Hello Everyone,

 

I am assuming there may be some high IQs (I am a former member of MinD, or MENSA in Germany) in the Nexus? What have been the challenges you have faced in the world due to this? Has your IQ sometimes been a heavy burden to bear?

 

Any thoughts on this? Experiences to share?

Views: 3186

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think, that there are two ways or forms of being intelligent, that are very different, even though the IQ measured by tests is the same.  
One type enables to make intelligent decisions concerning goals, attitudes, values, critical evaluation of the own behavior, self-control and long-term thinking are stronger than instincts and impulses from the subconscious.   This is more than what is usually defined as 'emotional intlligence'.
The other type is intelligence as a tool serving instincts and irrational goals of any kind.   

The first kind of intelligence avoids wars in favor of peace and progress for all people and attempts to overcome obsolete impulses like the ingroup-outgroup instinct. 
The second kind of intelligence serves such instincts like the ingroup-outgroup instinct to construct the most efficient weapons and methods how to kill the most of who is considered an enemy.  

The first kind of intelligence makes people atheists, the second kind makes them jesuits.

Whenever subconscious archaic instincts are stronger than high intelligence, it gets dangerous.  

My intellect has never been a burden to bear, but it has brought with it the realization that, no matter how much information I cram into my skull, it will always be an infinitessimal fraction of the information available to me. Be wary of thinking you are smart - it's a facade created by high test scores and the praise of others. Truly smart people do not think of themselves as such because they have enough awareness to realize how little awareness they really have.

 

In a generation or two , we will have mastered the technology to physically insert information into the brain. It has begun recently with thought-monitoring devices and the massive lists of chemical patterns that represent specific thoughts, even words. It will culminate with something like the Matrix, and then we will all be smart...and we will all know Kung Fu. People who think of themselves as smart today will be laughing then, at how silly they were to think their mere biological brain was "smart." So staggering will our intellects then be that the highs and lows of today's minds will seem almost indistincuishable by comparison.

people who are very intelligent think they're not????? no, that's not true.  when you grow up going to school with many, many cohorts despising you and making fun of you, you know you're smart.  when you are always the one who knows answers, who wins spelling bees.  keeping quiet and not winning does not earn you points; then everyone is glad you lost for a change.  it's not quite that bad as there are a few other people you can talk to.  but in the cities it's totally different than in the country, where you can be quite alone. this, of course, does not help your personality development.  it's the opposite in sports - ever notice that?  then it's way cool to be first and the best - no matter what your personality.  finding people to talk with on the same level as you are is also daunting and makes one feel alone. 

 also, i disagree with the theories propounded here about 2 types of intelligence - but, ye gods, that would take forever. it is not black and white - life is many shades of grey. life is not mensa games, it's much more entangled. . .  that said - have a wonderful Halloween and Samhain celebration :]

I make every attempt to enjoy life.  I work humor into every nook and cranny of it.  My problem is that a very limited amount of people that get the humor.  As you might guess we all stay in close contact with each other, as we seem to be the only ones who understand us.  By the same token, I am often alienated by discussions about sports and other subjects I find both trite and banal.
that's what you got from my discussion? sports!!!!  by the way i laugh a lot. . .  but sometimes there are people with pain in their lives, too.
tell me how your humor works - i'd really like someone to laugh with :]

Alexa, you have become trapped in the facade that I very specifically mentioned. Other people are not a measure of your smarts. The people who designed the tests you did well on, and the spelling bees you won, are people who's minds work similarly to yours. But being good at sports is another type of smarts - it takes specific types of information and brain functions which can be applied to useful things (how else would you define smart?), and the people who celebrate it are people who understand that kind of smarts, either because they have it or wish they did.

 

Finding people who think just like you do is impossible, but don't think that you are smarter than all of them just because they can't understand you. As a pretty smart dude once said "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." That smart dudes name was Albert.

