Will humanity get its act together?

[Conservationist]

Seems to me right now we're a pretty mediocre species. Our cities are ugly, our art/learning is solipsistic stagnation, our leaders corrupt and we don't seem to have a goal. Not to mention ecocide in progress as a result of overpopulation and mismanagement.

I'm a Platonic believer, especially in that civilizations go through a life-death cycle, and I believe ours is moribund. But now it's global.

For humanity to get its act together, we'd need to transcend our fear of insufficiency and deny the myth of equality, so that we could resume natural selection or the placing of better minds above others.

Ideally, we'd also purge the stupid as they serve no role except to foment instability by being easily deceived in products and politics, not to mention their degenerate and blockheaded lifestyles. All under-120s to a woodchipper, I say.

At that point, it might be possible for humanity to achieve consensus -- "rough agreement between its wise elders" -- to explore space, keep developing technologies, and possibly even replace cheeseburgers with something more exciting.

Wonder if we'll make it. It's a tough call, which is an optimist's view. It's also non-consequential. The same consciousness that exists in us will exist elsewhere, and maybe they'll mature and surpass our dried carcasses.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Ideally, we'd also purge the stupid as they serve no role except to foment instability by being easily deceived in products and politics, not to mention their degenerate and blockheaded lifestyles. All under-120s to a woodchipper, I say.

It's not the idea itself, the bloody form it takes, which is offending, and should not be emotionally offending to any thinker. It's more the immature, unfounded idea that stupidity can be measured by a simple test. I've just met too many stupids >120 (and >130 and >140 and almost only stupidity left with >150). This is about values of course. It's very natural to want to let your values reign and destroy competing "inferior" ones. But such battle has many playgrounds as all values, like ideas have to prove themselves first worthy. Strange enough not always the "highest" or "best" appearing survive in this world. And perhaps that's not what's selected on. Currently there's nothing being selected, it are the old worn out ones which are in fashion.

[Conservationist]

I've just met too many stupids >120 (and >130 and >140 and almost only stupidity left with >150).

While I have met some clueless in the 120-150 zone, and much impractical in the 160 zone, I've generally had the opposite experience: the smarter people are the ones less likely to fall into the usual stupidity. Their responses may not be adept, but they are often undisciplined like all else in this society; that can be fixed. Lack of raw intellect which means the individual cannot perceive anything more complex than an idea they'd invent -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2 ... ger_effect -- means that dumber people are inherent more prone to screw up, and also, to under-rate the intelligence of those above them. So I'm less biased against the intelligent.

A question for you: did you meet more stupids <120 or >120 ?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

While I have met some clueless in the 120-150 zone, and much impractical in the 160 zone

Does that mean you're in the 150 zone? Hahaha. It's hard though, not everybody carries their certified tests around.

Lack of raw intellect which means the individual cannot perceive anything more complex than an idea they'd invent -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2 ... ger_effect -- means that dumber people are inherent more prone to screw up, and also, to under-rate the intelligence of those above them. So I'm less biased against the intelligent.

There's certainly a relationship between general awareness and intelligence. Or obvious links between sensitivity, imagination, consciousness and this "raw intellect". But the IQ tests are not able to really get to the core elements of intelligence, it measures only a very limited subset, demonstrating only a slight correlation. Not enough to go on there to bring out the woodchipper. Speaking of: why the chipper? One could envision more structural and practical changes like some minimal brightness requirements to raise a child or to vote. Nowadays it's only a minimal age to vote or introducing money barriers to have children (like in China but also introduced in Europe but for different reasons). These are mechanisms already there and could be used if one desires to have some Lamarckian evolution going.

A question for you: did you meet more stupids <120 or >120 ?

How would you define stupidity. And how would it relate to ignorance, especially in respect to how our reality is perceived and existence is understood?

[Conservationist]

But the IQ tests are not able to really get to the core elements of intelligence, it measures only a very limited subset, demonstrating only a slight correlation.

I disagree.

IQ measures intelligence potential, or how well the physical mechanism of the brain works.

Without high IQ, there is no possibility of high intelligence. That does not mean it's a guarantee of high intelligence, but that it's a necessary precursor.

A 120 IQ person is never smarter than a 150 IQ person. The 150 may be traumatized or make bad life choices, or be too spaced out to do what the 120 does, but can understand and act on more complex data than the 120 does.

