Advice For Hyper Intellectuals

[MysterionMuffles]

I've been interested in Jordan Peterson's work lately and this video has struck me. Taking the red pill seems to give people, myself included, a sense of transformation ego.

While I think it's important to respect your intellectual capabilities, it's even more important to respect the intellectual incapabilities of others. 

We talk about some really out there abstract ideas that are still foreign to the common populace, but that in no way makes us superior to them. 

Rest assured if you find your tribe you're good.

 

 

 

[Jsbrads]

I have a friend who doesn’t like talking about abstract ideas and he isn’t dumb, but otherwise I’ve never met anyone who couldn’t. 

[J.L.W]

Yeah, Jordan in contrast to Stefan is skeptical of IQ as a determinant factor in someones life. I.e. 'People with a high IQ that are completely useless!'

[Siegfried von Walheim]

On 1/4/2018 at 6:48 AM, MysterionMuffles said:

I've been interested in Jordan Peterson's work lately and this video has struck me. Taking the red pill seems to give people, myself included, a sense of transformation ego.

While I think it's important to respect your intellectual capabilities, it's even more important to respect the intellectual incapabilities of others. 

We talk about some really out there abstract ideas that are still foreign to the common populace, but that in no way makes us superior to them. 

Explain. How does being objectively closer to the truth and wiser not make us superior to the "common populace"? How does being measurably superior not make us superior at the same time?

While we must be humble we must not be falsely humble. Humility means recognizing our strengths and weaknesses as well as those of others. Therefore presuming everyone is equal (because if there is no superior than there is no inferior and therefore everyone is either the same or cumulatively the same--i.e. guy A may be a genius but he's physically handicapped but guy B is athletic but mentally retarded and there is no one who is both an athletic genius or a crippled retard) is false humility which does not promote self-growth (both in terms of skills and personality) but rather conformity to the lesser man and whomever claims to represent him.

On 1/4/2018 at 6:48 AM, MysterionMuffles said:

Rest assured if you find your tribe you're good.

I haven't yet. I wonder if I'm a tribe of one and will always be. Perhaps that's how it's supposed to be. I don't know. My therapist told me smart people and individuals ought not consider themselves a part of any tribe because that's not only a lower kind of people but also a potential weakness for exploitation by others. 

[Kikker]

18 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Explain. How does being objectively closer to the truth and wiser not make us superior to the "common populace"? How does being measurably superior not make us superior at the same time?

MysterionMuffles talks about intellectual capabilities, not wisdom.

18 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

While we must be humble we must not be falsely humble. Humility means recognizing our strengths and weaknesses as well as those of others. Therefore presuming everyone is equal (because if there is no superior than there is no inferior and therefore everyone is either the same or cumulatively the same--i.e. guy A may be a genius but he's physically handicapped but guy B is athletic but mentally retarded and there is no one who is both an athletic genius or a crippled retard) is false humility which does not promote self-growth (both in terms of skills and personality) but rather conformity to the lesser man and whomever claims to represent him.

At the same time high intellectual capability (and believing you have it) could blind you from good ideas other people might have. Smart people might think that any ideas they come up with are better than any ideas their less smart peers have simply because they are more intellectually capable overall. In other words an overestimation of their superiority.

18 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I haven't yet. I wonder if I'm a tribe of one and will always be. Perhaps that's how it's supposed to be. I don't know. My therapist told me smart people and individuals ought not consider themselves a part of any tribe because that's not only a lower kind of people but also a potential weakness for exploitation by others. 

A tribe can perfectly exist of smart people only....

[Siegfried von Walheim]

17 minutes ago, Kikker said:

MysterionMuffles talks about intellectual capabilities, not wisdom.

As am I, in part.

17 minutes ago, Kikker said:

At the same time high intellectual capability (and believing you have it) could blind you from good ideas other people might have. Smart people might think that any ideas they come up with are better than any ideas their less smart peers have simply because they are more intellectually capable overall. In other words an overestimation of their superiority.

True. But dumb people are even more likely to overestimate their own capabilities. And as Jordan Peterson mentions most smart people are highly specialized. If I wasn't a writer I'd be useless. And therefore it is of course a healthy reminder that if it weren't for farmers, teamsters, businessmen, and builders I simply wouldn't be able to write in a city. However compared to them in my given area of expertise I am most likely superior to them. And while I myself may be highly specialized I can't say that's true of all writers. Heck some of the best were quite versatile and some were even warlords. 

