Intellectual Arrogance

How do I keep my arrogance in check when, as far as I can tell, I'm actually intellectually superior to most others I encounter? It only makes sense that an authentically superior mind would be more capable of discerning truths and thus more capable of discovering its own superiority, so, assuming it is possible for authentically superior minds to exist, the recognition of these minds that they are, in fact, superior, should only be natural. Consequently, a shift in behavior based on this recognition would also seem natural. However, it would seem that such behavior is rather strongly frowned upon, and I can't tell whether this is justified or not. Further, there are multiple examples of individuals whose brilliance apparently surpasses my own, and yet these individuals seem to maintain an easy humility. My problem is complicated by the fact that my apparent intellectual superiority may actually stem from elitism, rather than the reverse. The sense that I should do and be better than others has at least partially motivated me to reach this point. I'm not sure that I'm capable of doing away with my arrogance, or at least I'm not sure I'm capable of doing such without sacrificing a core aspect of my personality and possibly damaging my chances of growing further. This isn't even getting into how a vague concept like intelligence might be divided into less nebulous parts. If believing oneself to be intellectually superior is wrong, then is it wrong to believe oneself to be more rational than others? To be a better critical thinker? To have a better memory?

>>9814 I think the only thing you really need to know is that those with real intelligence and superiority don't need to "flex" on those without it because it doesn't matter and impressing retards is not going to do anything for you. That alone should cause some inner thinking and realizations.

>>9815 It's not really about showing off as much as it is my growing distance from others and tendency to dismiss their opinions and concerns as irrelevant. Interaction with others is beginning to feel like a burden that is holding me back from my potential.

>>9816 The only downside to not being happy with being more intelligent than others is if they got further in life than you did due to outside influences such as nepotism and chance. Otherwise you should be happy you have the genetics and study to be where you are. Can you give me an example of someones opinions and concerns as being irrelevant?

>>9818 I'm not sure what sort of an example you're asking for, so I'll speak generally. Say that I'm subjected to someone's rant on politics. Within the course of the rant, he makes multiple elementary logical errors. Knowing that logic theoretically underlies specific beliefs, I find myself giving less weight to his later opinions on topics like theology, philosophy, and ethics, even though I do not have the answers in these departments and consequently do not know whether he is right or wrong. From a purely logical perspective, I've committed a genetic fallacy. However, in our current system, where time and mental space are limited, what was a fallacy seems to become a useful "genetic heuristic," if you will. It seems I should only devote so much attention to ideas that are produced by a mind whose previous ideas have been obviously lacking, as it seems likely that there is something wrong with the mind producing them. Considering the sample of individuals I've encountered (generally similar to the man mentioned) and extrapolating further, it seems that I can safely ignore the opinions of those I encounter in meatspace. While I'm aware of how this makes me sound, it truly seems that these people do not analyze ideas in the same depth that I do.

>If believing oneself to be intellectually superior is wrong, then is it wrong to believe oneself to be more rational than others? Stop thinking on right and wrong. It doesn't matter if you are more intelligent than most people or not. The important thing is to always try to understand what other people have to say, as a way to test your beliefs and try to build a well sustained opinion. That's a cool text: https://academyofideas.com/2017/05/nietzsche-truth-skepticism-free-spirit/ Don't get emotionally attached to beliefs, be emotionally attached to being a skeptic.

>>9819 I don't know what fallacy you mean you committed, but I don't really see an issue with what you're doing. If someone says something stupid you naturally write them off as being stupid. It's normal.

>>9820 I don't know why you should be emotionally attached to either. Skepticism comes naturally (semi-naturally?) to me, but I don't understand why Nietzche had to turn it into a value-laden grand struggle. Thank you for the article.

>>9822 Let's say the set of written-off individuals is just the set of all humans minus yourself. That seems like a problem now, right? So, somewhere between writing off one individual and writing off everyone, this becomes a problem. I'm wondering: how far is too far? Note that I'm not asking how many grains of sand make a heap as much as pondering useful guidelines.

Individuals are usually fairly poor at gauging their own intellectual functioning, far more intellectually inferior people believe they are intellectually superior than vice versa. That alone seems good reason to err on the side of caution. If you want practical means to keep it in check, personally I suggest thinking back to every instance where you believed something foolish, or mistakes you made, or even times when you failed to grasp something as fast as someone else. Remind yourself of these every time you start to become too arrogant. That's my strategy at least, but I am in all likelihood dumber than average, if you really are as bright as you think chances are you will have less such situations to draw upon. P.S. >>9819 Reading this I'm not sure if I would even classify that as arrogance. Many people, intelligent or not, don't usually care to argue in good faith. Disregarding such people doesn't seem as much arrogance, as knowing that what you want and avoiding pointless wastes of time and energy. Disengaging from people who aren't worth the investment doesn't seem to me to be arrogance in and of itself. As long as you give others a fair shot to argue their points in good faith and don't dismiss them out of hand, I think you don't have too much to be concerned about. That said, and I hope you don't take offense, do you know if you might perhaps have Asperger's or similar condition? That's not intended to be an insult, but I notice such individuals tend to have a similar kind of focus on intellectually stimulating argument, and much lower tolerance for the emotional fluff and nonsense that comprises most peoples day to day interactions.

>>9825 > do you know if you might perhaps have Asperger's or similar condition? I do not, but I've definitely kicked the idea around. It seems fairly consistent with what I know of myself. However, being diagnosed seems like something that can only be bad, put simply. A label like that can ruin your life. I'd rather not go from "that eccentric smart guy" to "that fuarrrking retard" if I can help it. However, at the same time, a friend of mine once agreed when I suggested the possibility, and I found that I appreciated his honesty, so...

>>9827 > A label like that can ruin your life. I'd rather not go from "that eccentric smart guy" to "that fuarrrking retard" if I can help it. Good point, just thought I'd mention it. I find that if one has a atypical mind it's best to know about it, as then one can be more aware of mental blind spots as well as take steps to account for mismatches between one's internal model and the world.

The reason you can't maintain humility is because your entire identity is constructed around your intelligence. Intelligence doesn't make you superior, those with little else to hold on to often try to grapple onto their intelligence as a way of proving their own worth to themselves and others. You don't need to prove your worth to yourselves, or others.

How much time does it take you to write a reply, OP?

Intelligence is only what you do with it. There are a lot of successful idiots and worthless geniuses. If you feel like you are intellectually superior, you should be thinking of how to use that to your advantage. If you are running into people who are stupid, you should be looking into how you can leverage that person. Really, I don't think you are that intelligent. You've failed to understand social interactions as just another system, one you can benefit from if you understand the rules. This is pretty typical of people with Asperger's; while having deep knowledge of a particular domain, they are mentally inhibited by their disorder, namely the inability to learn and adapt to new systems. The ability to learn and adapt to new systems is a critical part of human intelligence, and that is why Asperger's is a mental disorder.

ever heard "I am the wisest among you, for only I know that I know nothing?" A really smart person realizes just how little they understand. An idiot thinks they have all the answers. Also, those people smarter than you who seem so humble just probably like people, and don't want to seem standoffish like you. Humility is key for talented people who want to be liked. >>9831 also makes a good point. Even if you understand people, actually *being* a person is a whole different thing. Much in the same way that no amount of expertise in physics or medicine will save you if you fall off an airplane.

>>9830 Well, that depends on a few factors. Why do you ask? >>9835 I don't know if I can take that "quote" seriously, given Socrates' behavior. He certainly seemed proud of himself. That said, I've had some success in evaluating myself against the theoretical limits of human knowledge instead of against those around me. However, this only does so much when my problem is largely relative. "Maybe I don't know, but I don't think listening to you people is going to get me any closer to the truth" is my general mentality.

Intelligence doesn't grow. I'm not saying its a completely static thing as brains physically change throughout your life, but you don't become more intelligent by studying, challenging yourself, seeking out new perspectives or any form of "willful training". These things might make you more informed, your experience with some situations might make you faster at dealing with them next time, you might become more apt at handling the real world's quirks and people, you will likely seem smarter, but your intelligence didn't change. A certain level of complexity was, and will remain completely and helplessly beyond you while for those who are intelligent enough it will be accessible. The above shows why people hate those more intelligent than they are: they can't do jack soykaf about it. To the intelligent person, the math will always come easier, hard to connect dots will seem more trivial. A certain number of people try to compensate for this with being over-prepared. They study and practice for that test/job/etc, they take pride in their good performance and make it heard, they compete. In some situations, they nets them the victory, as their more intelligent counterpart is not prepared, and isn't really competing either - just having fun, trying stuff, goofing around. Here comes a second source of hate: sometimes a compensating, competitive person will lose to the intelligent one anyway, and make a scene. To an outside observer, this will seem like a situation where "the nice chill defeats the arrogant smart". The school system ensures that everyone sees scenes like this all day every day until the end of high school. When that's done, some of them start working and meet many not so intelligent people who are still smart enough to live their lives well. Others go to college and realize that they were compensating cookies or find enough peers to have lots of fun. As a result, nobody really wants to deal with smart ass drama as everyone has their place and thing to do. Lastly, one with a high intelligence cannot expect one with low intelligence to grasp their superiority without lots of vivid, pointless demonstrations. It's like asking a colorblind person to see that your shirt is greener than his. With all these in mind OP, I hope you can decide whether you're compensating or not, and if your arrogance is helping you in any way or not. I'm pretty sure that with a certain answer to those questions you can either get rid of your arrogance, or keep using it without being bothered by all the people who don't. Arrogance has its uses in the right hands.

>>9820 Don't make that value judgment. Try to avoid making any value judgments at all. If you can't lead it back to something trivial like 1<2 it's probably a vague or pointless value judgment Nietzsche didn't know much about _actual_ skepticism because he lacked proper sources, like everyone else. Check this out: https://www.e-reading.club/bookreader.php/134630/Pyrrhonism.pdf Also consider not being emotionally attached at all.

>>9829 >The reason you can't maintain humility is because your entire identity is constructed around your intelligence. I think you're right, actually, or you've at least hit on a facet of the problem. Could I ask you to expound on the topic?

>>9844 I'm afraid that there isn't much to expound on. I suspect you were often praised for being intelligent in school, so it became ingrained as a part of your identity. 18 years of people praising you can do that. It's natural to want to set yourself apart from others mentally, that's the role of an ego in a person. You probably use intelligence as a mental vector for achieving that goal, subconsciously. Having an association between yourself and intelligence isn't bad, but the problem is that too much of your identity revolves around it. You are letting the concept of your intelligence own you, as it is likely your main source of self-esteem and/or sense of identity. As for how to solve that problem, your guess is as good as mine. I would like to tell you something that could give you some kind of revelation, but the truth is that modifying strongly-ingrained parts of your identity takes a lot of time and conscious effort usually.

