Why humans are unintelligent: it's all about belief

[Bill Ryan]

This is a serious thread. For years I've pondered why (e.g.) someone with a PhD and a measured IQ of 180 might be just really dumb and unaware outside of their specialist field. We see this ALL the time.

It's not about EQ (Emotional Intelligence) or SQ (Spiritual Intelligence). I think it's about the predominant vulnerability of almost all humans, whatever their IQ, EQ, SQ, age, culture, or level of education, to be victims of belief.

And there may be two components to that:


The susceptibility to being initially influenced to form a belief.
The resistance to letting go of it once it's entrenched.

A high intellect can paradoxically be a handicap, as extremely clever people are often very skilled at self-justifying whatever beliefs they have. A smart and articulate person will defend their beliefs strongly, self-reinforcing all the time.

I'd be most interested in other members' views (and experiences!) about this.

[mountain_jim]

I was strongly influenced by the writings of Robert Anton Wilson in this area, and ways to become aware of one's Reality Tunnel self-programming and one's ongoing maintenance of one's cherished beliefs...

So much so that I carry around a quote from RAW in my sig file here.



I don't believe anything, but I have many suspicions. - Robert Anton Wilson


https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/robert-anton-wilson-quotes

https://www.brainyquote.com/photos_tr/en/r/robertantonwilson/178445/robertantonwilson1-2x.jpg

My main tool in becoming aware of these programs and attempts to reprogram myself with more openness to evaluating things in an ongoing fashion were his concepts and methodologies and psychedelic experiments in my younger days.


tFiwO7rUyIA


https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/2918.Robert_Anton_Wilson




Robert Anton Wilson quotes

“Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.”
― Robert Anton Wilson, Cosmic Trigger: Die letzten Geheimnisse der Illuminaten oder An den Grenzen des erweiterten Bewusstseins

“The Bible tells us to be like God, and then on page after page it describes God as a mass murderer. This may be the single most important key to the political behavior of Western Civilization.”
― Robert Anton Wilson


“...an optimistic mind-set finds dozens of possible solutions for every problem that the pessimist regards as incurable.”
― Robert Anton Wilson, Cosmic Trigger: Die letzten Geheimnisse der Illuminaten oder An den Grenzen des erweiterten Bewusstseins


“...when dogma enters the brain, all intellectual activity ceases. ”
― Robert Anton Wilson, Cosmic Trigger Volume I: Final Secret of the Illuminati


“I don't believe anything, but I have many suspicions.”
― Robert Anton Wilson


“We all see only that which we are trained to see.”
― Robert Anton Wilson, Masks of the Illuminati


“In order to eat, you have to be hungry. In order to learn, you have to be ignorant. Ignorance is a condition of learning. Pain is a condition of health. Passion is a condition of thought. Death is a condition of life.”
― Robert Anton Wilson, Leviathan


“under the present brutal and primitive conditions on this planet, every person you meet should be regarded as one of the walking wounded. we have never seen a man or woman not slightly deranged by either anxiety or grief. we have never seen a totally sane human being.”
― Robert Anton Wilson


“In conclusion, there is no conclusion. Things will go on as they always have, getting weirder all the time.”
― Robert Anton Wilson


“...reality is always plural and mutable.”
― Robert Anton Wilson, Cosmic Trigger Volume I: Final Secret of the Illuminati


“We look for the Secret - the Philosopher's Stone, the Elixir of the Wise, Supreme Enlightenment, 'God' or whatever...and all the time it is carrying us about...It is the human nervous system itself.”
― Robert Anton Wilson, Cosmic Trigger Volume I: Final Secret of the Illuminati


“Human beings live in their myths. They only endure their realities.”
― Robert Anton Wilson


“Is," "is," "is"—the idiocy of the word haunts me. If it were abolished, human thought might begin to make sense. I don't know what anything "is"; I only know how it seems to me at this moment.”
― Robert Anton Wilson, Nature's God


“Horror is the natural reaction to the last 5,000 years of history.”
― Robert Anton Wilson, Cosmic Trigger 2: Down to Earth


“It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea.”
― Robert Anton Wilson, The Illuminati Papers


“Every fact of science was once damned. Every invention was considered impossible. Every discovery was a nervous shock to some orthodoxy. Every artistic innovation was denounced as fraud and folly. The entire web of culture and ‘progress,’ everything on earth that is man-made and not given to us by nature, is the concrete manifestation of some man’s refusal to bow to Authority. We would own no more, know no more, and be no more than the first apelike hominids if it were not for the rebellious, the recalcitrant, and the intransigent. As Oscar Wilde truly said, ‘Disobedience was man’s Original Virtue.”
― Robert Anton Wilson


“The normal is that which nobody quite is. If you listen to seemingly dull people very closely, you'll see that they're all mad in different and interesting ways, and are merely struggling to hide it.”
― Robert Anton Wilson, Masks of the Illuminati


“Human society as a whole is a vast brainwashing machine whose semantic rules and sex roles create a social robot.”
― Robert Anton Wilson, Prometheus Rising


“The fear of death is the beginning of slavery.”
― Robert Anton Wilson, The Golden Apple


“When we meet somebody whose separate tunnel-reality is obviously far different from ours, we are a bit frightened and always disoriented. We tend to think they are mad, or that they are crooks trying to con us in some way, or that they are hoaxers playing a joke. Yet it is neurologically obvious that no two brains have the same genetically-programmed hard wiring, the same imprints, the same conditioning, the same learning experiences. We are all living in separate realities. That is why communication fails so often, and misunderstandings and resentments are so common. I say "meow" and you say "Bow-wow," and each of us is convinced the other is a bit dumb.”
― Robert Anton Wilson, Prometheus Rising

“Anyone in the United States today who isn't paranoid must be crazy.”
― Robert Anton Wilson, The Illuminati Papers


“The future is up for grabs. It belongs to any and all who will take the risk and accept the responsibility of consciously creating the future they want.”
― Robert Anton Wilson


“Intelligence is the capacity to receive, decode and transmit information efficiently. Stupidity is blockage of this process at any point. Bigotry, ideologies etc. block the ability to receive; robotic reality-tunnels block the ability to decode or integrate new signals; censorship blocks transmission.”
― Robert Anton Wilson



How's this for prescience?



“But they can rule by fraud, and by fraud eventually acquire access to the tools they need to finish the job of killing off the Constitution.'

'What sort of tools?'

'More stringent security measures. Universal electronic surveillance. No-knock laws. Stop and frisk laws. Government inspection of first-class mail. Automatic fingerprinting, photographing, blood tests, and urinalysis of any person arrested before he is charged with a crime. A law making it unlawful to resist even unlawful arrest. Laws establishing detention camps for potential subversives. Gun control laws. Restrictions on travel. The assassinations, you see, establish the need for such laws in the public mind. Instead of realizing that there is a conspiracy, conducted by a handful of men, the people reason—or are manipulated into reasoning—that the entire population must have its freedom restricted in order to protect the leaders. The people agree that they themselves can't be trusted.”
― Robert Anton Wilson, The Eye in the Pyramid

[Blacklight43]

I have known a few people of very hi IQ and with lots of letters before and after their names and what they all seemed to have in common was...none of them had a lick of common sense! It was all book learned and that was their belief!

[Harmony]

People tend to base their mental image of their lives on what they have experienced and learned in their life. It is most likely a survival instinct. It makes a person feel safe and know how to react and what to expect and what might be coming in the future, sort of like a map, where you have come from, where you are and where you will head towards.

When a person is very attached to that feeling, those anchor points where they feel in control, accepting new information that "cuts the ropes" of the anchor points is usually very unwelcome and uncomfortable.

The person or source of that uncomfortable information will not be welcome unless a person has decided they want to look beyond. To discover how dark hidden and devolved some workings or conciousness are can be way more than some can handle.

Also there seems to be other types of people that just don't seem to notice or enquire that there is anything amiss or even exists beyond their own small personal world.

[boja]

I agree that there does seem to be a large number of people with high IQ - and very FIXED ideas. (Many of them in "important" jobs).

I believe it's imperative that we ALL need to be able to continually CHANGE our ideas as situations evolve & more "data" becomes available.

If more people learn to do that, then our society could improve.

As it stands, I believe that our society is floundering about like a stranded whale.

[Satori]

My wife and I often speak about this topic. In general we think (believe) that the more one is educated, especially college, graduated and postgraduate educated, the more a person thinks she or he knows all there is to know. Even outside of the field of their education and expertise.

A certain elitism also emerges in many of these people. They think they’re right, because they learned it, and others are wrong because they do not have a high degree. I think that view is promoted by the system.

Education and IQ are of course two different things. Education has become a dumbing down and indoctrination process, for the most part. By design.

I’ve come to conclude (and I’m open to being convinced otherwise) that until a person opens up his or her mind and is ready to receive new, novel or challenging ideas, no amount of proof will convince him or her that their beliefs and opinions are wrong. Confirmation bias is too strong in many people. They don’t want to be pushed out of their comfort zone by having their beliefs put under the spotlight in their own minds. They might have to actually take action and do something that they perceive as threatening to their existence, livelihood etc... if they become convinced by new information and ideas that their world view is wrong, or even not entirely correct.

I believe it is Gerry Spence, the lawyer, who said: “I’d rather have a mind open to wonder, than one closed by belief.”

[Mark]

The susceptibility to being initially influenced to form a belief.
The resistance to letting go of it once it's entrenched.


That resistance to letting go has all kinds of socioeconomic and cultural aspects to it that reinforce the belief and adherence to it, as, for university professors for instance, it is much more lucrative and secure to uphold a scientific paradigm you've found in your research may be outdated or plain wrong, since you can publish on it and retain your position and respect among your peers for upholding the metanarrative.

For most people, it may be as simple as being tribal, wanting to fit in, wanting to be like the other people around them, which is something we all experience from the time we are engulfed by peer pressure at the youngest ages till we find ourselves in the old folks homes. Smart people who are empaths require the comfort of acceptance and love to live and even psychopaths need to feed.

Belief can replace logic, science and common sense when it is held strongly enough by a group of people and leads to mass delusions and expressions of inhumanity in some cases, when seen in retrospect.

[Denise/Dizi]

Such a great idea for a thread...

I am currently dealing with someone who has gotten their first "Degree" in higher education. They waited until after their children were born to get this, and they are extremely proud that they now have this degree and they wish to further it. All the while, ignoring the fact that their children are never getting to spend quality time with them, as they're always online "Taking classes"..

Sadly, I have met many people with average intelligence, and many with an IQ higher than my own do these things.. My IQ is 146. And I feel I am fairly intelligent. I never took extended classes in anything. I felt all along that book smarts, and life smarts are two entirely different things. While a" book smart person" knows everything the book says, generally they have poor interaction skills, and even worse abilities when it comes to everyday situations.

While this individual with a degree can use very intelligent words in conversation with other "Intellects" they fail to recognize they're ignoring their own children, and cannot function in a day to day environment. Everything they learn, that most know at an early age, must be spoon fed to them.. They cannot figure out how to drive a stick shift vehicle, they have no skills in how to repair anything, and they know very little in being able to use their own hands.

In social situations, they can recite things they have learned in these books, but putting anything to practical use, is almost laughable. The worst thing is this person specialized in psychology, yet they have nearly zero social skills. They have no idea how to truly read a person as they never interact with them, and each person, upon inspection is being judged for whats wrong with them, based upon what the "books said"... And when they get into an uncomfortable social situation, their "Fall Back" is the book says that someone who acts like "this or that" must have a problem, or (enter any ridiculous reason here) for their behaviors.

When this person is dealing with their own children, rather than show compassion or understanding, they diagnosis their own children with what the books say, rather than even trying to get to know them. This has caused major damage in the lives of 2 children, as rather than comfort and understanding for their trials in life, and helping them gain confidence, the kids end up getting therapy for problems they do not have.

For example, their lifestyle lends zero support in social situations so their children are getting no social interaction skills. As a result they're uncomfortable around others their age, or they tend to be quiet and non engaging. When they do have to engage others, they get very nervous. They do not know how to, after years of being told to entertain themselves while their parent broadened their knowledge and degrees. Rather than express to them how to engage others, as the parent is also lacking in that area, the child is told they have social anxiety, and taken to a therapist. Diagnosed with social anxiety and given medications... Heartbreaking...

So there is a real problem with intelligence and how humans perceive it. This person is convinced that in order to show you're intelligent, you must have degrees, and be able to show others that you have an education. I personally believe that while this person has all of the information that literature and tests have given them, that I have a better grasp on the reality of how a person is feeling, and what they're really going through.

While they may hand out a diagnosis or whats wrong with someone, I would rather help them to learn coping skills. It's a dangerous thing in my opinion. That people believe these books, and then carry that into daily life as proper. This is how we got away from helping our fellow man, and have instead begun to victimize them...

These young children have others in their life to help them gain the skills they need to better fit in, but sadly, those helping them, have to work against a parent who is harming them in many ways... Having them already start life at a young age, with a mental health history, merely because they lacked the emotional ability to stop spending so much time on their own education, to nurture their own children and help them grow in a loving way.

It's easier to take them to a doctor than to express time and social situations, which also make them uncomfortable, so that the children can learn interaction skills..

So this topic is a very important one... I did not go into higher education as I felt it was indoctrination. And while I may not have the best writing skills, or vocabulary, I can sure make someone smile. I can repair many things, I can build many things, and I am ever eager to learn more. I am self sufficient in many ways, and I do not fear new situations. I am expanding my horizon on knowledge, not education.

When Covid came, I was so glad that schools were closed for awhile. Not because I wanted the kids to not learn, but I thought it was great that we essentially went back to a time where the kids were with their parents, when they truly needed them to mold their values and ideas. Not by a book, but with the ones who cared the most about them. Teachers are not allowed to deal with certain things...

It also reminds me of the field of ufology... People calling themselves researchers.. Reading a few books, watching a few videos, then coming out onto the scene as someone who is "educated" as a researcher. One has to look at all of the finer details, compare the narrative to things that were found but never discussed. Do research into what those things mean, see if they're indeed true. To reexamine what the books say, not just read them.. But to ask questions of those in the books, the materials, etc. One must find the original material the book discusses, the people, the materials, etc... Researchers these days, fail to do his for the most part.

Personally I spent years pulling up technical documents I barely understood, about medical statements when trying to understand neurology, how the brain works, to better understand what is possible when it comes to communications, technology, interfacing, etc. I wanted to know the truth for myself, or if some of the claims being made were even possible.. And that didn't even include whether the truth was being told about certain things.. Was it even possible for those things to occur? I researched those finer details. And then asked more questions. And to this day I would never consider myself to be knowledgeable about certain subjects, but more someone who researches them for my own benefit.

Yet we have these kids on the scene, claiming to be specialists in certain areas. Faces on posters as "Speakers".. Sharing their "Knowledge".. It's a dangerous thing. And partially why this community is such a mess... as everyone then follows their lead.

There is so much more I would like to write but time is short today for me.. But I do hope that others bring up situations in which intelligence and IQ and what is going on around us, is detrimental to society. We are moving forward in time, and we need to dismiss some silly notions in order to grow.. As it is we are not growing but entrapping ourselves in many ways with the beliefs we are forming about who and how we are being "Educated"... Learning to write to better communicate is one thing, but we have gotten far away from true knowledge seeking and schools now are nothing more than tools for indoctrination into a certain way of thinking, and in my opinion, it is very dangerous.

[DSKlausler]

I have known a few people of very hi IQ and with lots of letters before and after their names and what they all seemed to have in common was...none of them had a lick of common sense! It was all book learned and that was their belief!

Agreed... this mirrors my experiences as well.

I ditched formal catholicism when given the choice by my parents (age 11 I believe)... I had questioned all of that ridiculous faith baloney long before that though. This simply occurred to me, as a mere child, that [their god] was contradictory and illogical [as dictated to me]... no one told me this, and actually, I had no opposing instructional influence. Conversely actually, my parents forced me to attend church and catechism - they were pro-religion. I was attending practically useless public school at the time.

It seems that I may have been born with something that assisted me mentally... does that make me "smart", logical... or what lucky? If anything, I am even more skeptical of the stories we are told these days - even given my questionable U.S. education.

I am a parent, and I have been around the track a few laps... my son, HE is a genius (PhD candidate) with the same root skill set as me ("programming"). Maybe it is a result of being raised around me that he DOES NOT have those seemingly common attributes of a brilliant person: highly limited in most [other] areas. He is well-rounded and well-founded. Honestly, he is one of the few [highly intelligent] people I have ever known NOT to be so oblivious to the rest of the world that they would get run over simply crossing the street.

Obviously many other variables are in play, but I see in him some elements that I have - and they were not learned - just already there waiting for use.

Me, and him, are definitely NOT "victims of belief".

However, even granted those probable gifts - that ability should be able to be taught, shouldn't it - discerning fraud?

[Open Minded Dude]

Don't we ALL have belief(system)s?
Isn't even believing to not having belief(s) ... a belief?
:loco:

[DSKlausler]

Don't we ALL have belief(system)s?
Isn't even believing to not having belief(s) ... a belief?
:loco:

Your alias alone deserves a Thanks.

I agree with the question - in that we all have belief systems; some are right up front and easy to identify, while some may be subconscious.

[I am B]

It'd be important to separate the fine line between inteligence and wisdom, and the definition of inteligence itself.

I'm unsuccessfully trying to find an actual quote, maybe you guys know which one it is. Anyways, It went something like this:

"War is chaos, and the one who prevails isn't the one who puts order to it, but the one who freely flows through it."

For me, inteligence is that, the capabilty of flowing through the chaos. While chaos means things change, or they are not as true as they seemed, so quickly and properly adapting, also on a mental level, is necessary, being constantly skeptic, but having at the same time the security of your will to keep moving forward.

As I'm writing this (and struggling) it sounds kinda related to the Thelema stuff.

"Living without certainty, and delving into it" I guess.

People who learn all those things to put an order to everything, even if it does work out sometimes, I don't consider them inteligent because of it, at least not right away.

[Bill Ryan]

Don't we ALL have belief(system)s?
Yes, we all do. But the key is to be willing to re-examine them at any time if the evidence around us suggests we should.

[DeDukshyn]

This is a serious thread. For years I've pondered why (e.g.) someone with a PhD and a measured IQ of 180 might be just really dumb and unaware outside of their specialist field. We see this ALL the time.

It's not about EQ (Emotional Intelligence) or SQ (Spiritual Intelligence). I think it's about the predominant vulnerability of almost all humans, whatever their IQ, EQ, SQ, age, culture, or level of education, to be victims of belief.

And there may be two components to that:


The susceptibility to being initially influenced to form a belief.
The resistance to letting go of it once it's entrenched.

A high intellect can paradoxically be a handicap, as extremely clever people are often very skilled at self-justifying whatever beliefs they have. A smart and articulate person will defend their beliefs strongly, self-reinforcing all the time.

I'd be most interested in other members' views (and experiences!) about this.

Amen.

Believe nothing, consider everything.

[Free Thinker]

