A high IQ. Why does it matter? Is it Overrated ??

[thepainterdoug]

Bill , what a great song and lyric to bring up. THANKS!

In the late 1990s I spent 1 month on Caye Calker, a small Island off Belize and I mingled with and learned how the native people lived, and fished . The fishing lesson I got from the native women on the bank of the split who were all kind, laughing and amused by my fishing gear, were a great example of how, experience , not intelligence created know how. With their sticks and string the would pull the fish up and out of the water with a joyful ease.

If a high IQ , and lets say a group of High I Q Brilliant people could get together and collectively make our world, our country, a harmonious and loving place, then I would applaud that group and see the values of a high IQ
But it cant and wont because its all about money, its all about power ,about hoarding and amassing things in protection from the impending fear and reality that we will all eventually die.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
A passing thought. We'll never know all the numbers, of course, but I'd bet that the median score of Avalon members' IQs would be in the 140 range, topping out at 180+. We may not be a typical population here!

Several have asked me if I could possibly say a little more about this.

It's sensitive in a way, because it's not a competition, EQ and SQ are just as if not more important, and I'm very reluctant to showcase some members above others. (That's not what we're about here. )

Regarding EQ and SQ being more important, I'd argue very strongly that the world would be a FAR FAR better place with a population full of highly empathic and spiritual people, rather than full of people with high IQs.

But to name one or two folks who I think may deserve acknowledgement, Carmody (still a member in good standing, but who last posted in 2020) told us several times that he had an IQ in the 200 range. (We didn't disbelieve him!) Hervé, recently sadly passed, was also exceptionally bright.

Among current members, Wade Frazier posted this just yesterday:

~~~

I was a bookworm from the time that I could walk, and my parents quickly realized that I was a chip off the old block. I was raised to be a scientist from the cradle. By third grade, I was in what were called “gifted” classes, which lasted through middle school. By age nine, I read the family’s encyclopedia each night, read the daily paper, read all of the paleontology books in my primary school’s library, and won the first spelling bee that I ever entered at that new school, in which a fourth grader beat the fifth and sixth graders.

~~~

Houman, who as best I know in all these years has never once posted anything about himself, is supremely gifted and a highly distinguished academic. (I've had the great pleasure of meeting with him personally several times.)

And Bruce G Charlton, who I first met long ago when he was a teenager and who impressed me so much at the time that I never forgot his name, has very modestly shared his academic credentials a few times, and it may be clear from his posts what a very high intellect he has.

Lastly in this same category, I'd like to tip my hat to shaberon, whose many long posts are detailed and intricate works of scholarship that have several times boggled my mind and left me profoundly impressed. I'd bet quite a large cup of coffee he might be in the 180 range.

And I do feel I have to mention Mashika (a young Russian girl in her 20s, last on the forum 2 years ago) who was fluent in 3 languages, super-fast and piercingly witty, who connected, understood, and argued sophisticated concepts that might have tested many people 3 times her age. Her intellect and deeply human awareness, way beyond her years, impacted me in more ways than I can easily say. (And Masha, if you happen to me reading this offline having noticed your name, we all miss you. )

There are many others with exceptional minds among us, 100% for sure. We held this poll a little while back, asking (anonymously) about members' educational achievements, and 12 members shared they were at the PhD level. Yours truly never got nearly that far (I lost all interest in academia as an undergrad), but my IQ was last measured at 162. (However, that was a long time ago! )

~~~

These kinds of numbers need a little commentary. Most psychologists who work in this area freely state that IQ tests greatly lose their significance or even meaning above about 160. It's impossible to assign a simple number to a super-genius, of which there have been many in human history. And the numbers aren't linear, either — there's almost certainly a wide gap between 160 and 180, and an even wider gulf up to 200 and beyond.

About those super-geniuses, here's just a small selection:* All the great Greek philosophers, Archimedes, Leonardo, Immanuel Kant, Leonhard Euler, Carl Gauss, Nikola Tesla, Ramanujan, and lastly maybe the most extraordinary super-genius of them all, John von Neumann. (He could perform mental calculations as fast as the computers of his day, several times generated proofs in his head of unsolved math problems on the spot, and could remember every word of every book he'd ever read. His college math professor said he was frightened of him. He was like Matt Damon's character in the film Good Will Hunting, if not even brighter and faster.)

* A few footnotes to that short list. It's not exclusive, not in the tiniest bit.

Many ask, what about Einstein? Einstein was bright, of course, but only at the same level as a score of contemporaries researching quantum physics 100 years ago. And his early work on Special Relativity was all founded on the research of his brilliant but almost unknown wife.

How about William Sidis, considered to have has an IQ of 250-300? He was a prodigy, and had an extraordinary mind, but he really didn't do anything with it in all his life. I do think that counts for something.

And how about Michelangelo, Mozart, Edward de Vere (who many believe wrote most if not all of Shakespeare's plays), Rembrandt, Beethoven, Bach, Tolstoy, Chekhov, Dostoevsky, and so many others among our greatest-ever artists? IQ won't work there. Some other aspect of genius is at play, which we've never found a way to (or dared to!) measure.