This is analogous to computing: I can take a supercomputer, and load Macintosh software on it, and then it will become an effete metrosexual and achieve nothing.

But on the other hand, if I load supercomputer software into a 1mhz Apple //e, we're going to wait a long time for results and they will be simpler because fewer things can be considered simultaneously in the formation of answers.

Speaking of: why the chipper? One could envision more structural and practical changes like some minimal brightness requirements to raise a child or to vote. Nowadays it's only a minimal age to vote or introducing money barriers to have children (like in China but also introduced in Europe but for different reasons). These are mechanisms already there and could be used if one desires to have some Lamarckian evolution going.

We're out of time, and it's psychologically healthier to act decisively and get over our happy hippie horseshit "morality."

How would you define stupidity.

Actually, that's your job, as you made the assertion.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

A 120 IQ person is never smarter than a 150 IQ person. The 150 may be traumatized or make bad life choices, or be too spaced out to do what the 120 does, but can understand and act on more complex data than the 120 does.

You're just guessing here. It isn't based on anything out there one could measure or experience that way. What you're saying is that someone who scores consistently 30 points higher on a certain test is more intelligent in making that test. You need to make a correlation between finishing the test 30 points higher and actual saying or doing more intelligent things.

As I said there's a correlation, like an IQ of 70 is indicative of a malfunctioning compared to the average of 100. And 130 will certainly show advantages to accomplish intellectual activities compared to 100. The question of sanity or stupidity is with this not answered. Capacity also means the capacity to err, the whole issue of responsability.

This is analogous to computing: I can take a supercomputer, and load Macintosh software on it, and then it will become an effete metrosexual and achieve nothing.

I run all kinds of emulators on my superb computer which runs ancient software without any problem, all simultaneously. Of course you're doing it, too.

But on the other hand, if I load supercomputer software into a 1mhz Apple //e, we're going to wait a long time for results and they will be simpler because fewer things can be considered simultaneously in the formation of answers.

The differences between people's neurological networks are way more subtle and intricate than your example. Stupidity has way more to do with mental blocks, "virusses" if you will. There are way more of those possible in your networked modern PC than the simple but rather solid IIe.

How would you define stupidity.

Actually, that's your job, as you made the assertion.

No, you said we'd also purge the stupid in your first post.

I'm afraid it's down into your own shredder with you....

[Conservationist]

How would you define stupidity.

Actually, that's your job, as you made the assertion.

No, you said we'd also purge the stupid in your first post.

I'm afraid it's down into your own shredder with you....

Refreshing your memory:

I've just met too many stupids >120 (and >130 and >140 and almost only stupidity left with >150).

That was what was being replied to.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I've just met too many stupids >120 (and >130 and >140 and almost only stupidity left with >150).

That was what was being replied to.

But you introduced the term into this topic so it's not a big deal for you to explain your term first. Anyway, I took it to mean a lack in common sense or being lost in trivialities. And I would like to link it with ignorance in a broader, more Buddhist like sense.

[Talking Ass]

Conservationist, I think you could, if you were inclined, make an argument that 'humankind' is not doing too badly. I mean, taking into consideration where things might have gone, or where they might go. So many of us turn a contemptuous eye to what goes on around us and see in it only the worst. To say 'mediocre species' you must have a point of comparison, and the only point of comparison you'd have would be an ideal one---an imagined one. We could commit ecocide and we could enter into a terrible cycle where civilization comes to an end, but it is also possible that this doesn't happen. Yet even if it doesn't happen, and if the word becomes an ordered, eco-friendly place, there is no guarantee that it would be the sort of platonic paradise you perhaps desire.

Conservatist wrote: "For humanity to get its act together, we'd need to transcend our fear of insufficiency and deny the myth of equality, so that we could resume natural selection or the placing of better minds above others."

This has really been the way the Earth has been ruled for a long time, isn't it? Even in modern democracies, say the US, the 'ruling elites' came up with a way for the 'aristos' (by choice of course) to dominate and channel the masses. (C.f. Walter Lippmann). Better minds have been at the forefront, which is perhaps why things are not at all as bad as they might could be.

