To be fair, they are not his views - these are long know logical fallacy's & flaws in our perspective - with references to a multitude of study's to back up the sentiment expressed in the articles.
Are you smart?
- Thread starter elmarko
- Start date
Indeed, all studies have agreed that relative income is far more of an indicator of positive social cohesion than overall GDP/wealth.
Indeed, a very interesting thing that we do as humans.
I loved an article which was discussion on-line dating (I think it was linked on here somewhere) that only 2% of people describe themselves as "below average" in regards to looks - with almost 60% saying they are above average & 10% thinking they are in the top 5% (or something along those lines).
We are all poor judges of ourselves.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 2,021
- Location
- London
I'd avoid thoughts like that if you want to keep your sanity.
IQ tests
Which only really give an indication of potential. There is more to be 'smart' than simply quantifying someones potential using IQ tests, which are questionable at best and rely on very specific conditions being met to have any meaning at all.
No, that'd be unrealistic. The majority of people don't have the time or inclination to form well-based opinions and views. Many are just not bothered enough and are happy to pootle along in their own bubble (I was in this camp, but am beginning to wake up now). Some people just keep themselves to themselves. You can form strong beliefs, opinions and be a great critical thinker without having to impress it on people though. Arguing your views and debating are good skills to have though.
subjective opinions are always a problem, which is why they should be disregarded in favour of objective evidence wherever possible.
The problem is democracy values ill conceived blather and critically considered views as being equivalent....
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Hmm, from memory was it something like:
Can't remember what book it was though, something around Ankh-Morpork?
Indeed.
I don't mind arguing with somebody who is completely the polar opposite to me politically or morally if they have at least put some thought behind a point of view, looked at some evidence & have some data to side with what they say.
Some things are still in debate, which is where debate & rational discourse is required - but we should make sure we "let facts" in whenever they are discovered - regardless of if it proves our previous points of view right or wrong.
If somebody did the legwork & research & proved that method A I disagree with was indeed better, I'd have to accept it as true - reality does not change to fit with our points of view - we should change our views to fit around reality.
I don't agree with the concept of a democracy for that very reason, a perfect example was the AV vote we had.
The amount of people who voted for or against it, without being able to define exactly what the difference between the two was painful - I don't want to force people to vote the same as me - just to prove they understand the subject before they are allowed to.
It's all well good thinking that way but it does also mean you are tying yourself into one paradigm and I believe it encourages success in following a process rather than success itself. However, saying that I was taught by Jesuits for some and they really stipulated logical thought pattern as a foundation for all knowledge and this is why I always argue that it is important to not just know something but how we came to believe it, what we believed prior to that and whether we can truly know that something in the first place. But I would be the first to admit I am not "smart".
Well, I don't even believe in "smart" - the title of the thread was an ode to the website, & a slight side reference to the Dunning Kruger effect.
Somebody simply knowing how little they know is already one step ahead of most.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence
Somebody simply knowing how little they know is already one step ahead of most.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 3,779
- Location
- Wales
smart casual
Which is all well and good normally but in this context understanding the motivations of individual response is important otherwise you get a completely 1 dimensional and meaningless outcome.
Wow, you're just as condescending.
I am not immune to faults but I do think about a lot of the things posted on that site, the only thing I can say I've not got over is Learned Helplessness, it's a tricky one to just work your way out of.
In my experience, the masses suffer(Is suffer the right term? It's definitely a problem) from a lot of the things listed, I think mainly because it is the most basic form of thinking. It's autonomic almost, to the point of animal instinctiveness.
People don't like to change their views, If proven wrong there's a rainbow of cliche'd responses that you can see coming and read like a book. People like to act before thinking and think before analysing.
Same here, it does not make you elitist like danza said, I mean how can critical thinking, understanding and clear thinking be elitist? If anything it's a little neutral because you're trying actively to be better.
But the internet is full of people described on that site, even on these forums we have a few. It's hard to stay neutral/repsectful with the attitudes of some people but I really do refrain from biting back or being negative, I catch my self many times deleting very rude/nasty comments before I hit reply because it's simply childish, not needed, a last resort instead of working through the issue.
I'm not perfect, nobody is and even I acted like a moron before I decided to change, but I do try and respect everything, I've gone from "hating" things to being indifferent or simply not interested or understanding that people simply aren't supposed to or have to like the same thing, I avoid being confrontational, I try never to assume any more.
