Post: #126

(09-21-2012 05:33 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

Quote:"Her boyfriend would beat your ass if he saw you touching her."

With hardly a thought, I promptly elbowed him in the face at an upward angle. He stumbled back, in shock, and I hit him with a left cross. The blows came quickly and absent of emotion. I possessed a sagely level of physical self control, my arms down, chin up, something like a 5’ 9”, Arab Roy Jones. I glanced down at his clenched fist then back up at his ugly face where a slow trickle of blood had begun to get swallowed up by his blonde mustache. I placidly taunted him, daring him to hit me back. In fear, he relaxed his hand, turned his eyes down and trod in the opposite direction.

This Deif guy seriously needs to improve his social skills.

Isn't that kinda what he was saying himself in the OP?

I can relate to what he was getting at and others have said here. It's something I have to work on daily; relating and getting along with the vast majority of people out there.

Hell, I can't even talk cars with most guys that are "gearheads" as they simply don't get the physics of things like cam shafts, airflow dynamics, weight distribution and transfer, etc. Meanwhile I love musclecars..

Let's just say I bite my tongue a lot and leave things unsaid to get along with people. It's not worth it to point out the errors in their thinking.

That's not bragging. It's just what it is.

btw-It was probably said somewhere in this thread, but intelligence isn't the same as being intellectual. I don't consider myself an intellectual by any means. Hell, I never even went to college as I didn't see the need.

Post: #127

Quote:I'm willing to argue that being smart is not a legitimate excuse for not relating to people. Basically I agree with your post.
If you can't relate to regular people (seemingly regardless of your intelligence) it's because you're a misanthropic dick, whatever the reason why.

It's not very easy to connect with people if they keep talking about the same 2 subjects all the time and when you try to change the subject they can't respond. And if you try to make them talk more about themselves they probably will keep talking about the same things again. That's my situation now. I keep hearing guys complaining about women being stupid and not having a rational conversations but that is the opposite situation of where I live.

The environment counts more than anything so the opinion about people's intellect varies

Post: #128

You guys aren't differentiating between can't interact with dumb people versus won't.

Someone who is asking for advice on how to do it obviously has a can't problem, not a won't.

It's like accusing a guy of being an arrogant jerk because he asked for advice on how to talk to women.

Post: #129

If you can't relate to a wide variety of people - how smart are you?

If you can't get laid - how smart are you?

I know alot of guys with advanced degress who are dorks around women. I know some guys with fancy job titles and they hate their jobs. I know guys making +100k, wife, 2.5 kids, nice house with a white picket fence and they hate their life!

We can smart in one area but dumb in another.

Smart is being happy with your life.

Dumb is being miserable.

Post: #130

Great, so intelligence = happiness. I'll notify Webster's.

Post: #131

(09-21-2012 03:57 PM)Joseph_Dantes Wrote:  Great, so intelligence = happiness. I'll notify Webster's.

Yes, I do define intelligence as the ability to live the life you want and be happy about it. IQ score, problem solving, logic, etc. mean nothing if you can not even figure out the problems in your own head.

Intelligence is not black and white, its more shades of grey..

How do you define intelligence?

Also, did you know that the first english dictionary was written with the help of a madman?

The professor and the madman

Post: #132

2/10 brain is to small. Would not socialize with.

Post: #133

Joseph_Dantes, from reading your posts, it sounds like your sense of self-worth and identity is based around how intelligent you think you are.

/thread-5056.html

Quote:Some philistines simply cannot appreciate the sense of calm enlightenment that only a trustworthy info-processing system brings.

I can just tell you're a hit at parties.

Post: #134

Yep, every morning I look in a mirror and recite the genetically-determined three digit number that measures my worth as a human being.

Some people are hyper-aware of intelligence because they have an insecurity/ego complex about it. Others are because they have to be to function successfully.

The former sort do things like memorize vocab words to make themselves sound smarter, and then misuse them. Or cling to specious, illogical reasons for why they're double-secret geniuses.

The latter do things like inadvertently offend everyone by opening their mouths, and study how to become less inadvertently offensive.

The above set is binary but not exhaustive. Edited for more beta.

Post: #135

I find the defensiveness about IQ differences to be very strange. Very similar to women who deny that females generally think irrationally and emotionally and from a first person solipsistic view.

It's not that some guys are saying that there are no differences, you are claiming that there are no differences that matter. That there are no qualitative differences between interactions with people of an IQ that is dramatically and obviously lower or higher. That it's all one swirled up mush of brown; there are no individual colors.

But on threads where we talk about how there are no hot women who can hold an interesting discussion, then it's all about how different intellectual faculties seriously impact the ability to hold fulfilling discussions on various topics.

This is some serious rationalization and equal-think going on here. We're all the SAME!

Look, the fact is that there are plenty of manboobs who lack a masculinized brain. And there are plenty of men who emote instead of reason. And there are plenty of people who lack the capacity for logical thought. And there are plenty of people who are just plain stupid.

They exist, they are not the SAME, and it makes a difference.

Not everything boils down in the end to self esteem. It's a real world.

