<p>I personally think that once a person reaches above average intelligence, it doesn’t really mean that much anymore. Hard work and luck counts ( the luck of getting that brilliant idea across your mind). There are many geniuses who did not contribute much to the world (in worst case scenario, tricky criminals, like unabomber ). There are people with above average intelligence ( not genius level) who contributed to the world.
Yes, being a genius may make a person’s academic life easier, but their social life might not be easy. Some people even call it a blessing and a curse. Well, I think it’s more of a blessing, but it really depends how the person views it. Of course this social thingy does not apply to every genius.</p>
<p>Wisdom is important and hard to grasp. And you are not born with it.</p>
<p>Ok, I did not read all of the posts, but I would like to comment on the first few.</p>
<p>@Bluelash and others that agree “ignorance is bliss”. I regret to inform you that it is not. There are higher orders of pleasure as John Stuart Mill (philosopher most known for his thoughts on Utilitarianism) stated. My favorite quotation on this matter comes from him: “it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.” The dissatisfaction Socrates feels is a function of his knowledge that there are things he cannot know. It is analogous to, as someone on this forum said, looking up at the stars and feeling an element of uncertainty, mortality, etc. Here’s the punchline: <strong>What separates humans from animals is their ability to question. What separates humans from deities is their inability to answer said questions.</strong> If we don’t question and strive for knowledge (now I will shortly get into what knowledge we should strive for) we have effectively removed the human quality from our existence. A quality that I, and many, derive meaning from. Now, “knowledge” carries a much different connotation than it used to. Scientists/philosophers (synonymous professions long ago), generally, no longer think they are working “for the greater glory of God” as the commonly did pre-Darwin. I don’t think we are looking for a singular synthesis of the universe. Even physicists realize that we can’t condense the meaning of the universe into one compact, elegant statement. Nevertheless, this is not justification for not seeking knowledge and universal truths.
But back to is “ignorance bliss” (I will tend to expand and then tie it back to the original statement- I find it’s effective, along with these parentheticals explaining). Dr. Martin Seligman talked about the higher orders of power Mill did, but much more specifically. He listed three types of “happiness”. The first is the “giggly” happiness- happiness that John Stuart Mill would say is really content and not happiness at all. This is the so-called happiness that those who are in bliss due to ignorance are experiencing. This is not real happiness. The next two (eudaemonia - Aristotle also touched on this - and meaning) are true happiness that is derived mainly from intelligence. </p>
<p>Have either of you read any dystopian novels? I’m sure you have, but it seems like you have forgotten the messages (or didn’t really get them upon first pass which is fine but they deserve some analysis here). I think Brave New World by Aldous Huxley makes my point best. In the dystopia, everyone is “happy” and everyone has a place and contributes to the whole in what they see as a meaningful way. The happiness they experience though is contrived; a government controlled feeling. They either escape using soma (succumbing to their carnal desires which is a very lower order of pleasure) or repeat hypnopaedic statements reassuring themselves that they are in fact need in the society. The epsilons that are oxygen deprived and of a lower intelligence are content despite the World State’s argument that they are happy. They are the ignorant, satisfied pigs of John Stuart Mill’s quotation. </p>
<p>I can go on forever about this, but I will spare everyone the headache. In the end, ignorance is not bliss and meaning can only be derived through questioning that is void in the blissful. </p>
<p>@enfieldacademy I would like to credit you on one of your statements though ("'cause it’s more about being content without having all the answers or even any answers to this crazy world"). I think that is huge and I envy that you are able to understand that there is not always a reason. That is very very true and very very hard for me to accept. My favorite movie is “A Serious Man” by The Coen Brothers. It’s a riff on the book of Job and basically say that we must ACCEPT UNCERTAINTY. I cannot do this. As a chemist and mathematician I believe there is always a reason. Perhaps that is because I am always concerned with the molecular and don’t look “meta” enough. The movie starts with the quotation: “accept with simplicity everything that happens to you”. I seems like you have achieved this. Throughout the movie the characters and audience are consistently left with uncertainty (and I loved the little pieces that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and schroedinger’s cat brought to this motif). I cannot handle this uncertainty as much as I strive to accept it with simplicity. Again, it seems like you have this down and I congratulate you. This acceptance does not have to counteract finding meaning as discussed earlier though. And this is where I think you went slightly astray (if I am interpreting what you wrote correctly). We can still search for meaning while having the understanding that there will be times when we are uncertain and times when we will never know. </p>
<p>Also, @fln1049: you get at the idea that say an intelligent person couldn’t imagine life without intelligence, yet if that person found something else they wouldn’t care much for intelligence and would then not be able to fathom life without that new hobby they found. Well, that is a common thought that is tossed about but Mill also showed how that is not true. I won’t go into huge detail (you can look it up), but essentially those with higher intelligence also know other things and STILL chose intelligence. **The end point is that intelligence trumps.</p>