The Whole Convoluted Idea of "Intelligence", IQ's, IQ Tests & Other Such Programmed Nonsense
~~~~

Soo... bear with me here please, while I unleash my thoughts (and vents) about the above.

Do we have an intelligence or IQ?

Most definitely.

Can we measure it in any accurate, conceivable or dare I say, "intelligent" way?

Absolutely not.

And here's why I firmly think/believe this. Everyone's welcome to come to their own conclusions and have their own opinions on such, but I stand firm in this like an immovable mountain or firmly rooted tree caught in a continual dust storm. Pull up your chair, get some coffee (or herbal tea or what have you) cuz this is likely going to be a very long explanation.

First off, the idea of an IQ is not a static one, neither on a personal level nor a universal level.

Personal Level:

People change after all. Sometimes we progress and acquire more knowledge, whereas on the flip side, people can de-gress and lose knowledge based upon their own poor/bad choices they've made in life. Their knowledge, life experiences, information flow/inflow/outflow changes all the effin' time. Whether or not the "status quo" appeals to this matter of change, or if it doesn't, is further light shed on this ridiculous notion, I feel.

People change. Multiple times even over the course of their lives. Do IQ tests account for this change? I seriously doubt it. And even if they do, read on, cuz I am far from being done here. :p

Universal Level:

Going back to the whole inflow/outflow equation here, information is constantly in flux all over the place. Data and the collection thereof is constantly changing. It all boils down to basically, make sure to ask the right questions and then and only then will one get the right answers. And no living being or civilization, no matter their societal advancements and overall technology level, can always ask the right questions in order to get the "right" answers. It simply doesn't exist, even if they think it does. I could be wrong on this, but there is far too much conviction on my part to ever simply agree with this silly, if not downright utterly stupid idea.

So, even IF one were to be able to ask all the right questions, which would have to be tailored to each individual's experiences/knowledge (actual), non-experiences/non-knowledge (not ever having had the experience or the "proper" knowledge to back it up with), potential non-experiences/non-knowledge (non-experiences and the non-acquisition of the non-knowledge that accompanies these specific non-experiences, that are unlikely to ever be, even if not actual), alternate experiences/knowledge (alternate self experiences in other parallel universes/realities), potential experiences/knowledge (what might be), past experiences/knowledge (what was), present experiences/knowledge (what is), future experiences/knowledge (what will eventually be), source experiences/knowledge (wisdom and knowledge attained from the Divine Source of Oneness or one's Higher Self/Soul/Spirit, which could be further broken down into two sub-types; awakened vs non-awakened), totality experiences/knowledge (The Big Picture, which may not even have to do with self any more if we're gonna talk about the Divine Source here and not individuality anymore, though very well can and does include both), and so on.

In other words, it's like the Neverending IQ test. Even if all the right factors were in place here, we could never get a full picture by any stretch of the imagination simply because we'd always be taking an IQ test and would never see the end results. And again, information/data flows are constantly changing. If one were to spend 5 minutes taking an IQ test, with several more questions to go, then who's to say that the next 5 minutes don't warrant an entirely new set of attributes in order to account for any/all possible changes? One cannot predict this in any sort of "intelligent" way. It's downright impossible. Not to mention insanely ludicrous to my mind and personal understanding.

And don't even get me started on timed IQ tests. The very thought makes me want to vomit for ten years straight and gives me painful eye twitches and intense muscle spasms, even if only theoretically. Just not going there. :O

And... if that weren't enough...

We have:

Types of Intelligences, Counter-Intelligences and Variant Intelligences (some of which was already covered in the above section)

So, breaking this down further:

IQ (generic) or simply "intelligence" in the huge nonsensical way we even view that to be.

Intelligence is such a highly malleable and extremely formless idea overall, that dares one to even try and shackle it down in the first place, via our own all too often limited understandings of such, especially over time. This is such that we can/do have multiple Intelligences, just as we can/do have multiple Wisdoms and multiple Charismas.

EQ or "Emotional Intelligence"

SQ or "Spiritual Intelligence" on an individual level

DQ or "Divine Intelligence" if and when we were/are to reconnect back with Source and the Greater Oneness of it all, then all intelligences become one in the end, making the whole idea of 'intelligence' in the first place completely obsolete.

Wisdom - Which may or may not be the same as SQ and/or DQ, which evil clearly lacks either one of these. Though it's possible they might have a tiny amount of such, though it'd be miniscule at best.

Wisdom can be further broken down into the various sub-categories of its own, ie: Spiritual Intelligence, to give just one example. We can/do have multiple Wisdoms, just as we can/do have multiple Intelligences and multiple Charismas.

Charisma - Anything from being a party-goer, to enjoying jokes/humor and overall witty behavior, to "going with the flow", to social norms of being around others, or "social intelligence".

Charisma can be further broken down into the "Joker/Prankster Mentality", Wit (combination of Intelligence, Wisdom and Sanity), "Social Intelligence" or "Be The Bard Intelligence", Party-Going Charismatic Intelligence which is a sub-type of Social Intelligence which in itself is a sub-type of Charisma or Charismatic Intelligence, "Waters Flow" Charismatic Intelligence, and so on. I firmly believe we all have multiple Charismas, just as we do multiple Intelligences and multiple Wisdoms.

How does one even define Charisma in the first place? I have three ideas for that as well. They are:

Presence, or how one generally carries themselves around others as well as around themselves. This could be termed in one of two ways, using one's presence to inspire others (good) or to manipulate/control others (evil).

Presence (as above), combined with physical and/or inner beauty

Inner Beauty alone, which evil has none of, strictly being a good-aligned trait only, going right along with the whole 'inspirational type presence' as mentioned above, which only good would normally have access to.

Also ties in with Moral Intelligence/Moral Sanity, which may or may not be synonymous with Inner Beauty in general.

Intuitive Intelligence or rather "Sixth Sense Intelligence", which can very well heavily overlap with the SQ, DQ and Wisdom types as explained above. Tends to dramatically increase if one is psychic or psychically aware to some extent as opposed to those who are just "sleeping" their way through life.

Instinctual Intelligence - A more primal version of Intuitive Intelligence, or "as above, so below".

"Book Smarts" (as Denise/Dizi mentioned)

"Life Smarts" (as Denise/Dizi mentioned)

Intelligence of Suffering aka IoS - How much one has suffered in their life and is able to come to terms with it and is its own form of intelligence and/or wisdom learned/gained.

Intelligence of Desire aka IoD - Same idea as above, only regarding desires and one's hopes and dreams connected to this that have been fully realized or nearly so, based on the initial desire(s) itself/themselves, as well as the "speed" and order in which it was realized.

Personal Experience (self-explanatory)

General Knowledge (self-explanatory)

Alternate Intelligence - Having to do with alternate self/selves and experiences thereof across multiple dimensions, both temporal, spatial, as well as actual and imaginary.

Potential Experiences/Knowledge - What MIGHT be true for that individual, not the same as Future Experiences/Knowledge, as the "future" is not set in stone by any stretch.

Past Experiences/Knowledge - What was true in the past for an individual, and might still apply even today.

Present Experiences/Knowledge - What is true for each individual now/in this moment of time.

Future Experiences/Knowledge - What will eventually turn out to be true for that individual, given the higher divine plans of the Universe (as opposed to 'Potential Experiences/Knowledge'.)

Source Intelligence - Intelligence derived from the Source and/or Our Higher Selves.

Totality Intelligence - The totality of all one's personal and perhaps even Divine Experiences of the One, throughout any/all infinities and temporalities had and not had, experienced and not-experienced, etc.

COUNTER-INTELLIGENCES (things that could and do pose obstacles to one's overall intelligence and the ability to learn and grow, both as a human and that of a spiritual being in general)

Non-Experiences/Non-Knowledge - Self-explanatory.

Potential Non-Experiences/Non-Knowledge - Same as with the 'Potential Experiences/Knowledge' form of intelligence, albeit in a 'might not actually be there or ever be there, depending on the circumstances' form.

Trust Intelligence - Does our ability (or lack thereof) to trust others help or hinder our intelligence when it really comes down to it? Who can say?

Immoral Insanity - Psychopathic, sociopathic, and narcissistic behaviors have a serious disadvantage here. Arrogance and control-freak to the extreme. 'Nuff said.

Gullibility - Accepting everything at face value and not bothering to do one's own research or looking into the matter themselves. In other words, 'Believe Everything', no matter how bizarre, which is an extremely dangerous mindset to have.

Extreme Skepticism - Not believing anything, even if fully plausible to others. In other words, 'Deny Everything', which is immensely dangerous behavior on the polar opposite/complete end of the spectrum from the above.

Hypocrisy - Doing/saying something is bad or dumb, then going off and doing/saying that exact same thing oneself. Lacks a certain amount of integrity and good will, don't ya think?

Ignorance - We are all ignorant to some degree. That's a given. In other words, it's merely a lack of knowledge on our part, not a lack of intelligence. Very different from Willful Ignorance (see below).

Willful Ignorance - The outright refusal to change one's viewpoints, even when all "evidence" and experiences to the contrary would pretty much demand it. A very dangerous and ultimately stupid mindset to have for anyone.

Assumptions - Assuming things without proper "facts" to back it up with. Assumptions, IMO are pretty much guaranteed to be 99% wrong (if not even higher than that). Not to mention is extremely annoying and just plain foolish. Though I will argue we do not always a choice on this. That's something important to keep in mind as well. One does the best they can with the knowledge they have.

Being A People-Pleaser - A very self-destructive path to take for anyone. One simply cannot please everyone. It's impossible. Don't even try, at the risk of your own sanity. Seriously.

The Fool/Being Foolish - Could be a combination of any/all of the above mentioned counter-intelligences.

And let's not forget the very likely possibility that the whole idea of intelligence and IQ is a false lie we've all been told to believe, that 'this is how it works' and 'this is how it doesn't work'. Question Everything. And I do.

Personally, I don't buy into any IQ tests or profiling done on me. It's pretty much guaranteed to be only 1/10 of the entire picture, with the other 9/10 missing or heavily misconstrued, and even THAT is probably being too generous. :/

Just sayin'.

As always, the above is just my opinion. Everyone is completely free to think/believe how they like/wish to (so there's that perpetual wild card thrown into the mix there).

I may add more to this later, I might not. Only time will truly tell.

Edit: Forgot to include common sense as another variant to intelligence.

[Mike]

IQ tests are pretty accurate actually and quite revealing. An IQ can be measured pretty easily. And it's the predominant indicator of success in the world, without question. Just ask yourself this: if you had a choice would you rather have an IQ of 65 or 145? If you had an IQ of 65 you wouldn't have any linguistic ability, would likely never be able to read, write, get a job, or leave home...regardless of what your so called emotional, spiritual, spatial, or musical intelligences were. It's definitely not 1/10th of the picture. When you're talking about intelligence, it's basically the whole picture.

I'm not saying our emotional and spiritual etc worlds are unimportant, I'm saying those aren't "intelligences". They belong in whole other categories. But that's for another thread.

Back on topic:
In my opinion, smart people do stupid stuff when they allow themselves to be overwhelmed by emotion. I've seen so many people in the world recently - friends, relatives, so forth - people much smarter than me, say and do some of the dumbest f#cking things I've ever seen. There are several reasons for this. One is wanting to fit in. Another is not wanting to be ostracized. And yet another is the intoxicating feeling of unearned moral superiority.

The desire to fit in, the fear of not fitting in and being ridiculed, and the elating sense of moral satiety will often overpower intelligence. At that point, the intelligent person doesn't become dumb all of a sudden, they just use their intelligence to cleverly justify all their fears. It's a form of cravenness or cowardice, I think. Intelligence does not always equal courage, unfortunately.

[Free Thinker]

Putting numbers of any kind on one's "IQ" is just more dogma and more lies. I, personally, will not fall for that trap.

But to each their own.

[DeDukshyn]

Putting numbers of any kind on one's "IQ" is just more dogma and more lies. I, personally, will not fall for that trap.

But to each their own.

Both you and Mike are right in your own ways.

Generally, the thing that makes humans or any other animal what we term "intelligent" is pattern recognition. It basically comes down to that, and is the base premise behind an IQ test. Memory also has a strong play in what one might call intelligence, but specifically by definition, intelligence attempts to be defined outside of memory.

The way I see it is the same as the difference between talent and skill. Everyone has talents, but most don't ever realize it, because a talent almost always needs a particular skill for it to be able to be expressed. I have a strong musical talent, but its mostly "latent" because I never developed any really good skill with an instrument to be able to express it. I know I have talent because with what tiny little skill I have been able to learn, I have been able to do amazing musical things with.

Intelligence is similar; if one doesn't have the needed skill to express it, it can seem like it doesn't exist. I know many children that are clearly extremely intelligent, pattern recognition is off the charts, but they probably wouldn't score very high on an IQ test because of their incomplete structural language and expectation development.

So a low IQ test doesn't necessarily mean a lack of intelligence, but a high IQ score usually indicates a high intelligence plus the skills needed to be able to express that intelligence.

EDIT to add:
Of course "intelligence" is just one of many the valuations that humans can possess that give them special value. We tend to lump all these valuations, under the term "intelligence" without any proper distinction, but like you mention above, there are many other distinct values for consideration.

[Free Thinker]

Intelligence is similar; if one doesn't have the needed skill to express it, it can seem like it doesn't exist.

I know many children that are clearly extremely intelligent, pattern recognition is off the charts, but they probably wouldn't score very high on an IQ test because of their incomplete structural language and expectation development.

I don't believe I stated that intelligence didn't exist. Just that it can not be accurately measured.

And your last comment pretty much states it all, what exactly I was trying to express and describe in the first place. The system itself is inherently flawed, yet it is "the system", so it must be right?

Not in my book, it isn't.

[DeDukshyn]

Intelligence is similar; if one doesn't have the needed skill to express it, it can seem like it doesn't exist.

I know many children that are clearly extremely intelligent, pattern recognition is off the charts, but they probably wouldn't score very high on an IQ test because of their incomplete structural language and expectation development.

I don't believe I stated that intelligence didn't exist. Just that it can not be accurately measured.

And your last comment pretty much states it all, what exactly I was trying to express and describe in the first place. The system itself is inherently flawed, yet it is "the system", so it must be right?

Not in my book, it isn't.

I don't think I was claiming that you stated that intelligence didn't exist, if that's how it came across perhaps I could have been more concise. I was just explaining, how Intelligence can be considered, what it generally represents as the IQ test measures it, and how IQ tests can't detect much outside of pattern recognition.

I don't think I know anyone that would state that an IQ is the be-all and end-all of determining a persons worth or even intelligence. Perhaps you put too much faith in that belief that it is considered the de facto standard, or "system" as you put it.

[Free Thinker]

EDIT to add:
Of course "intelligence" is just one of many the valuations that humans can possess that give them special value. We tend to lump all these valuations, under the term "intelligence" without any proper distinction, but like you mention above, there are many other distinct values for consideration.

I have my sincere doubts that anyone (especially not us humans) can measure such a thing at all. It would be like trying to measure love or compassion or creativity or some other equally undefinable value. Such a belief or practice thereof is often rife with untold abuse.

[DeDukshyn]

EDIT to add:
Of course "intelligence" is just one of many the valuations that humans can possess that give them special value. We tend to lump all these valuations, under the term "intelligence" without any proper distinction, but like you mention above, there are many other distinct values for consideration.

I have my sincere doubts that anyone (especially not us humans) can measure such a thing at all. It would be like trying to measure love or compassion or creativity or some other equally undefinable value. Such a belief or practice thereof is often rife with untold abuse.

It measures something rather specific, like I explained. And also like I explained, what it measures is only one out of many valuations that can give a person value, such as the other values that you mentioned and attributed (perhaps wrongly, or at least without distinction) to "intelligence". I think you grossly misunderstood (the intention of) my post ... did you even read the whole thing?

[Mike]

Putting numbers of any kind on one's "IQ" is just more dogma and more lies. I, personally, will not fall for that trap.

But to each their own.


Nope, it's a demonstrably accurate way of testing for intelligence:). It's so blatantly and statistically obvious that it cannot be disputed.

I would encourage you to just do a little bit of looking into it. That's all it would take.

But this is kind of the point of the thread, isn't it? There are smart people not just disputing things that are obviously true, but downright denying them. I didn't intend to create an example here, but my intuitive intelligence must have guided me into it;)

To add to my previous post:
Smart people don't want to appear to be wrong either. It's kind of an emotional gut punch, particularly if their identity is wrapped up in being smart. Much easier to dig in and double down on the original argument. And I do speak from experience here! Not that I'm especially smart, but I've done this many, many times in my life. So no way am I preaching from a pulpit! For example: I've never really liked guns. Though I abhor the word, I'll use it here - they "trigger" me a little. I've made very emotional arguments against guns, both here and in my everyday life, that I knew made little sense logically. But there was a sense of pride that wouldn't allow me to let go, and a desire to maintain what felt like the moral high ground at the time. Plus, having dug my heels in so far, I didn't want to appear foolish.

Sometimes smart people are just uninformed, and having defended a position so vigorously, they don't want to admit to perhaps being wrong. I know this because I've done it. I'm just as guilty as anyone here. I like to think I'm getting better at avoiding it, but I still catch myself doing it from time to time.

[Free Thinker]

"and how IQ tests can't detect much outside of pattern recognition."

I don't think I know anyone that would state that an IQ is the be-all and end-all of determining a persons worth or even intelligence. Perhaps you put too much faith in that belief that it is considered the de facto standard, or "system" as you put it.

On the contrary, it is my lack of faith or belief in people who are using and falling back on that very same exact limited crutch to not put their own vile spin on it, and do exactly what you just stated; make it the end-all, be-all. Maybe that was the original intent in the beginning not to do so, but we truly don't understand how to handle such complex matters. There is far too much EGO in such a practice, far too much trying to "capture this in a bottle for the masses to forever ooh and aah over", too much "labeling" going on, to be able to ever take such seriously or to see any true credibility in it.

Again, this is just my opinion. But one that makes a whole heck of a lot of sense to me.

[DeDukshyn]

"and how IQ tests can't detect much outside of pattern recognition."

I don't think I know anyone that would state that an IQ is the be-all and end-all of determining a persons worth or even intelligence. Perhaps you put too much faith in that belief that it is considered the de facto standard, or "system" as you put it.

On the contrary, it is my lack of faith or belief in people who are using and falling back on that very same exact limited crutch to not put their own vile spin on it...

I don't see that ... I've hung around with some incredibly intelligent people in my life with very high IQ's (by the test), not one would spin it with vile ... Unless that was a covert jab at something specific in your life ... or perhaps something recently?

[Mike Gorman]

Well, you know I have developed some ideas about intelligence over the years: it has always struck me that our education systems and psychometric understanding has been deeply flawed.
The architect of the original Eye queue school (as I capriciously term it), Alfred Binet was called on by the French government to determine which French children would not do well in their emerging compulsory education system, so they could
construct remedial classes for them.
Binet in 1905 discovered that we are not all the same (the heavens part with an astounding glimpse of reality); and that the nature of human intelligence is highly protean, variable and vastly unquantifiable.

For the empirical thinkers of the early 20th Century, this was an intolerable state of affairs! They demanded that we consider intelligence as being quantifiable, and materially considered, we should be able to determine how much intelligence each human unit contains!
Hence we developed this very wrong headed idea about intellect, that Eye Queue is a material substance, a discernible quality which can be measured and contained; everyone can be evaluated for possessing a certain quantity of Eye Queue!
How much Eye Queue do you have, the average amount of 100, or are you a Genius with 145+?
Alfred Binet, being a genuine man of science and really a man of profound integrity, did not feel very comfortable about his Test; he voiced these concerns to his colleagues, they told him to be quiet and to collect his fee from the French government.
But ever since, from 1905 we have been led along this strange, very neat orderly path of assessing Eye Queue, and considering ourselves as either being very ordinarily stupid, or not stupid at all and able to join Mensa, and talk about abstruse puzzles and feel very important.
The entire foundation of psychometrics is founded on a lie.
The education systems we have constructed are all deeply flawed, and our people are herded into streams of employment and social positions on the basis of our performance.
But we each know, I feel, that there is something not at all right about this; we each sense there is a lot more going on with our minds than a number assigned to its worth, a numerical absolute which defines our potential value.

The true creative wizards among our number flourish whether they are 'allowed' to or not; those of us who understand the open-ended nature of human thinking, have always had enormous problems with the official conceptions of education and learning.
This is why we have so many thwarted, unhappy people in our midst, we have made a huge error with Eye queue, and its absolute nature, I think we shall come to know this in future times, if we survive.

[Bill Ryan]

Nope, it's a demonstrably accurate way of testing for intelligence:). It's so blatantly and statistically obvious that it cannot be disputed. Well, I assume that was tongue-in-cheek. :P An IQ test tests how good you are at doing an IQ test. Nothing more. That's the point of this thread!

See also this thread, in which the whole elusive notion of "intelligence" was discussed here a couple of years ago. That also touches on how very unintelligent some people with high IQs are.

Being able to do math puzzles against the clock has absolutely nothing to do with true intelligence, awareness and being a fully-functioning, high-ability human being. Anyone who can't see that may not be very bright. :)


All about "IQ" (whatever that means!) (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?111461-All-about-IQ--whatever-that-means--)

[Chris Gilbert]

IQ tests are pretty accurate actually and quite revealing. An IQ can be measured pretty easily. And it's the predominant indicator of success in the world, without question. Just ask yourself this: if you had a choice would you rather have an IQ of 65 or 145? If you had an IQ of 65 you wouldn't have any linguistic ability, would likely never be able to read, write, get a job, or leave home...regardless of what your so called emotional, spiritual, spatial, or musical intelligences were. It's definitely not 1/10th of the picture. When you're talking about intelligence, it's basically the whole picture.

.

In terms of the link between IQ and professional standing/income in the current world I would say this is true. IQ does play a big role in ones ability and speed in processing and retaining abstract and technical information. Of course, as we have all acknowledged the ability to be successful in the current world is by no means the most important thing in one's life. My wife is taking online classes at the moment and is having a far harder time with courses I breezed through twenty years ago, BUT I would say that her direct awareness of things like spirits, energy, and spontaneous compassion for others is greater than my own. By and large, the postmodern world created by high IQ people is also ruining the planet.

While I do enjoy discussions with those who have an IQ close to or higher than my own, it is incredibly frustrating when they can't see their own biases. I don't mind that they have them, just that they can't or wont see through them. It comes up often as of late when people say things like "trust science" "science says" or "follow the science", as if science was an utterly pure process that gives 100% gospel truth. I like the process and discovery of research as well, but research and scientific journals are created by humans, and humans are heavily subject to biases and funding sources. Said funding sources are more often than not corporations. While a good research study should be evaluated based on the evidence and not who funded it, saying "trust science" without looking at things more in depth is basically a way of saying "I trust capitalist corporations".

[TomKat]

This is a serious thread. For years I've pondered why (e.g.) someone with a PhD and a measured IQ of 180 might be just really dumb and unaware outside of their specialist field. We see this ALL the time.

It's not about EQ (Emotional Intelligence) or SQ (Spiritual Intelligence). I think it's about the predominant vulnerability of almost all humans, whatever their IQ, EQ, SQ, age, culture, or level of education, to be victims of belief.

And there may be two components to that:


The susceptibility to being initially influenced to form a belief.
The resistance to letting go of it once it's entrenched.

A high intellect can paradoxically be a handicap, as extremely clever people are often very skilled at self-justifying whatever beliefs they have. A smart and articulate person will defend their beliefs strongly, self-reinforcing all the time.

I'd be most interested in other members' views (and experiences!) about this.

High IQ stupidity could be due to lack of life experience. And courage to think for oneself. Getting good grades requires more obedience than intelligence. Old souls tend to dislike school. Car salesmen remark on how dumb medical doctors are, make ideal "victims."

[Jim_Duyer]

Archaeologists and linguists tell us that the Sumerians believed in many gods and goddesses. I used to take that as a given. I have translated recently some tablets from 2300 BC that were previously untranslated and basically ignored. And one speaks of their having more than one god, but choosing one to worship out of them, and thus they declare "One God for all to worship". So I thought to myself, how is it possible that other translators, most with many degrees and published papers, ignore this or refuse to publish it?