>>9835 Previously posted the above. >I don't know if I can take that "quote" seriously, given Socrates' behavior. >He certainly seemed proud of himself. >That said, I've had some success in evaluating myself against the theoretical limits of human knowledge instead of against those around me. Alright so let's debunk this idiot's level of intelligence. 1) He can't comprehend human reaction, nor can he do anything useful with it. 2) He is asking an imageboard like us for intelligent answers to complex problems. This is acting out and we all know it. 3) You are seriously discrediting Socrates, a madman who challenged society and traditional behavior, because he might have an ego. And here you are, "asking" us for help to better solve your problem of being so fuarrrking smart it's a burden to deal with other humans. Socrates was intelligent because he admitted he didn't know soykaf (which requires true intelligence) and had the balls to actually bring his ideas to the public sphere. You are just another sort-of smart person who will be a waste because he thinks social interaction and navigating human thought is below him. You will never be anything, because you are to superior to adapt. I am tired of these sheltered fuarrrks who think they are smart because they operate in a vacuum. The reality is you have encountered other people, and your mental illness restricts you from creating meaningful relationships. You can see fallacy in others, but you can't see them in yourself, you can't accept that humans are naturally flawed, and that, as a human, you need to accept this and integrate. >I've had some success in evaluating myself against the theoretical limits of human knowledge You are going to be a failure in life, because you think you are some superman, some superintelligence. You aren't. You are just arrogance and mental masturbation. You have no idea how to write a heap exploit for MSP430 architecture. You have no idea what extremely personal scene occurred in Fyodor Dostoevsky's The Idiot. You have no idea how to make a girl cum with your tongue. A far cry from the theoretical limits of human knowledge. So lighten the fuarrrk up, and rejoin the human race.

>>9846 Why are you putting so many breaks in your post? It doesn't make it easier to read when you chunk otherwise whole paragraphs into single lines. It especially doesn't help when your writing style is otherwise standoffish and puerile. Even if you are right, you come off poorly. See what I mean?

>>9845 It almost feels like you're a mind reader, but I suppose it's more likely that my case is simply far from unique. You've actually already helped me. I've realized now that my clinging to the vague concept "intelligence" is actually allowing myself to be controlled by the same people I'm seeking to free myself from, just because I once enjoyed it when they called me "smart." I want more for myself than that (or less, in terms of constraints). >>9846 I think you've misunderstood some of what I meant in my post, but I suppose that's also a point against me if I can't communicate clearly. I don't think I'm acting out; instead, I've just found other Lainons to be fairly consistently insightful. Advice is only useful if the person giving it is sufficiently similar to the person getting it, and it seems that unusual fondness for a semi-obscure anime leads to a tighter grouping of individuals. Once again, though, you are proven right in the broad strokes by my needing to solicit advice from anyone at all, a behavior that conflicts somewhat with my stated attitudes. As far as the mental illness angle goes, it's probably correct that I'm running up against my own deficiencies and then blaming it on "intellect." That said, it still seems reasonable to me that deviation from the intellectual mean would lead to relational difficulties on both the low end and the high end. Although you tell me to integrate, I imagine that there are still individuals you shy away from. I wonder what your criteria for association are. I'm reminded of this: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/. You can tolerate every flaw except for the ones you can't, right? Maybe you just never saw them as flaws at all.

>>9847 Why the christ do people bitch about this so much?

>>9814 >However, it would seem that such behavior is rather strongly frowned upon, and I can't tell whether this is justified or not Don't expect people to be impressed that you fell out of your mom's vagina with a high iq. Society responds to what you *do*, not what you are. If you need to explain to everyone you meet how "intellectually superior" you are because you don't have anything to show for it then you're just a piece of soykaf who won the birth lottery and wasted his gift.

>>9850 Because it's annoying, so stop it.

>>9846 >>9847 >>9850 That spacing is the same formatting used in rebbit.

>>9860 wowza, like I care

>>9850 >>9856 >>9860 >>9861 I'd like to go back to insightful commentary, but I'll settle for more half-baked insults if it means this stops. They're at least useful in a limited capacity.

>>9847

>>9847 I always use spacing like this because it breaks it up into easier chunks of information that the majority of people on the internet can actually ingest. Nicholas Carr might have some literature for you on this subject. But allow me to modify my post to suit you, as fragmented text ruffles you so. >>9849 An interesting reply. It's rare to see someone integrate what you've posted and respond in an intelligent and well-thought out manner. I was picking up on a very heavy arrogance undertone in a lot of your posts, so my reply was very much meant to have a caustic layer to it. But close-minded idiots don't respond in this way, so I don't think you are who I thought you were. So let me present it a different way -- human social interaction is a system. It is a system that can be tackled by an analytical mind, albeit there is no manual or RFC. Regarding the issue of being concerned about the ethical implications of writing someone off because you have decided they are of no value to you, continue doing this. Many people have become trapped in awful situations because they did not possess the ability to identify a toxic person and distance themselves from that person before they caused any real damage. The crucial part is self-diagnostics. Ensuring that when you decide an entire person is invalid, it's because of their cognitive biases and poor choices, not because you have suddenly become uncomfortable with new information that might bring into question your own values. If you don't talk to people who think differently than you you cannot grow. You need the alternative analysis, the outsider views, the foreign opinions. Because of who we are our brains sometimes treat these alien concepts as hostile, and rationalize them in ways we might not be conscious of. But you need the fusion of intelligence. You need the diversity of multiple human input, otherwise, well otherwise you are just committing knowledge incest. You become like many social media outlets, echo chambers that degrade thought and reinforce bias. All that results from that is mental degeneration and radicalization. So always give people the benefit of the doubt, and listen. Pay attention and really consider their opinion (unless they are being sexist or racist; these are excellent heuristics for fetid brains), because taking the time to do so will keep you from the corruption of bias.

>>9864 >sexist or racist; these are excellent heuristics for fetid brains The implication being that having labels for broad categories of ideas you don't like and want to avoid is healthy? >You need the diversity of multiple human input, otherwise, well otherwise you are just committing knowledge incest. You become like many social media outlets, echo chambers that degrade thought and reinforce bias. Go to a mental hospital you can find as many diverse ideas as you want. Results will not be better than a echochamber. "Diversity" is not the answer to everything. What's missing in an echochamber is commitment to truth and empirical observation.

>>9856 You're not the boss of me. >>9860 This is not a relevant criticism.

>>9864 In turn, it seems that you have more of value to say than I thought. Thank you. >>9872 I think that some element of filtering was at least heavily implied in the post. It seems clear that the argument wasn't for unrestricted diversity of thought. I'm still not sure I agree with it, but there's nothing good about misrepresentation, at least in this context.

>>9839 >Intelligence doesn't grow. I'm not saying its a completely static thing as brains physically change throughout your life, but you don't become more intelligent by studying, challenging yourself, seeking out new perspectives or any form of "willful training". There's a lot of evidence showing the exact opposite of this. It's entirely possible to increase your base intelligence. Most people just don't have the tenacity to stick to an intelligence training regimen much like they don't have the tenacity to stick to any other training regimen.

>>9825 >Individuals are usually fairly poor at gauging their own intellectual functioning, far more intellectually inferior people believe they are intellectually superior than vice versa. That alone seems good reason to err on the side of caution. This is a misunderstanding. Stupid people are bad at gauging how smart they are. That is no reason to think that intelligent people are bad at gauging how smart they are. Just to add my own thoughts since I feel similar to OP. I generally avoid socializing with people that can't or won't engage with or imagine an opposing view point. Sadly this seems to be the vast majority of people I meet. But it makes those that can stand out all the more

>>9878 Personally there are quite a few people I won't engage with who have opposing viewpoints. It's not the disagreement itself that I can't stomach, it's more when they present you with a "different" idea and expect you to treat it as new and provocative when it's actually something you've heard a thousand times already and yet they can't shut up about it for some reason. A lot of criticism that most people supposedly can't tolerate opposing viewpoints is actually based in a misinterpretation of that phenomena.

>>9878 I think the idea is that if your mind returns the result "I am smart" then you haven't gained any reliable information because "stupid," "average," and "smart" minds return that same result. It's something to think about...although, by virtue of the nature of the problem, thinking about it may not help.

>>9880 But... a lot of stupid people are down on themselves for being stupid. I've met people who curse themselves for being stupid. Often this is because they were told it their whole lives but it's sometimes the result of simply fųcking up every single they touch. Many people of average intelligence are smart enough to admire a genius and say "he's the smart one, not me". I don't think the premise you're using is really real.

>>9876 >I think that some element of filtering was at least heavily implied in the post. It seems clear that the argument wasn't for unrestricted diversity of thought. I'm still not sure I agree with it, but there's nothing good about misrepresentation, at least in this context. I'm misrepresenting the post by responding to only what was written and *not* injecting some kind of arbitrary implicit meaning into it?

>>9881 It doesn't have to be every individual in each category so long as a significant portion of individuals in each category believe themselves to be superior. I'm making up numbers here, which is to say that you can definitely call this contrived, but let's say that you have 50 "stupid" individuals, 100 "average" individuals, and 50 "smart" individuals. Maybe only 1/5 "stupid" individuals believe themselves to be "smart." 50% of "average" individuals correctly label themselves, and the other 50% are evenly split between those who underestimate and overestimate. The smart individuals are better at correctly labeling themselves, so 4/5 label themselves correctly. This means that there are 10 "stupid," 25 "average," and 40 "smart" individuals who consider themselves "smart." Consequently, any individual who considers himself "smart" has only a 40/75 chance of actually being so. These odds are not great (although still in favor of your being "smart"), especially when a minority of "stupid" and "average" individuals mislabeled as "smart" while the majority of "smart" individuals correctly labeled themselves. Note: I have no idea what the numbers for the actual population look like, so the applicability of this exercise is highly questionable. It's just meant to demonstrate a point. I'm reminded of how you have a high chance of testing positive for AIDS if you have AIDS but a low chance of having AIDS if you test positive.

>>9814 Simple friend, stop seeing your intellect as the only kind of intellect. Look around and you'l find people far "dumber" achieving things you wish you could I bet, even if it's just little things. When you can see this you begin to see the value in other beings and the superiority fades. To answer your latter question that is EXACTLY how you should think of it and I think you are on the right path. You perhaps are more rational, better at analysis, better at memory. This in my opinion makes you a perfect learning pair for one who is irrational yet intuitive, who's bad at critical thinking but never gets lost in details, who has a poor memory but is always aware of the moment. It's a societal disease that we all have that if we are a specific kind of smart that's valued by corporations we are superior and if the opposite we are inferior. That is not to say of course that your kind of smarts is only considered as such because it benefits the current systems. It is equally valuable and happens to be very beneficial in todays times. All the more reason in my opinion to wield it carefully and not grow distant or superior from those who don't have it.

HAHAHAH more intelligent people are more susceptible to trickery, because their intelligence causes them to be more open minded thus more understanding of situations that take advantage of their gullibility. Take it from the man A.H. and dont compare yourself to others, since that is a sign of inferiority. Many who are highly intelligent do not flaunt it arrogantly, because intelligence is a means to an end, not the end itself. You need to be intelligent to reach certain goals, which means that you will often surpass your peers by nature of necessity, however if your only focus is to surpass your peers with no end goal, then you will end up moderately intelligent, but also too arrogant.

>>9883 First of all you forgot to define what the labels "smart", "average" and "stupid" stand for. There can be no rigid discussion without definitions. Can you please define those terms on the actual IQ bell curve mr. genius?

