Idiots and the Rare Intellect

[Morality Games]

Idiots and the Rare Intellect

The most common reactions to the frustrating complexities of the world are ignorance and oversimplification. This mentality is hospitable to the first ideology it meets but very hostile to those that come after. Greetings to the idiot.

In opposition to this way of thinking is the rare intellect. The rare intellect overcomes the urge to accept initial impressions without a fight and instead challenges the authenticity of the information presented to it until the world strikes it down or it is overcome with exhaustion. Such are the lives of idiots and intellectuals.

The only rare intellect I know is me, and I could very well be wrong about myself, and plenty of people I consider idiots would surely identify themselves as rare intellects.

So, there is no matter of fact as to who is a rare intellect and who is an idiot.

EDITED VERSION:

The most common reactions to the frustrating complexities of the world are ignorance and oversimplification. This mentality is hospitable to the first ideology it meets but very hostile to those that come after. Greetings to the idiot.

In opposition to this way of thinking is the rare intellect. The rare intellect overcomes the urge to accept initial impressions without a fight and instead challenges the authenticity of the information presented to it until the world strikes it down or it is overcome with exhaustion. Such are the lives of idiots and intellectuals.

The only rare intellect I know is Person A, and I could very well be wrong about Person A, and plenty of people I consider idiots would surely identify themselves as rare intellects.

So, there is no matter of fact as to who is a rare intellect and who is an idiot.

[phoenix_fire]

Well. Hurrah for self-aggrandizement.

At any rate, there is an overabundance of those who believe themselves to be of "rare intellect" simply because they have the juvenile predisposition to outright reject everything they hear as a lie. This group loves off-the-wall conspiracies. They have a mentality mired in the teenage maturity level which dictates that all authority should be opposed. This stems from a developmental phase termed "invisible audience", in which the self-centered individual over-assesses their importance in the social hierarchy, causing them to act as if people care far more about what they think and do than is actually the case. This results in a situation in which those who believe themselves to be of "rare intellect", rather than thinking with ingenuity, creativity, and originality, are actually merely being petulant.

[HelioPrime]

I just realized where MG's avatar comes from. Mr Roger Smith.

Funny because it exactly matches up with your style. Just like Roger you seem to think everything out down to basic terms but prefer to use official academic language to illustrate everything.

For lack of a better way to put it your calling everyone else on this board an idiot. Because apparently we do not follow in line with your theory of how we view and act on given data.

[Morality Games]

Funny on both counts, but I think you missed the point of the post.

Funny because it exactly matches up with your style. Just like Roger you seem to think everything out down to basic terms but prefer to use official academic language to illustrate everything.

Logic means reducing many particulars to a single principle, and arguing is a logical activity. I don't want to put things in basic terms, but that is the only way to make things remotely comprehensible.

For lack of a better way to put it your calling everyone else on this board an idiot.

Nowhere near. I didn't say people who had ideologies were idiots (I affiliate with at least two). I said people who accepted ideologies without a fight were idiots. And they are.

Rarely a day goes by where I don't ask myself, "Why do I still want to keep being a pragmatist?"

Well. Hurrah for self-aggrandizement.

Although very occasionally you sound intentionally (forcefully) humble, I don't think I have ever read anything by you which indicates that you have anything other than a large estimation of your own worth and that of the words that come out of your mouth. So why are you judging me?

Anyway, self-aggranddizement wasn't really the point. What I (clearly) meant was that people will always think of themselves as rare intellects when faced with the alternative, but their self-analysis is untrustworthy.

[Domino]

I've often agreed that your choice of avatar is apt.

I would expect that even the rarest of intellectuals will occasionally uncritically accept a premise, and even idiots will occasionally spot a faulty premise. Most people, I think, have subjects to which they always apply their full skepticism, and other subjects which they wrongly believe to be well settled.

Only an idiot can say he's never wrong.

[Morality Games]

Quote by: Domino I've often agreed that your choice of avatar is apt. I would expect that even the rarest of intellectuals will occasionally uncritically accept a premise, and even idiots will occasionally spot a faulty premise. Most people, I think, have subjects to which they always apply their full skepticism, and other subjects which they wrongly believe to be well settled. Only an idiot can say he's never wrong.

I thought it logically followed from my description, but I guess I need to detail the ramifications.

The rare intellect reverses the usual tendency of humans. Rather than thinking of reasons why they should remain what they are, they use all their power to find reasons why they should burn themselves down and build something better in their place.

They spare no expense: time, money, mental and physical effort -- all is invested into the endeavor. This even when the usual effect is the annihilation of their old desires and values.