Same goes for not being passive aggressive, not instigating arguments by being that person who has to correct every little mistake but you know everyone understands it anyway.
But I lack the wide vocabulary to explain myself in certain situations and I lack the ability to quickly respond, I'm a thinker and I like to have time to assess situations.
When you're having an discussion/argument with someone in real life it doesn't always work like that.
It just goes on to prove that you could have taken a inquisitive standpoint and asked him but you jumped straight and head first into an insult.
That is not condescention, it's not his opinion; he's stating the fact of what the site is about, humans do have lots of logical fallacy's and flaws and it has been documented, this is a fact, this is not an attempt to be superior over you or anyone.
In my experience, the masses suffer(Is suffer the right term? It's definitely a problem) from a lot of the things listed, I think mainly because it is the most basic form of thinking. It's autonomic almost, to the point of animal instinctiveness.
People don't like to change their views, If proven wrong there's a rainbow of cliche'd responses that you can see coming and read like a book. People like to act before thinking and think before analysing.
Same here, it does not make you elitist like danza said, I mean how can critical thinking, understanding and clear thinking be elitist? If anything it's a little neutral because you're trying actively to be better.
But the internet is full of people described on that site, even on these forums we have a few. It's hard to stay neutral/repsectful with the attitudes of some people but I really do refrain from biting back or being negative, I catch my self many times deleting very rude/nasty comments before I hit reply because it's simply childish, not needed, a last resort instead of working through the issue.
I'm not perfect, nobody is and even I acted like a moron before I decided to change, but I do try and respect everything, I've gone from "hating" things to being indifferent or simply not interested or understanding that people simply aren't supposed to or have to like the same thing, I avoid being confrontational, I try never to assume any more.
Same goes for not being passive aggressive, not instigating arguments by being that person who has to correct every little mistake but you know everyone understands it anyway.
But I lack the wide vocabulary to explain myself in certain situations and I lack the ability to quickly respond, I'm a thinker and I like to have time to assess situations.
When you're having an discussion/argument with someone in real life it doesn't always work like that.
It just goes on to prove that you could have taken a inquisitive standpoint and asked him but you jumped straight and head first into an insult.
That is not condescention, it's not his opinion; he's stating the fact of what the site is about, humans do have lots of logical fallacy's and flaws and it has been documented, this is a fact, this is not an attempt to be superior over you or anyone.
Last edited:
Part of the issue is that people are just not that smart in general. The average IQ is depressingly low when you realise just what sort of questions you need to answer to achieve the average.
One of our greatest assets as humans is to build upon knowledge and discoveries of previous generations. We haven't really become much smarter as a race over the last few hundred years (our measurable IQ has but thats a different post) and yet we have advanced so quickly that it would blow someone from the 19th century mind if they saw us today. The same cannot be said for any period before this.
What this means though is that the average person is an idiot when you look at the world around us. The brilliance of our technology and invention has left the average person behind and lets be honest, very few of us are smart enough or well informed enough to make sense of it all.
I think it was Churchill maybe that said "if you want a compelling argument against democracy, talk to the average voter for 5 minutes". We are not told the truth and have no idea of the implications of our decisions when we make them until we see the direct results and even then we are not sure what has caused them.
As mentioned earlier in the thread. All we can ask is that peoples opinions are not formed based on ignorance and a sense of inflated self worth. The art of analytical thinking seems to be dying somewhat of a death these days.
Our intelligence is our greatest asset but I can't see how it won't ultimately cause our demise.
One of our greatest assets as humans is to build upon knowledge and discoveries of previous generations. We haven't really become much smarter as a race over the last few hundred years (our measurable IQ has but thats a different post) and yet we have advanced so quickly that it would blow someone from the 19th century mind if they saw us today. The same cannot be said for any period before this.
What this means though is that the average person is an idiot when you look at the world around us. The brilliance of our technology and invention has left the average person behind and lets be honest, very few of us are smart enough or well informed enough to make sense of it all.
I think it was Churchill maybe that said "if you want a compelling argument against democracy, talk to the average voter for 5 minutes". We are not told the truth and have no idea of the implications of our decisions when we make them until we see the direct results and even then we are not sure what has caused them.
As mentioned earlier in the thread. All we can ask is that peoples opinions are not formed based on ignorance and a sense of inflated self worth. The art of analytical thinking seems to be dying somewhat of a death these days.
Our intelligence is our greatest asset but I can't see how it won't ultimately cause our demise.