thoughts of an ultra high IQ guy

[Wells]

.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Wells

[Stosh]

Interesting guy. He seems to entertain conventional ideas though. He may have ,or may not have insight beyond standard, but nothing particular stood out as exceptional. Im not bashing the guy, several hesitations at telling points suggest to me that he may be rather sopisticated in his thinking,Im just sayin that this clip really doesnt explore in any self evident way such sophistication.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Stosh

[Karl]

An IQ of 210 and still stupid. Which goes to show why IQ tests are a waste of time.

[Stosh]

Well, that was one of those hesitation spots, hes aware, of the shortcomings of an IQ test. So im wondering how he can have an elite society of brainiacs, if one cant determine who that is. Towards the end he suggests he has his own method that might suffice, but its not investigated. If it was good, then he could parlay that into useful form ,rather than bounce.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Stosh

[Stosh]

In this interview he doesnt seem so depressed. He comes across as a decent guy with a life he appoves of. He has a habit of touching things philosophical in nature, same stuff sometimes attended to here, in fact. I think he might be likeable in person, maybe more so than others too proud of their own skill sets in the hi iq group thing. .since brightness isnt exactly wiseness, (which may get forgotten in pursuit of esteem.)'.......Im wondering how the heck one would measure the IQ of Darwin.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Stosh

[Wells]

.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Wells

[Karl]

Why is he stupid in your opinion?

 

It's not entirely the right description, but a man who thinks he knows what's best for everyone and is prepared to use force to ensure that happens, is not a wise man. He sees life only in terms of his knowledge of policing violent men, 'shit kickers' I believe was the term he used. He also advocates the use of forced population control. That was enough for me. Stupid and dangerous.

[Stosh]

I just read his thing on ctmu, tautologically its fine imo, that is to say, if I entertain his precepts his conclusion appears sound. I need to read it again, but it spends a lot of its attention on opposing abstract math vs empirical science , which is a false dichotomy. Math, roughly speaking, is a means to delineate quantitative relationships, by itself, it cant predict qualitative ones.

It cant predict that X is an orange , or a unicorn... someThing is required to give X meaning .(in a universe with no unicorns , unicorns never happen , so X is not equal to any number of unicorns there.)

So math relies on science just as much ,if one is investigating realities in this universe.

That he would like to have a means to reliably discern truth, is however , understandable...

 

[Stosh]

 

It's not entirely the right description, but a man who thinks he knows what's best for everyone and is prepared to use force to ensure that happens, is not a wise man. He sees life only in terms of his knowledge of policing violent men, 'shit kickers' I believe was the term he used. He also advocates the use of forced population control. That was enough for me. Stupid and dangerous.

That you dont like the idea of procreation control, is a pretty conventional attitude. , but even families regulate the number of kids they have.. understanding that population is a serious problem not solving itself, since individuals consider themselves foremost.. isnt stupid, nor is policing violent men. Im sure we all would prefer to just release a statement asking people not to have more than one kid for a while ,and have everyone cooperate with it voluntarily. Edited March 26, 2016 by Stosh

[ralis]

That you dont like the idea of procreation control, is a pretty conventional attitude. , but even families regulate the number of kids they have.. understanding that population is a serious problem not solving itself, since individuals consider themselves foremost.. isnt stupid, nor is policing violent men. Im sure we all would prefer to just release a statement asking people not to have more than one kid for a while ,and have everyone cooperate with it voluntarily.

 

 

He fails to consider the population problem in India and the myriad problems such as very little sanitation, children born and living their entire lives on the street, disease, food shortages and so forth. Any species that grows beyond resources will begin to diminish in numbers.

[Stosh]

You could be right,, my assumption was based more on a sort of gut check that I felt listening to parts. I reacted negatively , sort of sounded like some sort of Nazi horror stories. I heard Talk of a eugenics program , rule by an unelected elite ,and his assertion about god existing , and I balked too, it just seemed he left much unexplained and what he did say didnt appear to jive with the expected intellectual bent towards atheism.. I didnt care either for the presumptive idea that I should weigh his ideas more heavily based on I Q score. Ones ideas need to stand on their own merit or they dont have any.

It felt like I was expected to give credence to stuff about gods because of the guys big head.

and my gut reactions ,should remain questionable... ... to me,,no one else

Edited March 26, 2016 by Stosh

[thelerner]

Brains are just one part of the equation, though an important one.  They don't confer wisdom, empathy and importantly leadership.  Kennedy tried to create a cabal of the best and brightest.  Just labeling them that created an atmosphere of herd mentality where bad decisions were made and carried out because the guy who suggested and another who seconded it were soo smart. 

 

There in lies the big problem.  A group or person who thinks they are very smart will carry on with a bad idea far longer then a normal person who used to double checking and re-evaluating.  High IQ people get tangled in cults and weird ideas just as often and more intensely then normal people because they put there vast intelligence to endless rationalizations. 