>>9846 I like how this post tries to make a point while being a kind of emotional cocktail to another poster, but in doing it picks up a style which also makes the criticism inside it apply to its own poster. Post of this kind seemingly cannot be made without dragging yourself down along with the person it is targeted at. Reddit spacing makes the post harder to read.

>>9825 >Individuals are usually fairly poor at gauging their own intellectual functioning, far more intellectually inferior people believe they are intellectually superior than vice versa. That alone seems good reason to err on the side of caution. This.

>>9889 The precise definitions of those labels weren't relevant to the point I was making. I only used them to suggest a hierarchy, and even that might have been unnecessary.

>>9889 i remember going to a doctor for a evaluation after high school because i was diagnosed with autism at the age of three.Part of the evaluation was a IQ test that was a series of tests from asking me questions like who was the guy that wrote sherlock holmes to solving puzzles quickly in a certain amount of time.When I read the results, it said they had a very hard time determining my IQ because my performance in each test varied and stuff.At the end of the evaluation it said my IQ was 105 and that seems about right because i view myself as average intelligence.

>>9899 when I was a young teenager my mom had a sit down with me, and had to explain to me that I was smarter than the other kids, and even though I saw myself as roughly average, the other kids would bully me because they said I was trying to act superior to them, when the truth was that I just could not understand that the things I knew were actually not common knowledge. never been IQ tested, but when I suggested that I might have autism (this was in my mid 20s) my mom said that it would not surprise her if I did. I still don't feel superior, but sometimes people at my work make jokes about my knowledge base, which gets annoying after a while

wtf is "reddit spacing"???

>>9905 this is reddit spacing. it makes stuff more readable and easier to understand. according to some.

>>9904 Did they, in fact, bully you?

yes, until I got in a fight with one, and apparently I was a real edgelord too, because people stopped bullying me directly, and I heard jokes and rumors behind my back all the time, and people seemed afraid of me and I couldn't understand why.

>>9877 This still just seems like some kind of "unlock the remaining 20%" thing. We could just kick the definition of intelligence to mean the maximum intelligence you can reach with training. Or do they also claim that there is no cap? >>9878 I find that "an opposing viewpoint" usually boils down to one of three things: a) Two parties are not talking about the same thing and just keep trying to turn their partner back to what they think is the topic/point/goal of the conversation. In situations like this, both parties claim irrelevance or ask to be heard out, and whether their views/understanding match or differ isn't really shown. All that really happens is that one or both parties fail to understand what the goal of the conversation is, and perpetually keep destroying each others' work in reaching that goal. "Hearing out the opposing viewpoint" here just means that one party realizes that they weren't discussing the same topic. b) A difference of values. Each party has their own goal and set of values, and while they understand and agree on the topic/goal of the conversation, neither of them are willing to change their own values. Imagining each other's viewpoints is only useful if they are in the middle of solving some problem and are willing to compromise. For theoretical discussions, it is absolutely pointless as values have been involved, and until they are abstracted away, there is no correct/valid conclusion, both viewpoints are wrong. c) There is a superior and an inferior party. The superior party's view wholly includes the view of the inferior party and more. This "more" causes the superior's conclusion to differ from the inferior's. The inferior is unable to grasp the superior's view and will never understand or affirm his conclusion, while the superior won't change his conclusion as he is dutiful to spreading the most informed opinion he can. "Imagining the opposing viewpoint" here is counterproductive for the superior, and impossible for the inferior. Discussions where understanding an opposing viewpoint actually gives you insight that is relevant to your goals is rare. What is useful and common is one party acquiring new, decision-changing information from the other party. (The captain is dead. They burned down the ships. I don't even like pepperoni pizza. But I'm allergic to gluten.) These however aren't viewpoints, just pieces of information.

>>9894 a truly intelligent observation. "knowing you know nothing is intelligence, but I know your whole being and your future". Side note not to sound all high and mighty but I think people in general (maybe especially on chans though) would benefit from avoiding this false assumption that somebody struggling with something you or somebody you know struggled with is a carbon copy of a past you or someone else. By extension I wouldn't even assume you are struggling with the same thing. Somebody struggling with feeling superior and somebody struggling with feeling superior are not essentially struggling with the same thing because that struggle is a symptom or sign. The real struggle is going on inside their head. I tend to think that If you suddenly absorbed their brain you might find you once again are struggling with whatever it is your brain supposedly got past, because their perception and modes of thinking and thus the problem itself is entirely different. The key to helping people is understanding people, not imagining them to be some simplified image of a type of person you were or knew.

>>9928 the quote was just me paraphrasing my understanding of your post btw. I was being serious about intelligent observation. just realized how sarcastic that looked.

>>9904 you probably inherited the behaviour from your mother. Not to diss your mother, even perfect parents accidentally do psychologically damaging things. But her telling you that you are smarter than the other kids signifies she sees herself as more intelligent than others and hence is able to recognize it in you. Just something to think about, have you ever felt like your mother was acting superior to you and it made you angry? If so do you believe she isn't actually doing anything to make it seem like that or do you just think she doesn't consciously know what shes doing (but is doing something)?

>>9931 What "behaviour" are you referring to?

you don't keep it in check.

>>10421 And should I read your statement as a description or as a prescription?

>>9814 Its easy to think your awesome when have you haven't faced any hard problems, and are among the general public. You build poor study habits in high school because you can tell from the question wording the answer without reading the texts. You construct an image of yourself based upon your assumed superiority. You over estimate your intelligence because your in a small pool. Go to an elite university and take objective stem classes. The material can actually be incredibly challenging, problems stop having "solutions" are start having approximate solutions. Your peers are suddenly orders of magnitude smarter than they where in high school, or junior college. And your study habits are garbage. It can actually get easier to imagine giving up to preserve yourself image than to struggle through the coursework. Telling yourself your smarter than the people around you - after all there is evidence, you still surprise your peers with what you can do , and you can conveniently forget all the times they surprise you . At my university , class average on exams is ~50%. Although, in upper division course work, the occasional Ph'd from another program will take the course with you (think mathematics Ph'd taking upper division physics courses), and blow that by several standard deviations. If your as superior as you think, why haven't you accomplished anything? Stephen Wolfram published papers in particle physics in peer reviewed journals during his first year attending college. Go face some hard problems.

You should lift. Something. Even if it's only yourself. If you're going to be an arsehole about your only advantage over others, you may as well be an aesthetic one.

>>10429 that's just being more experienced with abstract reasoning. I got straight B's and C's in calculus, now I can do calculus in my sleep.

>>10441 >I got straight B's and C's in calculus, now I can do calculus in my sleep. Its obvious you didn't understand my post. Your delusional for a number of reasons. First, calculus isn't peak difficulty mathematics, in fact, I'd say calculus isn't mathematics properly mathematics at all the way you almost certainly took if, if you think calculus is peak difficult mathematics. You should read "A Mathematician's Lament". Computational math courses, rather than courses about mathematical reasoning are completely different, being much easier than the other as the problems are designed to be simple, and solvable through application of a simple algorithm. >Many a graduate student has come to grief when they discover, after a decade of being told they were “good at math,” that in fact they have no real mathematical talent and are just very good at following directions. Math is not about following directions, it’s about making new directions. Taking a high school calculus course and underachieving then claiming your an expert at math is extremely misguided. You think calculus is peak math like a layman, because your a layman. Its not the remotest bit impressive that you took and passed a calculus course. >that's just being more experienced with abstract reasoning. Your dismissive of the idea that you might not be as great as you think, because you haven't been tested, perhaps because its a threatening idea. It threatens your self image, it makes you uncomfortable. Its far more comfortable not test yourself, to not face a hard problem, to not achieve anything , than it is to confront the reality that you might not be as smart as you think. Its a self destructive behavior rooted in fear that I share. I think it might come from growing up being told how intelligent you are constantly, and being afraid to lose that feature of your identity. It can be liberating though, to take the opposite approach sometimes, if you can embrace it: to say: >"I'm nothing. I will never be the world class expert on X, given that I don't have a reputation to protect, How much can I just learn." In trying to do the same, I have really come to see how intelligent my peers can be, and gotten out of my own way at times, rather than simply giving up , and rationalizing my way out. Anyway, its hard to find truly world class intelligentsia that are arrogant. Although their are exceptions (most famously wolfram). I have met people who have won Nobel prizes, people who lead research teams have taught my classes, and although I wouldn't say they remember me personally, I would say that they have been some of the most down to earth and intelligent people I have ever met. And they would be justified in lording intellectual superiority because they have the empirical's to back it up. Finally, consider the effect wolfram's behavior has had on his life. He showed incredible potential that effectively fizzled out due to his arrogance. He could have been a world class researcher, and perhaps achieved something noteworthy, now he is publishing his own books where he claims to have discovered virtually everything, and writing a standard library for a programming language claiming he is changing computer programming. He now simply exaggerates his achievements, and is working on effectively nothing exciting. He would be far better off to collaborate with other people, to embrace a more humble mindset, and to not be afraid to fail working on novel ideas.

>>9814 I suppose you need to keep checking if it's helpful to your self-interest. If your feeling of superiority prevents you from putting up with people's bullsoykaf, then it's helpful. But if it leads to mistakes, then it's hubris.

>>9884 >Simple friend, stop seeing your intellect as the only kind of intellect. Look around and you'l find people far "dumber" achieving things you wish you could I bet, even if it's just little things. There's 2 conclusions this train of thought could lead to: 1. Defining intelligence by society's definition of "achievement". This will kill any kind of freedom of thought you previously had, and turn you into an obedient worker drone. 2. Defining intelligence by your own definition of "achievement". This is also a bad idea, as it will take your own current values as axiomatic, and preclude the possibility of growth through realization that your current values are bad ideas.

>>10455 That already is the current definition in my opinion. It's not as if intelligence is some law of nature passed down by god, it's constructed around things we labeled and then said are good like critical thinking. If these things were agreed to be good there was probably a reason and that reason was likely the achievements and problem solving that came with it. My train of thought is only leading to the fact that intelligence is arbitrarily decided and throughout history it has changed to fit the times, in my head at least. Also even if we were to go off what you are saying being an obedient worker drone is highly beneficial for your survival in the current environment, which I as you think that it being beneficial doesn't make it a good thing. This illustrating the point that if one already doesn't like what the current society values I wouldn't accept their definition of intelligence so quickly either.

>>10454 I doubt it will lead to only one or the other. As with many things, though, I suppose it is a matter of balance. Do I accept the apparent balance as it stands or not? It seems it takes extraordinary intelligence to moderate the difficulties that (self-perceived) extraordinary intelligence brings with it. There's something disquieting about that.

