including osteoporosis and autoimmune disorders >urge children to go on drugs that were used to chemically castrate felons (Lupron) >encourage children to buy bathtub hormones online ("DIY HRT") >advise children to threaten suicide to manipulate their relatives into letting them transition, and lie to medical professionals in order to obtain drugs >threaten people who disagree with their beliefs with murder, torture and rape

General problem of smart people is the education system ingrains bad behavior. You get your growth stunted in school because teachers are told to adjust for slowest kid in class so the smart kids are forced to do nothing. 10 years of school is 10 years of the system training you to be lazy. So of course they all end up struggling later because its hard to break the pattern of doing nothing for more than a decade in your most formative years.

>>84920 Having a portion of mankind being contrarian is valuable. It maintains the existence of a parallel critical group that always questions the main paradigm, a caste of watchers, for whatever comes out of it, assuming it's done in good faith and for the betterment of the society. Obviously no Frankfurt School type of confronting everything for the sake of destroying the Western civilization.

>>84291 Yes that is literally what I said. The disconnect is between intelligence and "smarts". These are not identical concepts. Also, >if you can't do something that means you're not smart enough to do it If you really had such a "productive" mindset you wouldn't have this thought process ;) >>84920 https://youtu.be/W7cckvTXwJ0 >>85150 I prefer antinomianism, in the sense of a commonality we all share as outcasts looking at the system from the outside. Society is rotten and anyone who justifies it is subhuman in my eyes. Yet that doesn't mean everything that gets popular is "evil". The outsiders are the ones who really change things in a way, all the powers-that-be can do is twist it and confuse it to their own ends. Thus pure contrarianism can only go so far. Something is only cool until it's popular. And ironically gives itself to a kind of double contrarianism often fashioned by self described "free thinkers" (>>84920). It's a babies first few steps on his journey for mental liberation.

>>85150 Being a contrarian is no different than being a conformist. You are conforming to standards regardless and I find contrarians to be terrible at influencing others in their direction and often push people the other way because their real primary concern is provocation and garnering attention, not value of a thing in itself for societal betterment. So their value is very limited because the real pushers and movers are those who are neither conformist nor contrarian. In fact contrarians are not needed at all because they can simply be replaced with a system of analysis where you try to find the opposite of something and see if it is equally logical to another and if it isn't is it possible to alter it till it becomes logical.

>>85202 idealism. avg people don't think. Contrarians counterbalance mainstream chasers which increases impact of fence sitter decision making. The only problem is there is not enough of them to give more power to alternatives.

>>85207 You're trying to rationalize being irrational to make it seem more admirable. Having good optics and sound arguments are primary importance, numbers are secondary importance. With only numbers alone even if they became the mainstream it would not necessarily stay that way and this approach seems the more risky one because if they are in the wrong then we wind up having to deal with their contrarian view no longer being the contrarian view and become harder to oppose even though it lacks sound backing so you wind up with same problems you start with. Starting from ideas in themselves holds more value where you are less likely to have a bad end because it is considered if a view is even worth supporting to begin with, otherwise it's wasted effort. Plus the contrarian views drown out the more rational and correct views that hold a lot of needed nuance as much as conformist status quo views do.

>>85209 all im saying is they are useful because they will fight the conformists for you. I appreciate the antis for keeping the conformists busy and off my back.

>>85131 You're proving his point here with your buzzword infested post. Clearly some kind of propaganda has saturated your mind. >>84177 >>84165 >>84179 Yeah, a lot of people online aren't very objective when it comes to self reflection. I think something a lot of people don't realize is that everything has a certain level of ease when you are intelligent. Conversely, everything is much harder when you're not. So it really is pretty fair to say that an intelligent person is much likelier to be successful. Even the argument that an intelligent person could lack motivation is a little specious since achieving an equivalent level of success takes far less effort for an intelligent person. Even the least motivated intelligent people will still find a way to live comfortably. >>84181 Your missing the point. It's not that being smart implies that you are successful, rather it's that being destitute implies you aren't very smart. Someone struggling to get by probably isn't much smarter than the people he demeans as NPCs. >>84236 Are you a dancyo fan?

>>84176 >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Sidis biopic when

>>85202 If contrarians are terrible at influencing others, the chances of them becoming popular are slim. They are therefore protecting their own existence. >because their real primary concern is provocation and garnering attention, not value of a thing in itself for societal betterment. I think that's only a fraction of them. There are those who are "against" by virtue of an innate automatism, which means anything coming their way is taken with scepticism and they cannot help looking for a flaw. I think that like everything in the universe, some things can have a bright and a dark side, sometimes useful, sometimes detrimental to the whole.

>>85226 >There are those who are "against" by virtue of an innate automatism, which means anything coming their way is taken with scepticism and they cannot help looking for a flaw. most likely its just people repeatedly failed by society naturally assume the worst in all aspects and approach from that angle. Same as zealous defenders tend to be beneficiaries or at least hope to benefit. The other side is online people always claim contrarians hate everything but its different people hating on different topics that get grouped as one person. Maybe its also a byproduct of school shaping behavior- you get always your mistakes pointed out not what you did exceptionally well. That certainly mimics online discussion tending to focus on negative aspects rather than positives.