Regardless stating everyone is equal is definitely not true and also very different from "smart people tend to overestimate themselves and undercount lesser people". Which is also true as I have known many smart people and by God can they come up with BS to justify their superiority over the dumb (without directly stating it) while simultaneously covering for the fact they can't do anything the dumb can ("I'm a math major!!").  However still people smarter than them I'd assume are more likely to be self-aware and wise and those people are most definitely superior over all for both their potential (or realized) contributions to society as well as their potential or realized ability to lead and shape others. The Shepherd may not be able to survive without his sheep yet by virtue of his position I think it's safe to to say he's superior to the sheep.

17 minutes ago, Kikker said:

A tribe can perfectly exist of smart people only....

Sure but can a tribe exist of semi-monarchistic AnCap Classical Liberal somewhat-White Nationalist Roman Catholic anti-Feminism anti-MGTOW anti-White Knight pro-life New Right aristocracy-inclined ever-evolving-with-new-information types? I have only met some of these but not all of them together. I sometimes wonder if I am "too individual" because if I meet any of these groups I find an irreconcililable different. AnCaps tend to live in Ivory Towers. Classical Liberals tend to be Civic Nationalists. White Nationalists tend to be anti-Semitic Socialists. Roman Catholics tend to be very mixed. Anti-Feminism tends to also very vague and tend to be MGTOW. Anti-MGTOWs tend to be White Knights. anti-White Knights tend to be MGToW. Anti-Baby-Killer is also vague. New Right is only another word for "alt-Light" but is better for focusing in on Stefpai and Petersen. Yet a self-identified member named Gavin McInnes openly states the West's history is more than just White people and yearns for the chaotic times of the 80's (which is not only anti-Trad but anti-West in the long run--Although I haven't seen much of Gavin beyond this so I don't know much about him or have a strong opinion). Other New Right tend to look at South Africa and want to coddle the blacks there rather than the victims of perpetual ethnic cleansing. So New Right is definitely not my camp though arguably closest to it though its leadership is divided enough that I can't call it a movement beyond its common anti-Far-Left and anti-Totalitarian position. And finally most people who have a thing for aristocracies are either fascists or socialists or something else self-destructive.

As a result I tend to see myself as a tribe of one. Especially since I can't be sure my political opinions won't change given the constant flood of new information. I identify with the Right in general because I am Christian, anti-Republic/Democracy, a monarchist, and a huge Free Marketer. However I'm prone to change in most of these and also these alone is limiting enough to shrink any potential tribesmen I might have from half the country to maybe a few hundred thousand or less. Most of which being useless intellectuals like myself (whose only value is in entertaining people through words and texts. Otherwise we could never enact or really live our own ideals beyond our niche). 

[J.L.W]

Intellect comes with a cost in my experience. For instance, Bob Dylan would find it hard to work in a caring or nursing capacity I suspect.

[RichardY]

"But Aquaman you can't marry that woman, she doesn't have any gills, you're from two different worlds!.. Oh I've wasted my Life.." (KABOOM!) -Comicbook guy - HOMEGA MAN -The Simpsons

 

I remember Jordan Peterson saying something like "the correlation between conscientiousness and I.Q is zero, ZERO.....". Though if you compare more conscientious countries with less so ones, the difference in the "standard of living is stark".(My words thinking of Central Germanic countries compared to the rest). 

Schizophrenia; a breakdown between the Subject & Object distinction. Everything is Objective, Objectivism acheived . "Expressions of their truth". No more acting man when A really does equal A. Nightwatchmen State or Plato's Republic (Even just reading the first few pages of The Republic, basically the logic points to not having a state, but lets have one anyway....)

Conscientiousness perhaps being "the Grit" factor.  Consciously a person may not know how many rounds in a chamber ("I know what you're thinking did I fire 6 shots or 5"....) , unconsciously may be a different story, bit like touch typing consciously only vaguely aware of the position of the keys. Or if you play Table Tennis/Ping Pong, High conscientiousness is not going to help(directly much), when brute force reaction time I.Q is more important. Associative processing instead of excercising conscientiousness. "Power of Habit".

Personality/Temperment being more crucial than I.Q to a persons well being.

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

1)Establish a Nightwatchmen state or we're all ultimatley screwed sooner rather than later.

2)Or Character formation.(perhaps narrow the distinction between, your intellectual(Objective) and actual self(Subjective)). NO LONGER BE AN INTELLECTUAL!!!! Artistotlian character formation, though I think even he said something along the line of if the polis(city) is corrupt how can a person be conscientious and virtuous.

-----------

 

[ofd]

This is my advice

 

[Kikker]

On 14-2-2018 at 6:12 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

As am I, in part.

But you interchange the two terms. For example you responded MysterionMuffles with: " How does being objectively closer to the truth and wiser not make us superior to the "common populace" ". So I said : " MysterionMuffles talks about intellectual capabilities, not wisdom. ". That you didn't see my response as an objection to your assertion is strange, apparently you don't even feel the need to elaborate on the relationship between intellectual capability and wisdom. 

