Sheldon (from Big Bang Theory) is a good example of someone with high intelligence who has trouble relating and interact
-
avortac — 11 years ago(August 06, 2014 11:14 AM)
I don't know about the IQ of 150, but for me, this world feels a lot like this movie's world felt to the protagonist of this movie, ever since I was a teenager.
It's like I am on an alien planet, and I experience culture shock every day. Some days are more tolerable than others, but I can't stop being astonished about the things these half-animals consider 'normal' or 'good', or how they consider actually good or healthy things 'bad' or 'boring' or 'things one should not mention or think about'.
No one seems to like to think about things too deeply, and to me, that's the normal, everyday thing to do. Everything that I encounter, makes me think and wonder about the roots of it, how it came to be, why, and how.
I respect life - these entities SAY they respect life, while slicing a bloody, poisonous, fried muscle of some innocent animal and then putting the pieces inside their own body.
I think not only IQ points or even just 'intelligence' (try to define that word, btw..) matters, but also WISDOM.
Wisdom is a very important thing, essential to sentient life, in my opinion - and here, it's completely ignored and mostly missing. Even when there's intelligence, there's no wisdom.
Even here, people just talk about intelligence (just like in the movie), but I also saw a lot of 'dumbness' and not just 'stupidity' in the movie.
Dumbness is the lack of wisdom, whereas stupidity is the lack of intelligence.
There was even a movie about stupidity, and what it is, and how to define it, and pretty much no one got it right; it's nothing substancial in itself, any more than a shadow is. It's just a word for LACK of something, or an abnormally low amount of something - intelligence.
So, it's very easy to define, as I have already done.
People on this planet don't even ponder or know about the very basic things, like 'day', 'night', 'morning', 'evening', and such things.
Everyone reading this probably feels that they know exactly what those words mean. But let me ask some questions.
(even Wikipedia doesn't have a clear and consistent answer)
When does 'day' begin, and end?
When does 'morning' begin and end?
When does 'afternoon' begin and end?
When does 'evening' begin and end?
When does 'night' begin and end?
I tried to find answers to these questions, and I got different answers from different sources, until I started to just apply logic.
Twelve noon (12:00) is midday. I don't think anyone would dispute that.
Midnight occurs at the middle of the night (00:00). Here again, I think we all are on the same page.
Now, the clock seems to be symmetrical, and for these two to be the mid-points, it means that the day and the night must be symmetrical as well.
That means that if noon is twelve, there has to be just as many hours on the left side of an analog clock (though I know it's supposedly not really called 'analog', but that's an easy way to remember and most people realize exactly what I mean, probably) as there are on the right side, for twelve to be the MIDDLE point of a day.
If there's less than six hours on both sides, then night is longer than day. Why would that be? And if that's true, can 00:00 really be the middle point of the night? Also, if that's true, then when would 'morning' begin, or what would decide that, and how, and why?
So, it's easier and simpler to come back to the realization; day lasts 12 hours, night lasts 12 hours, and it's perfectly symmetrical and makes sense.
This is probably the only true thing we can say about this matter, because the other definitions are not so easy.
Now, when does 'morning' begin?
We could say that it begins at 06:00 am, and ends, for example, at 09:00 am. But then, people would still say "ten in the morning" or "five in the morning", so that's no good.
Maybe morning could be the first half of the day? From 06:00 am to 12:00 midday? No, people would still say "four thirty in the morning".
I don't have a perfect answer to this, but my point is, that neither does anyone else seem to have - it's like most people use these terms without knowing what they even mean!
I'd be satisfied by 'morning' being 03:00 am -> 09:00 am, and everything after 09:00 am being 'day' until 15:00 pm, when 'evening' could begin. 'Afternoon' could be from noon to 18:00 pm, but even that seems a bit arbitrary.
And as we can see, these terms overlap; it can be simultaneously 'morning' and 'night', because 'morning' is the last part of the night and the first part of the day according to this definition.
But there doesn't seem to be an 'official definition' to this on this planet, like one would expect (or at least I did), so it's all rather confusing.
I could go on, but I think I have made my point about this. Just how confident do you, dear reader, feel now, about knowing what the terms 'morning', 'day', 'evening' and 'night' mean?
I think almost any explanation about these things can always be countered by a counter-explanation, that's just as valid, or even more valid. If we say that 'evening', for exa -
paul_tachian — 11 years ago(August 31, 2014 05:21 PM)
You devote deep thought to such trivial matters? REALLY? lol
When does 'day' begin, and end?
Begins at sunrise. Ends at sunset. This is variable depends on time of year.
When does 'morning' begin and end?
Begins 00:00 or 12am, ends at 12pm.
When does 'afternoon' begin and end?
Begins 12pm, ends when the sun has set and is not visible on the horizon.
When does 'evening' begin and end?
Begins after sunset and IMO ends after twilight. Again, this depends on season, so in summer it may start at 8pm, in winter 5pm.
When does 'night' begin and end?
After twilight. That is, wherever YOU are positioned on the Earth, if there is no visible light reaching your eyes from the sun, you can assume it's night time.
I believe the reason there's no universally accepted definitions of day/night phases is because of the variability at Northern and Southernmost regions. For example, I know daylight is present for something like 18 hours or more in countries like Sweden at certain times of the year.
You mention people eating the flesh of animals. You eat fruit and vegetables?
Okay, think about this.
You wrote:
I respect life
Plants and trees are living things too. In those cases, we're mostly eating the
testicles and sperm
(seed) of living beings! Okay, as far as we know they're not sentient beings, but living just the same.