<p>And this concludes my rant. In then end we need a balance. On a meta level we will never know, but this should not stop us from exploiting meaning hidden in nature when possible (instead of being content in ignorant bliss).</p>
<p>@chemgeek Also, @fln1049: you get at the idea that say an intelligent person couldn’t imagine life without intelligence, yet if that person found something else they wouldn’t care much for intelligence and would then not be able to fathom life without that new hobby they found. Well, that is a common thought that is tossed about but Mill also showed how that is not true. I won’t go into huge detail (you can look it up), but essentially those with higher intelligence also know other things and STILL chose intelligence. **The end point is that intelligence trumps.</p>
<p>They choose intelligence for the same a person gifted at music chooses piano: it comes naturally to them. If it were to stop coming naturally to them, it would lose its “proper challenge” (if you want me to go Aristotle on your ass). People gravitate towards what they are good at, because that’s usually what they like.</p>
<p>@fln1049. When I say “intelligence” I mean it the way Howard Gardern defined it. I believe in the theory of multiple intelligences: musical intelligence is a form of intelligence. In fact, musical theory is very much rooted in mathematics and can be very complicated. Anyway, I was more talking about the differential between any form of intelligence and the mindlessness that is associated with the phrase “ignorance is bliss”. That is the differential, as Mill would say, between “simple pleasures” and “high art”. Piano falls under “high art” so I don’t really know who you are arguing against…</p>
<p>I think high intelligence is really, really attractive. (-:</p>
<p>omg, i love how chemgeek draws from so many sources; he’s really read a lot and tried to make sense of many things for himself (or so it seems). </p>
<p>btw, if you had ventured further down the first page you would have seen i made this post:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>lullies, unfortunately fln049 probably wouldn’t have time for you; he’s too immersed in his spivak and the untold mushy beauty of math in its purest form. </p>
<p>personally i’m quite attracted to high intelligence too - but i would phrase it as I’m more attracted to many of the things that tend to be associated with it (some of which you might not suspect would be), not high intelligence itself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed. I’ve absorbed his CTMU. It’s garbage. Just an intelligent design variant dressed up in heavy set theory.</p>
<p>Thing is, he’s more intelligent than just about everyone posting in this thread. By a lot. And definitely in the top thousand. He is a 4.5 to 5.5 s.d. intellect.</p>
<p>There’s a certain window of intelligence wherein one gets a leg up in work and school, and everything, even happiness, comes ever slightly more easily. It is desirable to fall into this window, and it makes sense, perhaps, to envy those within it. </p>
<p>Then there are those who fall out of the window, and to them school becomes unspeakably boring, work too easy and slow, focus difficult to maintain. Happiness becomes a constant struggle, and wild swings in emotional states come unexpectedly from all directions–– the implications of a phrase, a beautifully placed word; the ideas of mortality and infinity, and the inescapability of time; the futility of dreams and love and accomplishment; the amazing special-ness of any given moment. And, because they’re always thinking, they can never escape their own minds: their thoughts form a prison, leaving them drowning under buffets of conflicting and impossibly strong emotions. </p>
<p>People outside of the “golden gifted” window deal with their mental states in many ways, and it’s completely feasible to escape some of the negative effects by honing the mind to focus on the positive–– but it’ll still be there. I feel that many people do not properly appreciate that happiness is far more important than success, and many highly intelligent high school dropouts can attest to the correlation of the two. Either way, success is a means to an end, and not an obligation, its attainment not the only worthy goal, its worship not the only worthwhile philosophy of life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And yet the curiosity, the observation, the reflection: if they yield an answer you don’t want to hear, are they not a hinderance? </p>
<p>Is it so inconceivable that the ability to believe contradictory sentiments simultaneously, or the ability to ignore implications, might allow one to live a better (or at least, happier) life? </p>
<p>Observation and reflection sound good until, in the middle of a meal, you remember a picture of a starving child, lose your appetite, and feel like crying for the rest of the day. Profundity sounds great: then you see an old person, and realize the profound truth that soon the person will be dead, and in a few decades, no one will remember them: and by that time, you’ll join them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wonder is not the province of the intellectual elite. Even an idiot can want to know, and work hard to that effect. </p>
<p>And wonder is not what we’re arguing about here, anyway.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think so. Wisdom doesn’t always equal happiness, not by a long shot. I agree with that. but it gives you a whole other feeling, which is in and of itself quite miraculous, whether it’s joyful or not. you can regret happiness. no one ever regrets wisdom</p>