On 14-2-2018 at 6:12 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

True. But dumb people are even more likely to overestimate their own capabilities. And as Jordan Peterson mentions most smart people are highly specialized. If I wasn't a writer I'd be useless. And therefore it is of course a healthy reminder that if it weren't for farmers, teamsters, businessmen, and builders I simply wouldn't be able to write in a city. However compared to them in my given area of expertise I am most likely superior to them. And while I myself may be highly specialized I can't say that's true of all writers. Heck some of the best were quite versatile and some were even warlords. 

Regardless stating everyone is equal is definitely not true and also very different from "smart people tend to overestimate themselves and undercount lesser people". Which is also true as I have known many smart people and by God can they come up with BS to justify their superiority over the dumb (without directly stating it) while simultaneously covering for the fact they can't do anything the dumb can ("I'm a math major!!").  However still people smarter than them I'd assume are more likely to be self-aware and wise and those people are most definitely superior over all for both their potential (or realized) contributions to society as well as their potential or realized ability to lead and shape others. The Shepherd may not be able to survive without his sheep yet by virtue of his position I think it's safe to to say he's superior to the sheep.

It's easier to respect people who do things you could do but you don't want to while finding it useful. However, what I was talking about were people in the same profession. How people who do the exact same job at a slower pace and lower quality can have surprising insights you would never think of otherwise. But maybe that's unique to the problem-solving/ programming I'm involved in.

On 14-2-2018 at 6:12 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Sure but can a tribe exist of semi-monarchistic AnCap Classical Liberal somewhat-White Nationalist Roman Catholic anti-Feminism anti-MGTOW anti-White Knight pro-life New Right aristocracy-inclined ever-evolving-with-new-information types? I have only met some of these but not all of them together. I sometimes wonder if I am "too individual" because if I meet any of these groups I find an irreconcililable different. AnCaps tend to live in Ivory Towers. Classical Liberals tend to be Civic Nationalists. White Nationalists tend to be anti-Semitic Socialists. Roman Catholics tend to be very mixed. Anti-Feminism tends to also very vague and tend to be MGTOW. Anti-MGTOWs tend to be White Knights. anti-White Knights tend to be MGToW. Anti-Baby-Killer is also vague. New Right is only another word for "alt-Light" but is better for focusing in on Stefpai and Petersen. Yet a self-identified member named Gavin McInnes openly states the West's history is more than just White people and yearns for the chaotic times of the 80's (which is not only anti-Trad but anti-West in the long run--Although I haven't seen much of Gavin beyond this so I don't know much about him or have a strong opinion). Other New Right tend to look at South Africa and want to coddle the blacks there rather than the victims of perpetual ethnic cleansing. So New Right is definitely not my camp though arguably closest to it though its leadership is divided enough that I can't call it a movement beyond its common anti-Far-Left and anti-Totalitarian position. And finally most people who have a thing for aristocracies are either fascists or socialists or something else self-destructive.

As a result I tend to see myself as a tribe of one. Especially since I can't be sure my political opinions won't change given the constant flood of new information. I identify with the Right in general because I am Christian, anti-Republic/Democracy, a monarchist, and a huge Free Marketer. However I'm prone to change in most of these and also these alone is limiting enough to shrink any potential tribesmen I might have from half the country to maybe a few hundred thousand or less. Most of which being useless intellectuals like myself (whose only value is in entertaining people through words and texts. Otherwise we could never enact or really live our own ideals beyond our niche). 

So the overhanging theme seems that most tribes don't update their stances enough while your opinions change. But what overhanging framework do you have to balance out that with the "I believe what the last reasonable person told me" phenomenon?

And is the term useless intellectual you use to describe yourself heartfelt? In other words are you actually stuck being one or does that statement not express the full feelings you have about your profession?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

6 hours ago, Kikker said:

But you interchange the two terms. For example you responded MysterionMuffles with: " How does being objectively closer to the truth and wiser not make us superior to the "common populace" ". So I said : " MysterionMuffles talks about intellectual capabilities, not wisdom. ". That you didn't see my response as an objection to your assertion is strange, apparently you don't even feel the need to elaborate on the relationship between intellectual capability and wisdom. 

Well if I felt it... lol "feeling it" is not an argument... I know it's just a wording thing I'm picking at but still wording is not nothing and you're right I don't "feel the need" to even respond right now. I want to because it's interesting; but it's not a need. I won't die from not responding. But enough feeling myself up...

You only quoted half the statement. The other half involved IQ specifically while that half was mostly wisdom oriented. So reading back on what I wrote weeks ago I did separate them and talk a little about their relationship. But either way is a metric for superiority. 