>>10461 The arrogance part sort of precludes you from what i'd consider you as usefully intelligent. The ability to consider, without disdain, conflicting ideas, relegates you to a trap. Not only are we as a human species far from actualizing complete knowledge in any field, but the belief that somehow proficiency in one area is a metric that affords you status? That status is culturally defined as you've explained as your metric of achievement. In evolutionary biology the most intelligent beings are not always correlated with darwinistic success. And in nature, the metric for success is passing your genome, or the idea of a genome, whether its your philosophy, progeny, influence on societal vector, and many other things. Let me ask you. In what field have you broken new ground? To what corpus of literature, or school of thought have you advanced enough to warrant your self-importance? You're only measuring yourself (it seems) by a relative ruler. You stand on a knoll looking down on the unwashed masses. All the while missing the kings of respective human endeavours on the peaks of mountains. Or a more apt analogy, you're standing on the shoulders of a midget, while there are others who legitimately stand on the shoulders of giants. But that's my sense of you. You haven't really described objectively what makes you such a special snowflake. As for myself. I understand I exist on a continuum of proficiency. In some areas I might exist on the top tenth percentile, in most things, it normalizes over that familiar curve bell.

>>10463 Don't assume any given poster is me (the OP). This individual in particular is not, which makes me wonder whether you'd like my response or his/hers. I have some vague understanding that I'm not near the top of human intelligence, but in everyday life I feel I might as well be. Maybe I'm just unlucky (cursed, even, from one perspective), but these fabled geniuses don't seem to appear where I can encounter them. My questions as posed are mostly concerned with handling the "unwashed masses," as you described them. My interactions with them constitute nearly the whole of my experience, by my own judgment.

>>9819 I'm somewhat playing devil's advocate here, but do you not even consider that the people who say something stupid at one moment can also say something smart in another moment? There are many facets to intelligence, and just because someone might be stupid at one thing doesn't mean he is stupid at all things. For instance, person A may be gifted at logical thinking, but very poor at things like abstract thinking and using big picture thinking to notice things that are seemingly unconnected at first but are actually very connected. Person B might be average at logical thinking, but brilliant at things like abstract thinking, seeing seemingly unrelated connections, creativity, etc. Person B might even have a better understanding of life and himself than Person A in a kind of philosophical sense. Person A would more likely suffer from a kind of tunnel vision, but be extremely good at problem solving and mechanical things. Of course those are two extreme examples. You could have person C, who is both logical and abstract/creative, but is kind of poor at concentrating sometimes, leading him to sometimes make fallacies, not due to being illogical rather due to being unfocused, leading him to make "typos" in his thinking when his thinking starts to become unfocused and distractable. Point is people are complex with millions of mental traits abilities and flaws. As for fallacies, everyone commits them from time to time. I mean there is the fallacy fallacy for instance. Just because someone commits a fallacy doesn't mean he is all around stupid and has no thoughts of worth on anything. This goes back to my first paragraph, for example someone could have philosophical insight into something but just be bad at avoiding fallacies in arguments. That said I understand if you are high ability in things, you feel disconnected and misunderstood. Normal users will stand out more and you will feel like you are surrounded by people who don't understand things that seem common sense to you. It's important though not to write people off immediately. In general it's important to question your own judgement a lot, because of how prone people are to deluding themselves to believe what they want to believe, the mind is good at making you think this belief is the most logical thing in the world. People have an ability to rationalize, or create a logical excuse or reason for doing or believing just about anything.

>>10471 I do this all the time. Some people just kind of put half-baked ideas out there to see if they're good.

>>10472 Which part of my post are you saying you do all the time? I assume you mean "saying something stupid sometimes and smart other times". Yea putting your ideas out there to test how it's received can be good although, it can depend on who you tell it to. Some people just won't "get it" even if it's good.

>>10426 prescription dumbass

>>10463 Why would I be OP when im arguing that OP is not in fact of superior intellect by the nature that any measure he could even provide would only prove a certain type of intellect reflective of the times. In fact you almost even argued exactly what I was saying which what I was replying to was challenging. Its probably not the same because from the other things your saying and your desire to prove OP unintelligent there is differences in where we take or at least act on this idea. My intent was to prove that OPs very definition of intelligence which I just trusted he has is not deserving of any feelings of superiority and he would see why his arrogance isnt needed.

>>10483 Suppose I accept your idea, leaving me with the understanding that I am not, as I put it, "authentically superior" because "intelligence" as I (and current society) define it has no special credibility. Then, it would seem that my stated tendencies cannot be indicative of arrogance, as superiority can't enter into the equation. Instead, they would constitute mere associative preference, which doesn't seem to carry nearly as much baggage as arrogance does. Put another way, if we discredit the societal concept of intelligence here, it seems that we must simultaneously discredit the societal concept of arrogance as it applies to the situation. My underlying ideas change, but my outward behavior does not. Is this a reasonable assessment? Is this a good outcome? (Note: these questions are not rhetorical.) Also, I'd like to remind everyone that, from the beginning, my intent was not to state my superiority over all existing minds. For the most part, the discussion in this thread has taken place on a level that I consider sufficiently sophisticated (thus my continued participation). I don't know what your lives are like, but the general level of quality here seems to drastically surpass what I personally can reliably expect from others in meatspace. In this sense, it may be more helpful to consider my problem as an environmental problem than as a problem of absolute perspective (it's really always going to be a problem of attitude, but the associations change). If any of this seems inconsistent, then those of you who are out to prove me "wrong" can simply add that inconsistency to the evidence against my intelligence. Suffice it to say that I'm attempting to work through all of this.

I've seen a number of these "I am a polymath/Renaissance man/savant/genius/Indigo Child/Homo Superior/fractactical genius/Tactically Augmented Organism/Homo Novus/the World's Greatest Detective/the second coming of Jesus in the west and Buddha in the east/the World Teacher, and so far I have seen nothing to indicate that any of you are any more than what you appear to be, which is damaged acid heads in the grips of megalomania LARPing on an imageboard. Not a one of you offered any proof beyond your own claims. So take an IQ test, that's a simple, common way to quantify you. It's not perfect, but it's a start. And tell us where you stand politically, the Political Compass would be a start there. How do you roll spiritually? Philosophically? Come at us, bro, I dare you to make some kind of defensible concrete statement you can defend. It shouldn't be too hard for the Master Race, right, Jack?

>>10557 >Come at us, [...]Jack Well, President Sears, I just posted a reply to this kind of response in the post immediately preceding yours. At no point have I claimed to be at the absolute top of human intelligence. My question is largely a question of how I should behave with respect to those who seem to me to be inferior to myself. In my estimation, such people make up the vast majority of those I encounter in everyday life. This is not at all the same claim as "I am the smartest man alive" and appropriately deserves a different response. Please engage with my ideas as posted instead of other ideas you manufacture from my superficial resemblance to other posters.

Intelligence is mentioned a lot in this thread; I've seen people think of intelligence in many ways over the years, some "defined" it by gluing a few other vague expressions into a sentence (it was definitely a network of circular definitions). Let me share how I think of it (not a definition). Intelligence is a thing's ability to take in, to contain complexity. What it isn't: common sense, reason, analytical or logical thinking, rigor with details, seeing the big picture, vast knowledge, fast calculations, a practical or empirical or theoretical approach, useful... or anything specific that intelligent people do. Intelligence is also independent of achievement and proving yourself: it doesn't matter if you actually do it, it doesn't matter if your prove that you can do it, it doesn't matter if anyone will ever know that you can do it. What matters is that you cab take in complexity. This complexity can be anything. Think about a pebble, that's a lot of details and information, so many atoms. 20 pebbles are 20 times as much detail and information, 20 times as much complexity. But maybe these pebbles have inter-pebble relations, then it's even more complexity. How much more complexity does a task hold when you have to adhere to commonwealth law, or if there is a time limit? Look at the numbers 1 and 20 - it's just one digit vs two digits, only double the complexity, where did the rest go? Well, into the million years of evolution it took for unicellular beings to become humans that can use arabic numerals. Numbers from 1 to 100 (linear) or numbers from 1 to 10 (squared) or numbers from 1 to 1 (100 dimensions). Abstraction takes away complexity from one place and puts it somewhere else. Human brains have much complexity, somewhere in the middle. You can't photo-memorize some specific 50 pebbles from a specific angle (lots of flat detail), and you can't conjure up a function whose image is just that either (very hard abstraction) - but somewhere in between you can still imagine those 50 pebbles. You can take in the complexity of those fifty pebbles, or a million dots, or a renaissance castle. What complexity can a pebble take in? A turing-machine? An empty book? Intelligence thus allows you to manage complexity: see the big picture where others can't, be more rigorous and attentive to detail, look at something in many ways while others can barely manage one point of view, have a better intuition of what others feel or think, predict or guess better and faster with less, select things that lead to your goal more reliably, be detached from your desires and goals and think impartially, be more efficient with routes or energy use... Intelligence makes you able to do any or all of this, yet it doesn't force you - a person who must move fast, or must keep looking at the big picture is less complex and intelligent than one who can, but needn't. Someone who must win every competition cannot exist as a second place, but someone who can win all of them may have no qualms with losing out on some for the lulz while they remain sportsmanlike, or retain a personal life or whatever. The more intelligent you are, the more complexity you can take in: that means there are more possible futures for you (of which you'll take exactly one in by enacting it). Whether you focus the complexity into a wide perspective or a narrow peak - a polymath or a pioneer - the fastest bitcoin miner rig or a slow LISP AI that passes the Turing-test - there is no distinguished metric. Rather, it's all possible metrics at once. A common mistake is to equate intelligence with achievements - while certain achievements have a bar of entry in terms of intelligence, intelligence has no bars of entry in terms of achievements - you can be born with 150 IQ and strong analytical thinking, good people skills, an artistic eye, strong empathy, musical talent, a great sense of humor and charming personality, then not use any of this because all you care about is the many plants growing in your mom's garden and late-2011 benzo memes. There's also the problem of external factors, which often include parts or all of society, luck, the weather, etc. The world is some much more complex (and thus intelligent) than any single human or group of humans it contains that we can never be sure about anything anyway.

>How do I keep my arrogance in check when, as far as I can tell, I'm actually intellectually superior to most others I encounter? "How do you not have arguments with idiots? Don't frame the people you argue with as idiots!" -Cat Lavigne But how does one do that lainon? >Don't disregard an argument because it is full of fallacies. Remember the fallacy fallacy >Steelman arguments that initially seem dumb, there is likely a reasoning embedded in a persons heuristics that they are unaware of. Treat what someone is trying to say as a puzzle and discover with them the true reasoning behind their argument. >Don't talk about things you know about. It is likely that everyone knows something that you don't, try to find out what. >Go hang out with people smarter than you. >Stop being serious and learn to have fun. Some of the funniest, wittiest people that I have met have been uneducated. >Dont assume lack of education means lack of intelligence. >Intelligence is only piece of a multitude of important factors in human life, just because it is the factor that you associate most with does not make it the most important, nor does it mean that other people care about it at all. >do dumb stuff, its fun >say dumb things, its funny >Do drugs >Go fuarrrk >Get fuarrrked >pull your head out of your ass, the air smells better out here. Your post is old and there are a lot of replies. I drank a couple of beers so have no patients to read through the whole thing, nor do I expect you, OP, to still be here, but seriously man. Constraining the lens in which you perceive existence to one trait is fuarrrking retarded.