 

I've spent the last 8 years researching and writing a book on nanotechnology, but far from only reading the available materials of "experts" I have made it a big part of my effort to talk with average Joes and Janes about my topic. I'm writing it because I think people need to know what's been going on with science and technology over the last few decades, and if I can't write it in such a way that "stupid" people understand it, then I will have failed. I will have been the stupid one, for not being able to understand how their minds work. Smarts is not an entity unto itself, it is an interactive process, the measure of which is determined by one's successful application of information to situation. So if people at school don't like you, and if your goal is to be liked, then you are failing to apply your information successfully, and you are the stupid one. Not trying to be mean, but its the truth as I see it. You may disagree.

hi john - (you meanie person :) it's great that you are writing your book so that most people can understand it. i certainly wouldn't get what the heck you were saying unless you did.  me and physics are strangers passing in the night or the fog :]  

i do disagree with you on some issues - yes.  but you really misunderstand what i said.  (btw- it was not me who had a very hard time of it, but a friend of mine - for some people, being intelligent (not in the stupid mensa sense) is being in a hard place.) this is not judging oneself by others at all; it is just what is.  Einstein had his problems, too. what one says and what one feels or does are two different things (as you know). 

i don't get that you call the ability to make decisions etc. 'emotional intelligence". it is just the opposite - it is mindful, thinking.  instincts or habits are emotional. the so-called id is emotional.  the 'ego' tries to balance the emotional with the rational. ask anyone with a phobia! (one of the more obvious emotional/rational dilemmas. much more complicated, of course, but a way to get to what i mean.)

also, i don't understand why you think that putting lists of words into a brain will make one smart. you have to know what to do with those words - that's intelligence, not the list.  if you put a bunch of very high mathematical formulas in my head, i'd still be going - duh, now i'm so confused i can't add 1+1 anymore - Da  Vinci had an incredible mind - not only was he an artistic genius, he understood physics, also. i think we are talking the same thing, just on slightly different planes?

I think it was Marulaki who used the phrase 'emotional intelligence.' Personally, I don't agree with the idea that there are only two types of intelligence either. I think there are as many types as there are people. Everyone is smart in some way; everyone knows some things that others don't know.

 

As for putting words into the brain, it's not that specifically which will result in being able to make people smarter. What's significant about it is that we are learning what forms specific data take in the human brain, and how to manipulate them. For instance, an experiment on rats was able to remove and then replace their ability to memorize the layout of a specific maze. When the chemistry responsible for the memory was removed, the mice forgot how to navigate the maze. When it was put back, they knew how again. It's a very simple example, but technology always starts that way. Eventually, we will be able to do the kind of thing that was showed in The Matrix, where information could be downloaded directly into the brain. Learning will no longer be a process of memorization through repetition, but a process of direct electrochemical stimulation.

There are many aspects of what is measured by IQ tests, verbal, mathematical, special and so on.   My distinction is only between the level of making use of it.   If it is on the top level of determining goals, intelligence enables someone to decide between the benefits of peace talks and starting a war.   On the secondary level, it is used to build the bombs, while instincts or social influences decide for the option of war.   But both levels can lead to the same scores on an IQ test.

i'll have to look up  Marulaki - never heard of him/her - also, that rat/maze experiment is incredible.  thanks for explaining, because it sure seemed ridiculous to me.

i was just reading about Dr. Michael S. Gazzaniga who was responsible for the experiments that lead to the right brain/left brain information. really interesting (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/science/telling-the-story-of-the-...) (so the educational system split the brain into parts; as a teacher, this drove me nuts!  like, duh, they're connected to each other - they work together in a complicated manner - e.g. one kid is not 'just' visual but verbal as well.  argh!!!!)   

anyway, he is very clear that you cannot take this work and use it as it is in e.g. legal situations - the right brain 'tells stories' about factual material it has heard or seen - it fills in the blanks via our own experience. we do not know what is reliable.

there was an experiment where people were told to watch some dancers and remember what they saw.  during this, the experimenters had a person dressed as a gorilla prance through the dancers and off.  when asked what they saw, none of the people was aware of the darn gorilla. amazing !  (there's a video, but i don't remember where it is.)

OH !!!! Murlaki is one of our contributors !!!    LOL

RSS

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service