"Ideally, we'd also purge the stupid as they serve no role except to foment instability by being easily deceived in products and politics, not to mention their degenerate and blockheaded lifestyles. All under-120s to a woodchipper, I say."

But you don't, of course, mean that. I recently read that, taken on annual average, the IQ level of people generally has been steadily rising.

...and even the cheeseburgers have been replaced with things more exciting.

[Tomas]

.

-Conservationist-
Seems to me right now we're a pretty mediocre species. Our cities are ugly, our art/learning is solipsistic stagnation, our leaders corrupt and we don't seem to have a goal. Not to mention ecocide in progress as a result of overpopulation and mismanagement.

-tomas-
Not to be an alarmist, but it's always been like this >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fijZE7T3S-s


-Conservationist-
I'm a Platonic believer, especially in that civilizations go through a life-death cycle, and I believe ours is moribund. But now it's global.

-tomas-
Agreed.


-Conservationist-
For humanity to get its act together, we'd need to transcend our fear of insufficiency and deny the myth of equality, so that we could resume natural selection or the placing of better minds above others.

-tomas-
Yeah, keep teaching the kids that Charles Darwin is a god.


-Conservationist-
Ideally, we'd also purge the stupid as they serve no role except to foment instability by being easily deceived in products and politics, not to mention their degenerate and blockheaded lifestyles. All under-120s to a woodchipper, I say.

-tomas-
Aw, you mean Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton ain't gonna be chipped? Well, they have above 120 IQ's and look at the shape the country is in! Couldn't be better if you ask me. The Senate is run by Harry Reid, his IQ is rated at 137. Nancy Pelosi, now there is one, high-IQ broad. Those botox injections increases IQ on 70-year-old women like there's no tomorrow.


-Conservationist-
At that point, it might be possible for humanity to achieve consensus -- "rough agreement between its wise elders" -- to explore space, keep developing technologies, and possibly even replace cheeseburgers with something more exciting.

-tomas-
Wise elders are few and far between in today's world. There's nothing to see in outer space what with all the troubles back here on planet earth. The system is bankrupted by the wise elders who have always run the system. (Where are you Ryan when we most need your guidance?) Cheeseburgers are best with 85% ground beef.


-Conservationist-
Wonder if we'll make it. It's a tough call, which is an optimist's view. It's also non-consequential. The same consciousness that exists in us will exist elsewhere, and maybe they'll mature and surpass our dried carcasses.

-tomas-
Plug the Gulf oil leak -- the birds, frogs and fish will bless you forever and ever.

[Conservationist]

But you introduced the term into this topic so it's not a big deal for you to explain your term first.

You introduced the term as a point of challenge and we were debating your point. If you are not interested in clarifying, I will make the reasonable assumption that you withdraw the point.

[Data Recovery]

According to me, it is more immature, unfounded idea that silliness can be measured by a simple test. I have just met too many foolish people. It's very natural to want to let your values reign and destroy competing "inferior" ones. But such battle has many playgrounds as all values, like ideas have to prove themselves first worthy.

Thanks
Cleora

[Dan Rowden]

I removed your commercial link, Cleora. I smell spam and I'm not in a Monty Python frame or mind.

[jufa]

Seems to me right now we're a pretty mediocre species. Our cities are ugly, our art/learning is solipsistic stagnation, our leaders corrupt and we don't seem to have a goal. Not to mention ecocide in progress as a result of overpopulation and mismanagement.

I'm a Platonic believer, especially in that civilizations go through a life-death cycle, and I believe ours is moribund. But now it's global.

For humanity to get its act together, we'd need to transcend our fear of insufficiency and deny the myth of equality, so that we could resume natural selection or the placing of better minds above others.

Ideally, we'd also purge the stupid as they serve no role except to foment instability by being easily deceived in products and politics, not to mention their degenerate and blockheaded lifestyles. All under-120s to a woodchipper, I say.

At that point, it might be possible for humanity to achieve consensus -- "rough agreement between its wise elders" -- to explore space, keep developing technologies, and possibly even replace cheeseburgers with something more exciting.

Wonder if we'll make it. It's a tough call, which is an optimist's view. It's also non-consequential. The same consciousness that exists in us will exist elsewhere, and maybe they'll mature and surpass our dried carcasses.