>>10487 I see what your saying but that associative preference is built in part by the current definition of intelligence. I sort of made a jab at you but make no mistake even I have to remind myself not to see superiority over someone because they do not suit my personal definition of intelligence. Following this I understand what your saying but I dont also discredit entirely societal definitions of arrogance like I might with intelligence, but also note I dont entirely discredit that either. I said it speaks to something, just that this isnt deserving of arrogance or superiority as its not inherently "better". While there would be societal baggage associated with arrogance, lets say for one my personal morals align with society on it not being a good thing. I could explain why but I dont think thats necessary or relevant, so long as you can accept I have my reasons as you might. However arrogance in my opinion isnt as "constructed" as intelligence. Because while im saying the common perception of intelligence only speaks to one kind despite claiming to speak to all forms of "brain power", arrogance is not as vague. It only references the false feeling of superiority over someone, many, or all. If the societal definition and perception of arrogance was that its only arrogance if say, a false sense of superiority over someone because of intelligence then I would be inclined to agree with you. As one can be arrogant about their appearance or even "stupidity". A more abstract but better example would be if arrogance was , in addition to its common definition, recognizing you are superior to someone in a certain measurable subject. While sometimes it is used like this, once someone says "im not saying im better than you im just better in this area and here is the evidence" that usually suffices to explain away arrogance. Notice one cant do this with intelligence because of the perception of it, if you try to say "your IQ test only proves you are more intelligent in one area" some will be persuaded but not all or even most; As evidenced by this discussion (not just me and you, as you seem to kind of agree, but the thread in general). I understand im getting into specifics while also speaking on vague things like "societies perception". My rationalization for this is that we cant possibly have this discussion if we only speak literally; the definition of intelligence is very general yet I think we both recognize the "common idea" is something very specific. Even when two dont hold the same definition they still hold that their specific view of intelligence is universal, and im trying to say it isnt. Im also saying arrogance however is GENERALLY universal, and its only our reaction to it that isnt. Not to repeat and overexplain but when its not accurate it usually is accurate in perception. That is the person simply sees the same generally universal arrogance where it isnt and this can be clarified or worked through to a conclusion quickly. But when one has an entirely different definition of intelligence you cant work through it without changing ones definition, as no matter how much the other person shows their unique intelligence it wont be recognized. This is all important to me because one thing I cant change probably is intelligence being valued. But if I or we can change the definition to be as broad as I think it should be we might see a flourishing of something not possible with the tunnel vision idea of it.

So, basically you want to know, are you conceited because you're so awesome, or awesome because you're so conceited? Are you the NEET who started the thread about being a Renaissance Man while refusing to move out of his parents' house?

>>10594 No; No

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GrDqnMjhqoxiqpQPw/the-proper-use-of-humility

>This isn't even getting into how a vague concept like intelligence might be divided into less nebulous parts. If believing oneself to be intellectually superior is wrong, then is it wrong to believe oneself to be more rational than others? To be a better critical thinker? To have a better memory? There are many times of intelligence, there is no such thing as "Intelligence". This is a semantics problem, but for clarification being a good programmer doesn't necessarily allow you to be a good mathematician, writer, poet, analyst, etc.. Each of these require a different type of intelligence, shaped by environment and just natural stats. >>9816 Dismissing the opinions of others based on your own inflated ego isn't a sign of intelligence, you're just acting like an anime character. In real life, even extremely dumb people have a perspective that might be extremely useful to anyone, but you need to parse that information, remove the problems in language and semantics and get to the heart of what they mean by what they say, which requires... intelligence. Elitism is an aesthetic, it has no positive outcome. What you're doing is exactly the same as paris hilton buying clothes, you're buying into the "smart lonely guy" aesthetic, they're your designer clothes, it's an accessory for personality, not an indication of intellect. >>9819 You're just dumb at this point. People make logical errors all the time, the real, living world is not logical. What people mean is often not perfectly expressed, the world is not a TV show. You're expecting people to behave like characters in a show, when in reality you need to be able to get to what people mean by what they say if you want meaningful perspectives. Imagine you're a reporter, trying to find out about a famous murder in an isolated, poor area. People will likely attribute the murder to the supernatural, that a witch or a ghost did it, that the area was cursed. Following your elitist logic, you would dismiss all information available because they're not logical. That's what makes you a dumb fuarrrk, your inability to accurately understand what people mean, your attachment to their "logical errors", as if their reports were a debate, as if life was a debate. It isn't. I genuinely hope you're underage and will grow out of the light yagami phase.

>>11848 >Dismissing the opinions of others based on your own inflated ego isn't a sign of intelligence. I was not suggesting that it was. I was instead suggesting that, given one is already known to be sufficiently intelligent, this behavior may be useful. The problem is not that the less intelligent never have anything of value to say but that the wisdom gleaned may not be worth the time, effort, and distraction it takes to get it. Now, we have a more subtle problem, but I suppose dealing in subtleties makes it harder to deride me, which seems to be the main purpose of many posters in this thread. >acting like an anime character >"smart lonely guy" aesthetic I will admit that these are factors at play. Many of my role models are cool anime characters, and I want to feel good about myself, so I emulate them. However, my being drawn to these specific characters was a result of my own personality, so I'm arguably only amplifying traits that were already there. I think I was a (relatively) smart, lonely guy before encountering anime. I can imagine the sorts of insults that may follow this admission. I request that you attempt to word them constructively, if you express them at all. >Imagine you're a reporter This is a good, convincing metaphor, within its limits. However, the degree to which it supports your conclusions in everyday life is questionable. Let us consider instead the case in which the murder happened 100 years ago. While it was never solved, high-quality records of the facts involved in the case exist, and while I am reading them, current residents of the town keep coming to me unsolicited to tell me of a rumor they heard from a friend of a friend, etc. about a curse. When I dismiss these claims (as they are consistent with standard small town superstition), I am labeled arrogant. Now, this metaphor may seem contrived to you, but such is the problem with metaphors. It seems to me that a metaphor can be constructed to support almost any position. The problem is in establishing its close connection to reality. >I genuinely hope you're underage and will grow out of the light yagami phase. While I am not underage, I suppose one can "grow out" of a phase at nearly any point in life. I believe this thread has helped me to adopt a more nuanced, potentially more healthy view of the problem (keikaku doori). There seems to be a misconception in this thread that I started it to show off, but it seems clear to me that I've been asking from the beginning to be (convincingly) argued out of a mindset that I suspect to be troublesome. Thank you, then, for hoping the best for me. Really, though, I always saw myself more in L than in Light, although I sympathized to a degree with both characters. In this, though, I suppose I see your point. L was relatively humble on account of growing up among geniuses. Light went through the regular school system and became arrogant. Once again, we see that this is a matter of perspective and exposure. The idea that a decently intelligent individual might grow up in an intellectually-bankrupt area is not at all far-fetched. I propose that this model be used in your further evaluations of me.

>>11849 >Time and effort Motherfucker do you actually, honestly need those 5 minutes that exercising your empathy would take? Does it matter? And if it does matter, why are you here, the least effective place to get the answers you want on earth. Once again, this is aesthetics, you're rationalizing your aesthetics instead of seeing the real world for what it is. This is not practical, you're not doing the logical thing, you're giving an emotional response to a breach in style. >I will admit that these are factors at play. Many of my role models are cool anime characters, and I want to feel good about myself, so I emulate them And this is not an issue. All of us are influenced by what we admire. But copying behavior doesn't work, it doesn't come from you, it comes from another creative mind. You can't act like a character would act, you're not him. You must absorb characteristics into your own personality and act like you would act, instead of just trying to play the role. This process comes effortlessly, over time you might notice "huh, this behavior comes from those influences", but never the other way around, that's just acting. >However, my being drawn to these specific characters was a result of my own personality, so I'm arguably only amplifying traits that were already there It really doesn't look like that, dude. Only you can know if you're being honest to yourself or mimicking behavior though. >Metaphor Yeah, it's not as close to the point as i wanted, i've been listening to murder mysteries lately. My point is that a father might say that "asians are good at math because of their discipline", after his son gets bad math grades because he wants him to have more discipline and doesn't know how to communicate it in a more effective way. An incel might say that he doesn't get pussy because his skull is too short but that doesn't necessarily means he believes that, or that he's trying to make a scientific affirmation. Maybe he's just desperate, trying to fit in a community that will accept or at least understand his worst characteristics. A suicidal who cuts himself doesn't wanna necessarily die, it's just a response to outside input, a way to deal with soykaf. There is a distance between what is said and what is meant, and while there are situations in which ignoring people is normal, since we don't have infinite stamina to lead on endless discussions with people who have less information than we do (and would require you breaking down what they do know from what they don't know for them), my problem with your scenario is that you come from a place of elitism, not necessity, not from normal human behavior, but like a noble who thinks that he's superior to peasants because daddy is king. Can you see the difference, between necessity and elitism? 1. "Oh man talking to that guy is really fuarrrking tiresome, i just don't have the patience anymore" 2. "That guy is inferior and not worth my time" The two situations essentially have the same outcome, the guy is ignored, but one is humble and the other isn't. In the first scenario the guy might one day come up with a nice conversation, he might know a lot of interesting soykaf about an obscure subject and sure, you might talk to him, he's not tiring you now so there isn't a problem there. But on the second scenario it's impossible to this person to ever entertain you, he is inferior, doesn't deserve to mingle with you. But the thing is, inferior isn't real, you created it to preserve your aesthetic, then rationalized the decision. That's what makes you arrogant. That's what i mean by light yagami phase. Light wasn't interested in making the world a better place, after all corrupt politicians and robbers are all a product of their society, he thought himself smart but he wasn't solving any problems, he was just feeding his own ego and aesthetics over a sense of superiority. And this might sound like some hippie bullsoykaf, but literally nobody is superior to anybody else, we're not rpg characters. Empathy is a skill, and you seem to be legitimately trying to understand and improve, so do just that. Make an effort to listen to other people, even reading a fantasy book from a demographic you have something against is a great exercise in empathy, and goes a long way to show you that people are just people, some people are really good at doing some things, but that's it really, it doesn't mean they can't share a conversation/space/interests with less skilled people.

>>11850 >the least effective place to get the answers you want on earth Where else will I find someone to thoughtfully, anonymously, and perhaps insightfully dissect my thoughts with a fair amount of good will, as you have just done? If you are aware of a greater repository of wisdom attuned to my particular thought patterns, share it with me. Thank you for your contribution. You have given me some ideas to consider.

The Very Clever Chicken There once was a very clever chicken. By pecking when given the command, the very clever chicken could count to any number between one and five, although it was known to make the occasional mistake, perhaps pecking thrice when it ought to have pecked twice. This marvelous talent was, of course, the sign and source of its remarkable cleverness. Whenever the very clever chicken counted true, it was given a single kernel of corn, which it always eagerly received. At the end of any exhibition of its abilities, the very clever chicken was returned to its pen, where it flapped and clucked along with the others.

>>10557 Would any online IQ test be good enough?

Debrowski's Positive Disintegration hasn't been mentioned yet. It has now. The nerds here sound like they might be interested in it.