[Stosh]

Very well ,he'd try to get the lowest grade.

[Karl]

That you dont like the idea of procreation control, is a pretty conventional attitude. , but even families regulate the number of kids they have.. understanding that population is a serious problem not solving itself, since individuals consider themselves foremost.. isnt stupid, nor is policing violent men. Im sure we all would prefer to just release a statement asking people not to have more than one kid for a while ,and have everyone cooperate with it voluntarily.

Not that old Malthusian myth. Malthus was discredited because his theories failed.

Population expansion is in decline globally. In the West population itself is declining.

Every person born must produce to consume.

If every person on the world stood together the area covered would be about the size of Zanzibar.

There is enough space for every man, woman and child to have 5 acres of space, yet, most prefer to live in highly concentrated cities.

We are not running out of resources, we grow more food than the world could eat. It is the political environment that is the issue not lack of food.

The scarcest resource on the planet is human Labour- that's why slavery was so popular. Hence larger populations are better, particularly if we should have a global epidemic, or other natural disaster.

 

Beyond all that. Initiating force against another person is morally wrong. It's as simple as that.

Policing violent men to prevent the initiation of force, does not mean that he can now decide its OK to initiate force himself. That's the attitude of a tyrant. To consider that force justified when the facts do not reveal a population problem is plain stupid.

 

Hence, despite his IQ he is a stupid man.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Karl

[Stosh]

Hmmm good retort. BUT the population issue doesnt revolve around human body size, it pivots around the use of resources. What ive heard is that there is not enough to continue to support the population in the way that folks would consider quality living. I look at a satellite image and it fits with what I see in florida, that the land is being covered with development, that the weather patterns are being affected, that drinking water is becoming a commodity seas emptied, etc. Yes Populations are said to contract with financial affluence, but that same affluence relies on the marked exploitation of resources. Lack of physical Space for human bodies is not the problem.Population predictions suggest that theres a major exponential upswing about to happen because of all the young folks that havent gotten to breeding yet.

One could reasonably suggest many modifications regarding the distribution of wealth etc, but feasibly ,I dont think they can happen, it requires too much sacrifice and cooperation.

Everything is NOT fine going forward ,if we want nature to be sustained , lives to have comfort, and people to have carte blanche making more people .

One can wait till every redwood but one, is gone, before saying ,Whoa, or you can say Whoa, before that ,or you have the last one be the end of it... but any way you look at it, the choice is some form of restraint, or total loss eventually.

[Stosh]

The morality of initiating force being wrong, ,, umm morality is a confabulation, wrongness is too , and thats just opinion, which no nation on earth can adhere to simply for the reason that everyone doesnt agree.

[MooNiNite]

Very well ,he'd try to get the lowest grade.

 

He wouldnt try and get the lowest grade. on purpose. 

[MooNiNite]

Interesting guy. He seems to entertain conventional ideas though. He may have ,or may not have insight beyond standard, but nothing particular stood out as exceptional. Im not bashing the guy, several hesitations at telling points suggest to me that he may be rather sopisticated in his thinking,Im just sayin that this clip really doesnt explore in any self evident way such sophistication.

 

Becoming aware of experiential realization takes someone extremely smart. not only analytical but also very observant. 

Modern education and IQ tests are not aware of the spirit, of man's true potential. 

[Karl]

The morality of initiating force being wrong, ,, umm morality is a confabulation, wrongness is too , and thats just opinion, which no nation on earth can adhere to simply for the reason that everyone doesnt agree.

 

Morality, in objectivist philosophy is predicated on your choice to value your own life. Thus by your own life all values and actions are judged by you.

 

So one must choose to hold ones life as a value, choose to learn to sustain it and choose to discover the values it requires and the virtues to practice.

 

Morality is a code of values accepted by choice for one reason-survival. Therefore they are principles that define how to sustain and nourish human life. They shape each mans character and life course.

 

It should be clear that good and evil are not arbitrary, but neither are they intrinsic. They must be objectively chosen.

 

I learned this before I ever saw it written objectively. I knew I had a strong moral code which must be consistently applied. Then I saw it written "be the change you wish to see in the world". So, in order to end violence you must first stop promoting violence. You cannot hold something as true and then contradict it by your thoughts. So, if you begin with the thought 'I value my life' then, by contradicting your own moral code, you contradict the basis of on which all your moral codes were predicated.

 

If you understand what I'm saying, you will flower. You will realise you can know right and wrong by your own chosen code. That it is based on your choice to value your own life as a primary. That it is YOU who must choose, not the state, not God, not some ancient book or slate. The responsibility is with you alone, not a Government, not wise men, not high IQ geniuses. It cannot be morals by proxy, it all returns to you and therefore you must not evade that responsibility or you make your own life worthless.