I will not attempt to give a figure concerning the number of people on this planet, nontheless, every person alive can say "seems to me" and change nothing of the principles and patterns of purpose concerning the invisible Metaphor governing the known and unknown universe and its subjects living in the awareness of themselves.

It does not matter what a person believes, or who they think they are in depth, volume, or height, all came into the interval of material awareness backwards, and all will depart from this interval the same as the majority of people, with the excepting of a few, "many are called, few chosen," never achieving the purpose of heart which will be a beacon of light in the darkness which will purge the entity it shine upon and within of the plurality of its dark and light thought, and make the two one.

For humanity to get its act together it must transcend HOW! is the over-riding element which has been left out here. All can talk about transcending, all do, but not transcend because those who talk only talk, never demonstrate. Tell someone HOW to transcend those things needed to be eliminated to change humanity would mean the one telling of HOW, has transcended. When one can't tell a person HOW by being a directional pointer of demonstration, they are no different then other.

You want to make a change? change the way you think of yourself.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

http://www.theillusionofgod.com

http://.groups. yahoo.com/group/OpenUp_YourMind

http://myspace.com/theoriginaljufa

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You introduced the term [stupidity] as a point of challenge and we were debating your point. If you are not interested in clarifying, I will make the reasonable assumption that you withdraw the point.

But I just clarified it by describing stupidity as a lack in common sense or being lost in trivialities! Are you interested in intelligent debate or not? Perhaps you want something else out of this?

The point of challenge is how to define IQ, intelligence and to understand how it could relate to ignorance, error and "stupidity', however one would define it.

But I think you clarified in action how intelligence and cleverness can become a minefield of emotional blocks, overreaching and manipulation. So I can rest my case.

[Conservationist]

I removed your commercial link, Cleora. I smell spam and I'm not in a Monty Python frame or mind.

Cleora is a script. If you look at her post, you'll notice it's composed of sentences taken at random from the first two posts in this thread.

Clever but not intelligent, these spammers.

[Conservationist]

You introduced the term [stupidity] as a point of challenge and we were debating your point. If you are not interested in clarifying, I will make the reasonable assumption that you withdraw the point.

But I just clarified it by describing stupidity as a lack in common sense or being lost in trivialities! Are you interested in intelligent debate or not? Perhaps you want something else out of this?

The point of challenge is how to define IQ, intelligence and to understand how it could relate to ignorance, error and "stupidity', however one would define it.

But I think you clarified in action how intelligence and cleverness can become a minefield of emotional blocks, overreaching and manipulation. So I can rest my case.

I had let mine rest, because that's the polite thing to do.

However, I think you need to be called out on your bad behavior. You are passive-aggressive, and you behave so because you are afraid of this argument.

You never defined stupidity -- you did offhandedly "clarify" with vague terms only after I demanded you do so.

The point of challenge is how to define IQ, intelligence and to understand how it could relate to ignorance, error and "stupidity', however one would define it.

The point of challenge is that you asserted IQ was a bad measurement. Where in this debate did you prove anything along those lines?

I think you clarified in action how intelligence and cleverness can become a minefield of emotional blocks, overreaching and manipulation.

No, that's a cop-out. You have made the challenge; back it up. Otherwise, I'm going to go with the existing body of research.

This "debate" illustrates why people like me stay out of internet "debates." You are clearly not experienced in actual, rigorous debate (or rigorous thought). You make multiple logical mistakes. Even more, you react emotionally when you should be thinking. Why would you do that?

I have noticed that on any forum with "genius" in the title, there are a good number of people in the 120-124ish range. They are not smart enough to join the upper middle class level of 125s and above, and they generally are frustrated at their lives, so they come to forums to play cop and think that this makes them look like actual geniuses.

Such counterproductive behavior can only be described as an emotional problem on their part, don't you think?

[Conservationist]

For humanity to get its act together it must transcend HOW! is the over-riding element which has been left out here.

I disagree.

The How: pay attention to reality, not emotions and social pressures.

It's simple, but more difficult than immersing oneself in ego drama, so it's most commonly ignored.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The point of challenge is that you asserted IQ was a bad measurement. Where in this debate did you prove anything along those lines?

No need to prove a negative. You introduced IQ as measurement of useful intelligence and as such who should live and who should die. This needs evidence and you just didn't provide. There's way more intelligence and sufficiency in using optimal and error-free the capacity which is there. This should be obvious for anyone having common sense.

