A Treatise on the Inequal Distribution of Reason

[shereads]

I was merely trying to point out that your 'inadequate' colleages might not be out of their depth in a different situation.

There's a stupid niche for every stupid person. That's why they thrive. My rant about the corporate world was an attempt to illustrate that stupid-seeming people aren't necessarily stupid - they just have an instinctive understanding of how little it's necessary for them to actually produce in order to get by.

My dog could be said to have a lower IQ than I do, if she would cooperate and fill out the damned test - yet she has me trained to move the sofa for her every time she pretends to lose her tennis ball behind it. By the same token, Summer's colleagues have Summer to do the difficult part of this project for them. If they behaved more aggressively and demonstrated more intelligence, it's likely that they'd have to do more work.

They're just dumb enough to annoy you. And just smart enough to get by.

"It's not that people are getting stupider; it's that fewer stupid people are being eaten by bears."

~ Bill Maher

 

[SummerMorning]

RG666

I agree completely about Stephen Hawking and football. Actually, I think its rather smart that he doesn't play football.

My point was more along the lines of the guys who play football, not just for fun but for a job and do a piss poor job of it.

 

[gauchecritic]

Very long and very dull

Maybe what you've discovered is a lack of what the man-in-street calls common sense. (What took you so long?)
Sher has a good point though, a far greater number of people in all walks of life are more than willing to let others do what needs to be done particularly in 'team' situations.

I addressed a number of the points you raise in this thread.

Simply stated it says that the vast majority of any given population require nothing more than bread and circuses (a favourite theme of my brand of socialism) and will be only willing to do the minimum amount required to obtain them.

This is where your extrapolation of 30% falls down. Youths at university aren't exactly a representative sample of a nation. As you say the figure is nearer to 50 or 60%, probably more.

Deserving you say, of being in a position to make decisions. Who are you? The commandant of the thought police? I have no idea who said it but; Any person in any walk of life will be promoted ultimately to a position than he can't quite succeed at.

Making decisions always depends on available information. some bosses know every single thing about a workplace and could do any job in that place but couldn't decide which tie to wear in the morning. Some bosses rely heavily on their subordinates knowing what to do and make their decisions instantly, correctly and with maximum benefit with little or no knowledge of the processes involved.

Critical reasoning. How many people do you know that watch a magician to be entertained, and how many watch him or her to see if they can work out how it's done?

How many watch Arnie in 'Terminator' to be dazzled by the special effects and how many watch him to criticise the obvious inconsistencies of time travel or liquid machinery?

That difference makes your "top" ten percent. And I really, really hope that you use the term "top" in a purely topologically pyramidic sense.

Stephen Fry sees it this way (loosely) Every person born is as capable of anything as every other person born, there are some who know as much about their 'own' topic as Einstein knew about his.

To return to the Stephen Hawking/football theme. Although they work with finite numbers there are a certain percentage of football fans who 'know' every player in all the major leagues and can give you a team based on very parochial knowledge which could beat any other given team. In this manner they have as great an intelect as Stephen Hawking. So we are inescapably drawn to the conclusion that Nurture = bad, Nature = good.

So there we have it. Intelligence, reasoning and thinking are not a gift, they are learned, self taught perhaps, but learned non-the-less.

And what happens if you do remove these non-thinkers from the gene pool, who's going to fight for you then? Who's going to dig your coal? Who, indeed, is going to shovel the shit that your thinking mind wouldn't sully itself with?

So we come to balance. (I think someone already mentioned this but I like to say things my own way) Balance is dynamic. An organism (society) without balance (uneven strata) will slip quickly and dramatically into stasis (heat death or entropy) and from there to dissolution. (Roman Empire) Balance (or dynamism) requires two things. A limited and predictable growth and exterior influence.

What has this to do with non-thinkers? They provide an imbalance in the structure, so that failing outside influence a society has some disruptive influence within itself. The thinkers have to constantly think of ways to provide bread and circuses.