Seriously, avortac, ease up a little or you'll make yourself ill. -
Shadowrun79 — 10 years ago(February 05, 2016 02:33 AM)
My IQ is way above you heathenish reprobates! Your obtuse and vapid minds can never measure up to the gargantuan size of my IQ! You sanctimonious piles of excrement can never measure up to my superior intellect! BEHOLD MY POWERFUL IQ SCORE!
1,678,534.03 Pickles is my IQ score, now bow before your new god!!!!
"Hear me now! This place is cursed, damned, and yes your master is the devil!" -
rokhaund — 11 years ago(August 10, 2014 05:47 PM)
I don't think a person with a high IQ would see the world as an idiocracy. Most of the world's problems aren't caused by stupidity, but our selfish and greedy objectives. A stupid person can be a saint and a very smart person the opposite. It's our goals in life that make the world what it is. Not who we are.
-
oscar_ray2_jimenez — 10 years ago(April 24, 2015 12:48 AM)
Thank you sir/lady/human being for making the most reasonable, reasoned and useful remark in this whole thread without ever referencing your own hypotethically high IQ.
Everybody else, please, I beg you, take notice. That's how it's done. -
mcharis-1 — 11 years ago(November 28, 2014 08:16 PM)
yes, this is exactly how I see people todaythis movie will help me why I feel sometimes isolated and lonely. And I also decided it is time for me to have kids.
my brain hurts when I hear music today, sometimes when I see movies, and when I see movies from the 90s or 80s or even shows I see much higher intelligence than today.
most people don't like old movies or old super hero movies because of the bad effects compared to today, but the story lines and acting is out of this world.
And this is also why I don't like porn..I truly hope I will find this rare man who is not into porn but erotic movies. We need to populate! -
KorbenDallas-Multipass — 11 years ago(December 04, 2014 02:22 PM)
My IQ is 160. Fortunately I work in I.T. where most people have a clue. Dealing with average or below-average IQ people can be a difficult thing sometimes, but over the years I've figured out how to do it without coming across all holier-than-thou. I've also learned to get a quick read on someone's intelligence level and adjust my conversation accordingly; I'm not discussing quantum mechanics with the cashier at McD's (unless of course she brings it up - she may just be starting out; heck, I used to work in a warehouse.) It's not coincidence that my most enlightening conversations are with my immediate family, who all have IQs of at least 145. My father and brother are brilliant physicians, my sister a NASA engineer, and my mother a teacher/lawyer/mediator/administrator.
With regards to culture, it is dumbing down at an alarming pace. There is the occasional glimmer of hope, like the past year when Neil deGrasse Tyson's "Cosmos" show gained popularity. But then I watch "Cops," or the local news, and I'm saddened again. -
emvan — 11 years ago(December 15, 2014 02:05 AM)
Lack of intelligence in the IQ sense is neither our big social problem, nor the thing that I sometimes find frustrating when dealing with others (especially online!). It's lack of open-mindedness and cognitive flexibility. There are many fairly intelligent people who are basically unable to incorporate new facts that conflict with their views, once they have settled on them. They could understand a reasonably subtle argument on a topic they knew nothing about, and hence had no strong pre-existing feelings about. But try a comparable argument as a rebuttal to some set of ideas they've already settled on, and it's like talking to a wall. Suddenly, they're functional idiots; they're incapable of using the intelligence that they do possess in order to reason to a proper conclusion.
To cite an example that I hope will not be political dynamite, there are a lot of people who were taught that being gay is a choice. Here's a conversation you can try on them (I'm stealing this from some TV show):
Q: When did you choose to be straight?
A: [Some form of acknowledging they didn't.]
Q: Why would anyone choose to be gay, given all the downside involved? Since you didn't choose to be straight, doesn't that suggest that gay people didn't choose to be gay, since it has far more drawbacks than benefits (if any)?
People's ability to respond to this argument varies widely, and does not seem to be correlated more than mildly (if at all) to intelligence. You can even find people who are perfectly capable of understanding all the biological evidence that sexual orientation is not a choice, and actually have them understand all the evidence, and their response is to essentially reject or deny it and maintain their belief that it is.
What's particularly worrisome and frustrating about this trait is that it's apparently immune to self-reflection. You can tell people that they are not engaging with your argument and not even responding to the points you are making, let alone effectively rebutting them, and they will respond by repeating their initial "argument" (opinion, statement of incorrect facts, or parroting of something they heard on the radio or saw on TV), often for the fourth or fifth consecutive time. (I think we've all seen this on these message boards!)
When Congress becomes effectively controlled by such people, you get a country in deep trouble.
Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen. -
werecow2003 — 10 years ago(April 30, 2015 02:56 PM)
What bothers me personally is not that people are not always particularly bright, but that even highly intelligent people are often terrible at critical thinking. And they often have little to no knowledge of science (unless they actually happen to be scientists themselves), yet they somehow think they know everything.
I think this world would be a far, far better place if we taught everyone critical thinking and scientific skepticism from a young age. Critical thinking is a skill that has to be honed, and you don't need to be exceptionally intelligent to have a good BS detector. However, people who are generally intelligent but who have not spent time honing that skill set tend to think that they cannot be fooled, and that they do not deceive themselves as others do.
In fact, the opposite is true; smart people tend to be more imaginative, and more capable of performing acts of mental contortion. As such, they tend to be better at defending any intellectual position they happen to be invested in, even if that position happens to be the wrong one.
And on top of that, there's also the aforementioned Dunning-Kruger effect; laymen are less capable of recognizing how little they know about a subject (because they don't know how much they don't know), so they very confidently vastly overestimate themselves. Meanwhile, highly knowledgeable people are aware of all the uncertainties and subtleties in their field of knowledge (they know how much they don't know), and therefore underestimate themselves and display less confidence.
Anyway, those kinds of things lead to much more stupidity in the world than just having a low IQ.