Look, you're not able to have meaningful discussion. You suffer from something quite common with high IQ's, a certain narrowing of thought processes, fishing out gnats while swallowing camels. There's really no use debating any further, you miss the needed capacity for the process. If there was ever a proper test to check for stupidity, a couple of discussions with a person would be the closest thing to it.

[jufa]

For humanity to get its act together it must transcend HOW! is the over-riding element which has been left out here.

I disagree.

The How: pay attention to reality, not emotions and social pressures.

It's simple, but more difficult than immersing oneself in ego drama, so it's most commonly ignored.

The issue here, which you have overlooke, does not deal with the word how, it deal with you asserting all that you asserted, yet not being able to tell anyone HOW to stop the buck of assertion and demonstration the truth of their world by results different than those you condemn.

You must show an outlet; a way to correct the situation of people. You have not been the leader showing the way, you have not shown a way out. All you have done is complainted as those you say are not necessary.

Reality is relative just as emotions are. Which one is dominant reality?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

http://www.theillusionofgod.com

http://.groups. yahoo.com/group/OpenUp_YourMind

http://myspace.com/theoriginaljufa

[longsincedead]

No.

The species is stuck in a pattern they will, almost certainly, never shake. To change coarse, one must understand the pattern. Failing to do so, or not seeing a problem, will continue similar repeating results (within the standard fluctuation). Even those unusual enough to grasp this, will know it is pointless - at this time.
The above is not a pessimistic statement

Jufa -
Reality is relative just as emotions are.

Perception is relative* - reality is not
*if one eliminates enough variables from an observation, or experiment, one may achieve 100% objectivity (alignment with reality).

[Conservationist]

To change course, one must understand the pattern. Failing to do so, or not seeing a problem, will continue similar repeating results (within the standard fluctuation).

...

Perception is relative* - reality is not

I agree, and taken together these two ideas illustrate the problem: a solipsistic species that because it is solipsistic, endlessly debates its objects of perception, not their consequences in reality.

Narrowly speaking, the correspondence theory of truth is the view that truth is correspondence to a fact—a view that was advocated by Russell and Moore early in the 20th century.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/

[jufa]

No.

The species is stuck in a pattern they will, almost certainly, never shake. To change coarse, one must understand the pattern. Failing to do so, or not seeing a problem, will continue similar repeating results (within the standard fluctuation). Even those unusual enough to grasp this, will know it is pointless - at this time.
The above is not a pessimistic statement

Jufa -
Reality is relative just as emotions are.

Perception is relative* - reality is not
*if one eliminates enough variables from an observation, or experiment, one may achieve 100% objectivity (alignment with reality).

What makes the species appear stuck in a pattern of thewir will is because the species cannot break the cycle of conformity of living according to it outer objective vision which are incorporated into its inner subjective feelings. The problems of man has always been known, and it is mind battling mind -forming that which it continuously seek to eliminate from the light, but stand the phantom when flipped.

The pattern therefore is the blue print which will build the structured image of man's interpretations of principles, even though the principles are unknown. failure is inevitable therefore in the world of materialism, because the only way to break free of freedom is to ride the crest of liberty.

This is the gist of what I write, everyone talks about the problems, but no one tells how to make the light and darkness equal as life is equal.

Perception is the reality of that which is relative to what one is aware of.

One cannot achieve 100% percent of anything in the material world because the reality of the material world is temporary and ends when the earth reclaim that which belongs to it, and that is the flesh of the dust man is formed from,

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[cousinbasil]

One cannot achieve 100% percent of anything in the material world because the reality of the material world is temporary and ends when the earth reclaim that which belongs to it, and that is the flesh of the dust man is formed from,

There is no such thing as permanent, is that what you mean?

You seem to be making absolute statements abut things inherently relative. For example, I can think of an example of achieving 100% of something, if I choose a small enough something.

I think it is interesting to ponder the quote "Remember, Man, that thou art Dust---" Science has analyzed common dust found in homes and businesses and found it to be at least 75% composed of detritus from the human body. Remember, Dust, that thou art Man...?

[Pam Seeback]

Man's mind indeed is of dust, and here it is, in all of its dusty ways, pondering its genius.