Gauche

 

[dirtylover]

The reason that there are more supid people is that they have shorter generation times rolleyes: )

For example, I have to write a seminar together with several other students. An incredible percentage (around 30%) seem incapable of following basic instructions, such as how to cite references. A similar percentage seems incapable of drawing basic conclusions based on three simple research questions. Not just incapable of drawing conclusions, incapable of even searching for data. Even worse, they seem quite incapable of getting their minds around the meaning of the word deadline.

They're students - you're supposed to be getting drunk and stoned and contracting herpes, hui?

 

[oggbashan]

Common sense isn't common but it is found at all levels of intelligence. I don't like generalisations but that one is true-ish.

The ability to adapt to changed conditions isn't confined to the educated. The ability to follow instructions can be taught unless those being taught believe they don't need instruction.

I often use two of my customers as examples when discussing human intelligence with my wife.

One customer has an Oxford PhD but is totally incapable of dealing with her surroundings. She is unemployable because she cannot accept that one earns money by WORKING. She lives on the Welfare State but cannot even comply with the minimum requirements to be paid Jobseeker's Allowance - she WON'T look for work or even make an attempt to appear that she is trying to find work.

Another customer wasn't diagnosed as dyslexic until he was in his late 40s. He has held down jobs below his abilities, supported his family, bought a house and survived several short periods of unemployment by working the system to his advantage until he could get another job. He is now taking a degree in business management because he will use the qualification to progress with his current employer. He had to argue, bargain and persuade to get on the course because he has NO qualifications from school. He is in his final year and will get a good degree and he has already been promoted at work. He had to learn skills that his undiagnosed dyslexia had prevented him from acquiring earlier. He had a goal = more money and worked towards it as best he could.

The PhD has no goal and no ambition and cannot make the minimum effort to survive.

Which is more intelligent?

Og

 

[SummerMorning]

Of course gauche, and "democracy" is one hell of a good circus!

 

[rgraham666]

Re: Very long and very dull

Deserving you say, of being in a position to make decisions. Who are you? The commandant of the thought police? I have no idea who said it but; Any person in any walk of life will be promoted ultimately to a position than he can't quite succeed at.

That's the Peter Principle, gauche. From the book of the same name by Laurence J. Peters. It states 'that in any organization a person tends to rise to their level of incompetency.'

One point overlooked that was mentioned in the book was that many people have problems in organizations by being super-competent.

My own observations is that it usually doesn't matter which end of the competency Bell Curve you are. Either behaviour is 'outside the norm' (Blessed Be The Norm), and is punished by those in power.

And on a related topic, a buddy of mine used to say, "The cream rises to the top. Unfortunately, so does the scum."

 

[SummerMorning]

That's why we skim...

 

[shereads]

Re: Re: Very long and very dull

[

My own observations is that it usually doesn't matter which end of the competency Bell Curve you are. Either behaviour is 'outside the norm' (Blessed Be The Norm), and is punished by those in power.

A perfect illustration of why the corporate world and the political world are so bloated with people of medium ability. The genuinely useless eventually become a strain on the budget and are let go, unless they are related to a key client (is that nature or nurture at work?). The extremely competent make people nervous, because they are often intense and lack "people skills."

I'm reminded of Richard Clark, who, according to an unnamed source in the White House, would "be red-faced with frustration, pounding his fist on the table" in meetings, when he tried and failed to get his superiors to take the bin Laden threat seriously. Smart guy, but poor people skills. He had to go.

Democracy is a circus because politics mirrors the corporate world. The only difference is, the CEO is subject to term limits and is authorized to kill people.

 

[SummerMorning]

Actually, depends on where the corporation is operating and what kind of corporation is operating.

The really good thing about the "Law of Mediocrity" is that it applies to all organizations, including the somewhat unsavory ones, like the mafia.

Just imagine, if organized crime started to actually take talented people for a serious asset (rather than a serious threat to the don or what you have)

 

[shereads]

Just imagine, if organized crime started to actually take talented people for a serious asset (rather than a serious threat to the don or what you have)

It would be called Halliburton Industries. It would have subsidiaries all over the world, so that it could operate unhindered by the laws of any one nation. It would be unstoppable.