Quote

It's easier to respect people who do things you could do but you don't want to while finding it useful. However, what I was talking about were people in the same profession. How people who do the exact same job at a slower pace and lower quality can have surprising insights you would never think of otherwise. But maybe that's unique to the problem-solving/ programming I'm involved in.

I can't talk about every job but in mine (novelist) there is pretty much no point in talking with 80% of other writers or people in the vicinity because originality and creative thought is extremely rare while copying and pasting the norm but rewording it is extremely common. 

Of course I'd imagine if someone is a statistical net positive that enough should keep them valid and warranted members of a business. However the 20% that is worth 80% is objectively more valuable and precious than the 80% worth 20%. And in my business 99% is worth 1%, though I cannot say how many of the super majority make enough money for bread and rent because most of them are women depending on men therefore writing for them is probably a hobby not a job, in practice if not intended.

Quote

So the overhanging theme seems that most tribes don't update their stances enough while your opinions change. But what overhanging framework do you have to balance out that with the "I believe what the last reasonable person told me" phenomenon?

I try my best to see if I can test whether or not it is true. First I try to reason it; then I try to find it applied; then I made a conclusion based on that. When I am exposed to such a variety of new information of a daily basis it's hard not to add and subtract things from what I think is true based on that.

Quote

And is the term useless intellectual you use to describe yourself heartfelt? In other words are you actually stuck being one or does that statement not express the full feelings you have about your profession?

Being a novelist is fun and can potentially inspire people but I am not building anything and chances are at best I'll be another Ayn Rand who aimed really high but failed to affect much of a change in spite of her prowess. And that's a highly pretentious comparison since I have no reason to believe without evidence I'm that great.

I am literally useless outside speaking and writing. I suck working with my shaky and moist hands; I do not like working with people I disagree with and I don't like being tacitly dishonest (i.e. not speaking up) so I am innately poor at teamwork; and I doubt I will be able to have much of an impact on an insane world in which I am probably partly made insane from. Not to mention the more red-pilled I am the more I dislike being in the presence of strangers where I am a racial, religious, etc. minority and feel (in this case I am using it to actually mean "feel") terrified and invaded whenever I'm not "closing my mind" to enter "fight or flight mode". 

Most intellectuals are useless this way. We make lots of fun noises and stimulate the brain but what does any of that actually do for the real world? I am the male equivalent to the pretty woman who is great for sex but useless at anything else. I might make good money if I make the right decisions, whether as a result of entertaining enough people that I'm making great sales or financial literacy, but I cannot compete with someone who is actually doing something in the real world to affect a positive change. 

It is "heartfelt" and obviously I don't like to admit it but I have to be honest and admit that novelists aren't a useful bunch unless they are entertaining or inspiring or both. I am aiming for both but should I fail then all the genius I have is for nothing. If I succeed I'm still only worth what I can net in a year, so while I may have superior horsepower I have to be humble and admit I am still worth less than a guy with half my IQ making similar money because I'm not earning much until I do enough that I am. Until then I am "potential" but not "realized". And of course I think about this very often because I don't want to be wasted life or wasted potential, especially since I'm nearly 20 years old with little to show for it.

Edited March 6, 2018 by Siegfried von Walheim

[S1988]

@Siegfried von Walheim

I think you're being too hard on yourself. You're almost 20; you're not approaching middle age. You're still very young, so you have plenty of time to accomplish your goals, and even if you don't accomplish all of them, it's not the end of the world because no one can do everything they want.

And even if it does take a long time to do something, it doesn't make it a bad thing. If you're familiar with Laura Ingalls Wilder, she didn't become a famous author until she was in her 60s. And on a slightly embarrassing note, I didn't learn how to ride a bike until I was 17 because I had (and still have) a fear of driving, and I did poorly in my driver's ed classes. Also, it took me six years to be able to work from home, which is something I almost gave up, but I kept at it because I was tired of working in brick and mortar. 

About talents/hobbies: Perhaps you can explore something outside of writing. Maybe you can volunteer at your local animal shelter or learn how to draw. Or anything else I haven't listed. 

You can also talk to someone you trust about this since I can only offer so much advice. 

 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

18 minutes ago, S1988 said:

@Siegfried von Walheim

I think you're being too hard on yourself. You're almost 20; you're not approaching middle age. You're still very young, so you have plenty of time to accomplish your goals, and even if you don't, it's not the end of the world because no one can do everything they want.

Thanks and I realize that plenty. Few can compare to Napoleon who was Commander-in-Chief of France's forces in Italy at the age of 20. However my fear of failure is part of my driving force since I want to live in a good house in a good neighborhood in the American Midwest. I'd hate to die here in the war zone.

