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: 684

Replies to This Discussion

Plinius says: "I'll admit that I really hate labels..." Me, too. Remember, the semanticist Korzybski said, "The map is not the territory."

Yes, Chris, you said what I should have said all those hours ago. To waste time on such a discussion reflects badly on me and my moral code. 

Well typically speaking the intelligentsia are 'educators to artisans'. Scientists certainly would qualify, as they work to educate us all. I would say anyone who helps to fight for progress should be included. It matters not what someone's IQ is, as long as they use what they have for the right goals. I say it should be more where your heart is (not physically), and how you use what you have, rather than what you know before joining. Excluding someone based on factors they cannot help is not a good plan, exclusion should be based on things they can help, like counterproductive goals. If you want to help and you want to learn, then we should encourage that in any way we can.

IQ and Education are not the same thing, someone can be brilliant and chose not to use it, on the other hand, like strength, if you do not use it, you tend to lose the ability to use it, but that can return with practice. Even an idiot can have a good idea, and we would be remiss if we ignore a good idea due to its source. As 'educators' (professional or otherwise), it behooves us to nurture any enlightenment, wherever it is found. The love of learning and desire for progress should be the main requirements.

But, that's my 2$ worth. (<-inflation)


Thanks for your input Dev.

Makes good sense to me. 

You can say it a lot better than I can, Devian, thanks!

Thanks to you guys too. I am reminded of Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, who both had roughly the same IQ, both in the 120's or so, and then I look at what they did with that IQ. Neither are what one would call a genius (obviously), but they certainly did not use them in the same way, or live up to their potential in the same way, ne? They even both spent some time going to school in Hawaii (let the 'conspiracy nuts' mull that one over)...

They both have the same level of 'intelligence', but they chose to use it in a different way. One went to several schools before finally graduating with a bachelors in broadcasting, the other graduated 'magna cum laude' from Harvard. One is pushing to spread ignorance, and the other education (even if he wants certain people, AKA the NSA, to know a lot more than most...)... One might 'almost' qualify for this 'group', and the other most certainly would not, doing the opposite of the intelligentsia, the ignorantsia. (A word I just coined) XD

You think Barack Obama has an IQ only in the 120's?  He seems obviously very smart to me - much smarter than that.  He's very quick in his thinking when he's in public. 

It's not what I think, this was published back in the election. You have to keep in mind, 120 IS pretty smart, that is the top 5-10%. 100 is average and most people fall in this area, I have a 146, and that puts me in the top 0.01%.

Wits are not IQ, some of the smartest people are not 'quick on their feet', as it were. But that was my point, see how much more he did with what he had, verses someone who started with the same learning ability, and chose not to use it. Look at how dumb she seems when she could have learned just as much, but chose to focus on dumb things. He chose to really use his brain, and keeps exercising it, he used it to get an education, she did not use hers much at all. 

It's not what I think, this was published back in the election.

It was?  Cite?  I looked a bit online and found a bunch of statements that his IQ hasn't been published, some estimates of ~138-145 - which is more like what I would guess. 

Honestly I do not recall, it was a comparison between the two, it's been more than 6 years, and I can not find any current source for it that is credible either (that one may not have been, but it fits what I see). (though I have seen people claiming from 88-160, both extremes being utterly ridicules, the average of that is 124, not that it is proof of anything). I remember the article only because I was mildly surprised to see hers that high.

Personally I would like to think that if his IQ really was in the 135-45+ range, he would have learned how to negotiate much sooner in the process and not have opened the negotiations with the middle ground bid for example, and did so in almost every case we have. In any negotiation you always ask for more than you want so you have have room to bargain, anyone will tell you that, he left no such room. Maybe if he would have started with what his party wanted for health care, and bargained his way to the republican AMA plan we got, the one that they offered us back in '93 (let them get there on their own terms, make them think they were winning, make them feel like it was them forcing it on him instead. Getting people to do what you want and make them think it is their idea, that is leadership, that is intelligence, that is a 'real man of genus'), we would not have states who are blocking healthcare to their people, and they would not still be fighting it. It isn't like the opposition did not state outright that they planned to stop every single thing he planned to do, only an idiot would expect them to take his first offer. It was really really dumb, and not a solitary event. Sure, no one expected how crazy they got, but how many times do you have to go through it before you learn? That is a measure of IQ. Making the same mistake over and over and expecting a different result is not just dumb, but crazy.

It was definitely not the act of a 'genus'. He is very very bright (like I said, even a low end guess of 120 flat is smarter than more than 90% of the world, and that is nothing to sneeze at, and I assume it is at least a bit higher than that), and very well educated, no question about it, but not a genus. Unless his goal was not to pass real reform, and give gifts to the people who are causing the problem. ...considering the way this constitutional law student continues to treat the 4th amendment, I suppose it is possible... It is hard to say. From what I see in his actions, 120-30 is far closer to the truth than 130's-140's. But maybe I have an odd perspective, not being a member of either party.

But it was just an example (and if my data was wrong, it may have been a bad one), but it still gets the point across. If 2 people had the same IQ (no matter who they are, even twins), and one studied, and the other did sports and pageants, one is going to seem a lot smarter, no matter what the real IQs are. What matters is not what you have, but how you use it. That is my point, not quibbling over details that are kind of moot.

I believe strongly in getting the facts correct, and if I was wrong, then I am sorry, but it should not detract from the point I was making.

People's estimates of Obama's IQ are surely related to their politics.  It's really dismaying to see so much racism involved, too. 

I'm not a fan of his health care plan btw. 




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service