This isn't the main goal, of course. The main goal is trying to create a strong, authentic character -- if the old desires and values withstand the test, then that can be taken as an indication of their authenticity.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Morality Games Although very occasionally you sound intentionally (forcefully) humble, I don't think I have ever read anything by you which indicates that you have anything other than a large estimation of your own worth and that of the words that come out of your mouth. So why are you judging me? Anyway, self-aggranddizement wasn't really the point. What I (clearly) meant was that people will always think of themselves as rare intellects when faced with the alternative, but their self-analysis is untrustworthy.

Funny thing about that: for you to call me a hypocrite in this matter makes you a hypocrite, and thus, your analysis cannot be trusted. I don't consider it an overreach to say that when someone says that he/she is the only great intellect that that person knows, they are being self-aggrandizing. I am reasonably sure that I can gather a consensus on that opinion.

Now, see, the thing is that my opinion of myself is not at issue here. I neither commented on my own humility nor my own intelligence. But thank you for playing.

[Clarence]

phoenix thinks she's the smartest person she ever met. she considers herself a rare intellect. so do I.

That is, I consider myself a rare intellect. rare doesn't mean pwnest though, before you accuse me

hospitable to the first ideology it meets but very hostile to those that come after. Greetings to the idiot.

I don't see much in the OP that can be debated. Without the half-joking self aggrendization, there may have been no response. A well laid trap for the very character it is addressing. So here I am

[Compugasm]

I'm stupid.

[Technosoul]

I guess I would be one of those people with that rare intellect, aka the Volconvo Idiot.

I often stand nearly alone in many threads to express my view about a topic. Trying to debate five people all at once by myself.

And I fit both the discription given by M.G. as well as the one used by P. Fire.

But that is not what I want to post acturally, I was about to do one called the "Obama Magic", so I would like to speak about him as a rare intellect.

He does not use a lot of facts and stats to make his case, he does not claim any experience or education that would qualifiy his self to assume the authority for directing wars or economic recovery. Instead he says "trust me, I have good judgement".

He said " I am a social worker, I work with groups to make things better".

None of this fans bother to look up any facts about his voting record, or any of the other junk most of our debaters here (at Volconvo) deem to be so important.

He talks about potentials, unfullfilled dreams, that he wants our nation to aspire too. But he has no real facts that theory will pan out as he hopes, or as the voters hope it will. Yet they love him. He does not reject the conspiracy of discrimination, and advocates an end to it.

He has captured the imagination of the democrats that want change, and all the facts, realities, and nay-sayers will not stop him nor the young who share a fantasy, who are willing too "imagine".

[tivodan1116]

I'm the smartest person I know. Hooray, let me go start a thread about it.

[Chaossaber314]

Don't we have blogs for this?

[Morality Games]

Funny thing about that: for you to call me a hypocrite in this matter makes you a hypocrite, and thus, your analysis cannot be trusted.

I'm not even going to guess the logic behind your thoughts here.

I don't consider it an overreach to say that when someone says that he/she is the only great intellect that that person knows, they are being self-aggrandizing. I am reasonably sure that I can gather a consensus on that opinion.

But you are obviously wrong due to misinterpretation.

An important addition that you overlooked is, "and I could very well be wrong about myself, and plenty of people I consider idiots would surely identify themselves as rare intellects."

But you interpreted it as, "THE ONLY RARE INTELLECT I KNOW IS ME!!!!!!!!!!.

How is that reasonable? Put in perspective, it amounts to, "People can say they are great intellects, but they untrustworthy -- moreover, they can call other people idiots, but those people consider themselves great intellects." The question the audience is left to consider (and one of the questions that should be debated is), "So how do we determine who passes for a rare intellect?"

Then I said, "So, there is no matter of fact as to who is a rare intellect and who is an idiot."

You pretty much ignored the content of my post in favor of, ""THE ONLY RARE INTELLECT I KNOW IS ME -- THEREFORE I AM THE ONLY RARE INTELLECT!!!!!!.

The accusation self-aggrandizement has no basis in fact. If it did, I would have had to say something like, "I am indisputably a grand intellect and anybody who says otherwise is an idiot because ..." and so on.

Now, see, the thing is that my opinion of myself is not at issue here. I neither commented on my own humility nor my own intelligence. But thank you for playing.

I'm not sure where you got this idea other people are obligated to leave you alone because you don't explicitly offer commentary on your attributes. That you demonstrate them at all is enough. It doesn't even matter if you were criticizing me, commenting on the weather, or playing with a yo-yo. That you exist at all, in any form, means observations can be made about you.

I'm the smartest person I know. Hooray, let me go start a thread about it.

This is pretty silly. Because the first two responders misinterpreted the intent of a demonstration, the whole meaning behind the thread is being ignored. Last time I use myself to demonstrate a point. From now on it is Person A.