~~~

But here's a very fun story, having mentioned William Sidis' IQ being in the 250-300 range. Inelia (Inelia Benz, an Avalon member a while back), who had all kinds of genuine and remarkable psychic gifts, shared this very funny anecdote about her entrance exam to Dublin University when she was young.

They gave her an IQ test — in which she quickly answered all the multiple-choice questions and (if I remember right) left the room early. On grading it, the examiners found she had an impossible perfect score, implying an IQ of about 300.

What she never told them was that she'd answered all the questions psychically — kind of 'remote viewing' them instantly one by one in rapid succession — and had never figured anything out with her 'intelligence' at all.

~~~

I mentioned Good Will Hunting. Matt Damon himself has an IQ of 160. But that pales against that of actor James Woods, whose IQ is said to be 189.

Finally, to the American presidents. There's a fascinating historical article on this page. It's widely agreed that the smartest US President was John Quincy Adams (who was fluent in 7 languages), with an IQ estimated at 175. JFK was reportedly measured at 150, which might surprise no-one. What might be more surprising — to some! — is that Donald Trump has stated that his own IQ is 156.

I'll maybe end this little discourse right there!

[Bruce G Charlton]

Thanks Bill!

I was an IQ and personality researcher in my later years as an academic, and about the last big thing I did before retiring was co-write a book on genius, which is available free online.

One brief comment is that (ever since Galton in Victoria times) it has been recognized that high general intelligence or "g" (which is what is measured relatively by IQ tests) is only one of the main components of Genius - the other two are "creativity" (which requires further definition, obviously) and also a high motivation to do that thing at which the genius excels. High intelligence, creativity and motivation may be found separately, but all are needed.

(In my genius book I try to explain the underlying reality and relationship between these three factors.)

So, it is a common mistake to equate very high intelligence/ IQ scores with "genius" - but a large majority of the highest intelligence people are not creative, and therefore do not produce the works of a genius. For instance, in Terman's massive cohort study of the highest IQ kids of a certain age in California in the 1920s; these kids on average excelled in education, jobs, and many other areas of life.

But none of the highest IQ cohort were geniuses, and the two geniuses (one of them was Claude Shannon who invented transistors and information theory; I forget the other one) did Not score in the highest category of IQ (on the particular day the testing was done, at any rate), and were not part of the follow-up study.

[Michel Leclerc]

To this subject I would like to state the following points. Bruce G Charlton may confirm, nuance or refute them, I am ready to be corrected. I am in a way concerned, but not too much concerned.

A point re its validity. I would advocate to make the language as clear as possible. The meanings, the semantics. “Intelligence” is mainly related to rational thinking. Thinking can however also be intuitive – and, as Sheldrake would defend, precognitive. Intelligence tests then measure rational thinking. They do not measure intuitive or precognitive thinking, however important they may be. Therefore terms as "emotional intelligence" are misnomers. "Emotional awareness" might be a better term. “Musical intelligence", "kinaesthetic intelligence”: misnomers in my book. The mantra "IQ is not everything, there is also such a thing as EQ” only serves as an argument to disqualify IQ as anything of value to individuals or society. It is the eternal self-defense of moderately intelligent people. (Landed that one.)

For once, may I refer to Jordan Peterson, who is on my side in this. IQ tests, he says, are the only provably because objectively valid personality tests available – or something of the kind (please correct me if my phrasing is wrong). I have hired people in my life for jobs where intelligence was essential; IQ then was of help. All other "psychological tests” involve a lot of subjectivity, in both parties (the testee and the tester).