18 minutes ago, S1988 said:

And even if it does take a long time to do something, it doesn't make it a bad thing. If you're familiar with Laura Ingalls Wilder, she didn't become a famous author until she was in her 60s. And on a slightly embarrassing note, I didn't learn how to ride a bike until I was 17 because I had (and still have) a fear of driving, and I did poorly in my driver's ed classes. Also, it took me six years to be able to work from home, which is something I almost gave up, but I kept at it because I was tired of working in brick and mortar. 

I understand. My first job experiences were entry level and hands-on as well as counter clerking (at once) and I was very terrible at it and because I was desperate for work I was willing to work at $2 per hour after taxes.

I learned from my therapist I should work with my mind and make money on the internet because empirically I am doing poorly to the point where I'd be mad to continue working as welfare benefits alone are far greater than I was making and if I wasn't on partial welfare I wouldn't have been able to eat let alone pay rent. 

18 minutes ago, S1988 said:

About talents/hobbies: Perhaps you can explore something outside of writing. Maybe you can volunteer at your local animal shelter or learn how to draw. Or anything else I haven't listed. 

I have always had a fear for animals and also a hidden hatred for (especially White) animal lovers because I think they hate humans and are basically broken. I know that's only true for a minority of people but it's something I've always felt. As for writing I see no reason to stop or slow because I've literally written thousands of pages, millions of words, since I started in High School and am only a year off (give or take) from being finished what I've spent years refining. And that could, especially in the long run, make my career economically viable. And perhaps actually be of help and value to people.

18 minutes ago, S1988 said:

You can also talk to someone you trust about this since I can only offer so much. 

 

I know, that's why I see a therapist who happens to be an IQ 145 Russian Jew. He's been extremely helpful since I sought therapy during my later high school years. He's been very encouraging of my career and helps greatly with both refining me and ensuring I do as I set out to do. 

[HenryJubeda]

On 2/5/2018 at 4:00 PM, Jsbrads said:

I have a friend who doesn’t like talking about abstract ideas and he isn’t dumb, but otherwise I’ve never met anyone who couldn’t. 

Human intelligence is based on the abstraction of concepts from specific instances. How good you are at that determines how intelligent you actually are. Defining "good" is trickier, but I think we can use some metrics such as memorization, information processing speed, ability to universalize and apply abstracted rules to different situations etc.

My experience with less intelligent people is that they see every situation as entirely separate. They cannot understand concepts that do not have immediate real-world results. Such as, fire is hot, I burn my hand when I touch something hot, therefore touching fire will burn my hand. This is simple to understand. However something as simple as taxation is theft is alien to them because they can't define theft as an abstract concept and recognize that the definitions are identical.

[Jsbrads]

Indoctrination does not equal unintelligent. People are social and many believe what they perceive “everybody else” believes. Even Red pilling is only possible for many red pilled because they hear of others who are red pilled. It was quiet astonishing to watch Dave Rubin flustered by the realization of the destruction of Welfare on the Black community and struggle to rationalize continued support for Welfare (which I think he may have retreated somewhat from by now).

Perhaps there is an evolutionary beneficial affect to denying what looks like reality and to bend your view to the popular opinion. Hunter gatherers may have benefited from greater peace, other humans died out. Or our minds could have been so bad at interpreting the world, we had to combine our input from all the hunter gatherers and accept the common perspective as most accurate (tho this makes little sense as anyone capable of communicating their perspective on reality should have had plenty of processing power to interpret reality, and the time lag to communicate should have been fatal).

[ticketyboo]

On 2/5/2018 at 7:00 AM, Jsbrads said:

I have a friend who doesn’t like talking about abstract ideas and he isn’t dumb, but otherwise I’ve never met anyone who couldn’t. 

Do you live in a high IQ bubble?

http://a.co/ebV2AQy

 

[ticketyboo]

10 hours ago, ticketyboo said:

Do you live in a high IQ bubble?

http://a.co/ebV2AQy

 

Here's a short survey you can take to determine if you live in an IQ/income bubble/superzip: https://www.aei.org/murray-bubble-quiz/

[Siegfried von Walheim]

2 hours ago, ticketyboo said:

Here's a short survey you can take to determine if you live in an IQ/income bubble/superzip: https://www.aei.org/murray-bubble-quiz/

The bubble one is highly inaccurate. My recent ancestral family lines are mostly criminals and union workers yet I scored as if I was in the upper-middle class for several generations.

[ticketyboo]

On 4/20/2018 at 11:55 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

The bubble one is highly inaccurate. My recent ancestral family lines are mostly criminals and union workers yet I scored as if I was in the upper-middle class for several generations.

I believe it could be highly non-predictive or non-descriptive for your personal case.

See the graph in this article: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/what-does-your-bubble-quiz-score-say-about-you

The quiz is based on a correlation of a statistical aggregate.

