I'm Smarter Than You Because I Read

[AFPheonix]

Given the direction this thread seems to have taken, I'll pose/ask 2 hypotheticals to prove a point.

Firstly, there are still billions of people on this earth who have never heard of Shakespeare, Ovid, Homer, Twain or any other brilliant writer you can name. They just don't get anywhere near them. For example, how many people living near the Sahara, the Gobi or the Amazon do you expect to not only have heard of them, but also to have read and understood them. Given this, does anyone here presume that all those people mentioned have a below average intelligence?

Secondly, Stephen Hawkings would be considered one of the greatest minds of the century. Due to an illness, if not for technology, his knowledge and intelligence would be lost to us. 100 years ago,, that would have been the case. Just because he would have been unable to express his intelligence, does that mean that he didn't have it?

And I too agree - public speaking ought to be taught in schools - it is a very valuable skill.

Those writers are not culturally relevant to those people. They very much are to us in the West.
I would expect the intelligent among those people to be aware of stuff that affects them, to be curious about their own culture and environment.

I don't think anyone is arguing that people who are not able to express their intelligence are not intelligent.

[Slytovhand]

RE:

Those writers are not culturally relevant to those people. They very much are to us in the West.
I would expect the intelligent among those people to be aware of stuff that affects them, to be curious about their own culture and environment.

...

One could make the argument that someone who didn't know those things, especially the things that we had to know in various parts of standardized schooling, is not very intellectually curious, and I'd definitely call that being less intelligent.
Those examples weren't about obscure bits of String Theory, they were pretty well-known bits of knowledge floating about our society that would be kind of obvious to anyone paying attention anywhere.

(my emphasis)

The latter of mine, about expression of intelligence, was referring back to those professors who lacked the social skills to express their intelligence. A lot of the discussions here seem to require that intelligence must be shown before it is acknowledged.

[Flyndaran]

Swimming isn't a sport like basketball. It's a valuable life skill that could prepare students for possibly serious situations in their future. Thousands of people drown in the US every year..

I'm not an idiot. I avoid large and even small bodies of water. Heck, I shower. So swimming isn't necessary for me. I never liked the water.

There's a pervasive attitude that schools should only prepare the mind for the world, not the body. That's a bit short-sighted. We have an obesity epidemic. I certainly don't want to see Shakespeare being replaced with badminton, but neither do I want to see gym classes or health and nutrition classes disappear..

It's hard to imagine and a bit insulting to say that we fatties are that way becuase we are ignorant. Why thank you, yes, I do know what a vegetable is. I'm plyaing hurt devil's advocate here to exagerate a very real point. People are fat, because of genetics, AND eating too much, BECAUSE they don't get out and do things away from the availability and sonstant visual reminders of easy access food.
I know that's why I'm chunky. My anxiety condition makes it difficult to leave the apartment. But when I leave and don't feel my normal fear, I don't think about food.
In my opinion, more than diet and exercise, "simple" distraction is the best weight loss program.

Back on topic (sort of): Public-speaking is another incredibly valuable skill. I think it should be taught in schools more often.

Since I've been taking a new combo of anti-anxiety meds, I've experienced my first taste of normal fear rather than the horrific anxiety fear I usually feel.
I understand what people meant when they said that one could conquer one's fear. I did. Fear is my anxiety's wimpy little brother. His butt is SOOO kickable.

So now I'm on the fence for how teadhers should deal with the average student afraid of public speaking. I think teachers should push, but be aware that some simply can't be pushed beyond a certain point and just let them be. Everyone has limits and some are woefully lower than others'.

And if all this be true and accepted, why let stupid and ignorant parents breed in the first place?

Because Hitler destroyed the integrety of the scientifically valid concept of eugenics?
Yeah, it may be morally wrong to sterlize non-consenting adults. But if we refuse to advance genetic engineering to the point of actually fixing defects, we will eventually have to do something to prevent the "de-evolution" and overpopulation of stupid people.
I've never seen it, but the loose concept behind, "Idocracy" sounds quite plausible. Smart people ON AVERAGE, breed much less often than stupid. Not to mention how genetic defects propagate because we help those with them to the age of breeding. In a cold hearted way, we are contaminating our gene pool with defective genes.

I prefer genetic engineering, but if we refuse that, then hopefully some other country out there with do it to save our species.

(To those that may think I read as racist, hateful toward the retarded or whatever. I'm not. I'm nearsighted, have crippling anxiety, and have a nearly blind, slow, best friend that had heart surgery as a child. Neither one of us would have survived childhood in a hunter gatherer society.