I gave up on the idea that they were not that intelligent, because some of them actually are. I then considered some type of agenda, either related to Atheism or established religion, but neither seem to fit all of the instances in which this type of behavior raises its ugly head. I have found instances of where scholars have buried evidence of course - such as the Univ. of Penn scholars, trained at Yale, who refused to publish an archaeological mention of Abraham, and in the time period of 1980 BC, which fits. And it was claimed to be due to their fears that the crowd who were trying to claim that the Hebrews copied everything from the Sumerians would have more ammunition. But that's a very weak argument, and especially since the authors were both Lutheran ministers as well as Archaeologists.

Some have posited that we are cattle, and that some group has been calling the shots, amending history, and pretty much doing what they want since man first began writing or even earlier. I have never wanted to believe that theory, but in all honesty I have no real evidence against it either.

There are simply too many idiotic theories that they stick to no matter what the evidence says, to convince me that it is simply academic stubbornness. But lines have been drawn that are not crossed, at the peril of losing your Government grants or University tenure or even your job. And thus the new crop seems reluctant or unable to effect a lasting change.

Every six months I watch again the movie "They Live". Somehow it comforts me and allows me to continue with my mundane existence for another six. And so it goes.

I am currently trying to get out a book as fast as possible, but on the back burner I have assembled a few chapters and notes on one that I have given a working title of Historical Amnesia - which examines the possibility that some PTSD enacting event in our distant past may have caused us to have an amnesiatic episode in regards to our true history, and that the inability to answer a great deal of questions about our supposed past has ignited the stress levels to the degree that they cause our modern scientists to mentally stutter and even lie, when presented with those questions.

[Agape]

I’m just reading this very interesting article called

Toward the Neurobiology of Delusions (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3676875/#!po=28.4946)

The authors have examined in dedicated research study and plenty of corroborative effort ways “beliefs” and “delusions” can be formed and encoded in our brain,
synergic relationship of neurotransmitters uptake and release, the neurone oscillation hypothesis and much more.
The study works primarily with psychotic subjects or those in whom psychotic delusions have been induced chemically however the field covers very large spectrum of individual symptomatics and it altogether aspires to decode the background of brain function, long and short term memory sequencing and encoding,
signal to noise ratio and ways errors get encoded as prior memories,
which can happen for many reasons.

I feel that whoever have the patience to read through this study ( and apply those observations to their own brain activity, with discrimination ) can benefit.


Don’t forget about pinch of salt 🍿


It’s captivating.

[ceetee9]

This is a serious thread. For years I've pondered why (e.g.) someone with a PhD and a measured IQ of 180 might be just really dumb and unaware outside of their specialist field. We see this ALL the time.

It's not about EQ (Emotional Intelligence) or SQ (Spiritual Intelligence). I think it's about the predominant vulnerability of almost all humans, whatever their IQ, EQ, SQ, age, culture, or level of education, to be victims of belief.

And there may be two components to that:


The susceptibility to being initially influenced to form a belief.
The resistance to letting go of it once it's entrenched.

A high intellect can paradoxically be a handicap, as extremely clever people are often very skilled at self-justifying whatever beliefs they have. A smart and articulate person will defend their beliefs strongly, self-reinforcing all the time.

I'd be most interested in other members' views (and experiences!) about this.

I have often thought about this as well over the years and while I don’t pretend to know why this is so, I’ll chime in with my two cents worth.

I have been taught by, and worked with, highly educated people for most of my life and while there were some who demonstrated a high level of intelligence even outside of their field of expertise, there were others that made me wonder how they got their degrees. Some were good teachers and could clearly explain concepts they were teaching while others not so much. Some espoused the virtues of book learning with apparently little or no realization or acknowledgement that countless books were in conflict and that the “knowledge learned” was highly dependent on from which book(s) one preached.

Regardless of who or what we are (or think we are), we are all products of our environment. Our beliefs, biases and prejudices are instilled in us from birth by our parents, family and friends, teachers and others who we looked up to. Some of us were lucky enough to come from good nurturing environments while others were not so lucky. Our experiences from those formative years, and our reactions to those experiences, have helped to mold us into whom and what we are today. Yet we all still have the ability to grow and change if we so choose. For example, if we had an abusive parent we might have adopted those behaviors toward our own children as a negative way of dealing with the trauma inflicted upon us in our childhood. Or, we may choose to never become that abusive parent and turn our negative experience into a positive one for our children by loving and encouraging them.

The bottom line is that all of us, including highly educated people, come to the table with their own set of biases, prejudices and beliefs derived from a lifetime of experiences and reactions to those experiences. But there is no guarantee that a high IQ will make one more self-aware of their biases, prejudices and beliefs—particularly negative ones—than any other person. It requires introspection and a sincere desire and effort to examine ones beliefs and adjust them accordingly if found to be contrary or detrimental to what one thinks they are.

[thepainterdoug]

Bill great post and topic.
I have an average I q. I got d,s and F,s in school and dropped out of college. But i have been referred to by some as a polymath

A polymath (Greek: πολυμαθής, polymathēs, "having learned much"; Latin: homo universalis, "universal man")[1] is an individual whose knowledge spans a substantial number of subjects, known to draw on complex bodies of knowledge to solve specific problems.

I am the kind of person you want around when the car breaks down, or stranded on an island and need to invent with the surroundings in order to stay alive.
I approach my art, music and creativity as a problem solver.
We award book smarts in our educational system which is memorization in my opinion. We do not award logic and invention.

Beliefs are a manifestation of the ego. A need to cling to a position in order to make us right. How could a person of any religion be told one day that your religion is wrong? They would have to say, wow I wasted 50 years of my life believing something wrong. Im pretty stupid. Not going to happen

But beliefs are unavoidable and so is the ego. OSHO said you cannot defeat an ego , only observe it. i believe him! haha

[Free Thinker]

"and how IQ tests can't detect much outside of pattern recognition."

I don't think I know anyone that would state that an IQ is the be-all and end-all of determining a persons worth or even intelligence. Perhaps you put too much faith in that belief that it is considered the de facto standard, or "system" as you put it.

On the contrary, it is my lack of faith or belief in people who are using and falling back on that very same exact limited crutch to not put their own vile spin on it...

I don't see that ... I've hung around with some incredibly intelligent people in my life with very high IQ's (by the test), not one would spin it with vile ... Unless that was a covert jab at something specific in your life ... or perhaps something recently?

All I'm trying to say is, I don't trust the psychopathic idiots running our society, and that goes for their deranged "IQ tests" as well (correct me if I'm wrong here on the latter).

I will read over and respond more to this thread later, as I think I need to focus on other things (both onsite and offsite) at the current time. I appreciate the feedback though.

I realized I forgot to include common sense along with the other types of "intelligence." Oh well. I can edit that later.

Edit: Edited initial post.

[Mike]

Nope, it's a demonstrably accurate way of testing for intelligence:). It's so blatantly and statistically obvious that it cannot be disputed. Well, I assume that was tongue-in-cheek. :P An IQ test tests how good you are at doing an IQ test. Nothing more. That's the point of this thread!

See also this thread, in which the whole elusive notion of "intelligence" was discussed here a couple of years ago. That also touches on how very unintelligent some people with high IQs are.

Being able to do math puzzles against the clock has absolutely nothing to do with true intelligence, awareness and being a fully-functioning, high-ability human being. Anyone who can't see that may not be very bright. :)


All about "IQ" (whatever that means!) (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?111461-All-about-IQ--whatever-that-means--)





No I'm deadly serious! An IQ test is a clear indicator of how well you'll perform in the world. It's self evident.

I'm not sure what you mean about "true" intelligence!:). Intelligence is intelligence and shouldn't require any qualifiers. It's quantifiable, that's what IQ tests are for. But if you mean emotional intelligence, spiritual intelligence, body intelligence etc etc etc, I would say: you can't demonstrate that those things even exist. They're not falsifiable. It's like inventing new genders. While it's true that some people are more spiritually oriented, or emotionally grounded, it won't matter much if they can't read or do basic arithmetic. That is, if you want to be successful in the world. If you're perfectly happy roaming forests and staring at the sky all day, and have a group of friendly people problem solving for you , then IQ is unimportant. But life is a series of problems and situations that must be navigated, and if you can't do that reasonably well you're in real trouble, regardless of what your “true” intelligence (whatever that is!:)) suggests.

Among all the various forms of “intelligence” being proposed here, I would say that basic intelligence (IQ) is common among all of them. I don't have the graph in front of me, but I would say that basic intelligence correlates more with all the manufactured subcategories than it doesn't. Dividing all these things up is more of an invitation to chaos than anything else. If you're unintelligent in terms of IQ, reading music will be very difficult. You'll also suffer emotionally because you'll be an outcast. Even if you're athletic, your decisions on the field or the court will be poor. You'll have trouble gaining employment. As a result of that, you'll have great difficulty meeting a spouse, or starting a family. And so forth. If your basic intelligence is poor, all the other various forms of “intelligence” will suffer as well. It's a trickle down thing.

Yes, it's true that there are very smart people (IQ) that are emotional disasters. Or smart people that aren't very spiritual. But they represent the extremes. And yes, there are savants too, but they also represent the extremes. Most people that are reasonably smart are also reasonably stable.

An IQ test is a very good indicator if how well you'll perform in the world. And that's how I'm defining it here. Maybe we're talking about different things. But it's the most determining factor of one's life, success, and happiness. You can try and dispute that if you wish but I think it's a losing game.

IQ has been studied and refined since the early 20th century. It's a well established branch of psychology. Psychologists have defined intelligence in a more stringent and accurate way than almost any other psychological construct. We have very specific and accurate ways of measuring the cognitive skills that make one successful in the world (IQ) so if you dilute that with notions of emotional or spiritual “intelligence” etc, all it does it muddy the waters and distort a well defined and researched body of knowledge. It's not useful. IQ has a predictive validity that none of those other alleged intelligences have. I'm going off the science here, no guesswork involved.

[Bill Ryan]

Nope, it's a demonstrably accurate way of testing for intelligence:). It's so blatantly and statistically obvious that it cannot be disputed. Well, I assume that was tongue-in-cheek. :P An IQ test tests how good you are at doing an IQ test. Nothing more. That's the point of this thread!

See also this thread, in which the whole elusive notion of "intelligence" was discussed here a couple of years ago. That also touches on how very unintelligent some people with high IQs are.

Being able to do math puzzles against the clock has absolutely nothing to do with true intelligence, awareness and being a fully-functioning, high-ability human being. Anyone who can't see that may not be very bright. :)



All about "IQ" (whatever that means!) (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?111461-All-about-IQ--whatever-that-means--)



No I'm deadly serious! An IQ test is a clear indicator of how well you'll perform in the world. It's self evident.

Well, maybe I'm just not very bright. :) It's not self-evident to me!

"How well you'll perform in the world..."


As a loving parent?
An inspiring teacher?
A natural empath?
A healer? A poet? An artist? A gifted gardener? A great cook? An animal rescuer? A suicide hotline counselor?
The kindest friend you ever knew?
Someone you'd dearly love to ask to marry you?
Someone who would willingly endanger their life to help a colleague in a battle? (Or on a mountain, or at sea?)
Someone with a hotline to God, in whatever form that might take in our modern world?

I know which Avalon members I really admire and would love to have as neighbors. (That list includes yourself, by the way. :heart: ) But IQ isn't a qualifier. Being a sensitive, aware, high-spirited, perceptive, kind person definitely is.

Many people with very high IQs are limited, blinkered, self-justifying, self-important jerks. I could easily generate a long list of well-known public figures, and so could you. They're highly able in just one nerdy specialty. (And they may be sociopaths as well.)

And many people who've never excelled academically are the most wonderful, altruistic people you'd ever be lucky enough to meet... the kind of people I'm guessing you'd like to see making decisions about the world.

:sun:

[Constance]

kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

[Sue (Ayt)]

Just as a small aside, when I worked briefly in our state capitol's advocacy group for the gifted, we made the points that a higher proportion of students measured as gifted dropped out of school, and also a surprisingly high proportion of prisoners are gifted. The advocacy group was attempting to attain more funding for the gifted, as many programs for the students on the higher end of the normal curve were very low-budget, cut, or non-existent, in comparison to the funding for other special needs programs. Many just did not see the need for any extra funding for the gifted.

The point being, that high IQ's do not necessarily equal societal success. Both extremes of the curve do tend to have problems fitting in with the bulk majority.
---------
Abstract
The aim of this study was to comparing the mental health of gifted and average high school students. Eighty three students of high school who were selected by randomized classification method, divided in two groups (43 gifted students, 40 average students). In the gifted students’ category, 30.2% were healthy, 59.2% were considered suspicious and 18.6% were known to be vulnerable. As to average students group, 50% were healthy, 37.5% were considered suspicious and 12.5% were known to be vulnerable. Further study with more cases and psychological interview based on DSM-IV after screening is recommended.
Elsevier Ltd. 2010© Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com (https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/277811/1-s2.0-S1877042810X00106/1-s2.0-S1877042810017829/main.pdf?X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEKX%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIEoYhaXLVl0BxV26ct14%2 BJXV9z4BmSqgsEVl1utkWdvpAiEAkLQSlcjtX76N4MvjOlapbgEtLktCNeynQR6Jy5J%2F%2B8AqtAMIHRADGgwwNTkwMDM1NDY4 NjUiDEga3MS4QxHJZPE7%2FCqRA05OnvYjOsTO1jklWuto6uEzp5QHxQN0hOvdRtus3xp5emXXdZz21wJa6w1HI601g1fpejVkoX %2FXpz7i3UeyjVt8gzXf6O3r2yv52H5AYTFn8WZn3S6a5F1YZuSRWjvPz%2BtN5J0yRxVD5HWg4NL%2FkxOKNLgq40%2FmS2a8W5 t2Sroa0SEiz3o269haJ5%2FDQevoSlT9AXkZAiiL%2FxOlkkct%2BFEG3nkeGAGoDCLpb2ZPnHVGUc%2FWcSkwESv6s0LLvsuMHd %2B56XTs0ChBqs9QgG3XpqXuI4r5MLNpSxqBMI4GJretRF2St74U7PEG1l0lLHpPbaaQLIU%2F96juWeVPQ%2B02L8XgbBrCZESM ihBzJCs3x26IpPmJH%2F2gRz9bqVqhE%2BOaV6XzndmChLaJHwhFadt0v4Pvn715NkmvH90rgeS1sPvr9IE4cFYNjMSQR8ikLHD7 8g7YnKGJFlhOn1soWvGn%2BJWYVD1BpoCh3rToxyFZ5Ccy4ngp83nKsRSlksRasoQ9YI8wFMw8BpaCCmWC9XwZPpW%2BMJ%2Bbl4 QGOusB00GHR70J1tw2fZqUX26nv98G43Ag7CPkKDx1nzKR893OHWt7ARmBC66T74zSzmYs7lXmr%2BHwEdE8jtgIV4IzZxFnn0gP NQqLgf%2BxK8hr84JqBSzjcZ05FrU9EbJVsbLqsSI3hlJEmQ9MpJfF0QV06RM1dpsD%2FPOlGXf1I9UD6h%2FN%2Fo1zggRF1XND K1D8PIPkTswtBgQ6Fo1Z0lLp2YpkPmwxvlV9a6a0HFjzRHubF3UnhXVm1EYh8QoTDao4dZsx9VAtqMOUNjQwGGlLQSPdxr5a1oAR 1gqUdoK9IU1dQauVfwUss8LM9lOfkQ%3D%3D&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20210425T212617Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAQ3PHCVTYSBAPVJFK%2F20210425%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=e709d02f9200f84230361ac3ae907e6d09b9e6ac48fdb1c3b67b060d8a585f2c&hash=9cba8b9670fd3300dda6f8fd00e87f8f663c6f20497f3e7bd6f5737c084b1f54&host=68042c943591013ac2b2430a89b270f6af2c76d8dfd086a07176afe7c76c2c61&pii=S1877042810017829&tid=spdf-9ffec12e-4b52-4c24-a6a8-64a5a2cbec56&sid=ddc0a99f7fdcd9439018a490d6f5a0fe493fgxrqa&type=client)

Abstract
High intelligence is touted as being predictive of positive outcomes including educational success and income level. However, little is known about the difficulties experienced among this population. Specifically, those with a high intellectual capacity (hyper brain) possess overexcitabilities in various domains that may predispose them to certain psychological disorders as well as physiological conditions involving elevated sensory, and altered immune and inflammatory responses (hyper body). The present study surveyed members of American Mensa, Ltd. (n = 3715) in order to explore psychoneuroimmunological (PNI) processes among those at or above the 98th percentile of intelligence. Participants were asked to self-report prevalence of both diagnosed and/or suspected mood and anxiety disorders, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and physiological diseases that include environmental and food allergies, asthma, and autoimmune disease. High statistical significance and a remarkably high relative risk ratio of diagnoses for all examined conditions were confirmed among the Mensa group 2015 data when compared to the national average statistics. This implicates high IQ as being a potential risk factor for affective disorders, ADHD, ASD, and for increased incidence of disease related to immune dysregulation. Preliminary findings strongly support a hyper brain/hyper body association which may have substantial individual and societal implications and warrants further investigation to best identify and serve this at-risk population.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616303324

[Mike]

Nope, it's a demonstrably accurate way of testing for intelligence:). It's so blatantly and statistically obvious that it cannot be disputed. Well, I assume that was tongue-in-cheek. :P An IQ test tests how good you are at doing an IQ test. Nothing more. That's the point of this thread!

See also this thread, in which the whole elusive notion of "intelligence" was discussed here a couple of years ago. That also touches on how very unintelligent some people with high IQs are.

Being able to do math puzzles against the clock has absolutely nothing to do with true intelligence, awareness and being a fully-functioning, high-ability human being. Anyone who can't see that may not be very bright. :)



All about "IQ" (whatever that means!) (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?111461-All-about-IQ--whatever-that-means--)



No I'm deadly serious! An IQ test is a clear indicator of how well you'll perform in the world. It's self evident.

Well, maybe I'm just not very bright. :) It's not self-evident to me!

"How well you'll perform in the world..."


As a loving parent?
An inspiring teacher?
A natural empath?
A healer? A poet? An artist? A gifted gardener? A great cook? An animal rescuer? A suicide hotline counselor?
The kindest friend you ever knew?
Someone you'd dearly love to ask to marry you?
Someone who would willingly endanger their life to help a colleague in a battle? (Or on a mountain, or at sea?)
Someone with a hotline to God, in whatever form that might take in our modern world?

I know which Avalon members I really admire and would love to have as neighbors. (That list includes yourself, by the way. :heart: ) But IQ isn't a qualifier. Being a sensitive, aware, high-spirited, perceptive, kind person definitely is.

Many people with very high IQs are limited, blinkered, self-justifying, self-important jerks. I could easily generate a long list of well-known public figures, and so could you. They're highly able in just one nerdy specialty. (And they may be sociopaths as well.)

And many people who've never excelled academically are the most wonderful, altruistic people you'd ever be lucky enough to meet... the kind of people I'm guessing you'd like to see making decisions about the world.

:sun:



You're one of the smartest people I know!:) And it's served you well! Despite all your other abilities I doubt you'd have this platform if your IQ wasn't as high as it clearly is.

Just for the record: I rarely even think about IQ. It's not something I consider when interacting with people, or determining who I'll be friends with, or so forth (unless the IQ is so low that it's impossible to get on). If excessively high IQ was required to be on this site, I wouldn't be allowed here. I am a man of modest intelligence, and I think what I'm trying to say is that first and foremost, I think a modest intelligence is required to be successful at mostly anything, even those things you listed.

(And btw, if you're ever in the Florida area, that dinner is on me:beer:)

[DeDukshyn]

"and how IQ tests can't detect much outside of pattern recognition."

I don't think I know anyone that would state that an IQ is the be-all and end-all of determining a persons worth or even intelligence. Perhaps you put too much faith in that belief that it is considered the de facto standard, or "system" as you put it.

On the contrary, it is my lack of faith or belief in people who are using and falling back on that very same exact limited crutch to not put their own vile spin on it...

I don't see that ... I've hung around with some incredibly intelligent people in my life with very high IQ's (by the test), not one would spin it with vile ... Unless that was a covert jab at something specific in your life ... or perhaps something recently?

All I'm trying to say is, I don't trust the psychopathic idiots running our society, and that goes for their deranged "IQ tests" as well (correct me if I'm wrong here on the latter).

...

I hear what you are saying, I just highly doubt that they psychopaths running our society have any ownership of the IQ test, nor use it as weapon.

"We are losing control over the masses sir!"
"Unleash, The IQ test!!"

Like I said, most people with a reasonably high IQ would be the first to admit that its an extremely limited type of testing that doesn't represent a person's value in life, intellectually or otherwise. There might be a few, and those would be the types, that score well, but have limited intellectual and other valuable abilities.

[Adi]

This is a serious thread. For years I've pondered why (e.g.) someone with a PhD and a measured IQ of 180 might be just really dumb and unaware outside of their specialist field. We see this ALL the time.

It's not about EQ (Emotional Intelligence) or SQ (Spiritual Intelligence). I think it's about the predominant vulnerability of almost all humans, whatever their IQ, EQ, SQ, age, culture, or level of education, to be victims of belief.

And there may be two components to that:


The susceptibility to being initially influenced to form a belief.
The resistance to letting go of it once it's entrenched.

A high intellect can paradoxically be a handicap, as extremely clever people are often very skilled at self-justifying whatever beliefs they have. A smart and articulate person will defend their beliefs strongly, self-reinforcing all the time.

I'd be most interested in other members' views (and experiences!) about this.



This is a very interesting proposition, and, I think, I understand what you are getting at! I've ruminated and considered these ideas before; why some people who possess clear, quality intellect, and may very well be Masters at what they do, yet ask them to consider the potential for intelligent life in our own Universe (producing consistent accounts, testimony, video, etc etc, to support the proposition) but yet those individuals quite simply cannot summon the capacity to appreciate that which you advance to them, to support that very possibility of intelligent life existing. Some simply cannot let down the walls around them, to consider something which has really and truly enough evidence to meet the burden of proof, in a civil court case, for example! Yet such individuals may be able to write encyclopaedic texts on law, biology, medicine etc, but are unable consider an alternative perception; it is as though they have built up vast intellectual firepower within their mind, but only then for one to go and introduce something so different, so alternative, they cannot process it, because they are simply locked into a version of reality which will not allow them to step outside that intellectual firing machine and consider that there may be a whole lot more going on than one is lead to believe, in the circumstances where there is very good reasons to believe it. I personally know people like this, people who have excelled fantastically academically - some who have even written textbooks - but who cannot (this is separate from those who are intentionally ignorant) grasp the nuance and/or intricacies which are involved, in the UFO phenomena for example, or 'spiritual awarenesses', they just cannot go there; cannot be lead there! SYSTEM INCOMPATIBLE!

I think you're quite right, Bill, such people most definitely are emersed or blanketed in a fixed and/or rigid system of belief and awareness, but in fact they really are the victim of significant deficit with regard to matters outside that emersion or blanketing of intellectual pursuits – does it come back to that thing called, balance! I don't know, but I'd certainly hazard a guess. I don't doubt ego is very important in the consideration, but I feel it's not entirely about the ego, there's something more dense going on too.

The more I view life, the more I go through it and experience certain people, the more I am realising that the 'all rounder' (if you will), that person who can distill the noise, pay attention to the nuanced; think outside the box; separate ego from pure self; feel the essence of others and truly appreciate others experiences, but not be drowned by them; and navigate this world with boundless open mindedness, delving into all that which very well may be possible – really is a rare thing, and what may be of a reasonable concern is that, there is not an insignificant number of people on this planet at this time, there is, as we all know, probably too many, yet, there is not enough who are the sort that I've just discribed, but I believe many have discovered the trail to places like Avalon.

[Constance]

ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

[Mike]

Nope, it's a demonstrably accurate way of testing for intelligence:). It's so blatantly and statistically obvious that it cannot be disputed. Well, I assume that was tongue-in-cheek. :P An IQ test tests how good you are at doing an IQ test. Nothing more. That's the point of this thread!

See also this thread, in which the whole elusive notion of "intelligence" was discussed here a couple of years ago. That also touches on how very unintelligent some people with high IQs are.

Being able to do math puzzles against the clock has absolutely nothing to do with true intelligence, awareness and being a fully-functioning, high-ability human being. Anyone who can't see that may not be very bright. :)


All about "IQ" (whatever that means!) (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?111461-All-about-IQ--whatever-that-means--)





No I'm deadly serious! An IQ test is a clear indicator of how well you'll perform in the world. It's self evident.

I'm not sure what you mean about "true" intelligence!:). Intelligence is intelligence and shouldn't require any qualifiers. It's quantifiable, that's what IQ tests are for. But if you mean emotional intelligence, spiritual intelligence, body intelligence etc etc etc, I would say: you can't demonstrate that those things even exist. They're not falsifiable. It's like inventing new genders. While it's true that some people are more spiritually oriented, or emotionally grounded, it won't matter much if they can't read or do basic arithmetic. That is, if you want to be successful in the world. If you're perfectly happy roaming forests and staring at the sky all day, and have a group of friendly people problem solving for you , then IQ is unimportant. But life is a series of problems and situations that must be navigated, and if you can't do that reasonably well you're in real trouble, regardless of what your “true” intelligence (whatever that is!:)) suggests.