Post: #136

(09-21-2012 04:17 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  

(09-21-2012 03:57 PM)Joseph_Dantes Wrote:  Great, so intelligence = happiness. I'll notify Webster's.

Yes, I do define intelligence as the ability to live the life you want and be happy about it. IQ score, problem solving, logic, etc. mean nothing if you can not even figure out the problems in your own head.

Intelligence is not black and white, its more shades of grey..

How do you define intelligence?

Also, did you know that the first english dictionary was written with the help of a madman?

The professor and the madman

So your debating tactic here is to change the definition of itelligence in order to foster your equalist view.

I'm not buying it. We use words to share meaning. You can't just make up your own private definitions to suit your social politics.

Post: #137

The idea of a democracy where everyone has an equal right to vote is the root of this problem.

We were infected with an anti-meritocratic outlook from our society.

It's sick.

People are not just different. They are better and worse, and some are more valuable than others, across a 1000 different metrics. Take any person and give him sharper cognitive skills and that person becomes a better person.

And yet the good ol boys who argue against demographic shifts of too many stupid and unmotivated browns taking over also claim that all their buds are equal.

Post: #138

(09-23-2012 12:10 AM)xsplat Wrote:  So your debating tactic here is to change the definition of itelligence in order to foster your equalist view.

I'm not buying it. We use words to share meaning. You can't just make up your own private definitions to suit your social politics.

I didn't change the definition of intelligence. Here it is from Websters Dictionary..

a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)


So, with this definition in mind..

If you are not happy, then you don't have "the ability to deal with a new or trying situation"......and thus, are not intelligent (by Websters definition)

If you are not happy, then you are not using your "ability to reason skillfully" .....and thus, are not intelligent

If you are not happy, then you don't have "the ability to manipulate your environment"...and thus, are not intelligent

But, if you are not happy, but you "do well on tests", then you could be considered intelligent.

My definition of intelligence clearly agrees with Websters.

What is your definition of intelligence?

Post: #139

(09-23-2012 12:37 AM)Giovonny Wrote:  

(09-23-2012 12:10 AM)xsplat Wrote:  So your debating tactic here is to change the definition of itelligence in order to foster your equalist view.

I'm not buying it. We use words to share meaning. You can't just make up your own private definitions to suit your social politics.

I didn't change the definition of intelligence. Here it is from Websters Dictionary..

a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)


So, with this definition in mind..

If you are not happy, then you don't have the ability to deal with a new or trying situation......and thus, are not intelligent (by Websters definition)

If you are not happy, then you are not using your ability to reason skillfully .....and thus, are not intelligent

If you are not happy, then you don't have the ability to manipulate your environment...and thus, are not intelligent

But, if you are not happy, but you do well on tests, then you could be considered intelligent.

My definition of intelligence clearly agrees with Websters.

What is your definition of intelligence?

You can have a happy stupid person, so your definition fails.

Or are you saying that downs syndrome adults are intelligent?

Post: #140

(09-23-2012 12:41 AM)xsplat Wrote:  You can have a happy stupid person, so your definition fails.

Or are you saying that downs syndrome adults are intelligent?

Shit, you are too smart for me!

But, I will try to compete...

If a person is happy, how stupid can he be?

People with downs syndrome are intelligent in terms of happiness.

Does that make sense?

I don't know, I'm confused now. It seem like we are just arguing semantics now?

I just want to know - What is your definition of intelligence?

Post: #141

(09-23-2012 12:47 AM)Giovonny Wrote:  

(09-23-2012 12:41 AM)xsplat Wrote:  You can have a happy stupid person, so your definition fails.

Or are you saying that downs syndrome adults are intelligent?

Shit, you are too smart for me!

But, I will try to compete...

If a person is happy, how stupid can he be?

People with downs syndrome are intelligent in terms of happiness.

Does that make sense?

I don't know, I'm confused now. It seem like we are just arguing semantics now?

I just want to know - What is your definition of intelligence?

I get the point you are trying to make. There is a type of intelligence involved in being emotionally adapted to the situation, and emotional adaptation does not take IQ. And I agree that a high IQ does not correlate postively with overall emotional happiness.

But you are trying to take this point and incorporate it into a new definition of intelligence.

And if you are saying that there are many different kinds of intelligence, I can agree. There is a body centered athletic intelligence, a social intelligence, an emotive intelligence, and who knows how many others. Creative intelligence.

But what the OP was talking about was IQ. That particular type of measurable intelligence.

Post: #142

Yes, many different types of intelligence make this debate impossible.

My definition of intelligence is not new, it clearly fits into Websters - "ability to deal with a new or trying situation".

The op was banned for being a dick. Clearly showing that he lacked the "ability to learn or understand or deal with a new or trying situation".

But, I'm sure he has a high IQ and is very smart. I guess you can be a genius but not socially intelligent enough to navigate a forum. I guess we are all smart in some areas and dumb in others.

I still wanna know - What is your definition of intelligence?

Post: #143

(09-23-2012 01:03 AM)Giovonny Wrote:  Yes, many different types of intelligence make this debate impossible.

My definition of intelligence is not new, it clearly fits into Websters - "ability to deal with a new or trying situation".