>>85226 hedonism is like kicking dead whales down the beach ass and so does everybody who subscribes it

>>85229 I would have hoped it was better than kicking dead whales! I know the language enhancer, that's just one of the better incarnations of it I've seen. Do you mean Hedonism as it was practiced by the original ancient Greeks, for whom the entire point was complete detachment from it so that the pleasure did not move you or corrupt you, or do you mean modern "hedonists" who want to take PrEP and huff galaxy gas all day? >>85226 Contrarians serve a social function, but yes it is always fatal to themselves. Yet they still keep emerging, instead of the behavior dying out. I think it is like intrusive thoughts, except the group unconscious version. A part of the hive-brain that constantly throws out outrageous or disgusting or nonsensical ideas almost like echolocation, to help the society determine where the barycenter of group unconsciousness is by feeling its edges >>85150 >Image garnered a reply again award Yes I agree, I do not like that particular kind of contrarianism... Weaponized and nasty. One must do it for the love of the game >>85134 Modern education is a system for homogenizing output, not enhancing quality or even yield really

>>84206 I love this idea that people of such rare caliber as Einstein are constantly born and die doing absolutely nothing all their lives, sitting in fields of potatoes. Among hogs scrabbling at dirty roots, sleeping under a plastic tarp. As if these qualities are distributed simply by random chance. It's like expecting to occasionally find a kitten born along with a litter of pigs. It is true that if you never instrumentalize your intelligence, it is basically useless and probably an illusion. Some people recently (because of strange reasons) have co-morbid exreme autismo spergaloid problems which might stop them from proving their brilliance, but that excuse seems overused

>>85270 the latter sweetheart

>>85271 Even then autism isn't a good excuse. A lot of extremely smart autistic people still end up being successful. And anyways, I think a sufficient level of intelligence is enough to make up for social disabilities. For example, even if you can't understand emotion from tone of voice, if you're smart enough you can still do so from the content and context of the words the same way you would with a written message. A socially normal person might be able to tell someone's emotional state based on body language, while the autistic savant might be able to do the same by modeling the other's behavior with game theory. Obviously, the second autistic method requires much more active thought, but to someone with sufficient intelligence it would not be infeasibly more effort comparitively.

>>84165 Success in my POV is breaking away from the maximum mass of oppression with the least effort. Depending on the society one lives on , that can be achieved with "money", "religion", "courage", "production" or any valid combination of whatever is perceived to be valuable in a certain society ... Some people define success as "making change" in one's life and even on the extended existence of everyone .. As such, some people will define success as dying a hero for some cause ... Some people would even live and die without realizing that what they did is success (changing the world by accident) ... Willful individual success , the first kind that I mentioned means acquiring an base of power and value .. Money is easy to do especially if you have some from the start, but i you don't have it, then you need a multiplier scheme , the easiest one being exchanging one's time for money, and the most clever one is using compound events ... The latter is hard to come by as it comes from familiarity with the multiplication environment (stocks, pyramid schemes, commerce ..) ... Keep in mind sometimes emulating and being able to compel dumb mindless consumers is a way to gain power with the risk of being eaten by that kind of stupidity (chasing the consumer for the sake of chasing the consumer ...) .. I tend to notice that whoever is rich and powerful adds nothing concrete to the world, heck they might even harm it , as richness makes someone holly, and as such their stupidity reigns way easier than their smartness .. I think whatever good stuff we have in the world, is built on top of playful cleverness that was neither done by the rich nor the powerful, but instead the natural people .. People that fit easily in the moment.

>>84165 The fact that it takes around 10 years even for the smartest minds to grasp mathematics or physics on a state of the art advancement level proves humanity in its totality is just dumb (including me ofc). Success is a psychological game of want-do-achieve .. Any person that satisfies those conditions will reach success, it is not related to any kind of super intelligence, just the necessary minimum to execute actions ... Most smarter people don't even intend to be successful .. If smarter people obsess about success it might statistically increase its chance of happening or might not (over competition ..) .. Sometimes less is more ..

>>85306 >The fact that it takes around 10 years even for the smartest minds to grasp mathematics or physics on a state of the art advancement level proves humanity in its totality is just dumb Why? Are you just saying that these things that are incredibly hard for humans are actually easy according to your standards?

>>85307 The fact that even the smartest still struggle with physics and maths, shows that the gap between IQ deviations is not that huge ... Someone with 100 IQ won't be that much different than someone with 200 IQ for obvious reasons, a gap of 100 points diminishes in value a lot after a certain threshold .. It is the same phenomenon as Pro athletes, Pro >>> Amateur , but after a certain threshold what a fairly trained enthusiast doesn't fall far behind that much an Elite athlete .. Intelligence is asymptotic with an flat upper bound and that upper bound won't probably allow us to produce non lethal energy let alone travel to the nearest galaxy ..

>if smarter people obsess about success it might statistically increase its chance of happening or might not (over competition ..) .. Sometimes less is more .. That reminds everyone knows about nerds getting bullied in school but same happens with overachievers in office. One of my favorite writers got bullied out of her job by a bunch of quota hires refusing to work with her. Probably a general problem that bottom tier workers dont benefit from meritocracy and gang up against excellent people with office politics.

>>84165 experience beats green intelligence .. the dumb can't acquire experience .. only memorize facts at best ..

>>85308 >The fact that even the smartest still struggle with physics and maths The physics and maths they struggle with is much harder, though. Same how running a 2:30 marathon is way harder than running a 3:00 marathon, the difference is easily 10x that of the difference between a 3:30 marathon and a 3:00 marathon. You're attributing these to some kind of fundamental shortcoming to humanity but it's just that as you push the limits you will *always* get this kind of diminishing returns, it is not unique to humans.

>>85310 Experience is memorized facts learned by yourself. The advantage of higher iq is the capacity to build a world model to calculate action->outcome which allows instant adaption to changes. Stupid resort only to memorizing fixed solutions which can be taught by other people or come from personal experience but break when things change. What it means in practical application is on a static job the smart person has no advantage once the dumb one got trained to do the exact same thing. You need fresh untapped challenges to benefit from higher iq.