Among all the various forms of “intelligence” being proposed here, I would say that basic intelligence (IQ) is common among all of them. I don't have the graph in front of me, but I would say that basic intelligence correlates more with all the manufactured subcategories than it doesn't. Dividing all these things up is more of an invitation to chaos than anything else. If you're unintelligent in terms of IQ, reading music will be very difficult. You'll also suffer emotionally because you'll be an outcast. Even if you're athletic, your decisions on the field or the court will be poor. You'll have trouble gaining employment. As a result of that, you'll have great difficulty meeting a spouse, or starting a family. And so forth. If your basic intelligence is poor, all the other various forms of “intelligence” will suffer as well. It's a trickle down thing.

Yes, it's true that there are very smart people (IQ) that are emotional disasters. Or smart people that aren't very spiritual. But they represent the extremes. And yes, there are savants too, but they also represent the extremes. Most people that are reasonably smart are also reasonably stable.

An IQ test is a very good indicator if how well you'll perform in the world. And that's how I'm defining it here. Maybe we're talking about different things. But it's the most determining factor of one's life, success, and happiness. You can try and dispute that if you wish but I think it's a losing game.

IQ has been studied and refined since the early 20th century. It's a well established branch of psychology. Psychologists have defined intelligence in a more stringent and accurate way than almost any other psychological construct. We have very specific and accurate ways of measuring the cognitive skills that make one successful in the world (IQ) so if you dilute that with notions of emotional or spiritual “intelligence” etc, all it does it muddy the waters and distort a well defined and researched body of knowledge. It's not useful. IQ has a predictive validity than none of those other alleged intelligences have. I'm going off the science here, no guesswork involved.

I'm completely aware of where you are coming from and why you are saying what you are saying Mikey but here's a question for you and anyone else interested in learning difficulties. If we bear in mind that people who suffer from dyslexia can have trouble with comprehension, writing and reading material, how well do you think the following people who have suffered from a learning difficulty like dyslexia would perform under the pressure of a clock for a testing of their IQ and how would psychologists have evaluated these people as a result of an incomplete IQ test?

John Lennon, Winston Churchill, Albert Einstein, Walt Disney, Steve Jobs, Michelangelo, Picasso, Mohammed Ali, Richard Branson, Ted Turner, Erin Brockovich, George Patton, Woodrow Wilson, George Washington, Billy Bob Thornton, Jay Leno, Jim Carrey, Keanu Reeves, Ansel Adams, Steven Spielburg, Agatha Christie, Gustave Flaubert, F. Scott Fitzgerald, William Butler Yeats, Auguste Rodin (I just saw a version of "the thinker" at the National Gallery of Victoria - it was bloody brilliant), Harry Belafonte

and lastly, myself...(I don't put myself in the same category as the people above by the way - I just happen to be dyslexic)



I'd also add the Weinstein brothers - Bret and Eric - to that list of brilliant people with learning disabilities. Good list by the way.

Of course you're correct in making your point here. IQ is not a perfect way of determining intelligence, and therefore success in the world. There are other variables involved. But despite its flaws it's still the best way by far. For example, almost nobody in a respectable university has an IQ below 120. I don't think that's a coincidence!:)

Regardless of who you are you're going to require food, shelter, friends, family, spouse, job, and some mode of artistic expression perhaps. I understand that this is an incomplete list - and doesn't define everybody! - but these are the things that are most important to most people. And IQ is the most accurate way of determining whether or not you'll acquire them, by a mile. That's just a fact:) (I'm refraining from posting my library of links because I'm already off topic lol)

It doesn't mean that people with learning disabilities can't succeed! They may just have to work a little harder. I would know, I am one of those people!;)

[Constance]

llllllllllllllllllll

[Wind]

If the smartest man in the world would also be a sociopath then what would be the value of that man when he views other living beings as mere objects? Many people in leading positions are like that. Cold, calculating, cruel and highly intelligent. Other people are justs assets, cattle or objects to them. Might is not right.

The downfall of such highly intelligent people is also their arrogance, because even they too can be blind to their own biases and inhumane, pure egoic conditioning. Without real empathy and compassion you are truly unable to see and feel things from every possible angle and ultimately that will be a path towards self-aggrandizement and destruction. The simplest man in the world could be the most kind person out there.

"Compassion is the highest moral value, the noblest human feeling, the purest creature-love. It is the extreme social expression of the divine soul of man. Because he is able to share his feelings, where both are in reality connected in harmony by the presence of this soul in each one. One consequence of this habit of compassion is that an immense understanding of human nature fills his entire being."

~ Paul Brunton

[Mike]

I'd also add the Weinstein brothers - Bret and Eric - to that list of brilliant people with learning disabilities. Good list by the way.

Of course you're correct in making your point here. IQ is not a perfect way of determining intelligence, and therefore success in the world. There are other variables involved. But despite its flaws it's still the best way by far. For example, almost nobody in a respectable university has an IQ below 120. I don't think that's a coincidence!:)

Regardless of who you are you're going to require food, shelter, friends, family, spouse, job, and some mode of artistic expression perhaps. I understand that this is an incomplete list - and doesn't define everybody! - but these are the things that are most important to most people. And IQ is the most accurate way of determining whether or not you'll acquire them, by a mile. That's just a fact:) (I'm refraining from posting my library of links because I'm already off topic lol)

It doesn't mean that people with learning disabilities can't succeed! They may just have to work a little harder. I would know, I am one of those people!;)

You really made me laugh out loud at your "library of links" comment :bigsmile: :heart:

I don't think you are off topic here at all.

Bret and Eric hey? wow...thanks for sharing that. I didn't know that! :heart:

I just finished listening to this talk with Eric...It is an excerpt from a longer interview but it's a good 'un.

ld65CnDr6O8
Eric Weinstein on The Biggest Issues with Modern School Systems

As you might already be aware, I am a big fan of people being self-taught wherever possible. Knowing what the current education system is predicated upon (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esFq-mfLYVw&ab_channel=LoreenNyambok)(yes! The New World order/Communism!) and knowing how our current education system can destroy/undermine creativity, the entire education system needs a complete overhaul. We need an education system that loves and serves all. :heart:

Whenever people start to talk about the words "success" or "succeeding" in this world, I start to think about tribal communities. Do you think they even have an equivalent for those words in their vocabulary? :idea:



I think tribal communities do have word equivalents to success, and successful. Absolutely I do!:)

And I think those words mean exactly what I suggested earlier. Success can be defined by, firstly, the basics: food,water, shelter. Before we can consider anything we need to make sure we're able to survive, correct? And secondly by spouse, family, job, spirituality, and artistic goals. Jobs and artistic goals might mean something a little different in tribal communities but they still exist. These are universal values, and exist across all cultures and all times.

And I like the idea of being self taught - just like you do! - and I recognize the value in that. But I also recognize the value in what a formal education offers, despite it's deficiencies. The education system may be lacking, but kids are still taught the essentials: reading, writing, and basic arithmetic. Not only that but it socializes kids and prepares them for the people they will inevitably encounter in the world.

@Wind: most intelligent people aren't cold, calculating sociopaths. And thank God for that. It's intelligent people that make the world go 'round. They're responsible for all the luxuries and amenities we all enjoy today.

And while compassion is right up there as far as values are concerned, I think it's second to truth. Truth is our true north. Everything else follows. Without truth (and I don't mean your truth, or my truth, or whatever. I mean *the* truth, with a capital "T") the world would be an insane, incoherent place..which is what we see happening now. Sometimes the most compassionate thing you can do for someone is to tell them how dumb they're being. Hugs are not always appropriate or productive. Some people need to be slapped back into reality(truth).

[Napping]

“Of course you're correct in making your point here. IQ is not a perfect way of determining intelligence, and therefore success in the world. There are other variables involved. But despite its flaws it's still the best way by far. For example, almost nobody in a respectable university has an IQ below 120. I don't think that's a coincidence!:)“


You’d be wrong on this point Mike. 120 is actually pretty high and not necessary for academic achievement depending on the area of study. I’ve done a couple of IQ tests and never got over 104, yet have 3 degrees from two highly esteemed Universities - the most recent is a Masters where I was up against high performing medical specialists and achieved a HD a average (>85%). Tenacity and a passion for my area of study was what got me over the line, not necessarily IQ, which simply would have enabled me to do it faster.

Bill, your list of what is means to be successful was a beautiful read and I completely agree. My focus has definitely shifted to try to be better at many of those listed attributes. Being a dad was a major turning point.

[Ernie Nemeth]

As far as being successful in this world I believe intelligence has almost nothing to do with it at all. It is almost entirely who you know and who you b***. The people who are successful know how to make themselves valuable to their employers, sacrificing anything else to that end. They do not have to work hard or know too much, they just have to know how to get the accolades, deserving or not.

A degree is a passport to success. Pay for the degree and success is almost assured, the grade hardly matters. But again those that excel will be those that take the time to impress the boss and use their fellow workers for their own gain.

Of course success is very much tied to obedience - the ability to follow the rules regardless of one's personal opinion. If you don't follow the rules you cannot be successful, except as a criminal perhaps - and maybe that is why there are so many of them overflowing our prisons.

For the most part, IQ is highly overrated...

[Free Thinker]

"and how IQ tests can't detect much outside of pattern recognition."

I don't think I know anyone that would state that an IQ is the be-all and end-all of determining a persons worth or even intelligence. Perhaps you put too much faith in that belief that it is considered the de facto standard, or "system" as you put it.

On the contrary, it is my lack of faith or belief in people who are using and falling back on that very same exact limited crutch to not put their own vile spin on it...

I don't see that ... I've hung around with some incredibly intelligent people in my life with very high IQ's (by the test), not one would spin it with vile ... Unless that was a covert jab at something specific in your life ... or perhaps something recently?

All I'm trying to say is, I don't trust the psychopathic idiots running our society, and that goes for their deranged "IQ tests" as well (correct me if I'm wrong here on the latter).

...

I hear what you are saying, I just highly doubt that they psychopaths running our society have any ownership of the IQ test, nor use it as weapon.

"We are losing control over the masses sir!"
"Unleash, The IQ test!!"

Like I said, most people with a reasonably high IQ would be the first to admit that its an extremely limited type of testing that doesn't represent a person's value in life, intellectually or otherwise. There might be a few, and those would be the types, that score well, but have limited intellectual and other valuable abilities.

I appreciate the listen. It's entirely possible the so-called "IQ test" has little to do with the vile creeps hiding in the shadows sitting on their own self-proclaimed pedestals of self-importance, ones that would quickly dissolve if their secrets were to be exposed to the light of day and overall public awareness... Ahem...

I recall one time at home, looking at the bookshelf where my family had a bunch of books stored there, and one of them was this "test your IQ on your own" type deal. So like a curious cat who didn't know any better at the time, I picked it up and flipped through it, to see if maybe I could test or evaluate my IQ in my own way and on my own terms, without some bothersome/annoying "middle man or middle woman" dictating the results for me.

Needless to say, I didn't get very far, because as soon as I read the "you have 20 minutes to take this test", I pretty much lost my patience and whatever respect and curiosity I may have had at that moment in time, and angrily chucked the book against the wall, as though that would solve all my problems. I am pretty sure that I was at least outright disgusted by that "revelation" and could not stomach nor give "the book" any more credibility from my end.

I may have had the idea to turn the offensive book into some sort of art journal, by painting over the pages and adding various pictures and whatnot to it, in order to recycle what I strongly felt (and still do!) was absolute garbage. I think I have it somewhere in my living space still, but it hasn't been top priority for me to play around with paints, markers, and whatnot in my artful revolution of defiance there. Mainly because, I have always had issues with being distracted and trying to do 100,000,000,000,000,000+ things at once, so I do it to myself getting overwhelmed like that. I don't recall, I've slept since then. :p

One final note is this: even if there was an IQ profile done on me somewhere, I would have no interest whatsoever in knowing "the results", as flawed and completely inaccurate that I very much feel they would be, which is a "belief" or "viewpoint" that I continue to superbly resonate with on a very deep level, both mind and soul, and etc. As my mother would say "Consider the source." (No, not THAT Source!, the source of where the info is coming from). Pretty much says it all, and then some.

Note: I applaud those who recognized my differentiation between lower-case 's'-source, and upper-case 'S'-Source. Not the same thing at all. So, if you are one of those people (anyone reading this that is) that caught that, I give you 2 thumbs up. Heck, I'd say I'd give you infinite thumbs up, but since I only have 2 thumbs in a physical sense, I will have to settle for just the 2 thumbs up appreciation overall, lol. :p

[Free Thinker]

Tenacity and a passion for my area of study was what got me over the line, not necessarily IQ, which simply would have enabled me to do it faster.

Bill, your list of what is means to be successful was a beautiful read and I completely agree. My focus has definitely shifted to try to be better at many of those listed attributes. Being a dad was a major turning point.

I definitely agree with the interest and desire to learn part. If one has no desire to learn, their progress in doing such will be significantly diminished, IF they are able to learn anything at all. A VERY good point to make, and one I wholeheartedly agree with. Lack of interest and motivation can be an insurmountable wall or sea to cross, simply b/c they made it so in their minds and versions of reality.

I also greatly enjoyed Bill's list of poignantly (intellectually and spiritually moving) beautiful, and thought-provoking questions. :)

¤=[Post Update]=¤


As far as being successful in this world I believe intelligence has almost nothing to do with it at all. It is almost entirely who you know and who you b***. The people who are successful know how to make themselves valuable to their employers, sacrificing anything else to that end. They do not have to work hard or know too much, they just have to know how to get the accolades, deserving or not.

A degree is a passport to success. Pay for the degree and success is almost assured, the grade hardly matters. But again those that excel will be those that take the time to impress the boss and use their fellow workers for their own gain.

Of course success is very much tied to obedience - the ability to follow the rules regardless of one's personal opinion. If you don't follow the rules you cannot be successful, except as a criminal perhaps - and maybe that is why there are so many of them overflowing our prisons.

For the most part, IQ is highly overrated...

Indeed. :highfive:

[Constance]

fffffffffffff

[Mike]

I think tribal communities do have word equivalents to success, and successful. Absolutely I do!:)

And I think those words mean exactly what I suggested earlier. Success can be defined by, firstly, the basics: food,water, shelter. Before we can consider anything we need to make sure we're able to survive, correct? And secondly by spouse, family, job, spirituality, and artistic goals. Jobs and artistic goals might mean something a little different in tribal communities but they still exist. These are universal values, and exist across all cultures and all times.

And I like the idea of being self taught - just like you do! - and I recognize the value in that. But I also recognize the value in what a formal education offers, despite it's deficiencies. The education system may be lacking, but kids are still taught the essentials: reading, writing, and basic arithmetic. Not only that but it socializes kids and prepares them for the people they will inevitably encounter in the world.

@Wind: most intelligent people aren't cold, calculating sociopaths. And thank God for that. It's intelligent people that make the world go 'round. They're responsible for all the luxuries and amenities we all enjoy today.

And while compassion is right up there as far as values are concerned, I think it's second to truth. Truth is our true north. Everything else follows. Without truth (and I don't mean your truth, or my truth, or whatever. I mean *the* truth, with a capital "T") the world would be an insane, incoherent place..which is what we see happening now. Sometimes the most compassionate thing you can do for someone is to tell them how dumb they're being. Hugs are not always appropriate or productive. Some people need to be slapped back into reality(truth).

Aha! I see what you are saying there :) Yes. You could call that success. :) and what you just described to me as the definition of success, I would describe as the common passion; what we truly require to come together to live in harmony. :heart:

I have a different take on education to yourself. In essence, all learning is self-learning. Kids don't learn the way we think they should learn and I had a very humbling experience that showed me this. My son had already mastered what you called 'the essentials' by the time he was three but this was not via any school, this was all through improvisation and play. I remember a time when I proudly bought home some flashcards to teach my one-year-old to read. However, he resisted all my efforts because he wasn't learning the way he wanted to learn. And thank god for that. lol.

There was a really interesting experiment carried out by a guy in India named Sugata Mitra. In the slums of New Delhi, he placed a computer in a hole in the wall. The children barely went to school, they didn't speak any english, had never seen a computer before and they didn't know what the internet was. He connected high speed internet to it, three feet off the ground, turned it on and left it there. He repeated this all over India and through a large part of the world. On one of the computers, he relates how the kids had already taught themselves how to play music on it after only four hours! What Mitra noticed was that children will learn to do what they want to learn to do. When we do the things that we love to do, we naturally and spontaneously fire up all the neurological pathways that we require to take us to the next level of growth within our experience.

Have you ever had the experience of teaching yourself something that you loved to do? How effortless was it to learn?

You might not consciously remember this but when you were a kid, no one taught you how to speak, or walk, or climb, or sing, or feed, or dress yourself. :) You taught yourself. Kids are super-motivated and inspired to teach themselves to do all these things because that is our natural state. Really young kids learn through watching, observing, interacting, being in nature, and through fun and play with their parents, siblings, grandparents etc. Kids are masters of improvisation and imagination. Give a kid a box and he will turn it into a house, a toboggan, a castle, a car, a boat, a plane, a mail box, a washing machine, and a toy car ramp.

We all know what happens if a child is locked in a room for years and deprived of the stimulation and activation that is required for their growth. Children end up being mute and unable to talk and walk or dress themselves and have great difficulties with integrating into the real world. Similarly, if we don't get to do what we love to do when we are young, all those natural pathways that have not been fired up, activated and stimulated will mean that we will spend all our time as adults, compensating for it all by doing all the things we know we shouldn't be doing.

As adults, we have lost the ability to play and have fun. But this has been through no fault of our own. This is all due to being institutionalized in a school system where people have had all the creativity around learning crushed out of them. This is why I constantly bang on about putting back what is missing in our lives.

Classrooms are the death of kids inspirations and creativity because schools cater for a classroom and not the individual. Everything is done to a schedule and within time and space. It takes us away from our natural state which is a state beyond time and space.
The Education system is not designed to nurture and nourish us at the deepest levels of our beings. Have you ever seen how enthusiastic little kids are with their questions? If you ask little kids what is it that they would like to do, you can't shut them up. :bigsmile: However, all that creativity and curiosity is knocked out of most kids by the time they are teenagers because the school system is deliberately designed to do this.


Speaking of socialization, if you are referring to the kind of socialization that I constantly hear people referring to, it's not ideal.

Kids need to be out in the real world with other people who are not their own age and spending the majority of their time with their parents. Who decided that our kids should be spending all their time around other immature peers instead of being with adults who would prepare them for how to live as adults?

At what other point in time do we ever associate with people who are exactly the same age as us? If you went back in time and spoke to a tribe about their kids needing to go to school so that they could have a place in this world and learn how to socialize, they would look at you like you were nuts. :bigsmile:

There is a great presentation by Gabor Mate called "Hold onto your kids". Gabor describes how immature kids grow into immature adults because the only instruction that the kids are receiving are from the teachers and their peers and not their parents. If kids spend the majority of the time with other kids, they are going to be looking only to each other and not to their parents for advice and support.



Classrooms have to run on a schedule because if they didn't it would be chaos:). Schedules can feel restricting but can be good for kids as well. They calm a frenzied mind. They teach discipline and order and punctuality, things they'll need to learn in order to survive in the world. Discipline gives kids the ability to practice the daily habits they'll need to achieve the things they want or to get the things they want. And kids need some borders and some routines. Not so much that it drums the creativity and spontaneity out of them, but just enough so that it helps them channel and focus their very chaotic energy. There's freedom in that actually. Too much free time and not enough discipline and they will get nothing out of their talents, because they won't have the tools to do anything with them.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you use the word tribes? Maybe you can explain that a little further. I think we all have romantic notions of tribal life of some kind, a simpler life, and so forth. But I don't think it's wise to raise children for a world that you may wish existed, instead of the one that actually exists. They still have to perform reasonably well in all the mundane, sh!tty things that life will inevitably ask of them (a solid IQ will help them tremendously in these areas). So they have to be prepared in the best way possible, hopefully without killing their spark. I won't pretend to know how to do that exactly - I'm not a parent!:wink: - but I've been a kid, I've worked with kids as a daycare assistant, and I've been alive long enough to make some reasonable observations...I think lol

And I think kids need to know how to interact with other kids, simply because most kids will be spending most of their time with other kids LOL. It's unavoidable. Plus, show me the kid who wants to hang out with adults!:) No, they desperately want to get outside to run around with the other kids on the block. It's not just something they want to do - it's a deep biological impulse. If a kid isn't socialized early he or she will likely become a misfit, antisocial, resentful, bitter, and lonely as an adult. The science is in on that one. It's not disputable. Kids need adult supervision and wisdom and guidance of course, but it's so they can best interact and cooperate and compete civilly with their peers, ultimately. They need the full experience: they need the fighting, the scratching, punching, arguing, screaming, and so forth, just like they need to play in the sand and the dirt - to inoculate themselves against it in some way. They mature thru experience, the good and the bad. Unless the kid winds up in an ashram somewhere, he or she will need to know how to handle these situations when they arrive later in life (and they will!)

So, I respectfully disagree that kids need to spend most of their time with their parents. I think that ultimately makes them kind of soft and dependent and awkward as teens and young adults. I don't think they should spend most of their time with other kids either, necessarily (but a fair share if it). There's some balance there between order and chaos, play and discipline, schedules and whimsicality, maturity and immaturity, that will never be perfect but that we should always be striving for IMO

Annnnnnnd that has nothing to do with the thread topic:blushing::banplease:

[Constance]

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[One]

I have not had time to go through this thread properly yet but it is an interesting subject thanks Bill.

Anyway, I came across this interesting video on the techniques for creating mass psychosis and totalitarianism. And I suppose this dichotomy we are seeing now could just be the product of these techniques to a large degree (although there is definitely more to it overall imo). Anyway a good watch nevertheless I think (if it has not already been posted elsewhere).

fdzW-S8MwbI

[Delight]

Annnnnnnd that has nothing to do with the thread topic:blushing::banplease:

:bigsmile:

I have a whole lot of things that I would love to share in response to everything you've shared but I don't want to turn this into the Constance and Mikey show and completely derail the thread so I guess we will just have to continue this conversation elsewhere ;)
:focus:

very good insights....please keep dialoguing where we can see.

[Constance]

-------------------------------

[RunningDeer]

I have not had time to go through this thread properly yet but it is an interesting subject thanks Bill.

Anyway, I came across this interesting video on the techniques for creating mass psychosis and totalitarianism. And I suppose this dichotomy we are seeing now could just be the product of these techniques to a large degree (although there is definitely more to it overall imo). Anyway a good watch nevertheless I think (if it has not already been posted elsewhere).


fdzW-S8MwbI

The Manufacturing of a Mass Psychosis
Can Sanity Return to an Insane World?



“The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim.”

Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind

Diseases of the body can spread through a population and reach epidemic proportions, but so too can diseases of the mind. And of these epidemics of the latter variety, the mass psychosis is the most dangerous. During a mass psychosis madness becomes the norm in a society and delusionary beliefs spread like a contagion. But as delusions can take many forms, and as madness can manifest in countless ways, the specific manner in which a mass psychosis unfolds will differ based on the historical and cultural context of the infected society. In the past, mass psychoses have led to witch hunts, genocides and even dancing manias, but in the modern era it is the mass psychosis of totalitarianism that is the greatest threat:



“Totalitarianism is the modern phenomenon of total centralized state power coupled with the obliteration of individual human rights: in the totalized state, there are those in power, and there are the objectified masses, the victims.”

Arthur Versluis, The New Inquisitions

In a totalitarian society the population is divided into two groups, the rulers and the ruled, and both groups undergo a pathological transformation. The rulers are elevated to an almost god-like status which is diametrically opposed to our nature as imperfect beings who are easily corrupted by power. The masses, on the other hand, are transformed into the dependent subjects of these pathological rulers and take on a psychologically regressed and childlike status. Hannah Arendt, one of the 20th century’s preeminent scholars of this form of rule, called totalitarianism an attempted transformation of “human nature itself”. But this attempted transformation only turns sound minds into sick minds for as the Dutch medical doctor who studied the mental effects of living under totalitarianism wrote:




“… there is in fact much that is comparable between the strange reactions of the citizens of [totalitarianism] and their culture as a whole on the one hand and the reactions of the…sick schizophrenic on the other.”

Joost Meerloo, The Rape of the Mind

The social transformation that unfolds under totalitarianism is built upon, and sustained by, delusions. For only deluded men and women regress to the childlike status of obedient and submissive subjects and hand over complete control of their lives to politicians and bureaucrats. Only a deluded ruling class will believe that they possess the knowledge, wisdom, and acumen to completely control society in a top-down manner. And only when under the spell of delusions would anyone believe that a society composed of power-hungry rulers, on the one hand, and a psychological regressed population, on the other, will lead to anything other than mass suffering and social ruin.

But what triggers the psychosis of totalitarianism? As was explored in the previous video of this series, the mass psychosis of totalitarianism begins in a society’s ruling class. The individuals that make up this class, be it politicians, bureaucrats, or crony capitalists, are very prone to delusions that augment their power, and no delusion is more attractive to the power-hungry, than the delusion that they can, and should, control and dominate a society. When a ruling elite becomes possessed by a political ideology of this sort, be it communism, fascism or technocracy, the next step is to induce a population into accepting their rule by infecting them with the mass psychosis of totalitarianism. This psychosis has been induced many times throughout history, and as Meerloo explains:




“It is simply a question of reorganizing and manipulating collective feelings in the proper way.”

Joost Meerloo, The Rape of the Mind

The general method by which the members of a ruling elite can accomplish this end is called menticide, with the etymology of this word being ‘a killing of the mind’, and as Meerloo further explains:




“Menticide is an old crime against the human mind and spirit but systematized anew. It is an organized system of psychological intervention and judicial perversion through which a [ruling class] can imprint [their] own opportunistic thoughts upon the minds of those [they] plan to use and destroy.”

Joost Meerloo, The Rape of the Mind

Priming a population for the crime of menticide begins with the sowing of fear. For as was explored in the first video of this series, when an individual is flooded with negative emotions, such as fear or anxiety, he or she is very susceptible to a descent into the delusions of madness. Threats real, imagined, or fabricated can be used to sow fear, but a particularly effective technique is to use waves of terror. Under this technique the sowing of fear is staggered with periods of calm, but each of these periods of calm is followed by the manufacturing of an even more intense spell of fear, and on and on the process goes, or as Meerloo writes:




“Each wave of terrorizing . . . creates its effects more easily – after a breathing spell – than the one that preceded it because people are still disturbed by their previous experience. Morality becomes lower and lower, and the psychological effects of each new propaganda campaign become stronger; it reaches a public already softened up.”

Joost Meerloo, The Rape of the Mind

While fear primes a population for menticide, the use of propaganda to spread misinformation and to promote confusion with respect to the source of the threats, and the nature of the crisis, helps to break down the minds of the masses. Government officials, and their lackies in the media, can use contradictory reports, non-sensical information and even blatant lies, as the more they confuse the less capable will a population be to cope with the crisis, and diminish their fear, in a rational and adaptive manner. Confusion, in other words, heightens the susceptibility of a descent into the delusions of totalitarianism, or as Meerloo explains:




“Logic can be met with logic, while illogic cannot—it confuses those who think straight. The Big Lie and monotonously repeated nonsense have more emotional appeal … than logic and reason. While the [people are] still searching for a reasonable counter-argument to the first lie, the totalitarians can assault [them] with another.”

Joost Meerloo, The Rape of the Mind

Never before in history have such effective means existed to manipulate a society into the psychosis of totalitarianism. Smart phones and social media, television and the internet, all in conjunction with algorithms that quickly censor the flow of unwanted information, allow those in power to easily assault the minds of the masses. What is more the addictive nature of these technologies means that many people voluntarily subject themselves to the ruling elite’s propaganda with a remarkable frequency:




“Modern technology teaches man to take for granted the world he is looking at; he takes no time to retreat and reflect. Technology lures him on, dropping him into its wheels and movements. No rest, no meditation, no reflection, no conversation – the senses are continually overloaded with stimuli. [Man] doesn’t learn to question his world anymore; the screen offers him answers-ready-made.”

Joost Meerloo, The Rape of the Mind

But there is a further step the would-be totalitarian rulers can take to increase the chance of a totalitarian psychosis, and this is to isolate the victims and to disrupt normal social interactions. When alone and lacking normal interactions with friends, family and coworkers, an individual becomes far more susceptible to delusions for several reasons: Firstly, they lose contact with the corrective force of the positive example. For not everyone is tricked by the machinations of the ruling elite and the individuals who see through the propaganda, can help free others from the menticidal assault. If, however, isolation is enforced the power of these positive examples greatly diminishes. But another reason that isolation increases the efficacy of menticide is because like many other species, human beings, are more easily conditioned into new patterns of thought and behaviour when isolated, or as Meerloo explains with regards to the physiologist Ivan Pavlov’s work on behavioural conditioning:




“Pavlov made another significant discovery: the conditioned reflex could be developed most easily in a quiet laboratory with a minimum of disturbing stimuli. Every trainer of animals knows this from his own experience; isolation and the patient repetition of stimuli are required to tame wild animals. . . .The totalitarians have followed this rule. They know that they can condition their political victims most quickly if they are kept in isolation.”

Joost Meerloo, The Rape of the Mind

Alone, confused and battered by waves of terror, a population under an attack of menticide descends into a hopeless and vulnerable state. The never-ending stream of propaganda turns minds once capable of rational thought into playhouses of irrational forces and with chaos swirling around them, and within them, the masses crave a return to a more ordered world. The would-be totalitarians can now take the decisive step, they can offer a way out and a return to order in a world that seems to be moving rapidly in the opposite direction. But all this come at a price: The masses must give up their freedom and cede control of all aspects of life to the ruling elite. They must relinquish their capacity to be self-reliant individuals who are responsible for their own lives, and become submissive and obedient subjects. The masses, in other words, must descend into the delusions of the totalitarian psychosis.




“Totalitarianism is man’s escape from the fearful realities of life into the virtual womb of the leaders. The individual’s actions are directed from this womb – from the inner sanctum. . .man need no longer assume responsibility for his own life. The order and logic of the prenatal world reign. There is peace and silence, the peace of utter submission.”

Joost Meerloo, The Rape of the Mind

But the order of a totalitarian world is a pathological order. By enforcing a strict conformity, and requiring a blind obedience from the citizenry, totalitarianism rids the world of the spontaneity that produces many of life’s joys and the creativity that drives society forward. The total control of this form of rule, no matter under what name it is branded, be it rule by scientists and doctors, politicians and bureaucrats, or a dictator, breeds stagnation, destruction and death on a mass scale. And so perhaps the most important question facing the world is how can totalitarianism be prevented? And if a society has been induced into the early stages of this mass psychosis, can the effects be reversed?

While one can never be sure of the prognosis of a collective madness, there are steps that can be taken to help effectuate a cure. This task, however, necessitates many different approaches, from many different people. For just as the menticidal attack is multi-pronged, so too must be the counter-attack. According to Carl Jung, for those of us who wish to help return sanity to an insane world, the first step is to bring order to our own minds, and to live in a way that provides inspiration for others to follow:




“It is not for nothing that our age cries out for the redeemer personality, for the one who can emancipate himself from the grip of the collective [psychosis] and save at least his own soul, who lights a beacon of hope for others, proclaiming that here is at least one man who has succeeded in extricating himself from the fatal identity with the group psyche.”

Carl Jung, Civilization in Transition

But assuming one is living in a manner free of the grip of the psychosis there are further steps that can be taken: firstly, information that counters the propaganda should be spread as far, and as wide, as possible. For the truth is more powerful than the fiction and falsities peddled by the would-be totalitarian rulers and so their success is in part contingent on their ability to censor the free flow of information. Another tactic is to use humour and ridicule to delegitimize the ruling elite or as Meerloo explains:




“We must learn to treat the demagogue and aspirant dictators in our midst. . .with the weapon of ridicule. The demagogue himself is almost incapable of humor of any sort, and if we treat him with humor, he will begin to collapse.”

Joost Meerloo, The Rape of the Mind

A tactic recommended by Vaclav Havel, a political dissident under Soviet communist rule who later became president of Czechoslovakia, is the construction of what are called “parallel structures”. A parallel structure is any form of organization, business, institution, technology, or creative pursuit that exists physically within a totalitarian society, yet morally outside of it. In communist Czechoslovakia, Havel noted that these parallel structures were more effective at combating totalitarianism than political action. Furthermore, when enough parallel structures are created, a “second culture” or “parallel society” spontaneously forms and functions as an enclave of freedom and sanity within a totalitarian world. Or as Havel explains in his book The Power of the Powerless:




“….what else are parallel structures than an area where a different life can be lived, a life that is in harmony with its own aims and which in turn structures itself in harmony with those aims? . . .What else are those initial attempts at social self-organization than the efforts of a certain part of society…to rid itself of the self-sustaining aspects of totalitarianism and, thus, to extricate itself radically from its involvement in the…totalitarian system?”

Vaclav Havel, The Power of the Powerless

But above all else what is required to prevent a full descent into the madness of totalitarianism is action by as many people as possible. For just as the ruling elite do not sit around passively, but instead take deliberate steps to increase their power, so too an active and concerted effort must be made to move the world back in the direction of freedom. This can be an immense challenge in a world falling prey to the delusions of totalitarianism, but as Thomas Paine noted:




“Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph.”

Thomas Paine, American Crisis


link (https://academyofideas.com/2021/04/manufacturing-of-a-mass-psychosis-can-sanity-return-to-an-insane-world/)

[Satori]

Bump, bump.... A must read and understand.



I have not had time to go through this thread properly yet but it is an interesting subject thanks Bill.

Anyway, I came across this interesting video on the techniques for creating mass psychosis and totalitarianism. And I suppose this dichotomy we are seeing now could just be the product of these techniques to a large degree (although there is definitely more to it overall imo). Anyway a good watch nevertheless I think (if it has not already been posted elsewhere).


fdzW-S8MwbI

The Manufacturing of a Mass Psychosis
Can Sanity Return to an Insane World?



“The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim.”

Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind

Diseases of the body can spread through a population and reach epidemic proportions, but so too can diseases of the mind. And of these epidemics of the latter variety, the mass psychosis is the most dangerous. During a mass psychosis madness becomes the norm in a society and delusionary beliefs spread like a contagion. But as delusions can take many forms, and as madness can manifest in countless ways, the specific manner in which a mass psychosis unfolds will differ based on the historical and cultural context of the infected society. In the past, mass psychoses have led to witch hunts, genocides and even dancing manias, but in the modern era it is the mass psychosis of totalitarianism that is the greatest threat:



“Totalitarianism is the modern phenomenon of total centralized state power coupled with the obliteration of individual human rights: in the totalized state, there are those in power, and there are the objectified masses, the victims.”

Arthur Versluis, The New Inquisitions

In a totalitarian society the population is divided into two groups, the rulers and the ruled, and both groups undergo a pathological transformation. The rulers are elevated to an almost god-like status which is diametrically opposed to our nature as imperfect beings who are easily corrupted by power. The masses, on the other hand, are transformed into the dependent subjects of these pathological rulers and take on a psychologically regressed and childlike status. Hannah Arendt, one of the 20th century’s preeminent scholars of this form of rule, called totalitarianism an attempted transformation of “human nature itself”. But this attempted transformation only turns sound minds into sick minds for as the Dutch medical doctor who studied the mental effects of living under totalitarianism wrote:




“… there is in fact much that is comparable between the strange reactions of the citizens of [totalitarianism] and their culture as a whole on the one hand and the reactions of the…sick schizophrenic on the other.”

Joost Meerloo, The Rape of the Mind

The social transformation that unfolds under totalitarianism is built upon, and sustained by, delusions. For only deluded men and women regress to the childlike status of obedient and submissive subjects and hand over complete control of their lives to politicians and bureaucrats. Only a deluded ruling class will believe that they possess the knowledge, wisdom, and acumen to completely control society in a top-down manner. And only when under the spell of delusions would anyone believe that a society composed of power-hungry rulers, on the one hand, and a psychological regressed population, on the other, will lead to anything other than mass suffering and social ruin.

But what triggers the psychosis of totalitarianism? As was explored in the previous video of this series, the mass psychosis of totalitarianism begins in a society’s ruling class. The individuals that make up this class, be it politicians, bureaucrats, or crony capitalists, are very prone to delusions that augment their power, and no delusion is more attractive to the power-hungry, than the delusion that they can, and should, control and dominate a society. When a ruling elite becomes possessed by a political ideology of this sort, be it communism, fascism or technocracy, the next step is to induce a population into accepting their rule by infecting them with the mass psychosis of totalitarianism. This psychosis has been induced many times throughout history, and as Meerloo explains:




“It is simply a question of reorganizing and manipulating collective feelings in the proper way.”

Joost Meerloo, The Rape of the Mind

The general method by which the members of a ruling elite can accomplish this end is called menticide, with the etymology of this word being ‘a killing of the mind’, and as Meerloo further explains:




“Menticide is an old crime against the human mind and spirit but systematized anew. It is an organized system of psychological intervention and judicial perversion through which a [ruling class] can imprint [their] own opportunistic thoughts upon the minds of those [they] plan to use and destroy.”

Joost Meerloo, The Rape of the Mind

Priming a population for the crime of menticide begins with the sowing of fear. For as was explored in the first video of this series, when an individual is flooded with negative emotions, such as fear or anxiety, he or she is very susceptible to a descent into the delusions of madness. Threats real, imagined, or fabricated can be used to sow fear, but a particularly effective technique is to use waves of terror. Under this technique the sowing of fear is staggered with periods of calm, but each of these periods of calm is followed by the manufacturing of an even more intense spell of fear, and on and on the process goes, or as Meerloo writes:




“Each wave of terrorizing . . . creates its effects more easily – after a breathing spell – than the one that preceded it because people are still disturbed by their previous experience. Morality becomes lower and lower, and the psychological effects of each new propaganda campaign become stronger; it reaches a public already softened up.”

Joost Meerloo, The Rape of the Mind

While fear primes a population for menticide, the use of propaganda to spread misinformation and to promote confusion with respect to the source of the threats, and the nature of the crisis, helps to break down the minds of the masses. Government officials, and their lackies in the media, can use contradictory reports, non-sensical information and even blatant lies, as the more they confuse the less capable will a population be to cope with the crisis, and diminish their fear, in a rational and adaptive manner. Confusion, in other words, heightens the susceptibility of a descent into the delusions of totalitarianism, or as Meerloo explains:




“Logic can be met with logic, while illogic cannot—it confuses those who think straight. The Big Lie and monotonously repeated nonsense have more emotional appeal … than logic and reason. While the [people are] still searching for a reasonable counter-argument to the first lie, the totalitarians can assault [them] with another.”

Joost Meerloo, The Rape of the Mind

Never before in history have such effective means existed to manipulate a society into the psychosis of totalitarianism. Smart phones and social media, television and the internet, all in conjunction with algorithms that quickly censor the flow of unwanted information, allow those in power to easily assault the minds of the masses. What is more the addictive nature of these technologies means that many people voluntarily subject themselves to the ruling elite’s propaganda with a remarkable frequency:




“Modern technology teaches man to take for granted the world he is looking at; he takes no time to retreat and reflect. Technology lures him on, dropping him into its wheels and movements. No rest, no meditation, no reflection, no conversation – the senses are continually overloaded with stimuli. [Man] doesn’t learn to question his world anymore; the screen offers him answers-ready-made.”

Joost Meerloo, The Rape of the Mind

But there is a further step the would-be totalitarian rulers can take to increase the chance of a totalitarian psychosis, and this is to isolate the victims and to disrupt normal social interactions. When alone and lacking normal interactions with friends, family and coworkers, an individual becomes far more susceptible to delusions for several reasons: Firstly, they lose contact with the corrective force of the positive example. For not everyone is tricked by the machinations of the ruling elite and the individuals who see through the propaganda, can help free others from the menticidal assault. If, however, isolation is enforced the power of these positive examples greatly diminishes. But another reason that isolation increases the efficacy of menticide is because like many other species, human beings, are more easily conditioned into new patterns of thought and behaviour when isolated, or as Meerloo explains with regards to the physiologist Ivan Pavlov’s work on behavioural conditioning:




“Pavlov made another significant discovery: the conditioned reflex could be developed most easily in a quiet laboratory with a minimum of disturbing stimuli. Every trainer of animals knows this from his own experience; isolation and the patient repetition of stimuli are required to tame wild animals. . . .The totalitarians have followed this rule. They know that they can condition their political victims most quickly if they are kept in isolation.”

Joost Meerloo, The Rape of the Mind

Alone, confused and battered by waves of terror, a population under an attack of menticide descends into a hopeless and vulnerable state. The never-ending stream of propaganda turns minds once capable of rational thought into playhouses of irrational forces and with chaos swirling around them, and within them, the masses crave a return to a more ordered world. The would-be totalitarians can now take the decisive step, they can offer a way out and a return to order in a world that seems to be moving rapidly in the opposite direction. But all this come at a price: The masses must give up their freedom and cede control of all aspects of life to the ruling elite. They must relinquish their capacity to be self-reliant individuals who are responsible for their own lives, and become submissive and obedient subjects. The masses, in other words, must descend into the delusions of the totalitarian psychosis.




“Totalitarianism is man’s escape from the fearful realities of life into the virtual womb of the leaders. The individual’s actions are directed from this womb – from the inner sanctum. . .man need no longer assume responsibility for his own life. The order and logic of the prenatal world reign. There is peace and silence, the peace of utter submission.”

Joost Meerloo, The Rape of the Mind

But the order of a totalitarian world is a pathological order. By enforcing a strict conformity, and requiring a blind obedience from the citizenry, totalitarianism rids the world of the spontaneity that produces many of life’s joys and the creativity that drives society forward. The total control of this form of rule, no matter under what name it is branded, be it rule by scientists and doctors, politicians and bureaucrats, or a dictator, breeds stagnation, destruction and death on a mass scale. And so perhaps the most important question facing the world is how can totalitarianism be prevented? And if a society has been induced into the early stages of this mass psychosis, can the effects be reversed?

While one can never be sure of the prognosis of a collective madness, there are steps that can be taken to help effectuate a cure. This task, however, necessitates many different approaches, from many different people. For just as the menticidal attack is multi-pronged, so too must be the counter-attack. According to Carl Jung, for those of us who wish to help return sanity to an insane world, the first step is to bring order to our own minds, and to live in a way that provides inspiration for others to follow:




“It is not for nothing that our age cries out for the redeemer personality, for the one who can emancipate himself from the grip of the collective [psychosis] and save at least his own soul, who lights a beacon of hope for others, proclaiming that here is at least one man who has succeeded in extricating himself from the fatal identity with the group psyche.”

Carl Jung, Civilization in Transition

But assuming one is living in a manner free of the grip of the psychosis there are further steps that can be taken: firstly, information that counters the propaganda should be spread as far, and as wide, as possible. For the truth is more powerful than the fiction and falsities peddled by the would-be totalitarian rulers and so their success is in part contingent on their ability to censor the free flow of information. Another tactic is to use humour and ridicule to delegitimize the ruling elite or as Meerloo explains:




“We must learn to treat the demagogue and aspirant dictators in our midst. . .with the weapon of ridicule. The demagogue himself is almost incapable of humor of any sort, and if we treat him with humor, he will begin to collapse.”

Joost Meerloo, The Rape of the Mind

A tactic recommended by Vaclav Havel, a political dissident under Soviet communist rule who later became president of Czechoslovakia, is the construction of what are called “parallel structures”. A parallel structure is any form of organization, business, institution, technology, or creative pursuit that exists physically within a totalitarian society, yet morally outside of it. In communist Czechoslovakia, Havel noted that these parallel structures were more effective at combating totalitarianism than political action. Furthermore, when enough parallel structures are created, a “second culture” or “parallel society” spontaneously forms and functions as an enclave of freedom and sanity within a totalitarian world. Or as Havel explains in his book The Power of the Powerless:




“….what else are parallel structures than an area where a different life can be lived, a life that is in harmony with its own aims and which in turn structures itself in harmony with those aims? . . .What else are those initial attempts at social self-organization than the efforts of a certain part of society…to rid itself of the self-sustaining aspects of totalitarianism and, thus, to extricate itself radically from its involvement in the…totalitarian system?”

Vaclav Havel, The Power of the Powerless

But above all else what is required to prevent a full descent into the madness of totalitarianism is action by as many people as possible. For just as the ruling elite do not sit around passively, but instead take deliberate steps to increase their power, so too an active and concerted effort must be made to move the world back in the direction of freedom. This can be an immense challenge in a world falling prey to the delusions of totalitarianism, but as Thomas Paine noted:




“Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph.”

Thomas Paine, American Crisis


link (https://academyofideas.com/2021/04/manufacturing-of-a-mass-psychosis-can-sanity-return-to-an-insane-world/)

[Wind]

Wind: most intelligent people aren't cold, calculating sociopaths. And thank God for that. It's intelligent people that make the world go 'round. They're responsible for all the luxuries and amenities we all enjoy today.

I think that is partly true, but if intelligent people are running the world then doesn't that make them insane too because the world is and has been running in an insane way? Note that I am grateful for all the things I have, including technology and all. People in thirld world countries don't have all the luxuries we do, but even then it doesn't change the fact that there is something terribly wrong with this society of ours too. If wisdom was running it then there would be no problems like we currently are having, quite many of them being self-created due to greed or ignorance etc.


And while compassion is right up there as far as values are concerned, I think it's second to truth. Truth is our true north. Everything else follows. Without truth (and I don't mean your truth, or my truth, or whatever. I mean *the* truth, with a capital "T") the world would be an insane, incoherent place...

I hold Truth in high value, in fact it is the be-all and end-all. The problem is that many people don't care about the truth, all that matters to them is their truth and thus they are blindsided.

Sapience (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom) would be needed, here's how Wikipedia describes it:


Sapience is closely related to the term "sophia" often defined as "transcendent wisdom", "ultimate reality", or the ultimate truth of things. Sapiential perspective of wisdom is said to lie in the heart of every religion, where it is often acquired through intuitive knowing. This type of wisdom is described as going beyond mere practical wisdom and includes self-knowledge, interconnectedness, conditioned origination of mind-states and other deeper understandings of subjective experience. This type of wisdom can also lead to the ability of an individual to act with appropriate judgement, a broad understanding of situations and greater appreciation/compassion towards other living beings.

[Constance]

ffffffffffffffffffff

[Free Thinker]

Still catching up on posts here in this thread, so bear with me please, but wanted to say something real quick.

Isn't any/all belief (including the choice to not believe) vital for human consciousness and awareness overall?

After all, wasn't it Friedrich Nietzsche who quoted more or less that a nihilistic society could not possibly survive, much less even exist in the first place? I'd extend that to a nihilistic universe just as well. Or multiverse, omniverse, sentient/sapient biological genetic blueprint, grand/meta-civilization, or whatever else the case may be.

I would think the nature of 'belief' would have its own light, dark and shadow aspects to it, just like anything else in existence.

See this thread here for more discussion on infinite possibilities and ways of attempting to interpret said infinite possibilities from our extremely limited perspectives.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?114842-The-Infinity-Spectrum-Light-Shadow-and-Dark-Aspects-of-Life-Existence

[Dennis Leahy]

I like the definition of intelligence as the ability to adapt to change. (Stephen Hawking) It's the "MacGuyver"-type person that expresses this intelligence, not someone like a medical student that has memorized a vast array of pharmaceutical chemical names.

As DeDukshyn said, IQ tests test primarily for pattern recognition. I believe that the IQ tests many of us old farts took as young kids were much less pattern recognition and relied much more heavily on vocabulary and math skills. I've not seen a modern "standard" IQ test, so this is somewhat conjecture based on an IQ test that was published in a scienc-y magazine (Science Digest, I think) a decade or so ago, that they said could be used as a Mensa (high-IQ organization) qualifying test. It was primarily pattern recognition. I remember reading that the old IQ tests came under fire for the vocabulary portion being (unintentionally) geared towards middle class white people, and tests were updated to try to remove the culturally-biased verbiage.

You can study for and take practice tests of an IQ test, and your IQ number will go up. Did you actually get more intelligent?

The SAT and ACT tests that US students take to determine their level of knowledge are tests of language and math skills, and don't even attempt to quantify intelligence (even if the people taking the tests believe it quantifies their intelligence), but rather the ability to succeed in college-level material. These tests are more like what Mike describes as a somewhat reliable indicator of the ability to succeed in life (or at least, in college.)

I like Bill's premise that "belief" is the primary opaque veil thrown over intelligence. The victim doesn't lose intelligence, they block it. I know a bunch of credentialed scientists, and have witnessed - many times - bullsh!t rationalizations and mental gyrations to support something that was based on or tinged by faith/belief and not on data or scientific analysis.

[Free Thinker]

@Dennis Leahy
Whatever the current criteria they're using to "test" for intelligence these days, I am not that versed in. One of my main gripes was in fact what you said above about the language and math skills. I'd go as far as to say they're testing for synthetic intelligence aka what they THINK is intelligence, which COULD be tested for, but doesn't really count considering it's bogus to begin with. True intelligence cannot be measured. Our minds are too finite for that sort of thing to figure out the proper way to do that - like EVER. Life is a multi-dimensional process after all, and the same goes for intelligence.

A bit off-topic, but I wanted to share a story from long ago when I had to take one of those ink blot tests, for whatever reason whoever it was (can't recall) was asking me to take one of these.

So, okay, I take one of these tests, person shows me an ink blot and asks what I see in it? My response?

Me: Vampire bat.

Person who was evaluating the test results gave me a 'WTF' look at that. I'm just sorry I didn't reciprocate in giving them a 'WTF' look back. Argh. To this day, I still don't know what was so odd about that, as vampires bats DO exist. I just chalk it up to the person being a close-minded moron, and leave it at that.

I still remember this and when I look back on it, I have to either laugh at the idiocy/close-mindedness of the person evaluating said test, or just shake my head at the ridiculousness of how they chose to respond to my answer about what I interpreted the ink blot to look like.

Ask me again, and that 'vampire bat' could easily morph into a fairy nebula, a zombie butterfly, a pig with wings, my paternal grandmother when she's on her zealous high horse talking about religion and whatnot, Bambi having overcome T-Rex and is now in a permanent state of enlightened euphoria, or anything else my [wacky] conscious/subconscious mind deems to come up with, LOL.

[Mike]

Still catching up on posts here in this thread, so bear with me please, but wanted to say something real quick.

Isn't any/all belief (including the choice to not believe) vital for human consciousness and awareness overall?

After all, wasn't it Friedrich Nietzsche who quoted more or less that a nihilistic society could not possibly survive, much less even exist in the first place? I'd extend that to a nihilistic universe just as well. Or multiverse, omniverse, sentient/sapient biological genetic blueprint, grand/meta-civilization, or whatever else the case may be.

I would think the nature of 'belief' would have its own light, dark and shadow aspects to it, just like anything else in existence.

See this thread here for more discussion on infinite possibilities and ways of attempting to interpret said infinite possibilities from our extremely limited perspectives.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?114842-The-Infinity-Spectrum-Light-Shadow-and-Dark-Aspects-of-Life-Existence


Belief is ok, even vital in some instances - as Nietzsche points out - as it applies to God or perhaps a set of spiritual practices. The problem with the world today is the drastic subjectivist turn it has taken, and the blurring of what is real (objective truth) with what is opinion ("your" truth/belief, or "my" truth/belief), and the assumption that any so called "truth" (subjective) is just as valid as any other truth (objective). It makes for an incoherent, dangerously chaotic world.

There are infinite ways to interpret the world, but only a few that are in any way coherent and productive universally. This is what the humanities used to be for, to help students make those distinctions. Now the humanities are corrupt and poisoned by postmodern ideas and the whole thing has become quite a sh!tstorm

[Free Thinker]

The concept of belief can severely limit/hinder one in their spiritual path/life journey, or it could make them soar to undefinable, if not even outright infinite heights of divine euphoria - or anything else in between. It's all a matter of perspective and where one is putting their attention.

[Sue (Ayt)]

Just as a small aside, when I worked briefly in our state capitol's advocacy group for the gifted, we made the points that a higher proportion of students measured as gifted dropped out of school, and also a surprisingly high proportion of prisoners are gifted. The advocacy group was attempting to attain more funding for the gifted, as many programs for the students on the higher end of the normal curve were very low-budget, cut, or non-existent, in comparison to the funding for other special needs programs. Many just did not see the need for any extra funding for the gifted.

The point being, that high IQ's do not necessarily equal societal success. Both extremes of the curve do tend to have problems fitting in with the bulk majority.


Happened upon this video that is interesting. (16 minutes long)
1712559808928470

[Edward Mora]

:sun::sun::sun:




Nope, it's a demonstrably accurate way of testing for intelligence:). It's so blatantly and statistically obvious that it cannot be disputed. Well, I assume that was tongue-in-cheek. :P An IQ test tests how good you are at doing an IQ test. Nothing more. That's the point of this thread!

See also this thread, in which the whole elusive notion of "intelligence" was discussed here a couple of years ago. That also touches on how very unintelligent some people with high IQs are.

Being able to do math puzzles against the clock has absolutely nothing to do with true intelligence, awareness and being a fully-functioning, high-ability human being. Anyone who can't see that may not be very bright. :)



All about "IQ" (whatever that means!) (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?111461-All-about-IQ--whatever-that-means--)



No I'm deadly serious! An IQ test is a clear indicator of how well you'll perform in the world. It's self evident.

Well, maybe I'm just not very bright. :) It's not self-evident to me!

"How well you'll perform in the world..."


As a loving parent?
An inspiring teacher?
A natural empath?
A healer? A poet? An artist? A gifted gardener? A great cook? An animal rescuer? A suicide hotline counselor?
The kindest friend you ever knew?
Someone you'd dearly love to ask to marry you?
Someone who would willingly endanger their life to help a colleague in a battle? (Or on a mountain, or at sea?)
Someone with a hotline to God, in whatever form that might take in our modern world?

I know which Avalon members I really admire and would love to have as neighbors. (That list includes yourself, by the way. :heart: ) But IQ isn't a qualifier. Being a sensitive, aware, high-spirited, perceptive, kind person definitely is.

Many people with very high IQs are limited, blinkered, self-justifying, self-important jerks. I could easily generate a long list of well-known public figures, and so could you. They're highly able in just one nerdy specialty. (And they may be sociopaths as well.)

And many people who've never excelled academically are the most wonderful, altruistic people you'd ever be lucky enough to meet... the kind of people I'm guessing you'd like to see making decisions about the world.

:sun:So true!!! Today I saw some people in a restaurant and some looked like that they had very high IQs by the way they acted I don't know I've had along time being in a metro city, he act so smart and looked, that he's the type that he can bully me, but I don't like to suppose that but that's how I am I love being so aware and act and think fast but not like an high IQ person its just not the same as a intelligent spiritual patient more empathy and a high IQ person would be like whats that's that's wierd your just retarded or something like not connecting sense I know some have sense but its different. but nothing like Bill Ryan said totally wise way much important and more intelligent being your statement it so accurate.....

[Bill Ryan]

Dan Bongino, in this new podcast (https://youtube.com/watch?v=4J7h5Ghd2nw): (just 35 seconds in, at the very start)
The most dangerous people in the world are stupid smart people.
(He's right. :) )

[Anka]

If the villainy results from stupidity, then I can say that I have met many who talk about "stupidity" from position as "smart" people (ie some who really feel outside the concept).

I, for example, am not a smart girl, especially when I laugh at "weak" jokes, but the intelligence of my heart cries with others on a large scale.

A little extreme, maybe it would be:
"" Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. " Albert Einstein
or: " “A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.” Carlo M. Cipolla

A Romanian writer says "Smart people reach levels of stupidity, according to their intelligence".

Stupidity, as a "current" condition and close to "habit" for efficient and predictable masses as manifestation and actions as such, is somehow, (almost pathetically or slightly parallel paranoid said), a "clinical" syndrome, a kind of unseen and wise resignation by default, for the opposite side, to accept it as it is.

If we talk about the "chromatic energy of stupidity", there (here) is the expression "stupid as night" which refers to the darkness of personal and individual aura that translates a kind of energetic poverty which for the sake of expression may mean a kind of laziness or incompleteness, a kind of insufficiency or a handicap chosen "from the clarity of faith or intelligence"; a kind of non-strong instability or "obtuse angle", one ( or many) deficit of judgment, in the spectrum of zero patience, or a kind of emptiness filled by the ego's arsenal of instincts (a fragility - consciously helpless - contagious), or "the number one job" followed by "existence"(but not life).
/ anyway (interpretative as it is, it is a major subject);

Academic stupidity, around my area, is a kind of perplexity (I call it candor:)), or with the greatest indulgence, I call it "innocence", (just as fools usually keep their mouths open when they don't understand), the "lollipop of intelligence challenges" them but their ego makes them swallow it and drown in it. Usually most are drowned in their own air of arrogance (an almost physical illness, from my remarks...not final).

Quite simply, as the system grows in its entire chain of weaknesses, referring to the "educational" one's used acutely, I see .. and i see..."the death of education going on the streets" in the free change of load of "cultures and "concepts,
anyway, as a tragic-ironic form, an old friend said:
"The fool is a person who knows. I mean he knows and he IS sure. He has no doubts, and if we are careful, he also has explanations, and if we do not understand we are categorized as 'stupid,' so it is assumed that we should to agree with something we never fully know, which in nature is also "stupid."

I'm sorry for the lack of "solemnity", but usually those "who have solutions" are the ones who suffer the most, (in both cases). At least, I think we all have an insufficiency at some point, without taking frustration into account, it can be a model of "praise" if we take it easy and learn from it.

Stubbornness and ardor of opinion, is the surest whip for those who do not want to be contradicted; and especially in these times, there is really no time to judge others.

"It's false to think we know something..."usually, if we have the attitude: "Okay. I take your word for it and I don't argue, but don't imagine, that you or I, really know anything", we are categorized as ignorant, so it's not good in any way.

I met people so confident and convinced of themselves, in such a way that they had a kind of constant disturbing happiness (which I was not envious of) from which it was obligatory to show "that they are right with a just and high judgment." on the other hand, they are always reducible to something simple schematic and you can intuit their movements very easily (they usually have fixed ideas, a standardized, repeatable speech, so cliché like "I love you I love you too" without any essence )

I'm sorry, but, maybe, standardizing speech as a beginning of control and stupidity, it's become a kind of talent to say on social media (at extremely low levels and only occasionally, to be generous): "I'm Tarzan and I have a basket, you are Jane and you have four apples: (How long will it take us to "get married" to save the world?), and i know this is "ego" right here...:)

Sometimes, it's hard for me to see this "handmade Inflation in especially pink way" elaborated for the denigration of the real and living soul potential- human communication; this militant "teleguiding" on the whole world of idealization, treating the human being as an entity in convalescence with acute tolerance it must stop, but it will not.

Maybe many vices can be corrected, just so that we are no longer easily "confiscated" by the system, especially since the "problem of stupidity in the world" may be related to the "problem of evil" and many "serve the daily menu" of their choice.
But what do I know?
I know for sure that any mistake can be corrected, as long as education, common sense, good will and especially unconditional love have not been destroyed.

If ignorance can be remedied, stupidity can easily be "institutionalized", if there will be no drop of love for human beings and life on earth.
In any "manual, of common sense" (as many say that if there were a little more common sense, the world would be better),
to the rubric: "Check your knowledge" is heard quoting loudly: "Please make your profession the love for my life, I am alive"

In general, many "philosophers" with many universities in my area, like to fool around, which is ok up to a degree of childhood but not rudeness.
and sometimes I leave them at their "hot chestnut" stall, just to sell themselves "donuts."
Is it encouraging to say that "a room that contains a bed is automatically bigger than the bed" without damaging our interlocutors' opinions?

When I open textbooks to my grandchildren to help them with homework, I always panic because I see the government's curriculum platform, and generalized "madness or stupidity" induced (and I have examples), it is a "struggle" to be able to combine the education offered by the system with the human nature, in a way that will change a single gram, someday...the society.
I end here, as a simple man, maybe really, all of us, though,
“We are consciousness incarnated in stardust ...” Graham Hancock
...and maybe, all helping each other, is or will be more in time, a sign of proper intelligence.

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.explicit.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.rGKXASK51EOoxXQ1k-AduQHaGP%26pid%3DApi&f=1

Socrates: "I know that I know nothing".

I'm just saying ...:heart:

[Antagenet]

This is a serious thread. For years I've pondered why (e.g.) someone with a PhD and a measured IQ of 180 might be just really dumb and unaware outside of their specialist field. We see this ALL the time.

It's not about EQ (Emotional Intelligence) or SQ (Spiritual Intelligence). I think it's about the predominant vulnerability of almost all humans, whatever their IQ, EQ, SQ, age, culture, or level of education, to be victims of belief.

And there may be two components to that:


The susceptibility to being initially influenced to form a belief.
The resistance to letting go of it once it's entrenched.

A high intellect can paradoxically be a handicap, as extremely clever people are often very skilled at self-justifying whatever beliefs they have. A smart and articulate person will defend their beliefs strongly, self-reinforcing all the time.

I'd be most interested in other members' views (and experiences!) about this.
Those whom I have know with IQ over 170 have ALL been not the least bit “dumb” in terms of understanding. Yes their capacity for other traits such as courage, empathy, sensitivity, varied quite a bit, but their grasp of understanding whatever was presented to them was astounding.
I noticed that they were also VERY quick to catch on, and tended to not overcomplicate things at all. They all preferred asking questions and researching to having to be right, which is actually a very boring endeavor for the very gifted. They were all rather hermetic and very choosy in who they spent time with.

I propose that the stereotypes we hear about the brilliant are mostly bull****. Those who acquire celebrity are probably on the selfish narcissist side so they are no use in studying what being Really bright is really all about. Even studies about very very creative people can skew the understanding of what the majority of genius level intelligent people who mostly are NOT very creative are really like.
Also, how many of the researchers had/have genius level intelligence? How can the less intelligent study the brainy ones anyway? :-)

Ok so my point is, when these 170+ people I knew were presented with ideas, facts, beliefs, etc, they were all more adept at conversing about the topics than ANYONE with IQs at a lower level, including myself. That’s why I liked being around them so much, and got so spoiled and bored with people at my own level and lower.

If this world was populated by ONLY people with this IQ range. THIS would be the beginning of a chance at utopia. At least they would have the mental capacity to identify and implement solutions. The world’s IQ level plunging is in my opinion the most deleterious problem of all, even worse than psychopaths being in charge. Of course this is probably what the psychopaths want, to exterminate the very brilliant. If the very gifted were encouraged to be courageous, loving, emotionally and spiritually mature… that would be the best solution to all our problems.

I suspect that the IQ levels of between 120 - 170 are what people think of when they talk about gifted people. HA. This level, from what I have seen is the group who have terrible ego problems of needing to be right, of needing to feel important, who know they are not really at the mental top and perhaps want to be, and are rarely satisfied. They are often verbose, overcomplicating things, love jargon, convinced of their meager levels of superiority and condescending and most of all boring to be around.

They are much more apt fo be stuck in a set of beliefs, because many don’t have the capacity to see alternative beliefs, they just don’t have the imagination. ALL the brightest people I knew did. (Even if they didn’t want to change) The only real debility of the super geniuses is that they might not be challenged enough with new ideas, because maybe they only know a few people at their level. From what I could see, they were all pretty starved to converse with equals.

[onawah]

I wonder what those who develop IQ tests would make of what they call they call in India "Masts" or the "God Mad".
See: https://mehernagar.wordpress.com/meher-baba-on-how-the-god-mad-feel/
They are reported to be spiritual devotees who live in states of bliss, though outwardly they appear to be quite mad and dysfunctional in worldly terms.
...Although they can transcend that madness and become fully functioning, enlightened beings.
I think Amritanandamayi, who grew up uneducated and poverty stricken in a very poor, small village in India, may be one of the latter.
https://amma.org/about/how-she-began
In her youth she would sink into states of bliss and become unconscious of the outer world, leading the people in her village to think she had lost her wits.
But she is accepted widely now as a modern day saint, probably being recognized as close to the status of "Avatar" as a woman can get in these patriarchal times.
I sat in her lap once, as millions have done, and told her about my terrible flash-back LSD nightmares.
She gave me a stick of sandalwood and told me to wet it, rub it vigorously to make a paste, and apply the paste to my forehead before bed.
I did, and it worked--I never had another LSD nightmare again.
Another time, I sat in the audience at a darshan while she went into trance and "became" Shiva (or perhaps it was Krishna--I don't remember now), and did an amazing sword dance on stage.
On the same day, she alternated and "became" the Divine Mother, and sat cross-legged in absolute stillness and peace, radiating love and benevolence.
This short, dumpy, very unathletic, homely Indian woman in her very restricting sari leaped and cavorted bare-footed around the stage brandishing two very sharp swords, roaring with laughter and singing at the top of her lungs, is a sight I will never forget.
She went on dancing and cavorting far longer than I ever expected she would be able to physically but was none the worse for wear at all.
Her energy and stamina were amazing.
There is a type of intelligence, perhaps it is wisdom of the heart, :heart: that IQ tests cannot measure.
Many "Masters", such as Gurdjieff, have taught that the best way for humans to evolve is to stay in balance, to keep the mind, the heart, the physical, and the higher centers balanced.
Thus each center informs the other, so if one goes out of balance, the other centers are able to recognize, inform, and help to correct it.

When I was in junior high, I was placed in the classes of students who had the highest IQs.
There were 5 very brainy, nerdy types in these classes.
They kept to themselves, seemed very stiff and serious, seldom spoke to anyone but each other and to the teachers.
They obviously got a lot of satisfaction out of mastering various difficult subjects that were more challenging for the rest of us, but I don't think that really made up for what they lacked in other areas of their lives.
The other 30 or so students in these classes were much more sociable, relaxed, compassionate and "well-adjusted".
I used to envy the nerds for their intellectual prowess, but I never would have traded my own skill sets, which had to do with intuition, emotional intelligence, empathy, etc., for theirs.
No doubt they went on to have very successful careers, but I think the 30 odd other students were probably more likely to have grown and developed in a much more balanced way, and may have been much better human beings in the long run.
When I look at what modern day scientists have wrought for the rest of humanity with their "genius" IQs, I shudder at the tragic destiny they are trying to lead mankind toward.

[palehorse]

I was strongly influenced by the writings of Robert Anton Wilson in this area, and ways to become aware of one's Reality Tunnel self-programming and one's ongoing maintenance of one's cherished beliefs...

So much so that I carry around a quote from RAW in my sig file here.



I don't believe anything, but I have many suspicions. - Robert Anton Wilson


https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/robert-anton-wilson-quotes

https://www.brainyquote.com/photos_tr/en/r/robertantonwilson/178445/robertantonwilson1-2x.jpg

My main tool in becoming aware of these programs and attempts to reprogram myself with more openness to evaluating things in an ongoing fashion were his concepts and methodologies and psychedelic experiments in my younger days.


tFiwO7rUyIA


https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/2918.Robert_Anton_Wilson




Robert Anton Wilson quotes

“Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.”
― Robert Anton Wilson, Cosmic Trigger: Die letzten Geheimnisse der Illuminaten oder An den Grenzen des erweiterten Bewusstseins

“The Bible tells us to be like God, and then on page after page it describes God as a mass murderer. This may be the single most important key to the political behavior of Western Civilization.”
― Robert Anton Wilson


“...an optimistic mind-set finds dozens of possible solutions for every problem that the pessimist regards as incurable.”
― Robert Anton Wilson, Cosmic Trigger: Die letzten Geheimnisse der Illuminaten oder An den Grenzen des erweiterten Bewusstseins


“...when dogma enters the brain, all intellectual activity ceases. ”
― Robert Anton Wilson, Cosmic Trigger Volume I: Final Secret of the Illuminati


“I don't believe anything, but I have many suspicions.”
― Robert Anton Wilson


“We all see only that which we are trained to see.”
― Robert Anton Wilson, Masks of the Illuminati


“In order to eat, you have to be hungry. In order to learn, you have to be ignorant. Ignorance is a condition of learning. Pain is a condition of health. Passion is a condition of thought. Death is a condition of life.”
― Robert Anton Wilson, Leviathan


“under the present brutal and primitive conditions on this planet, every person you meet should be regarded as one of the walking wounded. we have never seen a man or woman not slightly deranged by either anxiety or grief. we have never seen a totally sane human being.”
― Robert Anton Wilson


“In conclusion, there is no conclusion. Things will go on as they always have, getting weirder all the time.”
― Robert Anton Wilson


“...reality is always plural and mutable.”
― Robert Anton Wilson, Cosmic Trigger Volume I: Final Secret of the Illuminati


“We look for the Secret - the Philosopher's Stone, the Elixir of the Wise, Supreme Enlightenment, 'God' or whatever...and all the time it is carrying us about...It is the human nervous system itself.”
― Robert Anton Wilson, Cosmic Trigger Volume I: Final Secret of the Illuminati


“Human beings live in their myths. They only endure their realities.”
― Robert Anton Wilson


“Is," "is," "is"—the idiocy of the word haunts me. If it were abolished, human thought might begin to make sense. I don't know what anything "is"; I only know how it seems to me at this moment.”
― Robert Anton Wilson, Nature's God


“Horror is the natural reaction to the last 5,000 years of history.”
― Robert Anton Wilson, Cosmic Trigger 2: Down to Earth


“It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea.”
― Robert Anton Wilson, The Illuminati Papers


“Every fact of science was once damned. Every invention was considered impossible. Every discovery was a nervous shock to some orthodoxy. Every artistic innovation was denounced as fraud and folly. The entire web of culture and ‘progress,’ everything on earth that is man-made and not given to us by nature, is the concrete manifestation of some man’s refusal to bow to Authority. We would own no more, know no more, and be no more than the first apelike hominids if it were not for the rebellious, the recalcitrant, and the intransigent. As Oscar Wilde truly said, ‘Disobedience was man’s Original Virtue.”
― Robert Anton Wilson


“The normal is that which nobody quite is. If you listen to seemingly dull people very closely, you'll see that they're all mad in different and interesting ways, and are merely struggling to hide it.”
― Robert Anton Wilson, Masks of the Illuminati


“Human society as a whole is a vast brainwashing machine whose semantic rules and sex roles create a social robot.”
― Robert Anton Wilson, Prometheus Rising


“The fear of death is the beginning of slavery.”
― Robert Anton Wilson, The Golden Apple