[gavstone21]

On 2/13/2018 at 3:00 PM, J.L.W said:

Yeah, Jordan in contrast to Stefan is skeptical of IQ as a determinant factor in someones life. I.e. 'People with a high IQ that are completely useless!'

In here Jordan talks about how predictive IQ is. Sorry if I misunderstood what you said. 

 

 

[RichardY]

I think Intellectuals are a personality type, with IQ being incidental. With low IQ generally being selected out of the personality group. High Openess to Experience & Low Agreeableness, being common to the group. It being possible to have an high I.Q in not an intellectual personality type. Also perhaps noteworthy is the propensity to consume resources rather than to produce resources directly and often indirectly.

INTP - "The Architect"  Low Conscientiousness, High Neuroticism?, Low Extroversion     Plato Socrates           Melancholic (Not Social)
                                                                                                                                                                                                 Phlegmatic (Getting)?

 

ENTP - "The Inventor"  Low Conscientiousness?, Low Neuroticism?, High Extroversion      DaVinci                         Sanguine (Social)

 

INTJ - "Scientist" High Conscietiousness, High Neuroticism                                                  Thomas Edison?         Melancholic

 

ENTJ - "Fieldmarshal" High Conscientiousness, Low Neuroticism                                        Aristotle                       Sanguine
                                                                                                                                                                                                 Choleric (Ruling)?

 

Middle 2 may vary more in temperment and agreeableness. Scientists & Inventors dependent on some consensus. Temperments inspired by Hans Eysenck. Temperments are different in Mbti David Keirsey. (Wikipedia) 

[MysterionMuffles]

We're all "better" than each other in too many countless realms of expertise. This can go from critical thinking to societal contributions. I'm not pointing at anyone specific, but being all red pilled and philosophical doesn't make anyone better than your Average Joe who works 9-5 providing market value. You may be better intellectually, but you could very well be living on welfare, arguing with people on the internet, and may just be right about everything you believe in, but Average Joe could be building machines that mass produce candy, food, or even other machines that actually provide value to society.

Intelligence is definitely important and we do need it to advance as a species, but I think it's not the only basis to which one can derive personal value from.

Obviously there's highly intelligent people out there in high powered jobs that are providing value to others by serving a bunch of needs: selling their products, providing jobs for said Average Joes, and just overall putting their intellect to use.

I think the problem arises when someone gets into this cycle of being highly informed about intellectual things, but not really providing any value other than to argue with people either on the internet or with those around them, and for no reason but to stroke their own egos. When practically, they could be better off using their gifts by connecting with other equally intellectual people and CREATE things of value that also provide value in return.

I've noticed this a lot in some people here who are hungry for higher levels of conversation with their family or friends and getting disappointed. It's like, again, I feel for your disappointment because I've been there, but you gotta meet people where they're at. Just as much as they can't grasp your intellect, you might very well be unable to grasp the simple joy they experience in their lives because you're too fixated on what's so wrong with the world and how no one just seems to understand because they haven't read books x, y, or z, or listen to this intellectual guy or that other intellectual guy that happens to be making a difference in YOUR life.

[barn]

Hi @MysterionMuffles

I think your recent post is a good one, perhaps we see eye to eye on many points.

Did you deliberately leave out 'underdeveloped social skills' or the 'unprocessed resulting in barriers' from the 'equation' you put forward ?

I'd assume, for hyper-intellectuals (don't think I'm one one of them) it's much harder to 'connect' or to untie emotional knots given the ease at how they can get excluded in general from social groups due to the general population being more resentful, less forgiving. Am I being lopsided?

[MysterionMuffles]

16 minutes ago, barn said:

Hi @MysterionMuffles

I think your recent post is a good one, perhaps we see eye to eye on many points.

Did you deliberately leave out 'underdeveloped social skills' or the 'unprocessed resulting in barriers' from the 'equation' you put forward ?

I'd assume, for hyper-intellectuals (don't think I'm one one of them) it's much harder to 'connect' or to untie emotional knots given the ease at how they can get excluded in general from social groups due to the general population being more resentful, less forgiving. Am I being lopsided?

AH that's what I was reaching for, thanks! Underdeveloped social skills and I guess a new one for me is unprocessed resulting in barriers.

Nah you're not being lopsided, I think you expanded on my point quite well. Proper socialization and self knowledge is still very new to our species, I think, so it's tough for us to blend with each other.

This goes for hyper intellectuals, Average Joes, or even people of low IQ. It's hard to find the middle ground between a philosophy loving nerd and your typical football loving beer drinker. Though it isn't impossible, I don't think.

Hm...I'm not sure about the general popuation being more resentful. In my experience, it seems to be people with higher intellect who can become more resentful and less forgiving than the general populace, because within their ability to strongly argue for things, nihilism and cynicsm are very very easy things to argue for. Couple that with intellectual backing, it's no wonder a lot of intellectuals find themselves feeling isolated and unable to find partners, let alone friends.