As an aside: my often annoying insistence on the importance of (understanding) language relates to this. Quite a lot of IQ tests (I encountered a few in my life) have a language component, supposedly measuring “linguistic skills”. I would then contend that (1) linguistic skills may be correlative to IQ but are not identical, one of the issues being how to measure linguistic skills (from my professional expertise (to give an idea): being fluent in 5 languages is less significant if these languages are English, Spanish, Russian, German and Italian than if they are Russian, Finnish, Arabic, Mandarin and Tamil); (2) IQ tests phrased in a language should address conceptual skills, not linguistic skills – conceptual skills pertaining to “rational thinking” skills, independent of language.

Point 3: it is my experience that higher IQ is not accepted socially. (It is unavoidable here for me to admit that I belong to the right side of the bell curve; but, because as a consultant I have consistently worked with top executives who significantly belonged to that part of the curve as well, I can only state that this experience is omnipresent.) Interestingly, people who are at the higher end of the scale will tell you that their "enemies" – the ones who resent their higher intelligence – are not the people with lower than average IQ, and not even, surprisingly (or not?), people with average intelligence (the middle bulk of the curve), but people with more than average intelligence but not yet in the “Mensa ballpark”. My answer to the question why: they are intelligent enough to know that more than average IQ matters, but not intelligent enough to conclude from that that IQ higher than theirs matters more than theirs.

The barrage of hostility during childhood and adolescence may lead to the following fatal combination. “I have intelligence”, quite a few say, “but now I need power”. So they use their IQ to manipulate people and to manoeuvre themselves into positions where they replace natural authority given to them by their IQ with power to coerce people who are unable to tell the difference. They become the smart monsters we encounter where powers destroy people and intelligence is thought to be automatable.

However, in just slightly different circumstances, something good may happen as well. Quite another few understand soon in their lives that IQ is only IQ. Kindness, intuition, empathy, selflessness matter; matter very much. They notice how they themselves are shunned/attacked because they rationally understand things faster than others (dare I say exponentially faster?) and how others are because they are not smart enough according to the average rational understander. So they are not afraid of “stupid” people. They look them up and bond with them.

They try to figure out how they can talk with the autistic idiotic boy in the neighbourhood who seems to like to talk to the water bubbling from the fountain.

They love animals. They are called Grothendieck and play the piano. They persuade swarms of pigeons to come and fly circles above their heads. They join an Amazon forest tribe and seek happiness amongst them.




p.s. re the sentence in blue: its first version was: They are called Einstein and play the violin – but your critical remark about Einstein, Bill, made me think again; after then choosing Gödel I discovered that my assumption that Einstein and he played the violin together was a fata morgana: with Grothendieck I am on safe ground, at least with regard to the musical part..

[rgray222]

On the lighter side of the IQ dilemma.

[Bruce G Charlton]

@Michel - and others reading this thread:

There is a very important and thought-provoking essay about the difficult situation of many of those people of exceptionally high intelligence, such as William Sidis mentioned above.

Here is the original publication in the journal of an ultra-high IQ society - the Prometheus Society - which is easier to read.

If you do read this essay, I guarantee you will not forget it.

The author was Grady M Towers, who was one such person. He worked in a menial job, as a night watchman; and was murdered in the course of his duties not long after writing the above.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Bruce G Charlton (here)
@Michel - and others reading this thread:

There is a very important and thought-provoking essay about the difficult situation of many of those people of exceptionally high intelligence, such as William Sidis mentioned above.

Here is the original publication in the journal of an ultra-high IQ society - the Prometheus Society - which is easier to read.

If you do read this essay, I guarantee you will not forget it.

The author was Grady M Towers, who was one such person. He worked in a menial job, as a night watchman; and was murdered in the course of his duties not long after writing the above.

Thanks! The article (as a crude summary!) is about how many super-intelligent people grow to become (or feel) extremely isolated, and sometimes fail to deal with that. At the close, Grady Towers (the author) makes this comment:

~~~

The point of this article is not that there’s some special hazard in having an exceptional IQ: There’s not. The point is that the danger lies in having an exceptional IQ in an environment completely lacking in intellectual peers. It’s the isolation that does the damage, not the IQ itself.

~~~

Years ago, I read a small but very poignant story about a super-smart tiny kid, just a few years old — clearly one of these rare gifted prodigies — who picked up a silver tablespoon and to his fascination and delight saw that his reflection was upside down.

He was so excited about this that he rushed around trying to share his discovery with all the other little kids in his preschool class. They had no interest at all, and just laughed at him and teased him. He was so hurt by the rejection of his excitement that he never shared his many other discoveries about the world with any kids ever again.

[Dilettante]

Not to poke too much fun, but for a bunch of people saying "IQ doesn't matter," there seems to be plenty of interest in IQ on this thread!

Of course it matters... But I get it, being a good person really is more important.

The other thing about intelligence is that it's not going to solve the problem the world faces today, the only thing that can solve that is a shift in consciousness where we all mutually agree to stop playing the game of hierarchy and give up control. Together! It doesn't work unless we all give it up, this crabs in a bucket mentality. Worst of all, for even those of us who know that, few have actually done it, like myself, although I'm working on it.

Also, huge respect to Casey Claar for actually taking the IQ test and posting it.

I didn't really want to share mine because I think it's kind of personal, but for Casey's sake I'll come out. You'll have to trust me - I don't have time to take the test right now but I should later for full transparency - both times I took the test I got 134. So, in a room of 100 people, there are roughly 2 or 3 people about as smart.

Smart enough to know that I'm not genius-level smart.

What von Neumann could do in his head in about 10 seconds would probably take me an hour to understand. What he could learn in a week would take me a year, that kind of stuff. Newton would probably scare the s*** out of me if I talked to him, although I would still go for it.

I was shocked to hear Bill say that there are plenty of 160+ IQs here, I would be impressed if that's true. What's more, I'd be interested in knowing what they've done with it!

[HopSan]

Posted by Dilettante (here)

I was shocked to hear Bill say that there are plenty of 160+ IQs here, I would be impressed if that's true. What's more, I'd be interested in knowing what they've done with it!

Dilettante, the question is, re-phrased: "What have they done, after running over Everest, without Oxygen?"

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Dilettante (here)
I was shocked to hear Bill say that there are plenty of 160+ IQs here, I would be impressed if that's true.

I'm sure it's true. But the Avalon community, relatively small as it is, is rich with exceptional people, many of whose abilities have no numerical measure.

We have among us — now and/or in recent years:

• Several experienced astral travelers
• Two breatharians (people who never have to eat)
• A number of spoonbenders
• Quite a few who've had direct personal experience with ET beings (including one member who has regular, lengthy, physical, detailed face-to-face meetings)
• Numerous writers, artists, musicians and composers
• Many healers
• Too many psychics and telepaths to count
• At least one highly trained Remote Viewer (plus a former member, now passed, who was part of Hal Puthoff's SRI research team)
• Many with detailed knowledge of their past lives
• Dozens of the highest quality empaths
• A number of high-performing academics and software engineers.

So taking that all into account, those with measured high IQs are only one segment of the rather exceptional Avalon community mosaic.

[Mike]

Posted by Dilettante (here)
Not to poke too much fun, but for a bunch of people saying "IQ doesn't matter," there seems to be plenty of interest in IQ on this thread!

Of course it matters... But I get it, being a good person really is more important.

The other thing about intelligence is that it's not going to solve the problem the world faces today, the only thing that can solve that is a shift in consciousness where we all mutually agree to stop playing the game of hierarchy and give up control. Together! It doesn't work unless we all give it up, this crabs in a bucket mentality. Worst of all, for even those of us who know that, few have actually done it, like myself, although I'm working on it.

Also, huge respect to Casey Claar for actually taking the IQ test and posting it.

I didn't really want to share mine because I think it's kind of personal, but for Casey's sake I'll come out. You'll have to trust me - I don't have time to take the test right now but I should later for full transparency - both times I took the test I got 134. So, in a room of 100 people, there are roughly 2 or 3 people about as smart.

Smart enough to know that I'm not genius-level smart.

What von Neumann could do in his head in about 10 seconds would probably take me an hour to understand. What he could learn in a week would take me a year, that kind of stuff. Newton would probably scare the s*** out of me if I talked to him, although I would still go for it.

I was shocked to hear Bill say that there are plenty of 160+ IQs here, I would be impressed if that's true. What's more, I'd be interested in knowing what they've done with it!

Can you please explain what you mean by 'giving up the game of hierarchy'? I've heard this idea batted around in communities like this one and I still don't quite understand it. What would a world with no hierarchy look like?

I guess the biggest irony here is that without high IQ people we wouldn't even be able to have this debate about high IQ people We wouldn't have computers, the internet, electricity, indoor plumbing, labor saving devices, automobiles, airplanes, space shuttles, or any kind of modern infrastructure whatsoever. I wouldn't trade any of the high IQ people involved in the creation of those things for someone more cuddly or spiritual or what people are calling emotionally intelligent.

Without Elon Musk there's a strong chance Kamala Harris would be president, and it's not because he's socially or emotionally graceful. He's one of the most awkward guys around. It's his sheer intelligence that got him where he is today, and what bailed our lucky asses out of the end of western civilization in all likelihood. My 2 cents anyway.

We need all kinds of people with all kinds of skills to make society work.. we need spiritual leaders and laborers and empaths and clerks and artists etc. But none of that exists without the bones of the civilization, and those are laid down by the high IQ people. I think that's an unassailable assertion.