[anriana]

I've never seen it, but the loose concept behind, "Idocracy" sounds quite plausible. Smart people ON AVERAGE, breed much less often than stupid. Not to mention how genetic defects propagate because we help those with them to the age of breeding. In a cold hearted way, we are contaminating our gene pool with defective genes.

I prefer genetic engineering, but if we refuse that, then hopefully some other country out there with do it to save our species.

(To those that may think I read as racist, hateful toward the retarded or whatever. I'm not. I'm nearsighted, have crippling anxiety, and have a nearly blind, slow, best friend that had heart surgery as a child. Neither one of us would have survived childhood in a hunter gatherer society.

Those are two separate examples.

I've seen Idiocracy, and I think it does make a good point (and other than the stupid prostitute sideline is hilarious), but I don't see a humane solution to it.


I don't think that people with impairing vision problems or people with heart issues make up a statistically relevant portion of the population. I may be completely wrong, but I don't think that the human race is endangering itself by enabling people with poor vision or congenital heart defects or any other type of defect to survive and be capable of reproduction, especially because we do have the technology to overcome these physical defects. Even if 50% of our population was myopic, it wouldn't matter, because we have glasses now. We don't live in a hunter-gatherer society anymore, so we don't need humanity to be physically adapted to surviving one.

[AFPheonix]

RE:
...

(my emphasis)

The latter of mine, about expression of intelligence, was referring back to those professors who lacked the social skills to express their intelligence. A lot of the discussions here seem to require that intelligence must be shown before it is acknowledged.

But again, I didn't say express, I said didn't know or have intellectual curiosity. Those are two very different concepts.

[Fashion Lad!]

I have a friend, and sometimes this friend drives me nuts.

He doesn't brag about being an intellectual. But, he will complain to me that I watch too much tv and that I need to get out more and exercise. He also tells me that I need to cut back on the pop and fast food. He sneers at me when I put ranch on my spicy chicken sandwich from Wendy's. When I talk about what was on Dexter he rolls his eyes at me and tells me in detail the workout he just did.

I get to have the last laugh. Not only can I run further and faster than him, I'm way more cut than he is. I actually have a six pack... he has a flat stomach. He tried to tell me that he could dunk better than Kobe in his day. He's 2 years younger than Kobe Bryant, 4 inches shorter and Kobe won the slam dunk competition when he was 18. So, I laugh at him some more.

I'm not going to brag about the book I read, or my GPA. I won't put people down for eating McDonald's all the time (even though I just couldn't stomach it).

I do wish people would stop trying to compare themselves to other people just to put other people down.

[Saydrah]

Because Hitler destroyed the integrety of the scientifically valid concept of eugenics?
Yeah, it may be morally wrong to sterlize non-consenting adults. But if we refuse to advance genetic engineering to the point of actually fixing defects, we will eventually have to do something to prevent the "de-evolution" and overpopulation of stupid people.
I've never seen it, but the loose concept behind, "Idocracy" sounds quite plausible. Smart people ON AVERAGE, breed much less often than stupid. Not to mention how genetic defects propagate because we help those with them to the age of breeding. In a cold hearted way, we are contaminating our gene pool with defective genes.

I prefer genetic engineering, but if we refuse that, then hopefully some other country out there with do it to save our species.

(To those that may think I read as racist, hateful toward the retarded or whatever. I'm not. I'm nearsighted, have crippling anxiety, and have a nearly blind, slow, best friend that had heart surgery as a child. Neither one of us would have survived childhood in a hunter gatherer society.

Ah, right, yeah, because we didn't need that defective Stephen Hawking after all. Because people with defects can never contribute to society, ever. Oh, and the world would totally be a better place if it was filled with intellectuals who refuse to do menial labor, so trash sat outside in piles uncollected, farms died out because everyone was too snooty and smart to feed the cattle or water the fields, and no new buildings or homes were built.

You've fallen prey to the assumption that a perfect person is possible. It's not. Haven't you ever played a role playing game? If you want a perfect stat in one area, it comes out of the others.

I come from a family of intellectuals. One of my uncles was considered for a Nobel Prize. Another one is a brain surgeon who, on the DAY he graduated fully, was appointed head of Neurosurgery at the hospital where he interned, over several much more experienced surgeons. My grandparents built a business psychology firm from scratch when nobody had ever heard of the field, and became known worldwide for their work, and were invited to speak at conferences on almost every continent. One of my aunts is researching dead languages and doing groundbreaking work on ancient civilizations. On both sides of my family, everyone is intellectually brilliant and values intelligence over everything else.