>>11867 That's an intriguing theory, going by the Wikipedia article; however, it is currently unsubstantiated and would be difficult to substantiate. I can't say whether I have the potential to become one of these hypothetical superpersonalities, but the possibility of eventually shedding my depression and anxieties in a state of ultimate integration gives me hope. I suppose the theory would support my doing everything I possibly can to truly become the genius I already, to a degree, see myself as, although the article also states that Dabrowski thought poorly of merely intellectual growth.

>>11873 Given the age i imagine you have, and IF you are as intelligent as you claim, i would bet my sweet tasty ass that in a few years you will experience some heavy ego death. It's inevitable. Unless you have social feedback to support the idea that professional or academic success matters, you will reach the conclusion that it doesn't. And if you study our social structure and how it became what it is, you will likely identify that most sources of motivation you had aren't really yours, they're just economic incentives. Someone dug a hole, put you in it and now you think the shovel is a part of your personality. It's not, it's a tool made necessary by the environment you're a part of, nothing else. This process of deconstruction, of removing layers from yourself until you're just you and not all the stuff fed to you by your peers and influences is the single most scary process i've been through. Of course, i'm reaching based on personal experience. But if it does happen to you, don't give up trying to find genuine sources of motivation and methods to keep on living buddy, even if they're unorthodox. Wank that dick with a dildo up your butt, make those weird ass videogames and burn a fuarrrking chair. As long as you come out of the experience as yourself for once. Good luck.

>>11866 No. Those are very flawed. Take Mensa International IQ test or F off.

This is just what autism is, you're not a genius.

Have you ever considered that someone may be intellectually superior to you and tired at the idea of going circles around you? What will they get if they waste the energy to engage you where you're at? Emotional intelligence is just as important as intelligence. I imagine some people choose not to engage you because they don't feel it will be beneficial to you, emotionally or intellectually.

Who is that anime character? I'm missing the RP here. So please enlighten me. That aside elitism works. It's proven that performance can be manipulated simply by reminding people how they should perform before a test. I.E. they did tests with "asians are good at math" before a math test and got the asians to score above average and also better than the comparison group without that remidner. So mental manipulation works. On another note intelligence by itself is worthless. You need information to process to make use of it. Lack or wrong information can make you choose wrong while the dumbest donkey can choose right if told what to do. Even idiots can adopt correct trained behaviour over time. This means longterm your IQ is worthless as the tards arrive at equal efficiency over time. tldr is: intelligence is not OP. If you want "success" there are more important factors. So there's no reason to insider trade over >tf too high iq

>>9814 Not sure how to tell you this OP, but how sure someone is that they are right has nothing to do with their chances of actually being correct. If you're really that hot of soykaf then it won't hurt you to take a minute to understand the question and get a more complete understanding. Force yourself to slow down. You'll have fewer stupid misunderstandings and I don't think anyone known for being wise was ever known for being in a rush to puke up an answer before someone else. You can learn a lot by talking to people "dumber" than you, maybe not even so much from their answers as from their questions. What are they interested in, what are their problems, why are they even talking to you? Stop being so needy. It's ok if the whole human race doesn't bow down to you and your giant brain, just chill the fuarrrk out. If you really are the smartest person in the room, find a better room. You don't have to waste time talking about stupid soykaf, find something more interesting to you. If you can't find a better room, it's probably not the room's fault. You're not the only intellectual person in the world.

>/r/iamverysmart That is how you seem to everyone around you.

>>12041 Influence is not manipulation. Nothing you said has anything to do with elitism. You a dummie.

>>12059 > affect peoples performance positive or negative as you desire by giving a suggestion >"it's not manipulation" are you for real? Secondary if others suggestions can affect you, so can your own ones and elitism is exactly that - it's a form of self-suggestion.

>>12061 Manipulation = Management of events with the intention of gaining personal advantage; Fake-crying so your girlfriend won't leave you. Influence = Likelihood of changing someone's behavior based on your position within an environment; Saying asians are smarter before a test (considering you're the one responsible for the tests, or holds high gravitas within the test environment) Elitism = The belief that a select group of people are worthy of certain advantages/knowledge/money, while others aren't; Video game elitists who think girls shouldn't play video games. Only the true stinky geeks should. What you defined is influence. And literally nothing you said is manipulation or elitism.

>>12062 Your definitions are garbage. video game elitism is about being the best and soykafting on worse players. It has nothing to do with girls at all. Which sjw hole did you crawl from?

>>12063 You know you have access to most of the world's knowledge at the tip of your fingers right? I didn't copy paste a google link to definitions because i thought it'd be rude.

>>12064 and that's your problem >copypaste from a site >claim it's truth

>>12065 i didn't copy paste from a website, this is just the definition people use in the real world. If you go on websites, you'll find slight variations, but the central idea is the same. That's how language works, yes? A lot of people agree that a word means something, and so it does. If your definition is only used by you, that's not a very useful definition, is it?

>>12066 Empty claims nothing more. If you were involved in any gaming community in the last decade you would know better. Gaming elitism was always about competitive players vs casuals in a conflict of interest over exclusive content&rewards for being good. The casuals demand lowering the hurdle cause they are paying too while top demands to keep the pleb filth out telling them to git gut. This has been the ongoing battle and this is where elitists came from in video gaming. "Girls I am angry" wasn't even on the screen at that time.

>>12062 >Influence = Likelihood of changing someone's behavior based on your position within an environment; >Saying asians are smarter before a test You realize your example makes no sense without the part in parenthesis. >(considering you're the one responsible for the tests, or holds high gravitas within the test environment) Here you're injecting a bunch of preconditions which don't actually exist. The whole point of the math test experiment is what was said, not who says it. On the other hand what >>12061 said actually does make sense as an argument even if I might not agree with it. >if others suggestions can affect you, so can your own ones and elitism is exactly that - it's a form of self-suggestion.

>>12067 Two things can be true an illustrate an example at the same time. Even if you're, again, wrong. Professional players who want exclusive content that is physically unavailable for bad players is also elitism. Problem is that literally has never happened. Players want challenging content that would naturally force bad players out, because they're not good enough, not because they're not part of the elite. So it's still not elitism, yes? It's just a class of people asking for content that is fun for them. Just like new players want fun content, too. Neither party wants the other to be physically unable to access, they just have to fullfill certain requirements (time or skill investment). You're clearly not from lainchan or too young to understand how the world works in any meaningful way besides immediate personal experience. This is also derailing the thread at this point. >>12068 >Here you're injecting a bunch of preconditions which don't actually exist. The whole point of the math test experiment is what was said, not who says it. I just wanted to illustrate the difference between manipulation and influence. If the message is writen in the test, it's clearly by the staff, thus, by someone who holds power within the environment. My point is that the alumni might still be able to resist the influence, for example due to a lack of respect for authority. However the influence holds most people accountable, so they pay more attention to the test. By if a random guy on the streets said asians were smarter? He would hold no influence over them. Influence requires a position of power. >On the other hand what >>12061 said actually does make sense as an argument even if I might not agree with it. Self suggestion has nothing to do with elitism in any way shape or form. Elitism implies in an elite who holds something that is reserved for them. Be it bankers, politicians or gamers in habbo hottel blocking the passage for a pool so only their party can enter.

>>12041 It's Yukinosoykafa Yukino from OreGairu, a high schooler labeled the "Ice Queen" for her unusual competence, expressionlessness, and, well, arrogance. In part, the show is about how intelligent, cynical youngsters can become isolated (although it plays a bit with the "chicken or egg" question of whether the isolation actually led to cynicism) and fall prey to the kinds of traps that the intelligent are perhaps more likely to fall into (e.g. overtheorizing in the absence of good data, overreliance on extended metaphor, etc.). It also suggests that some apparently less intelligent individuals are actually just playing along in order to meet their social needs while having more calculating personalities beneath their exteriors. These elements seemed appropriate to associate with the discussion. >>12055 You seem to be assuming that I would share these thoughts with anyone and everyone when I'm really only sharing them with you lainons. Even when pressed, I'm not going to call someone inferior to his face. That seems intensely counterproductive. If you're referring to my speech style, though, you may be right.

>>12069 >Problem is that literally has never happened Wow players wanted lfr gone for as long as it exists. WoW arena players demanded not to give away mounts reserved for rankers as sales to plebs. Casuals demanded access to exclusive skins in lol that were given for rating for years. Those are the biggest games on the market and you know nothing of it? You just proved yourself once more how you can only copypaste and placate it as truth without having any knowledge of the matter. It's as deplorable as it gets.

>>12069 >I just wanted to illustrate the difference between manipulation and influence. I think it's likely that >>12059 is not even a native speaker. Ignoring what he's trying to say and being autistic about the meaning of individual words is kind of poor faith. >the influence holds most people accountable, so they pay more attention to the test. Note that the experiment doesn't work in reverse. You can have the king of Wakanda telling black kids they are good at math they will still fail the test. >By if a random guy on the streets said asians were smarter? Yes this would work too. Because the effect is caused by a cultural meme that students have internalized and it doesn't matter who reminds them of the meme right before the test.

>>12071 That is, once again, not elitism. The world's riven skin, for example. It was promised as a exclusive skin, only available that year. People wanted it because it was exclusive. A few years later, riot decided to sell it again. Trust was broken, the players did not try to make the skin exclusive only for diamond players. They acquired a resource that was promised to be exclusive, and their trust was broken. It's not an elite group, everybody had access to the skin (in fact, all you had to do was watch it on twitch if i remember correctly). Nobody tried to keep the skin from anybody. They were just disappointed in how riot decided to sell previously exclusive skins. Same for goth annie, green rammus and all other recolors. As for wow, can't really comment on it. But hopefully you have the intellect to discuss ideas instead of every single personal instance of your personal life, which i give no soykafs about. Sadly that seems to be the only way you will understand words. >>12072 >Note that the experiment doesn't work in reverse. You can have the king of Wakanda telling black kids they are good at math they will still fail the test. Influence is..not a superpower. You can't influence someone to solve a mathematical problem if they have no knowledge of math. You can influence me to solve a problem i'm proficient at, you can't suggest me into acquiring new skills on the fly. >Yes this would work too. Because the effect is caused by a cultural meme that students have internalized and it doesn't matter who reminds them of the meme right before the test. At this point you're just making soykaf up. That wasn't the best metaphor, i'll give you that. However, the point remains.

>>12072 >Ignoring what he's trying to say and being autistic about the meaning of individual words is kind of poor faith. On that point i'll agree with you. Sorry, was kind of being a dickwad.

>>12073 It doesn't matter what dictionary or google search says. The crowd defines it's own language. You can tell it's wrong as much as you want but it won't change how it's used. And given enough time the dictionary adapts to the people. Urban dictionary exists for the same reason. You can't even keep up with all the changes without help. Talking how this or that is wrong is not helpful at all. It is what it is.

>>12075 My point is exactly that this is how elitism is used in the planet earth, by real people. Search on the internet for texts using the term "elitism" instead of looking it up in the dictionary. Live in the real world instead of your head for once. Search on game forums, search on books, search on 4chan and on the news. It doesn't take any effort to do a very, very simple research. Jesus fuarrrk.