“When we meet somebody whose separate tunnel-reality is obviously far different from ours, we are a bit frightened and always disoriented. We tend to think they are mad, or that they are crooks trying to con us in some way, or that they are hoaxers playing a joke. Yet it is neurologically obvious that no two brains have the same genetically-programmed hard wiring, the same imprints, the same conditioning, the same learning experiences. We are all living in separate realities. That is why communication fails so often, and misunderstandings and resentments are so common. I say "meow" and you say "Bow-wow," and each of us is convinced the other is a bit dumb.”
― Robert Anton Wilson, Prometheus Rising

“Anyone in the United States today who isn't paranoid must be crazy.”
― Robert Anton Wilson, The Illuminati Papers


“The future is up for grabs. It belongs to any and all who will take the risk and accept the responsibility of consciously creating the future they want.”
― Robert Anton Wilson


“Intelligence is the capacity to receive, decode and transmit information efficiently. Stupidity is blockage of this process at any point. Bigotry, ideologies etc. block the ability to receive; robotic reality-tunnels block the ability to decode or integrate new signals; censorship blocks transmission.”
― Robert Anton Wilson



How's this for prescience?



“But they can rule by fraud, and by fraud eventually acquire access to the tools they need to finish the job of killing off the Constitution.'

'What sort of tools?'

'More stringent security measures. Universal electronic surveillance. No-knock laws. Stop and frisk laws. Government inspection of first-class mail. Automatic fingerprinting, photographing, blood tests, and urinalysis of any person arrested before he is charged with a crime. A law making it unlawful to resist even unlawful arrest. Laws establishing detention camps for potential subversives. Gun control laws. Restrictions on travel. The assassinations, you see, establish the need for such laws in the public mind. Instead of realizing that there is a conspiracy, conducted by a handful of men, the people reason—or are manipulated into reasoning—that the entire population must have its freedom restricted in order to protect the leaders. The people agree that they themselves can't be trusted.”
― Robert Anton Wilson, The Eye in the Pyramid


Great!!
As you me too was influenced quite a lot by his writings, but not only him also McKenna, Leary, Lilly, Alli and so on.. I spent quite a lot of time reading about the 8 circuits and cybercraft which was just a metaphor ? for the century we are living on right now.

I would like to share this quote (I am not so sure it is originally from Bob)
"However we have strong forces to compete against. The first struggle we are involved with is one of the mind-body complex. Who will control our mind-bodies? Will it be the Aspirant, the one looking for a better life, or will it be the Controllers, the ones with the power and monies to mold our minds to their purposes? And will we nurture the emerging Changelings? Or do we let the Persecutors administer the Last Rite to our offspring? "


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"In the province of the mind, what is believed to be true is true, or becomes true within certain limits to be learned by experience and experiment." Dr.John Lilly

IQ measurement is a tool used by the fools in power, to select, control and label (give titles) to the ones who believe and blindly follow in that system. It is nothing more than that.

I am sure as the sun arises in the east every ordinary day, Tesla never submitted himself to such a foolishness.

[DNA]

I'm utilizing information from the Micheal teachings in saying that soul age affects one's need and or desire for a belief system.

Apparently older souls are less dependent on a need for rigid rule systems. Apparently young souls crave the structure belief systems provide.

Young souls have just as much of a chance of developing a brain capable of genius and or high IQ capability, but they still need the structure of a belief system when it's all said and done.

Also, I just wanted to bump this thread. :happythumbsup:

[Antagenet]

I'm utilizing information from the Micheal teachings in saying that soul age affects one's need and or desire for a belief system.

Apparently older souls are less dependent on a need for rigid rule systems. Apparently young souls crave the structure belief systems provide.

Young souls have just as much of a chance of developing a brain capable of genius and or high IQ capability, but they still need the structure of a belief system when it's all said and done.

Also, I just wanted to bump this thread. :happythumbsup:

That's BRILLIANT!!!!!!

[onawah]

Pema Chödrön said this...

https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.CeB9OKPVoWn-SSbmrWoWGQHaDt?pid=ImgDet&rs=1

“We think that if we just meditated enough or jogged enough or ate perfect food, everything would be perfect.
But from the point of view of someone who is awake, that’s death.
Seeking security or perfection, rejoicing in feeling confirmed and whole, self-contained and comfortable, is some kind of death.
It doesn’t have any fresh air. There’s no room for something to come in and interrupt all that.
We are killing the moment by controlling our experience.
Doing this is setting ourselves up for failure, because sooner or later, we’re going to have an experience we can’t control: our house is going to burn down, someone we love is going to die, we’re going to find out we have cancer, a brick is going to fall out of the sky and hit us on the head, somebody’s going to spill tomato juice all over our white suit, or we’re going to arrive at our favorite restaurant and discover that no one ordered produce and seven hundred people are coming for lunch.”
The trick is to keep exploring and not bail out, even when we find out that something is not what we thought.
That’s what we’re going to discover again and again and again.
Nothing is what we thought.
Things are always in transition, if we could only realize it.
Nothing ever sums itself up in the way that we like to dream about.
The off-center, in-between state is an ideal situation, a situation in which we don’t get caught and we can open our hearts and minds beyond limit.
It’s a very tender, nonaggressive, open-ended state of affairs.
To stay with that shakiness—to stay with a broken heart, with a rumbling stomach, with the feeling of hopelessness and wanting to get revenge—that is the path of true awakening.
Sticking with that uncertainty, getting the knack of relaxing in the midst of chaos, learning not to panic—this is the spiritual path.
Things falling apart is a kind of testing and also a kind of healing.
We think that the point is to pass the test or to overcome the problem, but the truth is that things don’t really get solved.
They come together and they fall apart.
Then they come together again and fall apart again.
It’s just like that.
The healing comes from letting there be room for all of this to happen: room for grief, for relief, for misery, for joy.”

[Bill Ryan]

An interesting vignette to prove the theme of this thread. :)

This is Garry Kasparov (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Kasparov), one of the very greatest chess players ever to live — and a Russian, to boot, though he now lives in New York. His IQ has been estimated at 185 to 190.

There's something here about superhuman ability at least in one field of intelligence — but which fails totally in other aspects of figuring out what's really going on.

https://t.me/DDGeopolitics/58397

DDGeopolitics/58397

[Bruce G Charlton]

A few years ago, when I was an evolutionary psychologist (and editor of the journal in which this was published), I put forward an explanation for the phenomenon of 'clever sillies' - high IQ people who hold perversely wrong ideas that they defend with all their capacity for abstract and systeamtic thinking:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306987709005556?casa_token=5YhA1xC-cCAAAAAA:H7lkRYYTm_3TeYrFsiu8blRyZBAxHBEE-6EOExe_RQGnTKR6kS1zQrq26OyjTz12U78Jx22VKQ

(Text version of the whole article: https://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/2009/11/clever-sillies-why-high-iq-lack-common.html

While this is only a narrowly biological take on the phenomenon (i.e. it omits all spiritual considerations, which are very important) - the idea does seem to capture something of the quality of the current spectacular levels of silliness among the clever classes.

[Digit]

That Gary Kasparov bit perfectly cues me to chirp what I've been itching to get around to adding here (especially after reading the thread's original post).

Oh to avail broad spectrum aptitude tests.
Having broad spectrum aptitude batteries of tests in common familiarity would help dispel the singular pecking order, as so often presented/conceived of by IQ tests, and would avail greater self awareness. They'd also serve as a useful optional metric to apply to all areas of endeavor, to help weigh suitability and contributions, by the relevant tests.

While in a training institution, a part time tutor there took an interest in me, and, also being a part time worker in the Department of Work And Pensions building diagonally across the road, and having seen such a testing system over there, hidden at the bottom of a cupboard, she snuck it out for me, to let me have a go at some of the tests. This was about quarter a century ago, so my memory is a little hazy, but, if i recall correctly, the (over 30something) aptitude tests (which I'll include the scores of the tests I took and fairly reliably remember what my score on roughly) were :

IQ test (familiar, comprised of three tests, Verbal Intelligence, Maths Intelligence, and Visual Intelligence.) [134 (90:120:180)]
EQ Emotional Intelligence test [160]
WQ Wisdom Quotient [150]
Philosophy Aptitude Quotient [I forget, maybe something between 120 and 130]
Psychological Aptitude Quotient [~ I forget if this were a high or low one]
Psychiatric Aptitude Quotient [see how the insightfulness of this already further teasing out distinctions, a psychiatric quotient as well as psychological...shall see more of this as I continue.]
Social Aptitude Quotient [70, my 2nd lowest. Consider how useful that is to know, aside my genius level emotional intelligence and wisdom]
Interpersonal Aptitude Quotient
Intrapersonal Aptitude Quotient
Introspection Aptitude Quotient
Ethical Aptitude Quotient [...]
Moral Aptitude Quotient [iirc, one of Ethical and Moral was high, the other was fairly low, again, another very useful distinction to learn even exists, and to learn one has such a difference]
Religious Aptitude Quotient
Spiritual Aptitude Quotient
Sporting Aptitude Quotient [60. I think I may have misunderstood the point of this one, to have scored so low. Hehehehe. My lowest.]
Physics Aptitude Quotient
Chemistry Aptitude Quotient
Programming Aptitude Quotient [80]
Musical Aptitude Quotient
Artistic Aptitude Quotient
Aesthetics Aptitude Quotient
Design Aptitude Quotient
Physiological Aptitude Quotient
Physical Aptitude Quotient
Dance Aptitude Quotient
Mechanical Aptitude Quotient
Electrical Aptitude Quotient
Electronic Aptitude Quotient
Sociological Aptitude Quotient
Political Aptitude Quotient
Anthropological Aptitude Quotient
Biological Aptitude Quotient
Botanical Aptitude Quotient
Animal Care Aptitude Quotient [It was called something a bit different, I forget. And there were other animal related tests too.]
... And more.

(I got to do well over the dozen of the tests... but I mostly just remembered the highs and lows... which is probably more important to learn anyway, contrast to being snug in the bellcurve "somewhere").

Some of the tests required props and space unavailable to us at the time, and others we simply ran out of time, amidst the coursework we were supposed to be getting on with.

There's also some (I say)~misguided interest out there to reduce all this back down to a singular pecking order again. Misses the point, misses the value, averages out the nuance back to a bigot's judgement hammer.

If people would only see that such exist, even without taking any of such tests, would do wonders for our awareness. Many would no longer beat themselves up for low IQ, no longer devaluing themselves. Many would no longer succumb to a blinding obtuse arrogance from a high IQ score, no longer oblivious to their blind spots, no longer thinking themselves all capable. Many would find where they really shine, and be able to make better informed choices regarding what they'll do in life, how they can best contribute.

It's one thing to "not get it" in some area, despite some other high aptitude, it's another, far better thing, to know one does "not get it".

If anyone knows where such tests are available to take online, please do share with me. I've been harping on about this for over 2 decades (albeit crowded out among other things I harp on about, heh), and would love to help proliferate this around the world. If I recall correctly, there are some other lesser-complete ones out there, such as "9 intelligences".

There are ways in such tests to counter "cheating" (though why would anyone cheat? To do so is to cheat yourself, even if one does have such sufficiently low wisdom and ethics to attempt cheat.) And such insights from the tests' questions can be applied on the fly, in a "judge by actions" sense, as well as a vast diversity of such tests could be continually developed to further undermine attempts to circumvent (like if cheating ever got incentivised by such tests becoming gate keepers for positions of power imbalance that attract the ruthless who feel they need power over others~~~), and a diversity would also keep the results more reliable, including by diminishing the effects of "100th monkey" etc.

Then, if we had such tests commonplace out and about in the world, not hidden at the bottom of a cupboard, we'd be able to help the Sheldon Coopers and Gary Kasperovs of the world, gain better awareness of their weaknesses, not diminishing them, but bolstering their exceptional one-in-tens-of-millions high IQ, with a sturdier base of increased wisdom (regardless of innate/tested wisdom quotient), better able not to make so many mistakes oblivious to their weaknesses.

If we had such tests commonplace out and about in the world, not hidden at the bottom of a cupboard, we'd be able to help the many whose names we otherwise never hear of, because they languish in obscurity, convinced they've nothing to offer, oblivious to more areas of self worth. Or perhaps worse, some who we do get to hear about, for whatever atrocities they commit, but might have otherwise positively contributed, had they been availed some metrics by which to help know their strengths and weaknesses better.

Imagine, when we have such tests widespread aware of, if/where still including some form of "representative" in our poly-cameral democracies, how better we're able to determine from candidates who to include in our votes, and perhaps even dissuade some ill-suited candidates from even bothering. Perhaps even evolving the diversity of roles involved in our organisational "structures" and flows, availing more dynamic arrangements where those with ability more directly contribute to needs.

I see so much potential to dispel unhelpful ignorances that impede and corrupt our systems. So much potential for unleashing healthy helpful human potential. If we only knew.

-----

P.S. >180 visual iq, 150 wisdom, 160 emotional intelligence, but only 90 verbal, is ever a challenge, a cruel frustration to endure. Sympathies to any else suffering likewise, strengths hidden behind small apertures of weaknesses. I suppose it's a lifelong learning experience, a boon, to be less presumptive about other people's abilities, not able to judge what gifts they have within, from what aptitudes or frustrations they show. More patiently receptive to what more unseen. Anyway, I hope I managed to convey the idea adequately succinctly and effectively enough. :)

P.P.S. Oh, one quick anecdote yet... When speaking to my new neighbor over the garden wall for the first time, after having written a letter about the situation we both found ourselves in, he offered words to the effect of that I must be very intelligent, based on that letter, towit I reflexively uttered something like "too smart in some ways, far not smart enough in others".

P.P.P.S and while I've clicked Edit to mend an irksome typo, I may as well also add...
And I'll have to come back to make a 2nd reply focusing more on the belief side of the equation. I've got oodles of rant in me about that too. Hopefully insightful useful tractionable rant, not just cathartic windbagging. ;D

[Matthew]

I challenge the thread that 'belief' is more fundamental and common than anyone really wants to think about. Who really works from first principles? We work off belief as creatures. Science is mostly a belief system taken for granted rather than re-proved by each person who uses or benefits from it.

This part is not a challenge though, it's my observation of intelligence. Where we learn intelligence they rarely if never teach critical thinking. This isn't a bad thing, citation is the critical thinking of generations before us. We're not all Joseph Fourier or Isaac Newton. University learning, right up to and including Ph.D. level, are citation based. You're using the best minds from hundreds of years of work.

I think 'intelligent' people are at a disadvantage because citation is a type of obedience, be it for all the right reasons in higher learning. 'Smart' people are flattered and seduced by higher education.

People who watch television or listen to the hypnotizing tones of Radio 4 are also at a disadvantage. Hypnotism Quotient?

[Icare]

I agree with your statement, Bill.

To a certain degree we are all victims of belief, often without realizing it at all.

It has taken me years to 'unlearn' a lot of the things I learned in my youth. Wisdom, for example, does not come from having a high IQ, it comes from life experiences and from having an open mind when it comes to processing these experiences.

I recently had a discussion about the current situation with an acquaintance who has a PhD in biology. He took the jab despite his high IQ, despite everything he knows about science and scientific requirements as far as developing a new vaccine is concerned. He understands the c.- jab is not a vaccine at all, but still he took it. I just didn't understand and asked him why on earth he of all people would willingly take that risk.

He had discussed it with his wife who also has a PhD in biology and they both thought - and that's where the subject of belief comes in - the government would not advocate it unless it was safe. Both of them just couldn't imagine the government would not have our best interests at heart. That's a belief we usually all learn in our formative years. We are all taught we are living in a democracy and we vote for the people who will look after our health (we all have health insurance in Germany), who will look after our education (still free in Germany and still decent enough in my youth but having become atrociously bad since then ) and who will make sure there is social justice in society (quite good in the 60es and 70es and then slowly but surely declining).

Once you see through things and wake up to the reality of things you realize that that's all an illusion, but letting go of that illusion is extremely difficult, at least initially, because especially as an intellectual person you can find all kinds of arguments to hold on to your old belief system.

That's why there are still some highly intelligent people working in political parties on a low level who have no idea what is really going on. They still genuinely believe they can change things within their party and within the political system because they simply cannot grasp the fact that they, along with everybody else, are being manipulated in such a nefarious way as we can currently see (if we have eyes to see).

[onawah]

Unless some way could first be found to identify and then contain the actions of psychopaths, sociopaths, narcissists, etc., even such a sophisticated progam of testing could be perverted and misused by just those types of individuals.
Just as they seem to have found ways to pervert and misuse so many other systems in our current paradigm.
Even newer methods of dealing with such would likely have to be developed before that could take place, though hopefully they would be compassionate.
Otherwise, shades of Clockwork Orange.... https://th.bing.com/th?id=OIP.WEQ9UbOTpuZRIFba_fE6VgHaEc&w=322&h=193&c=8&rs=1&qlt=90&o=6&pid=3.1&rm=2



Oh to avail broad spectrum aptitude tests.
Having broad spectrum aptitude batteries of tests in common familiarity would help dispel the singular pecking order, as so often presented/conceived of by IQ tests, and would avail greater self awareness. They'd also serve as a useful optional metric to apply to all areas of endeavor, to help weigh suitability and contributions, by the relevant tests.

Also see: "Prof. Sam Vaknin on the narcissistic mind:"the future will be a narcissistic and psychopathic civilization and narcissists and psychopaths will rise to the top, and I teach you how to survive in this brave new world."https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?40941-Horus-Ra-as-the-Archontic-Alien-Parasite-A-follow-up-interview-with-Maarit&p=1554363&viewfull=1#post1554363

[Flash]

Sam Vaknin referred below is a self proclaimed narcissist - which he definitly is, and most probably bordering sociopath — very bright no doubts, and quite realistic while describing those like him - yes they think as he describes and we are fooled by them.

However saying that psychopaths will rise to the top and govern us, well this has nothing to do with the future. It is actually happening more and more and it was what happened in China under Mao and is still happening there, what happened in Russia under Lenine and Staline and is still happening there and in multitude of other countries.

It is however more and more prevalent in western societies as well. For the last 30 years narcissisn traits in the population has double in the US and it keeps rising. (see Dr Twenge for the research and stats). A minimum of 11% of US population had strong narcissistic traits by 2009 -imagine now 2023 - and 3 to 6% of the population was then considered pathological narcissists.

The problem truly is the just and heartfilled people, who do not raise up to stop it. Who prefer to keep their beliefs blinders on while letting their world being taken over by pathologically sick people. When we accept to wake up about the outside world, we have to wake up regarding our inner world, our beliefs system, :sun:as well and it demands work, energy and accepting to change our own personnal world as well.

Very few have inner courage evrn if most are good hearted.

Vaknin is promoting and defending his own breed. While accepting the truth on whom they are, We do not have to abide by it at all imo.


Unless some way could first be found to identify and then contain the actions of psychopaths, sociopaths, narcissists, etc., even such a sophisticated progam of testing could be perverted and misused by just those types of individuals.
Just as they seem to have found ways to pervert and misuse so many other systems in our current paradigm.
Even newer methods of dealing with such would likely have to be developed before that could take place, though hopefully they would be compassionate.
Otherwise, shades of Clockwork Orange.... https://th.bing.com/th?id=OIP.WEQ9UbOTpuZRIFba_fE6VgHaEc&w=322&h=193&c=8&rs=1&qlt=90&o=6&pid=3.1&rm=2



Oh to avail broad spectrum aptitude tests.
Having broad spectrum aptitude batteries of tests in common familiarity would help dispel the singular pecking order, as so often presented/conceived of by IQ tests, and would avail greater self awareness. They'd also serve as a useful optional metric to apply to all areas of endeavor, to help weigh suitability and contributions, by the relevant tests.

Also see: "Prof. Sam Vaknin on the narcissistic mind:"the future will be a narcissistic and psychopathic civilization and narcissists and psychopaths will rise to the top, and I teach you how to survive in this brave new world."https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?40941-Horus-Ra-as-the-Archontic-Alien-Parasite-A-follow-up-interview-with-Maarit&p=1554363&viewfull=1#post1554363

[Digit]

Unless some way could first be found to identify and then contain the actions of psychopaths, sociopaths, narcissists, etc., even such a sophisticated progam of testing could be perverted and misused by just those types of individuals.
Just as they seem to have found ways to pervert and misuse so many other systems in our current paradigm.
Even newer methods of dealing with such would likely have to be developed before that could take place, though hopefully they would be compassionate.
Otherwise, shades of Clockwork Orange...

Despite the opening conditional, seems to suggest rejecting such a system of rich benefits for all, on presumptive belief it inescapably inevitably broken and abused to invert the benefits.

While I can't absolutely centrally refute the possibility, nor can I offer clear counter-examples, I do remember being impressed by the tests I took for accomplishing such even within individual tests. There are many clever statistical methods too, to help deal with this issue. The moral and ethical tests themselves, I recall finding quite effective at luring narcissistic psychopathic/sociopathic aspects to reveal themselves, difficult to avert. I find more merit to exploring the potential of developing further means to deal with this issue, than to reject the idea in defeatist presumption.

Aside from other portions in my post I thought already touched on that issue, foremost to my thinking (with Mattias Desmet's book chirping a chorus in the back of my mind), is the reductivism, how the nuance of the many measures, averts the abusive potential of the single-pecking-order that would be used as an abused crude cudgel, as well as less intentional tragedy of the commons and conferred maladies of psychology. And along with that, (to further allay Mattias Desmet's concerns of certainty), (as I pointed out), the diversity of such psychometric mapping systems, not having a singular perspective proclaimed the one truth (not confusing the map for the terrain, and not disallowing a diversity of maps). In having the diversity of measures, and no measures wielded as sole gatekeeper, instead merely as another tool to help people climb out of ignorance, and avoid more ignorance of their ignorance (arrogance), seems to me, in itself, a tool by which to prevent sociopaths etc from attaining positions of abuse and usurption.

Sorry, that's very wordy... my prior mentioned high visual intelligence struggling to paint the picture in words by my low verbal intelligence.

Very thankful for that insight into myself, from such tests. Without which, I'd be more susceptible to ploys from cunning narcissistic sociopaths, giving my power away to them, in self-defeatist deference to whatever gaslighting, intimidation, interogation, subtle aloof ploys, or even poor-me dramas.

I'll try simplify and make the point more concise...

Such tests already being a means by which to help identify (and partly/percursor to "contain the actions of psychopaths, sociopaths, narcissists, etc., "), means to propose first we need it, is to say we need that thing before we get that thing. It already is that thing! ;D

That, in effect, was in [negative] part the most prominent point of me bringing it up. That it helps us better see, and prevent such. [And in positive part, allowing each our many human potentials to better shine where they better can.]

Knowledge is power.

--------------


Sam Vaknin referred below is a self proclaimed narcissist - which he definitly is, and most probably bordering sociopath — very bright no doubts, and quite realistic while describing those like him - yes they think as he describes and we are fooled by them.

Heh, yeah.
n_n "the things we hate in others, are that which we hate in our selves but do not face", Yus... the divide between good and evil cutting through the heart of each of us. ... and that black&white judgement division, rather absolutist reductive in its 1-bit binary... which a broad spectrum aptitude test would help avert, and show far greater richness of nuanced picture, no longer inducing affirmation of the malady of such victim-co-perpetrator identification of narcissist.
Or, is it cunning ploy, a kettle intentionally calling a pot sooty to misdirect attention away from own soot? n_n I think not so cunning, as in the opening proposition of the talk, offers becoming them, an opposame... I think I've seen that whole 3 hour lecture before, and critiqued it somewhere a while ago, and disinclined to put myself through it again, with many other things pressing for attention. [And in what little I'm catching of it, still listening, while typing this out, I'm reminded of part of my prior retort to it elsewhere, was against the simplification, the lack of nuance of various types, painting all alike simplified stereotype (reminds of "once you've met one autistic/aquarian/etc, you've met one autistic/aquarian/etc." speaking to the diversity beyond the initial crude stereotype, and depth of individual beyond the one characteristic. And also, the certainty of the "cant beat them, become them" advocacy, seems so great a folly, it needs no elaboration of critique.]
... not to mention, [not to make this about me, like getting sucked into the narcissism, lol] I sought to give up manipulativeness when i left a career "in advertising or marketing" just as I got in as deep as to make my first T.V. advert. Manipulating people's narcissism, watering it to grow more, presenting affirmative precedent to monkey-see-monkey-do, seems a flawed way out. Healing viable solution space to narcissism, lay elsewhere. Elsewhere than projecting aggrandising narcissists/narcissism and affirming dire outcomes as inevitable. Reminds of an aspect Allen Carr points out in his Easy Way, that the aggrandising, makes the big monster bigger. The big monster being the psychological projection, aggrandised. There's the self sabotage. The little monster (the addiction, or the narcissist), is very weak. It's the big monster, the aggrandising, that gets you speaking its words of aggrandisation in your own voice, so you believe it, and do not attempt to avert the little monster, which is much more weak and easily overcome, without the self-sabotaging affirmations of how insurmountable it is.