And you know what? They are all deeply flawed people. Some you might even consider defective, like one of my grandfathers, who lives in an apartment full of stacks of books taller than his head, because he prefers the company of books to people and is afraid to go out.

Biodiversity is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. Eugenics isn't a flawed concept because of Hitler or racism or any of that. It's flawed because loss of biodiversity is a very, very bad thing that could lead to the death of society.

Also, intelligence is not entirely inherited. Take any of my brilliant relatives and put them in a household where intelligence was not valued, and you'd probably get a janitor instead of a neurosurgeon. And take a child born into a household where football is valued over reading, and put him at birth into my grandparents' house where intelligence was the only important thing, and he'd probably grow up brilliant.

Instead of creating LESS diversity in the human race, why not create more OPPORTUNITY? Make quality education available to all, not just the rich. Make accomodations for all disabilities, whether physical, cognitive, or psychiatric, so that everyone gets a chance to express their intellect and talents. Then there will still be some people who simply don't value intellect and choose to instead fill the necessary places as janitors, trash collectors, etc., but those who do intrinsically desire a role in society using their minds, will be able to get there.

I predict if this happened, we'd find a lot of tomorrow's leaders were children of yesterday's "stupid" and "defective" people.

[AdminAssistant]

Also, intelligence is not entirely inherited. Take any of my brilliant relatives and put them in a household where intelligence was not valued, and you'd probably get a janitor instead of a neurosurgeon. And take a child born into a household where football is valued over reading, and put him at birth into my grandparents' house where intelligence was the only important thing, and he'd probably grow up brilliant.

Yup. My Dad's a farmer. Mom worked in a school as a teacher's aide (now she works temp jobs). To me, they are two of the smartest people on Earth, despite a lack of a college education. But education and intelligence were heavily emphasized, because they didn't want my sister or me to live the lives they did. The only thing emphasized over education was hard work. If I had a nickel for every time Dad has said to me, "Well, if it was easy, everyone would do it" I'd be a very rich woman.

My sister and I may have had some natural, inherited something...but the things that helped us were Mom reading to us and teaching us how to read by ages 3 and 4, respectively, and continuing to shove books at us. Dad taking us out in the shop and showing us how stuff works and putting us out in the field so that we knew what hard physical labor was. Pushing the importance of school and grades to an almost ridiculous level. Not allowing us to miss school for any reason - unless we were really sick. You didn't miss school unless you were sick enough to go to the doctor. Extracurricular stuff came after schoolwork and housework. Telling us that if we wanted to go to college, then we better study hard and get a scholarship to pay for all of it (we both did). They pushed us HARD. And I'm very grateful.

I look at my students...and many of them are very bright. But they're just so damn LAZY. Not showing up to class all the time, not doing the required reading, not going to the mandatory lectures, not wanting to participate in class discussions. Trying to do the minimum to get by instead of the best that they can. I have much more respect for the C student who works hard and studies to get that C than the C student who could get an A or B if they actually put some damn effort into it.

That was pretty rambly..but I'm sure there was a point somewhere..

[Slytovhand]

Haven't you ever played a role playing game? If you want a perfect stat in one area, it comes out of the others.

Depends if you're rolling, or allocating....

(sorry - I only ever did rolls until I started on computers... and roll 4, discard the lowest, re-roll all 1's...)

Back to regular scheduled program....

[Flyndaran]

Depends if you're rolling, or allocating....

(sorry - I only ever did rolls until I started on computers... and roll 4, discard the lowest, re-roll all 1's...)

Back to regular scheduled program....

That the barest minimum the D&D GMs I know do. Some of them have such a hatred of low stats that they create bizzare vaguely random methods that it's easy to get all stats over 15!

[Slytovhand]

Which now brings us back on topic... if you read (and follow the rules to the letter), you'll only be smarter if you play a high INT character - otherwise you'll only be average (or less).... so now, topic becomes "I'm smarter than you, cos I chose Wizard and it's my Primary Stat** - you dumbass Paladin"



(** well - that and cos I read books. But that's only cos I'm not a sorcerer and have to memorize my spells that way)

[Shards]

Just so you know sly, that paladin died...

In a blaze of darkness that made it impossible for him to see his enemy. He then tripped over his own ally (the other paladin), and was knocked out and eaten.

Our DM gave us the choice to do what was best for a nearby town area, or to do what was best for us (read: survivable), the two paladins were the only ones to take it. I'm now playing a gnome fighter/rogue who recently made it into the invisible blade PrC.



Unfortunately now the game shall die because I was the one who had to organize it each week, and I'm leaving for boot camp.