>>12076 https://twitter.com/search?q=elitism&src=typd https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22elitism%22&t=ffab&atb=v142-6&ia=web https://forums.eveonline.com/search?q=elitism https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=fpMrXMylM8OewgSGwroY&q=elitism

>>12076 >>12077 You didn't understand me. Each group defines it's own language. Different professions use the same words with a different meaning for example. Another example is regional slang. This means it's useless to look for a global definition when entering a small inner specific group.You won't understand people unless you take the effort to understand what they mean with their own terms. Berating them for talking wrong also never helps. You're just branding yourself as an outsider at that point which in general just increases hostility towards you.

>>12078 Oh, then i totally agree. However...we're on lainchan.

>>12079 This guarantees that we have something in common but the degree of overlap still varies. The best illustration is the previous conflict. If you were part of the same groups you would have never argued over definitions. Being on a board is what makes it difficult. In the real world you adjust language depending on the space you enter. The slums, university and the clinic all have their own language and looking at a person it's easy to tell and adjust to the situation because you get plenty of cues. Here on the net everyone comes together as anon and acts at home. We somewhat assimilate each others style but it just makes it more difficult because this means we can't tell each others roots apart which makes contextual interpretation on the person impossible. The result is we assume to speak the same language and get irritated when the other party break the communication protocol because in reality we are all on somewhat different protocols with some overlap. damn i wrote too much tldr: people are different.

>>12080 Not that lain, but: I agreed with your original post, that it's about acknowledging registers[0] and trying to work between them rather than erase them. But I disagree that simply because you're part of the same group (e.g. lainchan) you will necessarily be speaking the same register and having more complete understanding. It's something that needs to be worked towards — medicine is one of the oldest professions in the world, but it didn't acquire a universal register until quite recently. I think conversations like this one are exactly the kind of the work needed though. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_(sociolinguistics)#Diatype

>>12092 Sorry also wanted to include this[1] in reference to medicine as a universally-comprehensible register. And also, in hindsight, this[2] too. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1079361/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_English

>>12092 P( IT & lain knowledge | being here) is higher. We self-filter meeting here and so matching registers should be more probable over the global space. That's why i suggested higher chance to understand each other should exist. As for the muddling of registers, it's not necessary bad (there's some benefit as it makes you more anon if you care about that) but it makes understanding people harder as it masks what register you are using. Frequent exposure leads to adoption of mannerism and words. People adopt board culture with fuzzy learning identical to how children learn languages and the error space is high with that. Kids fix this with immense time investment. That however never happens here. The thesis is we're stuck in a fuzzy creation process for a new common register using individually our old ones as basis which leads to different interpretations and thereby creates communication errors as a result of being unable to identify each others registers.

I think we've gone far off topic at this point. Save this for the linguistics thread, should one ever appear. >>12070 >Yukinosoykafa Hm

>>12073 >At this point you're just making soykaf up. That wasn't the best metaphor, i'll give you that. However, the point remains. It's not a metaphor. What me and >>12053 were referred to, telling kids that asians are good at math before giving them a math test, was an actual psychology experiment. Please stop talking about what the dictionary says. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat#Further_empirical_studies Kind of getting tired of every second post I write being deleted with no explanation.

>>9862 just gonna drop this here

I'm surprised how everyone argued what intelligence is without offering what should be an obvious choice for this place: It's just hardware specs. Processing power, memory, error margin, etc. . This is what defines whether one can process a task faster than the other or at all (not enough working memory = impossible). Solves the question why intelligent people can act stupid too : Software is the other aspect. Bad software breaks good hardware. Average people catch up to intelligent ones by storing precalculated solutions aka memorization to offset being slow exactly the same way you do in programming where you decide whether you want to calculate in realtime or memorize approximated solutions cause your hardware is too slow. Side thought: If you think of your brain as a database then storing soykafload of unnecessary information has to slow you down regardless how wellmade it is. Secondary you probably saw the publication how learning breaks your dna down and thus accelerates degradation. So the information addicts are making themselves stupid longterm.

>>9814 You sound like you watched too much anime and it finally got your head. Let me take you back to reality. >there are multiple examples of individuals whose brilliance apparently surpasses my own, and yet these individuals seem to maintain an easy humility. Thats because they realize that disregarding others as "irrelevant" as you do has no benefit. It hurts your relationship with others and is anti-social behaviour. You do not need to agree with everyone on everything on matters of opinion which doesn't mean you don't have to respect them, and when discussing using actual logic on topics where you are clearly correct it is much more constructive to try and show the "irrelevant" people their fallacies than to be arrogant. >I'm not sure that I'm capable of doing away with my arrogance ... damaging my chances of growing further. Your arrogance has nothing to do with your growth contrary to what you believe. You may have a desire to surpass others but that isn't what you'd call arrogance but motivation by competition. You wanted to "win" and so you worked hard and got to the top, you didn't start there and look down. Moving forward being arrogant won't help you. Your argument that other people's lack of intelligence holds you down is ridiculous. If you are certain that you're absolutely right then it should be simple to sway other's opinions. The fact that it isn't should tell you that while you think they're wrong they must still have some truth to their arguments to believe in it. Use that big brain of yours to try and understand that people have different life experiences than you which shape their opinions and that makes them equally valid. But to a certain extent I understand you. I wouldn't trust some farmer to be the president. People should know and be reminded of their place and extent of their abilities, just not the way you do it.

>>12156 >the publication how learning breaks your dna down and thus accelerates degradation Please provide a link. A simple search turns up nothing. >>12452 >[...] that isn't what you'd call arrogance but motivation by competition. You wanted to "win" and so you worked hard and got to the top, you didn't start there and look down. This seems like a useful distinction. Thank you. >[...] it should be simple to sway other's opinions. The fact that it isn't should tell you that while you think they're wrong they must still have some truth to their arguments to believe in it[...]people have different life experiences than you which shape their opinions and that makes them equally valid. I don't think it works this way. Belief is influenced by factors other than truth content/potential truth content/verisimilitude. Your arguments would make more sense if people were perfectly rational beings adopting different beliefs on the sole basis of differences in stored information, but that seems to be a poor model of humanity.

>>12453 >A simple search turns up nothing. I was intrigued so I looked it up, "learning brain dna" brings up a bunch of articles. https://news.mit.edu/2015/dna-breakage-learning-age-related-damage-0604

A hard definition to what intelligence is is a pretty useless conversation in itself. The brain is not hardware, we always compare the brain to machines but it clearly isn't. You can draw parallels but ultimately it's a pretty useless metaphor. There are many types of intelligence, a good chess player isn't necessarily a good mathematician, social engineering implies in your emphatic abilities and that also requires a completely different type of intelligence. Even if we could compare our brains to hardware, what does it matter when reality is a lot more complex than your natural born abilities? You might study art your entire life and die unsuccessful while a 15 year old kid is on television displaying his less technical art that resonates with people. Can't you see how small it is to tell yourself you're better than others because of some arbitrary ability? It's a simplistic way to view that world that can only limit your experiences. It's often used as a defensive mechanism, as in, if you're not satisfied with yourself and the outcome of your life, it's easy to view something in yourself that compensates for all the suffering you've had up to this point, but it's not a desirable trait in any way. It might be a tool to get you out of a low point, but that's it.

>>9814 >there are multiple examples of individuals whose brilliance apparently surpasses my own, and yet these individuals seem to maintain an easy humility. That's because there isn't any purpose in having an inflated sense of one's own intelligence, and they seem to understand that better than you do. You're able to recognize their superiority because their intelligence has manifested itself in real world accomplishment that can be recognized. On the other hand, your superiority seems to be based entirely on your indefinite perceptions of yourself in relation to others. If you truly are more intelligent than others it will become apparent through feedback. In my view, smart people don't need to tell themselves that they are smart because they are already secure in that belief, and because it is reinforced from by tangible accomplishments rather than some abstract internal idea of one's own intelligence. Based on your original post, your superiority seems to exist solely in your head which is a common way of thinking among the "smart but lazy" types who are almost ubiquitous on image boards like this. If you're still at the point at which you have to tell yourself that you are intelligent, you're probably more arrogant than you are intelligent. If you really are as intelligent as you think, you should apply yourself and use your intelligence to get quantifiable results. >The sense that I should do and be better than others has at least partially motivated me to reach this point. What point have you reached? I don't ask this to diminish whatever you may have accomplished, rather I just want clarification because this statement is a bit vague.

>>12462 >we always compare the brain to machines but it clearly isn't if it's a machine, it's a machine that's far too complex to evaluate and analyze like any manmade machine. We're already getting to that point with newer processors. Actual performance at any specific task can vary widely based on particulars of implementation and emergent properties.

>>12463 >What point have you reached? I'm an academically successful undergraduate. I could say more vague things like "I seem to have a better grasp on principles of logic than my peers," and I was thinking of that kind of edge when I wrote the sentence you're referring to, but if you're looking for external validation, all I have is a good GPA.

>>12463 This resonates with me. I try to be humble, because I'm often wrong, but I can avoid reverse Dunning–Kruger by thinking about tangible external accomplishments.

>>12464 >A hard definition to what intelligence is pretty useless conversation in itself. Your definition of what it is determines it's value. It's fundamental thereby. >The brain is not hardware, we always compare the brain to machines but it clearly isn't. How so? The construction blocks are different but that's it. Whether you implement a function in hardware or wetware. It will compute the same result if it's the same function. >There are many types of intelligence, a good chess player isn't necessarily a good mathematician, social engineering implies in your emphatic abilities and that also requires a completely different type of intelligence photoshop can't be used for music. Clearly not a problem of the hardware. That was the argument : you can train any function you want within the limits of your available resource space. However whatever you learn - it won't be globally useful nor necessary the optimal solution. As such high specs (high int) aren't indicative of final performance but still a boon. There's also the thing with different tasks having different requirements on specs which again is identical to the equivalent for "you need high ram for task X, more CPU power for Y". So in summary having scored high int in a specific field would be equal to having high specs suitable for that field and the software for it. >you're better than others because of some arbitrary ability? The evaluation function that defines better itself is arbitrary. There's no objective good and being stupid can be situational better than smart. Secondary smart alone is impotent. For example: Social skills are useless with bad eyesight because you need to catch emotions to process them in the first place. More granular micro-emotions require strong eyesight while being much more revealing. Limitations outside brain performance hardcap high int benefits. In summary i didn't wish to advocate taking pride in high int but simply offer a definition that seems sensible to me. Infact taking said definition to it's conclusion am rather arguing that it's not OP by itself and often wasted.