[onawah]

To take these observations from Michel Leclerc and Bruce G. Charlton a step further, might it be that those with higher than average IQs (but not genius level) may not so much "resent" those with "MENSA ballpark" IQs, as regard them as dangerous due to the possibility of them rating low on integrity and/or empathy, or of having a kind of gullible tunnel vision?

Inasmuch as it seems clear in these times especially, that the intelligence of many of those with high IQs has been used to create a very dystopian reality, to the point of possibly erasing humanity altogether, or altering it into something non-human.
(See: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...=1#post1659780 )
Is that due to gullibility, simple indifference or lack of empathy?
Or could it be due to the strong drive to put their intelligence to use, regardless of the consequences?

Posted by Michel Leclerc (here)
Interestingly, people who are at the higher end of the scale will tell you that their "enemies" – the ones who resent their higher intelligence – are not the people with lower than average IQ, and not even, surprisingly (or not?), people with average intelligence (the middle bulk of the curve), but people with more than average intelligence but not yet in the “Mensa ballpark”. My answer to the question why: they are intelligent enough to know that more than average IQ matters, but not intelligent enough to conclude from that that IQ higher than theirs matters more than theirs.

The barrage of hostility during childhood and adolescence may lead to the following fatal combination. “I have intelligence”, quite a few say, “but now I need power”. So they use their IQ to manipulate people and to manoeuvre themselves into positions where they replace natural authority given to them by their IQ with power to coerce people who are unable to tell the difference. They become the smart monsters we encounter where powers destroy people and intelligence is thought to be automatable.

Posted by Bruce G Charlton (here)
One brief comment is that (ever since Galton in Victoria times) it has been recognized that high general intelligence or "g" (which is what is measured relatively by IQ tests) is only one of the main components of Genius - the other two are "creativity" (which requires further definition, obviously) and also a high motivation to do that thing at which the genius excels. High intelligence, creativity and motivation may be found separately, but all are needed.

[ClearWater]

The last IQ test I took was many years ago and it ended up at 136. I'm sure it would be lower now since I don't often exercise the type of mental muscle it tests for.

I find that my level of intellect is higher than many people I interact with, and has allowed me to set myself apart from others in my work environment despite being a college dropout. And I'm also regularly in contact with people that are clearly better thinkers than myself. The way their minds work is a mystery and a wonder to me.

I certainly have no delusions of grandeur, regardless of what percentage of people I'm supposedly smarter than. I value things like conscientiousness and compassion over intelligence, among many other traits - both in myself and others. But there's no doubt that intelligence (even the kind measured by an IQ test) can be of great value in and to the world.

[Dilettante]

Posted by Mike (here)

Posted by Dilettante (here)
The other thing about intelligence is that it's not going to solve the problem the world faces today, the only thing that can solve that is a shift in consciousness where we all mutually agree to stop playing the game of hierarchy and give up control. Together! It doesn't work unless we all give it up, this crabs in a bucket mentality. Worst of all, for even those of us who know that, few have actually done it, like myself, although I'm working on it.

Can you please explain what you mean by 'giving up the game of hierarchy'? I've heard this idea batted around in communities like this one and I still don't quite understand it. What would a world with no hierarchy look like?

This is a really good question. It's obvious that we have not figured this out, otherwise we would have the answer, but I still believe that it is the future.

What could it look like?

We're testing out different ideas, like the Chinese social credit system, which understandably the Western mind is allergic to. But is it wrong? We're dealing with a planet full of 8 billion people, who are coming off of a mentality of improving living standards for most people (formerly known as the middle class), which essentially means more resource extraction per capita. That's not going to work. There are only so many minerals, so many aquifers, so much arable land, etc. that the idea of infinite growth on a finite planet is not an option. Or if we think it is, we will make a living hell for ourselves and for the other plants and animals on this Earth.

We really do have a responsibility to all the birds and fishes and foxes and slugs and bats and snakes and worms now. Who is going to care about the blobfish? Who is going to care about the hippopotamus? Who is going to care about the starfish? And I mean really care. Not treat them as entertainment or something to be exploited.

I'm not a bleeding heart environmentalist on this topic either, the billionaires and government programs have their fair share of ruining the planet along with consumers. They are the ones funding containment-level environmentalism so they can continue the grift. But look at Earth from satellite imagery - we are a planetary species. It's high time we started acting like one.

A different idea, far different from the Chinese control grid, can be found in the past. The Christian monastic communes. Some people tried to revitalize something like them in the 1960s with the New Age eco-villages. Not trying to bum anyone out, but the Christians were a little more stable than the New Agers have been. It's a simple existence of asceticism and contemplation. The Buddhists are familiar with such a lifestyle as well. But not too many people are keen on being a nun or a monk.

The main idea is that we have to ask less of the Earth, which does mean life moves a whole lot slower. Many people today are addicted to the speed of life, as evident in the length and repetition of something like TikTok. No offense, but a lot of people here are addicted to spectacular news on X. We have to start living strategically again and wonder if there will be an inhabitable planet for our great-great-great-grandchildren.

Yes, there is extraordinary technology out there that would make energy really cheap, but to release such a technology on the mindset of the world as it exists now would be like pouring gasoline on a fire.

Posted by Mike (here)