The reason I used myself was to emphasize that not even I think I am a good judge of who passes for a rare intellect -- much more personal than Person A. But since people can't pay attention to the text of a post, I guess that ploy gets put aside forever.

Don't we have blogs for this?

See above. I'm editing the post to say 'Person A' so that maybe we can actually discuss the content of the idea instead of my supposed ego-complex.

[phoenix_fire]

For such a great intellect, the logic shouldn't be all that daunting to you. If you call someone egotistical while condemning them for allegedly judging someone to be egotistical, you are doing exactly what you are condemning: thus the hypocrisy.

And as to what you said, the fact that you stated the first part:

The only rare intellect I know is me

means that you're planting that idea: regardless of what you say after that, you're still putting that idea out there. Tell me: what conclusion would you draw if I said "I could be wrong, but I'm probably the most brilliant person ever to walk the face of the planet"? Talk about "sound[ing] intentionally (forcefully) humble".

[Tycoon]

The question really is what you consider rare intellect to be. What is the criteria for genius?



Can it be as simply as getting good grades in school and doing well on IQ tests?

I personally get As and Bs in school, and I'm not top of my class. But it's not just that black and white; I barely study for any of my classes while many of the students in my calculus class have to study for hours to maintain the same grade.



And when it comes down to telling somebody their narcissistic for suggesting they have a higher intelligence than other people...

I personally would set one criteria for genius as an awareness of one's intellect.

[Chris the Chees]

I don't think it is at all as simple as the OP thinks it is, and I think the OP’s definition of a 'rare intellect' is nonsense. I also think of the two categories in a far less specific context than merely placing thought into ones ideology. Indeed I question whether 'rare intellect' or abject 'idiocy' even truly exist. That’s not to say that certain people are not capable moments of genius, etc; rather that is to say some people who are very bright can in many ways be very stupid, and that many people characterised as being very stupid have areas of brilliance.

I also think that the majority of peoples failings and merits fall short of both categories. I, for example, like to think I am good at academic history; am I brilliant? I don't just think, but know I'm not. To place this into a context some very bright people will get straight As at school; get a first at university; get a distinction at masters, etc, but even they are rarely brilliant. Though they may have received a distinction masters with an over all mark of say 75 (which is a very good distinction in a history masters), there are those in the world who receive 80s and higher. yet these same people are typically awful in other areas. I know one brilliant historian who pretty much needs a calculator when he as run out of fingers.

Edit: Opps, I've just noticed that Tycoon has basically, and much more concisely, just made the exact same point.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: phoenix_fire For such a great intellect, the logic shouldn't be all that daunting to you. If you call someone egotistical while condemning them for allegedly judging someone to be egotistical, you are doing exactly what you are condemning: thus the hypocrisy. And as to what you said, the fact that you stated the first part: means that you're planting that idea: regardless of what you say after that, you're still putting that idea out there. Tell me: what conclusion would you draw if I said "I could be wrong, but I'm probably the most brilliant person ever to walk the face of the planet"? Talk about "sound[ing] intentionally (forcefully) humble".

Are we debating about a "rare" intellect or a "great" intellect?

People keep changing the words.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Chris the Chees I don't think it is at all as simple as the OP thinks it is, and I think the OP’s definition of a 'rare intellect' is nonsense. I also think of the two categories in a far less specific context than merely placing thought into ones ideology. Indeed I question whether 'rare intellect' or abject 'idiocy' even truly exist. That’s not to say that certain people are not capable moments of genius, etc; rather that is to say some people who are very bright can in many ways be very stupid, and that many people characterised as being very stupid have areas of brilliance. I also think that the majority of peoples failings and merits fall short of both categories. I, for example, like to think I am good at academic history; am I brilliant? I don't just think, but know I'm not. To place this into a context some very bright people will get straight As at school; get a first at university; get a distinction at masters, etc, but even they are rarely brilliant. Though they may have received a distinction masters with an over all mark of say 75 (which is a very good distinction in a history masters), there are those in the world who receive 80s and higher. yet these same people are typically awful in other areas. I know one brilliant historian who pretty much needs a calculator when he as run out of fingers. Edit: Opps, I've just noticed that Tycoon has basically, and much more concisely, just made the exact same point.

Mr E - I have just discovered the law of relativity.

Mr D - Sir, your shoestring is untied and you forgot to comb your hair.

Mr E - Uh?

A rare intellect would be someone who has an uncommon way of looking at things and who has a natural, gifted, sense of logical deduction that is outside of the norms of a brainwashed education.

[Tycoon]

A rare intellect would be someone who has an uncommon way of looking at things and who has a natural, gifted, sense of logical deduction that is outside of the norms of a brainwashed education.

Wow, that pretty much excludes every Christian.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Tycoon Wow, that pretty much excludes every Christian.

As well as every atheist, for the same reasons.