<p>I don’t think that’s true. Wisdom, more often than not, comes from regret, pain, suffering… wisdom essentially is regret. And, more often than not, it seems to be the case that the regret stems from a failure to take advantage of opportunities to be happy.</p>
<p>This discussion reminds me of the play Wit. The woman in it spent her life dealing with the abstraction of death, and she found that helpful. However, when she faced it full on, when she realized the lack of glory and the utter loneliness of death, the futility–– not through the lens of John Donne, but face-to-face–– all the abstractions fell apart. There is no way to clothe yourself in wisdom. One day, the cloak will become insubstantial, and you’ll be unable to see how you could have talked yourself into believing it ever had substance to begin with. That’s the end of wisdom. </p>
<p>But before death, the ability to see through your own ******** does nothing but tear you away from any happiness you could claim, before you even have a chance to claim it. It takes sustained effort to keep this at bay. </p>
<p>The ability to see many steps ahead shows you that anyone you love will hurt you, unless you hurt them first. No matter how happy the romance, one person will die first. There’s no reason anyone should have to think about that before a first embrace. And yet intelligence makes it so very easy to see. </p>
<p>Some intelligence, some wisdom, makes life meaningful. There is, however, such a thing as being too quick for your own good, and there are plenty of people with that problem.</p>
<p>Jimbosteve, yes you are correct that we may be happier if we do not have to face the harsh reality we discover with much reflection. But over time, we learn to cope with it, and these observations make us better people. This can all be connected to the statement “ignorance is bliss” so it all comes down to whether you agree with it or not.</p>
<p>Being observant and reflective opens you up to more than the bad. And I believe that it is worth being able to analyze the world around me, even if I have to come across a few realizations I don’t want to make.</p>
<p>I suppose disagree with you, JimboSteve, in terms of what wisdom is. I don’t think wisdom and intelligence are the same thing. Wisdom is more of a deeper understanding, which I believe does have substance. Like deeper truths beyond life and death.</p>
<p>jimbosteve posted on my thread <em>squeals</em>. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I tend to agree with this perspective. Though I would say that the window is of course defined by the environment - what intelligence and traits allows one to best succeed in one environment (get praise and positive feedback, feel included and so on) may not allow one to succeed in another. </p>
<p>of course though there is the unfortunate fact that everyone is forced to endure the academic environment even if they are not a match for it. having to repeatedly fail math or something does no good for that person; and having large parts of society look down on them for it is not right. I guess thankfully not everyone is forced to test out the gang environment during their youth instead; and then finally if deemed hopeless there after years of injuries or whatever, rushed off to academia to be with others who were dejected by the gang life too, and turned to science instead. that would be awful. <em>shivers</em>.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>this seems like a good insight to me!</p>
<p>here’s something eliezer yudkowsky wrote about wisdom, which speaks to a sad implication of it being essentially what you said it is i think (this struck me pretty significantly when i read it so i would up saving it)-</p>
<p>The problem of discussing “wisdom” is that everyone’s had at least a few
thoughts they consider “wise”. In many cases they’ve gone through a lot
of hell to acquire whatever lesson they learned, and they really don’t
want to hear that they’ve learned the wrong lesson from it. If you have
the misfortune to meet an “intelligent” person who’s learned the lesson
that facility with verbal argument isn’t smartness but rather “a fancier
kind of stupid”, as Spider Robinson put it, good luck ever convincing
them that there’s any kind of intelligence that actually works! They’ve
given up their pride to come to that conclusion, they’ve been hit over
the head by stark reality, they’ve gone through hell to arrive at that
one crumb of wisdom and by damn they’ve earned the right to be smug
about it. If you’re foolish enough to think there’s any kind of
intelligence that really works, you must not have gone through what they
did; you must be too proud to admit your own folly; you must not be
wise. I don’t know how to dig people out of that trap.</p>
<p>I can’t even fully understand what most of you guys are saying, but I still want to say a word anyway. I may even sound naive and ignorant, for I have never studied any philosophy and never would probably.
Wisdom, to me, does not equal to regret. Wisdom comes only after regret, after one has accepted it. Wisdom takes time to grow. (I have never heard of a wise young person, maybe you have).
I think wisdom is more a peaceful acceptance of life. It does not attempt to explain why things happen, nor does it impede you from trying to find the truth. It only tells you sometimes things happen because, well, they just happen. But it is not the submissive kind of acceptance in which you believe that your fate is set and you cannot change it at all.
I see wisdom more as a balanced view of the world and of life. I think it actually relieves suffering because you find your peace in it. I think wisdom is even harder than intelligence to define. It’s just too abstract. You may have a different explanation of what wisdom is.
By the way, humans made up the word wisdom.
If you find my post too simple, shallow, contradictory, and awkward, please forgive me. I am merely expressing my thought. I am not a genius, and I do not dare to say I am wise at all either.</p>