... Interesting, first time I recall applying that insight from the Easy Way to the issue of narcissism. I wonder how many other concerns can likewise be treated.


However saying that psychopaths will rise to the top and govern us, well this has nothing to do with the future. It is actually happening more and more and it was what happened in China under Mao and is still happening there, what happened in Russia under Lenine and Staline and is still happening there and in multitude of other countries.
&

The problem truly is the just and heartfilled people, who do not raise up to stop it. Who prefer to keep their beliefs blinders on while letting their world being taken over by pathologically sick people. When we accept to wake up about the outside world, we have to wake up regarding our inner world, our beliefs system, as well and it demands work, energy and accepting to change our own personnal world as well.

In recent interview (https://rumble.com/v2kxpgi-proof-were-killing-ourselves-118-stay-free-with-russell-brand.html) I just watched (ironically with a self confessed narcissist interviewer), Dr Iain McGillchrist spoke to this a little, in an example of a few tens of people destroying history and statues etc, and people numbering in the thousands.

If we had broad spectrum aptitude tests, that included (accompanied by) psychology tests, it could provide tools/insight for those with narcissistic tendencies to avert their narcissism getting deeper entrenched. (Got in my mind, Joe Rogan's old "idiot test" bit, where an idiot keeps buying the lick test, frustrated at still getting the result of idiot... but the binary reductive judgement, idiot/not-idiot, narcissist/not-narcissist, may be a harm affirming/trapping part of the problem to avert, by educating with higher fidelity gradation, as well as broader nuance).

Better "has some" than "is a". Identification with, gets survival brain involved, and will defend the identification as if survival is at threat. This is not an easy way to learn and spiritually grow.

... and there, an old bit I've been doing for years, springs to mind as relevant here... "Nihilism's like salt. Everybody needs a little. Emphasis on little." Just enough to dislodge from believing ones own dogmas and identifications. Enough to dislodge from belief, from beliefism, from identification with belief, from belief of identification, from belief of belief. Just a non-belief portion. Lest succumb to confirmation bias, certainty and identification tangled together with the survival brain, a myopia not seeing more information, and held all the more tightly the more information is offered, seen as a threat to survival, and attacked in reflexive hostility, to guard the oblivious willful ignorance.



Very few have inner courage evrn if most are good hearted.


And with sufficient knowledge, in wise humility, not premature certainty, nor entangled identification with,
courage is not required
necessity is seen, and right action follows.

Knowledge is power.

And I mean that positively, to empower each and all with. Not in the abusive power-over sense, in which knowledge is denied, ignorance is imposed/induced, knowledge is curtailed to indoctrinated silos ignorant outwith. No. In the positive sense for each to know where the dangers are, and more, where more bounties for each and all are. Power to avert, yes. But more, power to create, and co-create. And do so even better. Where no courage is required, where once one may have managed by will to "feel the fear and do it anyway", instead, it is just now, being, with whole brained awareness, attending as needs arise.

Knowledge is power.

[onawah]

Simply identifying pathological types is no sure guarantee that they could then be contained.
Given how clever and manipulative such types are, it could still be possible for the testing process to be subverted to some other purpose.
It might simply cause them to redouble their efforts, and given how entrenched they are today (as Flash so rightly pointed out), it would be foolhardy and naive to discount that possibility, imho.
Studies have been done showing that people are generally much more stressed out today than they were 40 years ago (though I don't remember the exact number, of years, the point was clear).
The more stressed out the population is, the more pathology.
The rise of technology alienates us from and destroys Nature, and our connection with Nature is an extremely important factor in staying healthy and sane.
The underlying solution is obvious.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Not sure why this discusion devolved into yet another talk about the abnormal amongst us.
Yet are they even?
I bet they were taught, in one form or another to be anti-social.

Because the problem with the world of unintelligent people is not their social skills, it is those that teach them. Teaching is not a learning problem. And the measure of a good teacher is how many students have learnt the curriculum. Those that have failed to learn are not at fault - they have been underserved by those tasked to teach them.

There are no bad learners, only bad teachers.

I challenge anyone out of university to pass the simplest of tests possible to design for general intelligence. I guarantee they will fail it. So exactly what kind of education do our children receive? They come out of our edifices of higher learning dumber than when they went in. Except for a few exceptions, that accounts for every discipline, including the hard sciences.

We are failing our kids with what passes as education these days. It is far more accurate to call our schools cults of indoctrination.

I could teach a group of kids far better than most schools. But I would teach them skills that are transferrable to any topic and any situation.

When I teach apprentices, my first order of business is to see who can be taught. No point in teaching those that already believe they know. Next thing I teach those worthy is not specific skills but safety. I teach situational awareness, to be aware of where you are and to know where your fingers and toes are - at all times. Only then do I teach specific skills and techniques. But all along the way I make them aware of the discissions they are making without even knowing it. Sometimes those actions need to be analyzed in detail for flaws in logic. Sometimes a good conscious decision can be the difference between going home at the end of the day intact.

I think that for many careers, mentorship is the best way to learn.

Teaching is an art form. But it is also natural to learn by doing the teaching.
Problem is that learning is often accomplished by mimicking. If a teacher is socially disadvantaged, their students will learn to be dysfunctional.

By the way, teachers can be parents, family, friends, enemies, government, formal teachers, or any person a student interacts with.
And we are all students - and teachers - all the time.

Learning never ends. Do we teach that in schools?
NO

[rgray222]

I have a neighbor whose father was a rocket scientist for NASA actually JPL (Jet Propulsion Lab) he worked on the Apollo missions for NASA. Her mother was a professor at Princeton. She skipped grades while growing up, went to Andover and graduated early, and went on to graduate from Harvard in three years, from there she went on to become a Rhodes Scholar to study at Oxford. I can only guess that her IQ is off the charts but this poor woman can't crack an egg, her social skills are non-existent and she suffers from pretty severe depression. Most people think she is nothing more than a crotchety, cantankerous meanspirited woman because that is how she comes off.

I honestly believe that there is an important place for people like this in society. They make connections that most of us are incapable of making and their talent and competency lie in areas that most of us simply do not get or understand.

These people should be nurtured and cared for, they are rare gems (no matter how difficult they seem) in a vast sea of averageness.

[Bill Ryan]

Bumping this thread with a terrific summary of the entire problem.
(The video title would have been a better title for this thread :ROFL:)

Why Smart People Believe Stupid Things


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Peima-Uw7w

[Bruce G Charlton]

Blowing my own trumpet for a moment, if I may be forgiven... One of my most successful publications, in terms of influence, was one in which I used the term Clever Sillies to explore this phenomenon, or something similar:

http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/2009/11/clever-sillies-why-high-iq-lack-common.html

[Ravenlocke]

So in simplistic terms, I’ve been scolded from childhood for doing certain things my “way” and accomplishing the task and being told it was not approved because I did things differently from the way it was taught.

Some examples that I still remember, a schoolteacher said to me once, “you got the right answer but that is not the way we calculate the problem”. ( She had made me write out the problem on the board). That was my arithmatic class.

I got scolded by my mother when I was little for folding laundry not the way she taught me. After that I made sure I always folded, towels, handkerchiefs, pillow cases, etc the way she wanted it done. Years later as a grown up I realized there is more than one way to do things, in fact it can be infinite amount of ways.

I was scolded when I was around 9 or 10, for reading the Ernest Hemingway book, The Old Man and The Sea on summer vacation, while I was staying at Grandma’s house. There was no mark or warning in the book that said I had to be grown up to read it. It was sitting in the bookcase where I had access to it. So I finished reading it secretly anyway.

It is little things like this that set boundaries in my childhood…

One time in my adult life I was “scolded” by a nurse because I dared tell her that ADD in children was invented by a bunch of psychiatrists. I pointed out study publications and her argument ended up that I dont know anything and should keep my mouth shut because I couldnt posibly understand when I don’t even have children of my own.

Shouldn’t there be a middle of the road where intellect meets curiosity or willingness to explore beyond the boundaries put on us from childhood on. Or from what we are taught in education, maybe we should be encouraged to be flexible and explore when we are challenged in our beliefs to keep an open mind in whatever we are learning?

This topic probably only applies to people living in big, modern cities right? I mean do people that live in very remote areas that do not have much contact with the “modern” world also grow up to be unintelligent or unwilling to change their beliefs? I guess how would we city folk know?

Thats my simplistic thoughts on this. :flower:

[Bill Ryan]

So in simplistic terms, I’ve been scolded from childhood for doing certain things my “way” and accomplishing the task and being told it was not approved because I did things differently from the way it was taught.

Some examples that I still remember, a schoolteacher said to me once, “you got the right answer but that is not the way we calculate the problem”. ( She had made me write out the problem on the board). That was my arithmatic class.

I got scolded by my mother when I was little for folding laundry not the way she taught me. After that I made sure I always folded, towels, handkerchiefs, pillow cases, etc the way she wanted it done. Years later as a grown up I realized there is more than one way to do things, in fact it can be infinite amount of ways.

I was scolded when I was around 9 or 10, for reading the Ernest Hemingway book, The Old Man and The Sea on summer vacation, while I was staying at Grandma’s house. There was no mark or warning in the book that said I had to be grown up to read it. It was sitting in the bookcase where I had access to it. So I finished reading it secretly anyway.

It is little things like this that set boundaries in my childhood…

One time in my adult life I was “scolded” by a nurse because I dared tell her that ADD in children was invented by a bunch of psychiatrists. I pointed out study publications and her argument ended up that I dont know anything and should keep my mouth shut because I couldnt posibly understand when I don’t even have children of my own.

Shouldn’t there be a middle of the road where intellect meets curiosity or willingness to explore beyond the boundaries put on us from childhood on. Or from what we are taught in education, maybe we should be encouraged to be flexible and explore when we are challenged in our beliefs to keep an open mind in whatever we are learning?

This topic probably only applies to people living in big, modern cities right? I mean do people that live in very remote areas that do not have much contact with the “modern” world also grow up to be unintelligent or unwilling to change their beliefs? I guess how would we city folk know?

Thats my simplistic thoughts on this. :flower:~~~

Thanks so VERY much, and I read your whole post carefully, twice. :highfive:

It reminded me of an interesting incident in my own life. (The only one I could think of that matched quite well! I do think I've been very blessed in many ways.)

I was on a Himalayan mountaineering expedition, was hiking to base camp on a VERY hot day, had no water, but came across a beautiful sparkling stream that seemed to be coming straight from a glacier way above. The environment all around us was pristine, and we were way above any human habitation.

The water was cold and delicious. But a couple of hours later I had a high fever. Come the evening, I could hardly move or think. I spent several days slipping in and out of consciousness, with a fever of 104-105ºF. The expedition doctor told me later he was seriously worried me might lose me.

I recovered just about enough to limp back home to the UK without climbing anything. I went straight to the doctor for a test, and was diagnosed with dysentery (shigella flexneri). He gave me a bunch of super-strong antibiotics.

I threw the antibiotics away, and now I had the diagnosis I went straight to a Traditional Chinese Acupuncturist, figuring that the Chinese had been dealing with dysentery for at least 5,000 years.

By the next morning, I'd recovered completely.

I went back to the doc for another test, and was pronounced clear.

"Those antibiotics sure worked quickly", he said.

I told him I'd never taken them, and had gone to a Chinese acupuncturist instead.

Far from being curious, or even pleased that I was better, he was absolutely furious. He shouted at me that I was irresponsible, and practically threw me out of his office.

:ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL:

His own belief system was as rigid as cold steel.

[Ravenlocke]

So in simplistic terms, I’ve been scolded from childhood for doing certain things my “way” and accomplishing the task and being told it was not approved because I did things differently from the way it was taught.

Some examples that I still remember, a schoolteacher said to me once, “you got the right answer but that is not the way we calculate the problem”. ( She had made me write out the problem on the board). That was my arithmatic class.

I got scolded by my mother when I was little for folding laundry not the way she taught me. After that I made sure I always folded, towels, handkerchiefs, pillow cases, etc the way she wanted it done. Years later as a grown up I realized there is more than one way to do things, in fact it can be infinite amount of ways.

I was scolded when I was around 9 or 10, for reading the Ernest Hemingway book, The Old Man and The Sea on summer vacation, while I was staying at Grandma’s house. There was no mark or warning in the book that said I had to be grown up to read it. It was sitting in the bookcase where I had access to it. So I finished reading it secretly anyway.

It is little things like this that set boundaries in my childhood…

One time in my adult life I was “scolded” by a nurse because I dared tell her that ADD in children was invented by a bunch of psychiatrists. I pointed out study publications and her argument ended up that I dont know anything and should keep my mouth shut because I couldnt posibly understand when I don’t even have children of my own.

Shouldn’t there be a middle of the road where intellect meets curiosity or willingness to explore beyond the boundaries put on us from childhood on. Or from what we are taught in education, maybe we should be encouraged to be flexible and explore when we are challenged in our beliefs to keep an open mind in whatever we are learning?

This topic probably only applies to people living in big, modern cities right? I mean do people that live in very remote areas that do not have much contact with the “modern” world also grow up to be unintelligent or unwilling to change their beliefs? I guess how would we city folk know?

Thats my simplistic thoughts on this. :flower:~~~

Thanks so VERY much, and I read your whole post carefully, twice. :highfive:

It reminded me of an interesting incident in my own life. (The only one I could think of that matched quite well! I do think I've been very blessed in many ways.)

I was on a Himalayan mountaineering expedition, was hiking to base camp on a VERY hot day, had no water, but came across a beautiful sparkling stream that seemed to be coming straight from a glacier way above. The environment all around us was pristine, and we were way above any human habitation.

The water was cold and delicious. But a couple of hours later I had a high fever. Come the evening, I could hardly move or think. I spent several days slipping in and out of consciousness, with a fever of 104-105ºF. The expedition doctor told me later he was seriously worried me might lose me.

I recovered just about enough to limp back home to the UK without climbing anything. I went straight to the doctor for a test, and was diagnosed with dysentery (shigella flexneri). He gave me a bunch of super-strong antibiotics.

I threw the antibiotics away, and now I had the diagnosis I went straight to a Traditional Chinese Acupuncturist, figuring that the Chinese had been dealing with dysentery for at least 5,000 years.

By the next morning, I'd recovered completely.

I went back to the doc for another test, and was pronounced clear.

"Those antibiotics sure worked quickly", he said.

I told him I'd never taken them, and had gone to a Chinese acupuncturist instead.

Far from being curious, or even pleased that I was better, he was absolutely furious. He shouted at me that I was irresponsible, and practically threw me out of his office.

:ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL:

His own belief system was as rigid as cold steel.

:clapping::clapping::clapping:That’s a good one Bill, thank you for sharing. As much as it made me laugh trying to picture the doctor’s face when you told him the truth, it is really sad as well and clearly shows the truth.
But Im really glad you made it and recouped ok. Phew you wouldnt be here to tell us your story otherwise and we would really miss you and your insight.:heart:

[avid]

I got shouted at for using my home-made colloidal silver solution. My earache quickly got better, and it worked for many other problems. In the end, doctor said why do I bother if I ignore them, but he looked up the ‘solution’ and agreed, there was definitely something to it. Haven’t brewed up for awhile, time to get distilling water first!

[DNA]

I'm of the opinion we are all brain washed.
I say this as an American,,,
I remember recognizing this as a young man and entering into an introspective phase of questioning everything. For effing years.
Kind of painful and I'm sure I was pretty painful to be around.

Coming out of it I would see others I considered young philosopher types doing this same thing.
Going through an elongated introspective phase of over thinking and questioning everything they at one time had taken for granted.

Folks who go through this realize there is a social construct they can be satisfied with,,,,calling it self or.... one can take an inventory of self and attempt to be an entity experimenting with autonomy.

This in my opinion provides a certain wisdom.

Not really intelligence. Because the process is one of addition through subtraction but yes a certain wisdom. :)

[Ravenlocke]

I think that religions also impose boundaries on what people should believe, or learn or accept as truth. As an example, in the 1500s they put people to death if they believed the earth was round until Copernicus.
To put it simplistically, governments having their own agendas also steer the masses in the wrong direction, as in encouraging consumerism, wars, separation, famine, genocide, even inventions are prohibited if they do not profit the government or are pro environment, pro anything good.

The planet itself has been visited by star beings for thousands of years, many researchers have written books on this but yet we still don’t have disclosure. I think now most people believe that our planet is not the only planet in the whole universe that has life on it. How can just one universe made up of trillions and trillions of stars and galaxies not have more than one planet in one galaxy sustain life? And not to mention the millions of stories from around the world of alien encounters and abductions.

In our so called modern world forms of healing not adhering to “government standards” are discouraged, even discarded, ridiculed, rather than taught.

In conclusion I don’t think humans are unintelligent as much as we are intentionally kept in the dark, discouraged from not conforming and going along with the “program”.
I think it all has to do with how curious and how willing is an individual to want to go to find out the truth for him/her self, and how willing is he/her to take the hard road not the easy road. I think unless they are completely snuffed out, there are lots of those that are in the know, but they do it “quietly”.

[Tintin]

Confirmation bias and Anchoring bias

A brilliant less than two minute summing up here :flower: :muscle:

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1762477998454788096/pu/vid/avc1/576x1024/vGEavOjdQvb9KZqX.mp4?tag=12

[Vicus]

Well,then I may be a human anomaly...

I don't come from a hyper literate family, the only book at home was a Bible that I never saw anybody reading,,,

Just happen to be that I learn to reed absolute early in my life and my curiosity was include early on.
One Uncle came to visit once a month, always with a big newspaper and while adults chatter in the room I was under the table reading the newspaper from page 1 to last one!

Reading (in secret)the Old Testament was my first HORROR at all levels in my life...been a kid at that time
my normal lecture were all the super heroes comics ,change every day in a shop like a basement with 3 rooms, the comics place were outside...

Enter puberty my curiosity ask me: what are in the other rooms?

That was for me like the internet today...a candy store...been in love with movies about Troy and the ancient Greek, I found first "pocket" books about: The Iliad, all the Homer books,etc.
By 15 years old I read all the Greeks classics and those books have notice about terms and how they are use in psychology today...and that brought me to Carl Jung...and the rest is History...

There are many form/art to learn: visual, reading,listen,observe,experience (special from the bad...)

And when Internet came, the sky wasn't the limit but the Universe!

Just as a kid my "perception" of the world told me something is wrong...and I wanted to find the WHY...

Therefor I'm very happy to have found Avalon and all the other seekers... :cheer2:

It-is a pity for the rest non seekers, but nobody can do the work for you, it must be your choose...

[Vicus]

Belief = Normie

I was in a technical high school, with double turn, in the morning the normal stuff (math,Spanish,etc)
In in the afternoon workshop, 2 hours pause in between.

It was a National school (gratis,like all education levels...in a country that never was socialist/communist...) (learn that US!)

The teachers were all professors from Colleges with high cultural level...

When I was 15 years old I learned my first lesson about what this Thread is about...

My Geography/Geology teacher talk about how the continents were form... and I very happy commented something I was reading about continents displacement on the Earth mantel...

That was not only new for her but then began to ridicule me about in front the class...
It hit me that she don't knew not only about but she feel it like I attack not only her ignorance but her
belief too! don't let me time to tell her about a science magazine from that month with that special theme...

1)Hard lesson learned: never waist your time trying to change someone "beliefs" let it be...

2)Bonus for me: in that moment learned that I'm not a NORMIE ...

PS: she was the only teacher from my 6 years school not at the quality like the others...
but I learned that 2 lessons... thanks...

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

There's perhaps a lesson in what Vicus writes above, and what the neuroscientist explains in the video. It's all too easy to judge somebody who refuses to accept anything beyond the margins of their own narrow viewpoint. Very often -- I'm certainly guilty of this -- I walk away thinking they're stupid.

This stubbornness could be because the architecture of the brain is so locked in-place that a radical redesign is impossible.

-- It isn't bloody-mindedness, it's more complex than that, and not entirely the fault of the individual.

I guess that's what all the programming, gaslighting and social engineering is for. It's all about configuring the way your brain works. Your brain, after all, is basically a highly malleable input/output system. What comes out of it is only as good as what goes in.

Program it with crap, that's what it will produce.


53888

[DNA]

We live in an Era where emotional indulgence is considered a God given right and the true barometer for right and wrong is how something makes you feel rather than logic, careful study and or detached scrutiny.

Humans are emotional creatures first using logic as a secondary tool and only then to validate their emotions.

Propaganda is designed to control people through their emotions. And emotionally controlled people are almost impossible to reason with.

[Pfaffenhofen_2009]

... great signature slogan ! ... :-)

[lunaflare]

Well, I am of the belief that humans are intelligent. Our bodies certainly are, and so is the astounding creative intelligence of the Natural world...we are just in a type of game/experience that seems to require forgetfulness...

[Ashiris]

People are not unintelligent. They are brainwashed

[pueblo]

This is a serious thread. For years I've pondered why (e.g.) someone with a PhD and a measured IQ of 180 might be just really dumb and unaware outside of their specialist field. We see this ALL the time.

It's not about EQ (Emotional Intelligence) or SQ (Spiritual Intelligence). I think it's about the predominant vulnerability of almost all humans, whatever their IQ, EQ, SQ, age, culture, or level of education, to be victims of belief.

And there may be two components to that:


The susceptibility to being initially influenced to form a belief.
The resistance to letting go of it once it's entrenched.

A high intellect can paradoxically be a handicap, as extremely clever people are often very skilled at self-justifying whatever beliefs they have. A smart and articulate person will defend their beliefs strongly, self-reinforcing all the time.

I'd be most interested in other members' views (and experiences!) about this.

Perhaps some of the explanation for the seemingly inexplicable tendency for some people to become "victims of belief" can be explained by the difference between right and left brain dominant thinkers.

The below is a quote from a book 'The Matter with Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions, and the Unmaking of the World'.


"When confronted with a deadline, insight solvers will simply not complete the task if the answer has not come in time.

However, when analytic solvers run out of time, they tend to guess, often incorrectly, before the deadline, offering the hypothesis they were busy evaluating at the time.

Don’t forget that, to put it bluntly, the left hemisphere is overconfident and is prone to bull****.

Creative intuitions frequently begin with not knowing, with the recognition that the obvious does not apply, that something here does not fit.

If you are engaged in narrowing down to the most likely, are less inclined to doubt what you believe you know, and are inclined to preserve the current paradigm at all costs, rather than take seriously a finding that requires its modification, it is clear that you will be less likely to find something new – or accept it when it is pointed out to you."

So, these "victims of belief" may simply not be able to access the creative power of "not knowing", unable to see that "something here does not fit". Further, when presented with something which challenges their current paradigm they are unable to accept it.

This neatly explains the phenomenon we have all experienced when trying to explain something non mainstream to a mainstream mind....namely that no matter how much proof/evidence or support for your argument you present the person remains unmoved from their original position.

I am guessing, but I don't know, that those high IQ PHDs mentioned in the OP are predominantly left brain thinkers.

For reference on Left v Right brain thinking....


The concept of "left brain" versus "right brain" thinking suggests that individuals have a dominant side of the brain that influences their personality and cognitive abilities. Left-brain dominance is often associated with logic, analysis, and linear thinking, while right-brain dominance is linked to creativity, intuition, and spatial reasoning. However, it's important to note that the brains of most people are not entirely dominated by one side and both hemispheres are active in most cognitive tasks.


Link to a PDF of the book quoted above.
https://dokumen.pub/the-matter-with-things-our-brains-our-delusions-and-the-unmaking-of-the-world-1-amp-2-9781914568060-9781914568053.html