Should the acquisition of a skill be a prerequisite for admission to the intelligentsia?

I've already decided that only atheists may be admitted to the modern intelligentsia. But should mastery of a skill be another criterion? If somebody's extremely smart, does that necessarily imply that they will master a skill? Which skills are suitable? Is it possible that somebody's really smart but really lazy and they never bother learning how to do anything?

Views: 670

Replies to This Discussion

the intelligentsia exists.  And whether you are a member of this social class is something you have no control over. Either you make the cut or you don't.

What makes you think it's binary - either someone is a member of the intelligentsia or they aren't?

The fact that you are asking about whether skills are necessary to be part of the intelligentsia, already implies it's not binary. 

My question is: Can somebody be truly intelligent without any significant skills? Does intelligence necessarily breed skills?

Someone could be a voracious reader, using their intelligence that way and not particularly in any other way.  One encounters people who read hundreds and hundreds of books. 

Someone who's intelligent might want to learn a lot, more than to develop skills.  Hyper-intelligent people tend to crave knowledge. 

Could a super-intelligent person read fictional novels all the time and never fail to be amused by plot twists that over time become ever more minuscule in differentiation from others they have already experienced? And would this person not be said to have a highly-developed skill of reading comprehension? And would this person not have attained expert-level knowledge in their domain of reading? Could this person at least perform the job function of analyzing plot twists, even if only to remark if they have been done before within this domain? And if it were nonfiction, can a person attain expert-level knowledge in a nonfiction domain and be left without any skill at all? Is it possible to exercise the skill of reading comprehension extensively (voraciously) within a given domain of writing and be left with no significant skill development of any kind?

Any kind of learning could be construed as a skill, I guess. 

But usually we think of skills as something people put effort into acquiring - involving perspiration.  I can imagine a very intelligent person who's more interested in inspiration than perspiration - a self-entertainer, who wouldn't necessarily have particularly meaningful things to say.  But they would be more interesting than the morning paper on many days. 

So I guess we need to understand the definition of a skill. If we can interpret reading literature as a skill, then where do we draw the line?

Nearly seven consecutive years of celibacy have seen me visit pornography sites. Not only do I read the comments, oftentimes I consume the footage without performing the obvious other function. I've been surprised at how avid consumers of Internet pornography have seen so much footage that they have some strange skill of analyzing footage. One video was supposedly of a taboo fetish, by the title. I looked at the comments and somebody referenced the same video by another title ("Dutch College F'ing"). So it turned out the website rebranded the footage to attempt to appeal to a combination of niche markets, and simply displayed it in another category. That porn consumer had so much knowledge of his domain that he instantly knew the truth behind what otherwise seemed like a legitimately taboo video. He had the skill of discernment due to his insight from his exposure to all the footage he had watched. He was really, really good at watching porn videos, way better than I am.

So the skill of watching porn videos? The skill of consuming information?

So is there such a thing as an uber-intelligent person who not only ignores the world around him but also fails to "get good" at something more introverted? Like artwork or programming or engineering designs? And if I meet somebody doesn't know shit about shit and doesn't know how to do shit, but they happen to correctly believe that God doesn't exist, then am I correct in assuming that when they believe in something funky like ghosts and spirits that it's simply because they're not very intelligent?

For all we know, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) has read literally thousands of books. He is still an outspokenly theocratic congressman who comes off as a total buffoon.

See that? So amassing a body of knowledge allowed him to be adroit at buffoonery, just like Rush Limbaugh. These guys are convincing to other amoeba-brains with their various conservative cults of ignorance. So the skill alone doesn't mean somebody has half a brain.

They DO have one, they just use it for stupidity and evil. It doesn't mean they could not excel at productive things too, if they had not been blinded by the 'dark side'. If they were to focus in the right direction, they could do smart things too.

Rush, for example, is not motivated by stupidity, it is greed, hate, and drugs. It's not the same thing, even smart people can be focused on very stupid things... It doesn't make them a stupid person, just misguided (or worse).

{My joke in reply to James' comment, 'Louie Gohmert read a thousand books, and they are all the bible'...} <-this is just a joke, were this an actual fact, it might have, I don't know ...a reference or something?

If there was a way to Facebook-style "like" your comment, I would do it.

That doesn't answer my question why you want to be one of the judges. Are you qualified as a judge? By whom? And were they qualified? And what's in it for you - status? And will it make you feel secure?

When I hear someone say something, the content of what they're saying is what I judge.  It's not based on a judgement about the person.  I develop opinions about people over time, but my opinions are changeable. 




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service