 

[Guest]

about the English mathematician, Alan Turing:

1943, New York: the Bell Labs Cafeteria:
His high pitched voice already stood out above the general murmur of well-behaved junior executives grooming themselves for promotion within the Bell corporation. Then he was suddenly heard to say: "No, I'm not interested in developing a powerful brain. All I'm after is just a mediocre brain, something like the President of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company."

Andrew Hodges, Alan Turing: the Enigma of Intelligence, 1983

 

[shereads]

Yesterday, listening to Car Talk on NPR (I love those happy brothers) I heard this uplifting true story about corporate America.

Inspired (or embarrassed?) by the success of the Toyota Prius hybrid gas/electric car, General Motors is ready to introduce a hybrid version of its popular Silverado pickup truck.

The hybrid Silverado will get 16 miles per gallon. The original Silverado gets 15.

Stupid?

I think there are tax incentives to U.S. auto makers who market hybrid vehicles. So maybe it's not stupid, just irresponsible.

Mediocrity pays.

 

[Madame Manga]

I have a 10-year-old son whose IQ on standard tests ranges into the middle 130s. He reads voraciously at far above his grade level, he is already better at math than I ever was, and his curiosity about the world knows no bounds. He asks direct, perceptive questions and digests the answers. He wants to be a scientist, but hasn't narrowed it down to a particular field; geology, astronomy, physics and biology are all equally interesting at the moment.

He also bursts into tears at tiny frustrations, races through his assignments so that he misses easy questions and tunes out when the teacher is talking. I have to repeat any oral instructions at least half a dozen times before there are results. His grade on any given project, depending on his level of interest, is either outstanding or less than mediocre. Only a few children he knows can tolerate him for long, so his friendship opportunities are limited. Sometimes I think I am dealing not with a youth on the verge of adolescence but with a cranky toddler.

How far will he go? How well will he be able to make use of his intelligence and ability to learn? I don't know. If he were a glib, glad-handing little operator like some of his classmates, I might have worries of a different kind, but I wouldn't have any fears about his getting along in the world.

Pure reason is overrated, alas. Social intelligence--that warm, human instinct--is far more important for happiness and material success, I think. Both my son and I were born without social intelligence, so I know what problems he will face. Luckily, faking it is possible for short periods.

MM

 

[raphy]

Agreed.

Intelligence and the ability to spend time reasoning and thinking is a gift. Not many can do it. SM is implying that it should be mandatory that everybody should be able to have a certain level of reasoning and capacity to think, an expectation that is all too high.

Now, let's imagine a place where everyone thinks and reasons everything. Let's take a sample tribe in the middle of the woods. Everyone is thinking and having conversations but they are forgetting one thing. Who is going to get the food? There is no macho thing going on because everybody is thinking. No one is risking their lives to hunt a deer to feed everyone. If everyone is thinking and reasoning, how will they be able to tell what is edible and what is not when they are too busy thinking and observing and not to examine it by actually test it out by ingesting it. Thinking is fine and all but often times it doesn't do the job for the whole people.

Now if you limit the thinking so that people can hunt and gather and do stupid things to experiment, there leaves a lack-lustre amount of thought going into the arts and politics of the people.

I think this example given is very crude but I believe it conveys what I am trying to portray. A lot of the people can not think to the calibre that you can but maybe there is a good reason why that is so.

Nothing in the rules that says thinking/reasoning is an exclusive skill. A human being can be capable of doing lots of things, and if people put their minds to it, they might find that they can do them well, as well.

I personally pride myself on keeping myself in the best shape I can, mentally, physically, creatively and in every other facet of being a human being. I can discuss philosphy, play paganini on the guitar, program computers, make friends easily in social situations, run 100 yards in 13 seconds and kick 250-lb drunks out of a bar at 2 am.

I don't see why SM's expectations are too high.

 

[SummerMorning]

Kudos to Raphy.

I also pride myself on staying in shape, being disciplined, reading, writing, drawing, debating, listening to music (as I am, alas, somewhat inept as far as producing it is concerned). As far as being macho and getting food, would you believe that I also enjoy fishing, working in the forest, cooking and the like.

I believe that reason should lead every person to realise that there are certain things that just make life so much easier - like being active, inquisitive, creative, etc.