This is why I think Jordan Peterson's advice in my original post is so important. While you do want to make an impact and inform other people about what you know, you also want to take the time to relax and actually enjoy yourself. I often see intellectuals incredibly infuriated with how people shouldn't be watching the Superbowl and drinking beer when the world is going to shit, and claiming that THESE mindless drones are the ones who are ruining the world. I don't mean to fully engage in just pure self pleasure, but there's a balance to be found for intellectuals. Not sure if I can count myself as one--except for how say, I may seem like one in comparison to a lot of the people I know--but if I were tount myself as one, I would say that there's value in "meaningless" fun. Because at least football loving beer drinkers are still connecting with each other at the level they match up with each other. And sure they will argue over stats and who's the better team...but much like the intellectuals, it's important to find those who can reach your level. Not that it's higher than anyone else, rather it's just A level among several levels in which people operate.

[barn]

What do you think about @MysterionMuffles

, for example envy being a much stronger phenomenon amongst the less gifted as they know they'd never had the chance to try for it from the start, as with the more intelligent is rather a matter of choice and level of coercion they had to survive?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

5 minutes ago, MysterionMuffles said:

This is why I think Jordan Peterson's advice in my original post is so important. While you do want to make an impact and inform other people about what you know, you also want to take the time to relax and actually enjoy yourself. I often see intellectuals incredibly infuriated with how people shouldn't be watching the Superbowl and drinking beer when the world is going to shit, and claiming that THESE mindless drones are the ones who are ruining the world. I don't mean to fully engage in just pure self pleasure, but there's a balance to be found for intellectuals. Not sure if I can count myself as one--except for how say, I may seem like one in comparison to a lot of the people I know--but if I were tount myself as one, I would say that there's value in "meaningless" fun. Because at least football loving beer drinkers are still connecting with each other at the level they match up with each other. And sure they will argue over stats and who's the better team...but much like the intellectuals, it's important to find those who can reach your level. Not that it's higher than anyone else, rather it's just A level among several levels in which people operate.

Months later, I'm much more understanding of this than ever. I don't care to make friends with people I'm not interested in (which is a small pool) but I am a lot more appreciative of the guys whose labor ensures I can work with ideas rather than my hands. And that helps bridge the gap a lot as it's very easy for guys like me to slip into elitism and eugenics. 

I have no intention of trying to be "their" friend, but I do respect them as necessary elements of society and hope to reciprocate their labor with labor of my own. We can be civil partners in society, if not friends.

[MysterionMuffles]

1 minute ago, barn said:

What do you think about @MysterionMuffles

, for example envy being a much stronger phenomenon amongst the less gifted as they know they'd never had the chance to try for it from the start, as with the more intelligent is rather a matter of choice and level of coercion they had to survive?

That's a damn good question...

Do the less gifted REALLY no they never had a chance from the start, though?

It seems like they can fool themselves into believing enough in their abilities to give things a shot. Recently a pro wrestler named CM Punk has fought a couple times in the UFC and has gotten destroyed twice. I don't think he KNEW he never had a chance. He's definitely a capable athlete in the squared circle, but in the octagon and within his own mind, I think he's a little delusional and overshooting his ambitions. Unless of course it's the fault of upper management making him fight PPV matches instead of giving the opportunity to fight in the amateur leagues first.

As for intellectuals, do they well see ability as a choice? I've seen enough intellectuals with equal if not worse overshot belief in themselves similar to CM Punk's, so I don't know.

What do you think? How does ability, choice, and envy relate in your own life? How do you feel measured up against others and even your past self with how you are--I would assume--honing your abilities in something you find meaningful and engaging in your life?

[barn]

to @MysterionMuffles

... Well, in which group do you see more 'blind-faith' coupled with 'against all odds' even when facing 'the immovable object' play out usually with varying degrees of failure... I'd put my bet on the less gifted, but do tell.

[barn]

4 minutes ago, MysterionMuffles said:

What do you think? How does ability, choice, and envy relate in your own life? How do you feel measured up against others and even your past self with how you are--I would assume--honing your abilities in something you find meaningful and engaging in your life? 

Don't ask, 'I can barely see my horse's leash from the sandstorm raging over my head for the past... (almost said 'God')... Who knows how long (a year or so)...'

I'd like to answer but processing is a higher priority (don't want to skew up the thread), maybe I'm not the best to ask those witty queries , maybe when the storm has settled.