The op was banned for being a dick. Clearly showing that he lacked the "ability to learn or understand or deal with a new or trying situation".

But, I'm sure he has a high IQ and is very smart. I guess you can be a genius but not socially intelligent enough to navigate a forum. I guess we are all smart in some areas and dumb in others.

I still wanna know - What is your definition of intelligence?

My definition of which type of intelligence? I think the common definition that is assumed when we talk about intelligence is "G", which is defined as measurable by intelligence tests.

It makes good sense that when talking about other types to let the reader know, rather than try to use one word "intelligence" to mean all the various types of intelligence at once.

And we can all agree that IQ does not necessarily help with social navigation, and in fact can be isolating.

Post: #144

I think the tendency among the high IQ goes like this:

High conscientiousness, high attention span, high obsessiveness = social dysfunction as IQ rises

and, (relatively)

Low conscientiousness, low attention span, low obsessiveness = social facility increases as IQ rises

I don't mean psychopathic ADDer in the second set, just relatively lower. People in the firs set tend to solve more hard problems via solo work because they focus longer. People in the second set are better at organizing and leading.

So "high IQ" doesn't tell you anything about social ability, really.

Post: #145

Good debating with you xsplat!

I'm now picturing a guy with a high "IQ" who scores really well on standardized tests but he can't get any pussy. I wonder if he considers himself "intelligent"?

Academically intelligent but socially stupid. Or, maybe just socially unaware and inexperienced?

Anyways, test scores and iq mean little to me. Living the life you want is what I consider important.

Post: #146

(09-23-2012 01:16 AM)Joseph_Dantes Wrote:  I think the tendency among the high IQ goes like this:

High conscientiousness, high attention span, high obsessiveness = social dysfunction as IQ rises

and, (relatively)

Low conscientiousness, low attention span, low obsessiveness = social facility increases as IQ rises

I don't mean psychopathic ADDer in the second set, just relatively lower. People in the firs set tend to solve more hard problems via solo work because they focus longer. People in the second set are better at organizing and leading.

So "high IQ" doesn't tell you anything about social ability, really.

Sounds like being drunk would help a concept oriented guy to socialize.

Too bad that alcohol has cumulative negative health effects. Almost killed me.

Post: #147

(09-23-2012 01:23 AM)xsplat Wrote:  Too bad that alcohol has cumulative negative health effects. Almost killed me.

Party intelligence is another one!

Like, knowing when to say when!

Post: #148

(09-23-2012 01:25 AM)Giovonny Wrote:  

(09-23-2012 01:23 AM)xsplat Wrote:  Too bad that alcohol has cumulative negative health effects. Almost killed me.

Party intelligence is another one!

Like, knowing when to say when!

Ya, but the problem with booze is that you build up tolerance, and to get the same social disinhibition takes a bigger and bigger dose. It's also physically addictive. So what is effective socially over the years becomes harmful physically. And mentally. And emotionally.

It sneaks up on you. You think you are a social drinker, until one day you realize that it's a problem that isn't quite in as much control as you thought.

I used to take drinking holidays and abstain for a week, a month, two months, a year. But still the drinking habit slowly increased until it was a problem.

It's hard to explain this to guys who haven't gone through it. We all start out thinking we don't have a problem, that we aren't that type of guy who COULD have a problem.

But it's in the nature of the drug. The drug sneaks up on you and becomes a part of your personality.

I used to drink socially, meaning through drinking I was able to be more social. I'm still way more fun if I drink. An alter ego comes out.

But I don't drink anymore. Not a drop. It just got to that point. I crossed a line, and don't want to cross it again. I tried moderation, believe me, I tried. Too late for me.

For other guys who want moderation, be mindful of the years - they change who it is who knows when to say no.

Post: #149

A smart man knows that he knows nothing at all

Or, how ever it goes!

Post: #150

Giovonny, it sounds as if you have a very socially inclusive attitude. Very suitable for getting along well in groups, and building up alliances across different factions.

Are you in politics? Do you find yourself wanting to smooth out the rough spots in group discussions? Why can't we all just find common ground and get along?

It seems a very useful attitude.

I lean towards enjoying friction, and highlighting differences. That brings me pleasure. I like discord along with my harmony. When I see two different people, it's not my automatic reaction that I want them both to be treated equally. I'm happy for differences in status and outcome. When I see a slum beside a fenced housing estate, I don't think of the unfairness of it all, and of how if I were emperor I'd better re-distribute the wealth.

I think the populist politics of share the wealth among the salt of the earth people is a deeply ingrained trait, maybe so deeply ingrained as to have biological underpinnings. We have this socialist drive in us, to share amongst us and treat each other as equal members of the community.

But we also have this individualist free market every man for himself drive. And it's that drive that is more Machiavelian, and does not deny that no matter how equal the opportunity, we will always have differences in outcome, and strives to maximize the differences for personal benefit.

So while it's politically and socially useful to be a populist, inclusive, socialist group leader - like a union leader for instance, the other strategy is to be management.

I'm more management minded. The differences are out there to be exploited, not glossed over.