On a happier note:

I have come up with a master plan to solve my specific problem. I have noted what every member of the team contributed to the seminar (we had slightly separate topics)...and actually added one contribution as just an attachment, as it was just far too below par.

 

[dirtylover]

I personally pride myself on keeping myself in the best shape I can, mentally, physically, creatively and in every other facet of being a human being. I can discuss philosphy, play paganini on the guitar, program computers, make friends easily in social situations, run 100 yards in 13 seconds and kick 250-lb drunks out of a bar at 2 am.

One of my best friends sounds a lot like you - he actively persues physical fitness, academia and social activities. He got a 1st in Physics from Oxford, he's built like a shit house, and he's okay at the social side, although he pisses people off a little cos he's a bit of a womaniser, and a tad arrogant.

I love people that have got get-up-and-go, it makes me feel more motivated.

PS
I run 100m in 12.1secs - not sure which is better, but let's not fight about it.

 

[Guest]

a tad arrogant.

You're a kind one, dl. P.

 

[SummerMorning]

Just a speck...

Heck! If we superior type persons can't be arrogant, shucks, who's gonna be suh-peyriuh? Hu? Hyuck-hyuck...

 

[raphy]

One of my best friends sounds a lot like you - he actively persues physical fitness, academia and social activities. He got a 1st in Physics from Oxford, he's built like a shit house, and he's okay at the social side, although he pisses people off a little cos he's a bit of a womaniser, and a tad arrogant.

I love people that have got get-up-and-go, it makes me feel more motivated.

PS
I run 100m in 12.1secs - not sure which is better, but let's not fight about it.

Aaah, I've been called everything from overly arrogant to merely possessing an abundance of self-confidence. My keys live on a keyfob that bears the message "I'm not arrogant, I'm just better than you are"

*shrug*

Who's to say what the truth is. I've never believed in shoving my abilities and accomplishments down other people's throats, unless it's necessary to make a point - I could have used a friend of mine as an example - Straight A student, builds jet engines for a living for Rolls Royce and is the best multi-talented sportsman I know. Oh yes, and he's tall, blonde, built like a swimmer and the ladies love him.

I wasn't using me as an example to say 'Look how cool I am', I was using me as an example to say 'People don't have to be 'just' thinkers or 'just' phsyically able. To go back to the earlier example, it is possible to be able to go out and hunt the sabre-toothed tigers for your tribe's food *and* sit down and discuss the concepts behind advancing one's civilization beyond the caveman. Anyone who says they can only do one or the other is not living up to his or her own full potential, in my opinion.

Originally posted by Xelebes


Now, let's imagine a place where everyone thinks and reasons everything. Let's take a sample tribe in the middle of the woods. Everyone is thinking and having conversations but they are forgetting one thing. Who is going to get the food? There is no macho thing going on because everybody is thinking.

That's the comment that I disagreed with. Just because they're thinkers and reasoners doesn't mean they can't be do-ers.

Also, this comment

[Who, indeed, is going to shovel the shit that your thinking mind wouldn't sully itself with?

Who says that thinking minds don't understand the necessity of shovelling shit.

For that matter, who says that someone who shovels shit can't also have the capacity to think?

p.s. 12.1 seconds is faster than me. There's not much difference between 100 yards and 100 meters.

 

[SummerMorning]

Except that 100 yards is about 91.7 meters...

 

[raphy]

Except that 100 yards is about 91.7 meters...

Which would put DL even faster than I

Either way, the question is academic.

Your original post was complaining about the stupidity in people.

People argued against that, saying that if everyone did their 'Rodin the thinker' bit, there'd be nobody able to do physical jobs, especially in primitive cultures, where hunting for food is more important than discussing the nature of the universe.

My point, which has been strewn by the wayside, was supporting your original argument in that just because people are thinkers it doesn't mean they also can't hack it physically - And vice versa.

 

[SummerMorning]

And, as I said - your point is well put and I agree fully with you...

...however, just now I'm on the verge of throwing up because of every Ibid. I have to type as I order the bleeding paper...

 

[raphy]

Just a speck...

Heck! If we superior type persons can't be arrogant, shucks, who's gonna be suh-peyriuh? Hu? Hyuck-hyuck...

Amen to that.

*runs away*