>>12468 Sorry I'm stupid, meant to quote >>12462 ran between cooking and writing to mixmax time and fuarrrked up both formatting and quoting

>>12468 >Your definition of what it is determines it's value. It's fundamental thereby. Not really, the value of intelligence is compared to the value of a tool, it relies on context. Emotional intelligence is useless for building a bridge. Logical intelligence is useless for understanding why people think you're arrogant (as in op, this isn't an accusation towards you). >How so? The construction blocks are different but that's it. Whether you implement a function in hardware or wetware. It will compute the same result if it's the same function. It's just a restrictive definition that applies in a few specific scenarios, but breaks down too quickly to be useful. Let's assume it is a machine, then it's a machine that can vary in it's efficiency based on arbitrary and not-quite-understood variables like emotions and chemical imbalance. The greatest mathematician alive won't be able to calculate 2+2 if he's in deep depression. On the other hand, he might get on a certain "flow" (a term with no specific definition, it's just something we as humans understand) and perform incredible mathematical feats. The behavior is far too different from a machine to be comparable. > you can train any function you want within the limits of your available resource space See previous points about normal human behavior; chemical imbalances, emotional influences, and many, many other social and biological aspects. It's not as simple as available hardware and input function. >So in summary having scored high int in a specific field would be equal to having high specs suitable for that field and the software for it. Except it isn't. The brain needs exercise to develop skills, being born with high intelligence doesn't imply in developing that intelligence, it's not a stat sheet like in an RPG. It's more of a modifier that will increase at a higher rate if exercised. See how convoluted the metaphor gets? It just doesn't fit. >In summary i didn't wish to advocate taking pride in high int but simply offer a definition that seems sensible to me. Oh i know that, i'm not trying to imply otherwise. It's just a metaphor that bothers me when i see it used, because it ignores a large portion of the human experience. It's a simplistic description of a complex problem.

>>12465 Curious what you consider to be a good GPA, realize that the average graduating GPA in the US is currently 3.15. I really agree a lot with what >>12463 Says but I'll say the same from a maybe a slightly different perspective. I'm a really soykafty arrogant person, and I think my accomplishments are actually really cool and neat. I work very hard on some really complicated projects, and honestly kind of feel out of place from a lot of the people I'm around. So how do I avoid being a big douchebag since this is candidely how I feel internall? I just DONT talk down to people. There is no reason for me to correct people on things that don't matter. There is no reason for me to quote trivia to people. There is no reason for me to try to explain complicated topics to people who don't understand or care. It is much easier to just act like a normal person and have normal bantz, and I literally can't think of anything I've ever gained from autist-ing out on normal people. It is a total waste of time NOT to be humble. If you have time to be a douche who struts their intellect, that time is probably better spent doing literally anything else. Most things in conversation aren't important and don't matter. Save yourself for conversations that do actually matter and save your energy toward productive activities.

>>12470 >Not really, the value of intelligence is compared to the value of a tool, it relies on context. Emotional intelligence is useless for building a bridge Field int is flexible. You can't make a saw into a hammer but isolating yourself brooding over math in a ivory tower will drop your social int for math int gains. The blind people example is a even better illustration of neuroplasticity allowing to swap field int stats. This is why i find looking at the underlying hardware more interesting than the final score of some test - it can show the potential limit instead of just what currently is. >when it's a machine that can vary in it's efficiency based on arbitrary and not-quite-understood variables like emotions and chemical imbalance. >The behavior is far too different from a machine to be comparable. Machines malfunction all the time. Chemical impurities in batteries give them a nonlinear output. Outside influence like other machines generating noise on the grid can pollute your outlet and disturb your own hardware into malfunction. Overheating creates the most random errors. It's really not much different. Biology is just a lot more complex which gives more ways something can go wrong. >The brain needs exercise to develop skills That's what the software analogy was for. Learning is a form of gradient descent to the optimal algorithm. The idea is to equate learning to swapping software. Both equate to changing the algorithms that limit how much use you can make of your hardware. >being born with high intelligence doesn't imply in developing that intelligence, it's not a stat sheet like in an RPG The way int is currently defined it's a combat score. It's not hard to come up with objective hardware metrics for the brain but it's difficult to impossible to measure in living people and so we fall back to just a test score. Such test scores are always polluted by learned solutions - gear>stats (software>hardware). To stay in the rpg example ideal would be to be "wow this guy with a broadsword has high WIS and would be better a cleric" instead of testing how well he can heal with his broadsword and zero learned spells. Current reality is "does high melee damage, can't cast a spell? Must be a warrior". Isn't it better to acknowledge that we can't measure the underlying variables by themself with such tests but still keep the definition that those underlying variables are the real stats than call the combat score the stat because of our limitations?

>>12475 For me this analogy requires a lot of effort to be sustained and it's not very useful in conversations. If we were talking about cryptography but you didn't know anything about that, i could create an analogy to close the gap between our knowledge, remove the technicalities and leave only the important concepts so we can have a conversation even if you're not a cryptographer. My point is: what does the machine-brain analogy do? What does it make easier to talk about? The human experience doesn't need such a restrictive analogy because we're all humans who dealt with humans. A layer above that doesn't make anything easier to understand, in fact it adds complexity and requires both parties to understand how machines work, first you had a conversation that required both parties to understand the human experience and now you need both parties to understand machines on top of that; it doesn't close the knowledge gap, which is the purpose of an analogy. A machine-brain analogy often turns into a machine conversation, defeating the original purpose of talking about the brain(which isn't the case in this conversation, since we're talking about the analogy itself)

>>12476 I think software vs hardware is a much simpler abstraction. Most can easily imagine the effects of upgrading hardware or patching software because you already did that numerous times and could measure the effect. In contrast nobody has equal performance metrics or versioning for their own brain development. Using the abstraction to reason about performance seems much easier therefore.

>>12477 I just don't see that happening in my social circles, but if it's useful for you that's alright.

>>9814 Anon I have many questions I could ask you to delve deep into your matter. For instance your methodology of discerning your "intellectual superiority", why others being "less intelligent" causes you anguish, or if you have actually done anything worth of note with your gargantuan sized brain. Unfortunately I couldn't be bothered to care about your potential answers to these questions as the likelihood of you giving an acceptable answer is very low. The only people who spend time thinking the way you do are usually in the category of "am currently doing nothing of note, and thus spend all day mulling over questions related to either my social belonging or general egotistical ideas". Talking to people here won't solve your questions, for these types of matters answers begins at objective data. Your objective answer will come the day you stop spending time thinking about your intelligence, and instead test your intelligence through worthwhile goals, or real competition with others. Your post should have earned nothing except for mockery, but for a closing thought I will pretend it is a serious or even a truthful issue. If you are surrounded by those of lower intelligence, that only means you have not put in the effort to stand with higher level beings or do not have the intelligence. Objectively you are where you belong, which is being surrounded by the people whom you so detest.

>>12484 >in the category of "am currently doing nothing of note, and thus spend all day mulling over questions related to either my social belonging or general egotistical ideas" Yes, that sounds like me. >Talking to people here won't solve your questions, for these types of matters answers begins at objective data. I don't know. While "solve" is a strong word, I think my attitudes have become more nuanced and sophisticated than they were when I posted this thread. While I've received plenty of less-than-useful mockery, the posters who were willing to thoughtfully address my problem have given me something like perspective. >even a truthful issue I'm not sure I understand you. How would it be a false issue?

>>12485 >my attitudes have become more nuanced and sophisticated than they were when I posted this thread. There is no need to be nuanced or "sophisticated" on this train of thought. It is dead weight, serves no purpose, and is a waste of your time. >"solve" is a strong word The solution to your arrogant beliefs/behavior would be to eliminate the thoughts that lead there no? Kill the roots, kill the plant. >I'm not sure I understand you. How would it be a false issue? To put it simply for you, it would not be a truthful issue if there was an absence of intellectual superiority.

>>12486 >There is no need to be nuanced or "sophisticated" on this train of thought. I meant my larger attitudes regarding relative intelligence, etc. I've more strongly integrated ideas like "intelligence is complex and can't be simply measured" and "apparent stupidity can be an adaptive strategy." That's the kind of nuance I was referring to. >it would not be a truthful issue if there was an absence of intellectual superiority. If I'm distressed by a false sense of superiority, then I still have a real problem. I suppose I understand what you mean, though.

>>12487 >If I'm distressed by a false sense of superiority, then I still have a real problem. Which would then not be the original issue, instead your issue would be delusional thoughts of grandiose nature. A far more likely issue. >I meant my larger attitudes regarding relative intelligence You seem to misunderstand, so let me reiterate; "There is no need to be nuanced or "sophisticated" on this train of thought".

>>12488 >Which would then not be the original issue Something posters seem to have missed is the large amount of hedging language ("as far as I can tell," "seems," etc.) I've been using. There's been room for this to be a perception problem from the beginning. >so let me reiterate[...] You would have me completely abandon all conception of relative intellectual competence? That seems obviously unwise.

>>12494 >hedging language Excuse yourself as you will, I'm not here to win internet debates over technicalities. >That seems obviously unwise. What is unwise are conceptions of intelligence for no other purpose than to inflate your ego, which is exactly what your train of thoughts are for. If you were a manager or foreman, then there would be a purpose in comparing your workers to each other. Although even then that is very different because you would have concrete examples to work with, and your own biases would be lessened. Honestly I grow weary of restating the same things over and over. Change comes very slowly, so I don't expect you to appreciate what I'm saying. Horse to water and all that.

>>12498 >Excuse yourself as you will, I'm not here to win internet debates over technicalities. No, I suppose we won't get anywhere if you're looking to delegitimize my claims and perspective in any way you can (in this case by questioning the purity of my motives). It is up to those responding to engage with the technicalities I intentionally built into my explanations for the sake of clarity, precision, and embracing multiple perspectives. The fact that you will not should not reflect poorly on me. Actually, perhaps it is this usual human refusal to embrace complexity and technicality that I really have a problem with, not a lack of intelligence in and of itself. I seem to recall that I had actually been reading about E-Prime (a form of English that does away with be verbs for the purpose of acknowledging problems of appearance) when I posted. I'll ask you this: why are you here? Your relatively subtly insulting presentation makes me think it wasn't goodwill toward me that drove you to post. >Horse to water and all that. Your own apparent arrogance makes me wonder whether you have any water to offer. Yes, though, I suppose progress is slow. Integrating new ideas is slow. However, these posts should be preserved for a while, and I imagine I'll reread this thread a few times, so if you have any parting wisdom to share, you may as well do so, or more to the point, I'd ask you to do so. What I'm incapable of using now I may be capable of using later.

>>12501 >No, I suppose....[etc].... I said you may excuse yourself as you will, no need to defend yourself >human refusal to embrace complexity and technicality that I really have a problem with Since you are in school I suggest joining the debate club or law school, should be to your liking. An endless sea of semantics and technicalities, what fun! >why are you here? Your relatively subtly insulting presentation On the contrary, I have been overtly mocking you for my own laughs since the first post I made. I did leave a few seeds along the way so you can grow as a person, however they will only sprout in the future when you have long forgotten this thread. Of course they may not even sprout, but who knows. >Your own apparent arrogance An arrogant approach would have been to dismiss you as simply retarded, thus unable to comprehend what I'm saying. This is not the case, the mental block all humans have to resist opinions opposite to their own is the problem here. As I have previously stated, change comes very slowly so I don't really expect full realization within a threads worth of time. >so if you have any parting wisdom to share "Value judgements"

>>9814 Sucking your own dick ain't healthy and you're probably not that smart to be honest. there's always a bigger fish.

Shouldn't this thread be locked at this point? It doesn't seem like any new discussion will come from it, as the subject is mostly dealt with. However once a week someone new will read OP, ignore the rest of the thread and leave the same comment, starting some pointless discussion again.(Thread has been locked as requested.)

>>12512 agreed