[MysterionMuffles]

 

5 minutes ago, barn said:

to @MysterionMuffles

... Well, in which group do you see more 'blind-faith' coupled with 'against all odds' even when facing 'the immovable object' play out usually with varying degrees of failure... I'd put my bet on the less gifted, but do tell.

lol I was asking you XD I don't have much else to tell since I'm curious about what you think now.

The most I can share for now is how important it is to simply FIND some worthwhile pursuit in life that you can measure the results of on a regular basis. What you measure improves. And I think that engaging in a new field of study where you're a complete noob is where you can become totally humbled and taught how to be as objective as possible in regards to your status at that said pursuit. That, to me, is a better use of time as opposed to attempting intellectual conversation with either those who are incapable, or the ones who ARE capable, but have no real interest in learning from the argument--rather making it all a condescending shit show to prove who's smarter and more enlightened.

[barn]

2 hours ago, MysterionMuffles said:

What you measure improves.

It does. It's been proven. (physics 'n all...)

2 hours ago, MysterionMuffles said:

[...] rather making it all a condescending shit show to prove who's smarter and more enlightened. 

This and what came before are good sentiments or guiding principles, subscribe to them consciously, as in 'me too'.

Intellectually I understand the 'makeup' of a 'desert', what's more I wouldn't want to be anywhere else... it's just the motions that I'm engaged in that leaves little place for hope other than the 'candid-breath' of candle-light I'm guarding with unrelenting determination against the sandstorm...

(Appologies for the explosion of detail, when too symbolical or vague, I can switch to 'regular-speak'... it's more compact this way)

E: (had I checked the weather forecast, I wouldn't have to fight the elements... chosen(?) trials, all-good)

Edited June 12, 2018 by barn
E:dit

[MysterionMuffles]

13 minutes ago, barn said:

It does. It's been proven. (physics 'n all...)

This and what came before are good sentiments or guiding principles, subscribe to them consciously, as in 'me too'.

Intellectually I understand the 'makeup' of a 'desert', what's more I wouldn't want to be anywhere else... it's just the motions that I'm engaged in that leaves little place for hope other than the 'candid-breath' of candle-light I'm guarding with unrelenting determination against the sandstorm...

(Appologies for the explosion of detail, when too symbolical or vague, I can switch to 'regular-speak'... it's more compact this way)

I take it that you're in a situation that challenges your ability to grow, let alone enjoy yourself. You don't have to share the details if you don't want, but if I may drop some cliche encouragement, I'd say that whatever you're facing right now is THE challenge you need to grow in the particular ways you need to. So I hope you manage and triumph over that shit, find yourself your oasis and stear cleer of any mirages.

[barn]

41 minutes ago, MysterionMuffles said:

As for intellectuals, do they well see ability as a choice? I've seen enough intellectuals with equal if not worse overshot belief in themselves similar to CM Punk's, so I don't know. 

Monotonous, impulse lacking activities are a torture for the more gifted had they been forced (or put by themselves) into, they nevertheless can 'scale down' and do a 'good enough' job if they choose to.

A person struggling to read between the lines of a potential customer sharing personal incentives will fail to improvise in a situation (i. e. - flight control, surgeon, entrepreneur, 'good' charity fund manager) where the lain groundworks are insufficient and the solution is outside of prior documented occurrence... or the chances are, he/she will fail. Not unexpected.

I'm convinced, the objective probability of a more gifted individual out competing any (normalised for physique) less gifted individual... the only remaining option being choice.

That's my argument.

[barn]

2 minutes ago, MysterionMuffles said:

if I may drop some cliche encouragement,

Please, keep them for those that seek superficiality.

3 minutes ago, MysterionMuffles said:

So I hope you manage and triumph over that shit, find yourself your oasis and stear cleer of any mirages. 

With different words but... yeah, I have that written up on my 'parched itinerary', glad we agreed... again

[MysterionMuffles]

On 6/12/2018 at 4:16 PM, barn said:

Monotonous, impulse lacking activities are a torture for the more gifted had they been forced (or put by themselves) into, they nevertheless can 'scale down' and do a 'good enough' job if they choose to.

A person struggling to read between the lines of a potential customer sharing personal incentives will fail to improvise in a situation (i. e. - flight control, surgeon, entrepreneur, 'good' charity fund manager) where the lain groundworks are insufficient and the solution is outside of prior documented occurrence... or the chances are, he/she will fail. Not unexpected.

I'm convinced, the objective probability of a more gifted individual out competing any (normalised for physique) less gifted individual... the only remaining option being choice.

That's my argument.

Ah ok I think I get what you mean. Higher IQ would mean making a choice to improve at any task, even unfulfilling ones like working at a warehouse pushing boxes around, and that is what would make them superior in a sense? Is that what you mean? Vs the Average Joe who will do good enough to get by without choosing any better way to go about their job or lives and so they just coast along without any significant improvement along the way.