I guess the biggest irony here is that without high IQ people we wouldn't even be able to have this debate about high IQ people We wouldn't have computers, the internet, electricity, indoor plumbing, labor saving devices, automobiles, airplanes, space shuttles, or any kind of modern infrastructure whatsoever. I wouldn't trade any of the high IQ people involved in the creation of those things for someone more cuddly or spiritual or what people are calling emotionally intelligent.

[...]

We need all kinds of people with all kinds of skills to make society work.. we need spiritual leaders and laborers and empaths and clerks and artists etc. But none of that exists without the bones of the civilization, and those are laid down by the high IQ people. I think that's an unassailable assertion.

Unassailable?

I'm something of a European mutt. Plenty of old English, going back to the early 17th century Americans, a part German, a part Scandinavian, even a pinch of French. I think of what people like me did long ago, in a large part on accident (influenza) but plenty of it on purpose, to the people who lived in America before we were here. This is tough for me, but I think we displaced a better people.

Let's not make it all peachy, I understand the American Indians had blood on their hands like all people. But I think of the Sioux and their connection to the land, their connection to the animals. I think of the Cahokia mounds and imagine the number of people living on the land in harmony with it (as evident by their modest remains), and then I look to St. Louis and see a people staining the land with the artifice of their collective ego. For what, cheap thrills?

Let's be honest, we are not building stuff as cool as the Giza pyramids, we're making a bunch of ****ing McDonald's. At least the pyramids are respectable.

Technology makes man comfortable and then man becomes a slave to techne. Yes, the Europeans had laws and ships and guns and mathematics and so they sickened and tricked and slaughtered the natives. Some call it "evolution."

I'd rather it'd not happened.

The fire of men's minds will spread until it has burned everything it can. The "developed" world might just eat itself. You'd have better luck being an African in a small village disconnected from the world to survive what we're headed towards.

And the answer, said the judge. If God meant to interfere in the degeneracy of mankind would he not have done so by now? Wolves cull themselves, man. What other creature could? And is the race of man not more predacious yet? The way of the world is to bloom and to flower and die but in the affairs of men there is no waning and the noon of his expression signals the onset of night. His spirit is exhausted at the peak of its achievement. His meridian is at once his darkening and the evening of his day. He loves games? Let him play for stakes. This you see here, these ruins wondered at by tribes of savages, do you not think that this will be again? Aye. And again. With other people, with other sons.

[Dilettante]

Posted by onawah (here)
Inasmuch as it seems clear in these times especially, that the intelligence of many of those with high IQs has been used to create a very dystopian reality, to the point of possibly erasing humanity altogether, or altering it into something non-human.

Modern man might look to the future man-machine what extant hominids look like to us. An uncomfortable thought... but how do you think the gorilla feels? Not to mention the treeshrew!

I don't see many tears being shed for all the other Homo species:



The truth is, we have most ruthlessly killed what looks most like us for millions of years. Can we stop that instinct?

[onawah]

I take it you did not watch the Rumble video here before replying: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...=1#post1659780 )
https://rumble.com/v6qfjwo-space-fen...e9s=src_v1_ucp
...Or understood what was meant here: "Inasmuch as it seems clear in these times especially, that the intelligence of many of those with high IQs has been used to create a very dystopian reality, to the point of possibly erasing humanity altogether, or altering it into something non-human."

Non-human meaning hive-minded, robotic, genetically altered, mind controlled, etc. All of which are far different from natural mutation of one species of hominid to another.
And actually suggests ET or ED culpability, if you are willing to go deep enough down the rabbit hole.
Suggesting there is good reason for thinking the concept of non-interference by more advanced ET civilizations (such as we see in "Star Trek" scifi) is based on experienced and compassionate intelligence.
...That regressive ETs or EDs would willingly interfere with humanitys' evolution by introducing advanced technology before the race is mature enough to handle it.
And that they would do so in order to make it easier for them to interfere, take control, and/or annihilate a technologically inferior, still-developing race.


(See: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...=1#post1659780 )

Posted by Dilettante (here)

Posted by onawah (here)
Inasmuch as it seems clear in these times especially, that the intelligence of many of those with high IQs has been used to create a very dystopian reality, to the point of possibly erasing humanity altogether, or altering it into something non-human.

Modern man might look to the future man-machine what extant hominids look like to us. An uncomfortable thought... but how do you think the gorilla feels? Not to mention the treeshrew!

I don't see many tears being shed for all the other Homo species:

The truth is, we have most ruthlessly killed what looks most like us for millions of years. Can we stop that instinct?

Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v6o7n74/?pub=4

[Mike]

Posted by Dilettante (here)

Posted by Mike (here)

Posted by Dilettante (here)
The other thing about intelligence is that it's not going to solve the problem the world faces today, the only thing that can solve that is a shift in consciousness where we all mutually agree to stop playing the game of hierarchy and give up control. Together! It doesn't work unless we all give it up, this crabs in a bucket mentality. Worst of all, for even those of us who know that, few have actually done it, like myself, although I'm working on it.

Can you please explain what you mean by 'giving up the game of hierarchy'? I've heard this idea batted around in communities like this one and I still don't quite understand it. What would a world with no hierarchy look like?

This is a really good question. It's obvious that we have not figured this out, otherwise we would have the answer, but I still believe that it is the future.

What could it look like?