 

This is, as I said, objectivist philosophy. It does not lay down a code to follow, it says you can and must choose for yourself what you will do, what values you will hold, what virtues are needed to obtain those values. You can be a moral man, or an immoral one, but that choice is yours alone.

[Karl]

Hmmm good retort. BUT the population issue doesnt revolve around human body size, it pivots around the use of resources. What ive heard is that there is not enough to continue to support the population in the way that folks would consider quality living. I look at a satellite image and it fits with what I see in florida, that the land is being covered with development, that the weather patterns are being affected, that drinking water is becoming a commodity seas emptied, etc. Yes Populations are said to contract with financial affluence, but that same affluence relies on the marked exploitation of resources. Lack of physical Space for human bodies is not the problem.Population predictions suggest that theres a major exponential upswing about to happen because of all the young folks that havent gotten to breeding yet.

One could reasonably suggest many modifications regarding the distribution of wealth etc, but feasibly ,I dont think they can happen, it requires too much sacrifice and cooperation.

Everything is NOT fine going forward ,if we want nature to be sustained , lives to have comfort, and people to have carte blanche making more people .

One can wait till every redwood but one, is gone, before saying ,Whoa, or you can say Whoa, before that ,or you have the last one be the end of it... but any way you look at it, the choice is some form of restraint, or total loss eventually.

 

Even if that were all true-which it isn't-who are you to decide ? I say to all who would initiate force-first use it upon yourself. Stop using resources yourself. Stop consuming right now. If that's the value you have, if that is your moral code then your duty to yourself is to apply it to yourself.

 

Ah but morals are 'arbitrary' is what you tell me. Therefore there are no morals to apply to anything including childbirth and resource consumption either. So you can keep on consuming and so can everybody else because morality is arbitrary. Isn't that your stance ?

 

Every person who consumes must first produce. That is the law which governs life. If you cannot produce, then you cannot consume and hence you will die. Humans are not viruses, they must think, choose and reason to survive. They are not simply locusts on a field, they are growers of the crops.

 

Our problems are caused by the belief that 'something must be done' that someone must decide what's best. The problems we have are through political management. In microcosm this is why China starved under Mao. The application of force by a population that demands it, results in pollution, starvation, waste and eventually death.

 

All that is required is for a Government to be responsible to prevent the initiation of force. We have had quite enough of Governments who initiate it.

 

 

[Stosh]

Becoming aware of experiential realization takes someone extremely smart. not only analytical but also very observant. 

Modern education and IQ tests are not aware of the spirit, of man's true potential. 

True, but thats kinda hard to measure at all

[Stosh]

Aperion&Peiron, .. AP, I basically agree with that all, .. so very true about not being able to find a stick I love that! noticed it too when I was a kid in Brooklyn and couldnt find one. the issue still plagues me in Florida! where there is just such a paucity of wildness. Its tiny patches of cut over land strewn among development.

[Stosh]

Karl, yes my stance is that morality is arbitrary, saying so, arbitrary, meaning that one may have good reason for ones view ,its just not universal. Can? we continue to collectively exploit as we have? Sure. But no I dont really condone it, nor do I villify some guy trying to support his family cutting down the rain forest as being a bad man. I just think its counterproductive to break the world into good and bad, because that judgement pushes us to ignore why the guy is cutting the forest ,making him enemy, instead of redirecting him to succeed instead by being some form of steward or guide or hotelier or teacher etc. The opportunity lost ,due to waste is real! Its not just treehugging in preference to embracing ones fellow man.

[Stosh]

I choose the immorality which is more humane than the phony morality of things such as they stand. Who am I to decide about the appropriate use of force? I am me. You are you, and you abdicated that choice, naievely thinking that retreat is a viable option .

Edited March 27, 2016 by Stosh

[Karl]

Karl, yes my stance is that morality is arbitrary, saying so, arbitrary, meaning that one may have good reason for ones view ,its just not universal. Can? we continue to collectively exploit as we have? Sure. But no I dont really condone it, nor do I villify some guy trying to support his family cutting down the rain forest as being a bad man. I just think its counterproductive to break the world into good and bad, because that judgement pushes us to ignore why the guy is cutting the forest ,making him enemy, instead of redirecting him to succeed instead by being some form of steward or guide or hotelier or teacher etc. The opportunity lost ,due to waste is real! Its not just treehugging in preference to embracing ones fellow man.

 

We aren't 'exploiting' we are making objective value judgements based on our decision that our life is our primary value.

Waste is caused by a poor use of resources and that is caused by people's judgement that a government must decide what's best for them. Hence our current economic mess caused by central bankers creating bubble (malinvestment) through monetary expansion. Other issues are caused by governments promoting or inhibiting behaviour with incentives.