We're testing out different ideas, like the Chinese social credit system, which understandably the Western mind is allergic to. But is it wrong? We're dealing with a planet full of 8 billion people, who are coming off of a mentality of improving living standards for most people (formerly known as the middle class), which essentially means more resource extraction per capita. That's not going to work. There are only so many minerals, so many aquifers, so much arable land, etc. that the idea of infinite growth on a finite planet is not an option. Or if we think it is, we will make a living hell for ourselves and for the other plants and animals on this Earth.

We really do have a responsibility to all the birds and fishes and foxes and slugs and bats and snakes and worms now. Who is going to care about the blobfish? Who is going to care about the hippopotamus? Who is going to care about the starfish? And I mean really care. Not treat them as entertainment or something to be exploited.

I'm not a bleeding heart environmentalist on this topic either, the billionaires and government programs have their fair share of ruining the planet along with consumers. They are the ones funding containment-level environmentalism so they can continue the grift. But look at Earth from satellite imagery - we are a planetary species. It's high time we started acting like one.

A different idea, far different from the Chinese control grid, can be found in the past. The Christian monastic communes. Some people tried to revitalize something like them in the 1960s with the New Age eco-villages. Not trying to bum anyone out, but the Christians were a little more stable than the New Agers have been. It's a simple existence of asceticism and contemplation. The Buddhists are familiar with such a lifestyle as well. But not too many people are keen on being a nun or a monk.

The main idea is that we have to ask less of the Earth, which does mean life moves a whole lot slower. Many people today are addicted to the speed of life, as evident in the length and repetition of something like TikTok. No offense, but a lot of people here are addicted to spectacular news on X. We have to start living strategically again and wonder if there will be an inhabitable planet for our great-great-great-grandchildren.

Yes, there is extraordinary technology out there that would make energy really cheap, but to release such a technology on the mindset of the world as it exists now would be like pouring gasoline on a fire.

Posted by Mike (here)
I guess the biggest irony here is that without high IQ people we wouldn't even be able to have this debate about high IQ people We wouldn't have computers, the internet, electricity, indoor plumbing, labor saving devices, automobiles, airplanes, space shuttles, or any kind of modern infrastructure whatsoever. I wouldn't trade any of the high IQ people involved in the creation of those things for someone more cuddly or spiritual or what people are calling emotionally intelligent.

[...]

We need all kinds of people with all kinds of skills to make society work.. we need spiritual leaders and laborers and empaths and clerks and artists etc. But none of that exists without the bones of the civilization, and those are laid down by the high IQ people. I think that's an unassailable assertion.

Unassailable?

I'm something of a European mutt. Plenty of old English, going back to the early 17th century Americans, a part German, a part Scandinavian, even a pinch of French. I think of what people like me did long ago, in a large part on accident (influenza) but plenty of it on purpose, to the people who lived in America before we were here. This is tough for me, but I think we displaced a better people.

Let's not make it all peachy, I understand the American Indians had blood on their hands like all people. But I think of the Sioux and their connection to the land, their connection to the animals. I think of the Cahokia mounds and imagine the number of people living on the land in harmony with it (as evident by their modest remains), and then I look to St. Louis and see a people staining the land with the artifice of their collective ego. For what, cheap thrills?

Let's be honest, we are not building stuff as cool as the Giza pyramids, we're making a bunch of ****ing McDonald's. At least the pyramids are respectable.

Technology makes man comfortable and then man becomes a slave to techne. Yes, the Europeans had laws and ships and guns and mathematics and so they sickened and tricked and slaughtered the natives. Some call it "evolution."

I'd rather it'd not happened.

The fire of men's minds will spread until it has burned everything it can. The "developed" world might just eat itself. You'd have better luck being an African in a small village disconnected from the world to survive what we're headed towards.

And the answer, said the judge. If God meant to interfere in the degeneracy of mankind would he not have done so by now? Wolves cull themselves, man. What other creature could? And is the race of man not more predacious yet? The way of the world is to bloom and to flower and die but in the affairs of men there is no waning and the noon of his expression signals the onset of night. His spirit is exhausted at the peak of its achievement. His meridian is at once his darkening and the evening of his day. He loves games? Let him play for stakes. This you see here, these ruins wondered at by tribes of savages, do you not think that this will be again? Aye. And again. With other people, with other sons.

I think I understand the spirit of your post - and empathize with it on some level - but it also sounds quite a bit like the degrowth communism being promoted by the WEF. Deliberately making ourselves poorer now to hypothetically heal the planet sometime in the distant future doesn't make much sense to me. Significantly reducing the use of nuclear power and fossil fuels will cause the death of millions of people. I feel a far greater responsibility to human beings than the animals and insects. In a perfect world we'd have access to free energy, which would conveniently unburden us from this type of dilemma, but that's a whole other topic...

I don't think you can eliminate hierarchies and arrive at anything else but communism. When people envision a spiritual utopia, it's natural to eliminate hierarchies because I think most of us associate them with power and corruption. Of course they are susceptible to those things, but I'd argue that the main driving force behind hierarchies is competence. Once it's revealed that someone is better or more competent than someone else in some domain or other, a hierarchy organically forms. So hierarchy is inevitable in that way. And if you attempt to flatten out the hierarchies, you kill competence. And if you kill competence, you kill society. So I think we should embrace hierarchy, not seek to eliminate it.

The nature of IQ naturally creates uncomfortable hierarchies. When the reality of it all is acknowledged, the discussion doesn't have any sort of egalitarian warmth It can be a problem when we have to admit person A is just smarter than person B and is far likelier to live a more productive and fuller life as a result. Even among the natives, using your example, the higher IQ people assumed more respectable positions within the tribe and held more sway and mated with the most attractive females. The tribe would be lost without it's most intelligent members. That goes for any community, from the most primitive to the most technologically advanced. Yeah I think that's an unassailable assertion. Isn't that self-evident?

[Michel Leclerc]

Posted by HopSan (here)

(...)

What is it that we we work for?
Do we work for hate or love?
Are we bitter or humble?

Thank you HopSan.

The questions. The first because it is open.
The second and third because, while being apparently closed, they open vast thinking spaces. Books fit easily into them.

[Dilettante]

Posted by onawah (here)
Non-human meaning hive-minded, robotic, genetically altered, mind controlled, etc. All of which are far different from natural mutation of one species of hominid to another.
And actually suggests ET or ED culpability, if you are willing to go deep enough down the rabbit hole.
Suggesting there is good reason for thinking the concept of non-interference by more advanced ET civilizations (such as we see in "Star Trek" scifi) is based on experienced and compassionate intelligence.

Is this not found in my use of the term “man-machine?”

You are correct, I did not watch the Rumble video. Whether this next step comes from natural selection, ETs, angels and demons, or environmental selection with respect to modern technology - it doesn’t seem to matter much towards the end result.

Hive mind? That’s just society, try surviving without it (very difficult). Mind control? None of us are immune to propaganda, it’s just getting more subtle. Robotic? How many people willingly work by clock time, a 9 to 5, Monday through Friday? Of course we’re robots. Genetically altered? Never stops. We all have unique mutations, but now we have the ability to edit it in-place.

It’s just a matter of degree.

I don’t see how the near future’s fork in humanity with brain-computer interfaces will be that different from technological advances in the past like iPhones, computers, combustion engines, printing presses, guns, bows and arrows, or hand axes were to the people and civilizations of their time. A hand axe probably looked very alien to those early humans who did not have them.

Whether it was ET or a fallen angel (Lucifer, Prometheus) or just a consequence of a brain capable of abstraction, I don’t know. But we are the ones making the world alien. A dragonfly hovers over car windshields because of how the glass reflects UV light, and the dragonfly thinks it’s near water. Unfortunately confused, it waits in vain for prey and dies. That’s us, that’s our technology doing that, let’s not pass the buck beyond that for now.

Is that so different from people, unfortunately confused, who feed their baby McDonalds, thinking that it’s suitable food? I assure you that a few generations in, those McDonalds babies will not be the same as a “wild” human baby. In fact, this is already happening. I find this cruel and unusual and absurd by the way, but this is nature within our system of “normal” that we’ve raised people in.

I don’t think you can find anything more alien on Earth than humans. Some of us are tall, pale, walk on two legs, have figured out literally how to eat anything we can, build all sorts of dwellings, have the most complex social systems, have all sorts of bizarre rituals, speak in tongues, read runes, etc.

We are the aliens, and we’re about to get a whole lot stranger.

[Dilettante]

Posted by Mike (here)
I think I understand the spirit of your post - and empathize with it on some level - but it also sounds quite a bit like the degrowth communism being promoted by the WEF. Deliberately making ourselves poorer now to hypothetically heal the planet sometime in the distant future doesn't make much sense to me. Significantly reducing the use of nuclear power and fossil fuels will cause the death of millions of people. I feel a far greater responsibility to human beings than the animals and insects. In a perfect world we'd have access to free energy, which would conveniently unburden us from this type of dilemma, but that's a whole other topic...

I don't think you can eliminate hierarchies and arrive at anything else but communism. When people envision a spiritual utopia, it's natural to eliminate hierarchies because I think most of us associate them with power and corruption. Of course they are susceptible to those things, but I'd argue that the main driving force behind hierarchies is competence. Once it's revealed that someone is better or more competent than someone else in some domain or other, a hierarchy organically forms. So hierarchy is inevitable in that way. And if you attempt to flatten out the hierarchies, you kill competence. And if you kill competence, you kill society. So I think we should embrace hierarchy, not seek to eliminate it.

Is this forum communism? Doesn't seem like it to me. Is there a strict hierarchy? Not really. A rhizomatic structure if you will. Replicated in real life in small communities where through the power of the Internet, clusters of people have been able to disconnect from the centralized system in different and varied ways.

Large-scale communism doesn't work any better than large-scale capitalism does because we're really just arguing about how to distribute the same number of resources in different ways. It's the rate of resource extraction that matters. I mentioned the Christian communes because those were a multitude of small communities that practiced a certain devotion to a lifestyle that was sustainable for hundreds of years, not because I'm communist.

Will we be poorer? Well, what do you define as poor? For myself, it seems that I don't need much more than a neat place to venture to every now and then, a good book to read, my laptop and the endless Internet, and some good food. In fact, the more material "wealth" I've been able to give up, the less of a burden it is to truly be free in how I see it. Able to move without stress.

Imagine if we could all partake in our own personal Hajj in life. Not saying you have to be Muslim or journey to Mecca, but I find the intention behind the journey to be very beautiful. Life could be an adventure! But, I think that adventure is getting snuffed out by hoarding materials and hoarding ideologies. For me, wealth is found in my relationships, experiences, knowledge, and wisdom - with only a few prized possessions anymore.

The real question my generation faces is if we'll afford to have children and if we can manage to keep them alive and sane long enough to do the same thing.

I addressed the free/cheap energy potential of suppressed technology and my answer was that it's not about energy, it's about mindset. You could give an elephant gun to a child, but what good would that do?