Why Highly Intelligent People Fail At The Most Important Things In Life - Polidicks

[QUOTE=melonmonkey;36375986]I don't really see any sort of science in here at all. Am I missing something?[/QUOTE] Nope. Just your standard Satoshi Kanazawa bullshit.

[QUOTE]...find a mate...[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-smith.gif[/IMG]

[QUOTE=-Get_A_Life-;36370044]You can be a notorious retard and get good grades.[/QUOTE] I fuck around all day and still manage to pull off an A+ on my math finals. I never know what I'm doing. :v:

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36370180]The article seems to state what I already kind of figured out through experience.[/QUOTE] That black people are genetically less intelligent? His source uses the Bell Curve, so surely you must agree with the above statement too.

more reasons why this article is bullshit: I'm not intelligent at all and I still can't do over half the things I do correctly what's my excuse???

[QUOTE=Darkimmortal;36370051]This guy has put into words what I have thought my whole life - holy shit. 100% agree with all of his points[/QUOTE] Then you've had a warped view of reality your entire life. [editline]18th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=SuperDuperScoot;36377440]more reasons why this article is bullshit: I'm not intelligent at all and I still can't do over half the things I do correctly what's my excuse???[/QUOTE] You are lazy and don't [b]try[/b] to do the things you have to. Don't credit yourself as a failure, because you haven't really tried; from the way you worded that.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36373849]yes. [url=http://humanuniversals.com/human-universals/]believing in the supernatural or religion is a human universal[/url][/QUOTE] No data to substantiate that claim exists. Helps that in this instance "universal" is not appropriately defined. (Don't cite other people citing Pinker for the love of zombie Jesus, you're going to walk into a minefield of stupid.)

fire is a thing, how can it be a human universal? that's like saying soup is a human universal

[QUOTE=MrEndangered;36376970]That black people are genetically less intelligent? His source uses the Bell Curve, so surely you must agree with the above statement too.[/QUOTE] You can agree with parts of a statement. There is no "all or nothing" with claims, and thinking so is actually a logical fallacy. That said, if the exact same methodology that states black people are less intelligent is used for these statements, then there is a legitimate reason to take the claims with a grain of salt. [editline]18th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;36376102]Being weird and strange is only going to make life more interesting and challenging. Does anyone really want to be boring and normal? [/QUOTE] Um, yea. A lot of people do want to be boring and normal. Your life is interesting and challenging being gay in a theocracy as well. Interesting and challenging does not mean life is necessarily enjoyable, only that you get some good stories out of your experiences.

Oh, looks like quite an intellectual discussion is still happening in the thread, maybe I might try to- [QUOTE=yawmwen;36379028]You can agree with parts of a statement...[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J75pzQ_jBbY&feature=player_detailpage[/media]

[QUOTE=parket;36370000]yeah the reason im a social outcast retard is because im so intelligent other people cant appreicate me[/QUOTE] i keep telling myself this. im kind of believing it.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;36379393]Oh, looks like quite an intellectual discussion is still happening in the thread, maybe I might try to- [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J75pzQ_jBbY&feature=player_detailpage[/media][/QUOTE] wow that sure would be funny if we were in lmao pics xDD!!!

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36375107]Not really. There is a lot of unfalsifiable hypotheses and theories in evpsych.[/QUOTE] name 3 [editline]18th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;36375410]The universal is not belief in God. The universal is a fear of the unknown, and our brain's tendency to make shit up and delude itself both consciously and unconsciously to resolve the cognitive dissonance between [I]wanting[/I] to know something and not being able to. Calling that trait "religion" is an oversimplification. That quality of humanity is the root cause of far more than theism.[/QUOTE] Yeah, that is true. The human universal is that, from the outside, (very nearly) all human societies have groups which we label "religious" and have beliefs we term "supernatural" Also, fear of the unknown isn't necessarily the only explanation. Religions enforce group cohesion for example. [editline]18th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Xenocidebot;36378876]No data to substantiate that claim exists. Helps that in this instance "universal" is not appropriately defined. (Don't cite other people citing Pinker for the love of zombie Jesus, you're going to walk into a minefield of stupid.)[/QUOTE] why can't I cite pinker directly? also what the fuck are you smoking, it's well-established in anthropology

I am a lazy fuck who doesn't contribute to society at all. I am GENIUS.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36383174]why can't I cite pinker directly?[/QUOTE] You can. You didn't. You cited a website citing Pinker, who happened to be citing a list compiled by another man as a reference in a book. It helps to know what you're citing when you cite something. [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36383174]also what the fuck are you smoking, it's well-established in anthropology[/QUOTE] Then anthropology is dreadfully unscientific or fond of the meaningless. Of course, this is already known, since a great deal of it is bullshit that can't be substantiated via behavioral psychology, sociology, history, or anything credible. As defined by the guy who was cited for that list, "[URL="http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/0011526042365645"]human universals... consist of those features of culture, society, language, behavior, and mind that, so far as the record has been examined, are found among all peoples known to ethnography and history.[/URL]" That makes a claim that religion is a human universal simply untrue unless one is using the broadest of definitions for it ([URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious"]the type that make empiricism also a religion[/URL]). Similarly, by the broadest definitions of "supernatural", some modern physicists believe in the supernatural thanks to work on the unsolved questions of cosmology. Using this broad a brush, the concept of "human universals" become gibberish. Having a body containing carbon is a human universal too. Thankfully, the list also contains such stupid shit as "false beliefs" as a universal, so you know that really [I]is[/I] what they're trying to say. If it used narrower and thus actually functional definitions of either concept, it wouldn't hold. The concept of human universals is not core to anthropology. It is not a component of some grand anthropological theory. It's heavily favored by pop evolutionary psychologists who need grounds for claiming their field can attempt to overstep and then unify the other social sciences. There is a reason when you cited this stupid shit you cited [I]someone citing an evolutionary psychologist citing an anthropologist[/I], not [I]an anthropologist[/I].

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;36385866]You can. You didn't. You cited a website citing Pinker, who happened to be citing a list compiled by another man as a reference in a book. It helps to know what you're citing when you cite something.[/quote] Okay then: Steven Pinker (2002), [I]The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature[/I] [quote]As defined by the guy who was cited for that list, "[URL="http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/0011526042365645"]human universals... consist of those features of culture, society, language, behavior, and mind that, so far as the record has been examined, are found among all peoples known to ethnography and history.[/URL]" That makes a claim that religion is a human universal simply untrue unless one is using the broadest of definitions for it ([URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious"]the type that make empiricism also a religion[/URL]). Similarly, by the broadest definitions of "supernatural", some modern physicists believe in the supernatural thanks to work on the unsolved questions of cosmology. Using this broad a brush, the concept of "human universals" become gibberish. Having a body containing carbon is a human universal too. Thankfully, the list also contains such stupid shit as "false beliefs" as a universal, so you know that really [I]is[/I] what they're trying to say. If it used narrower and thus actually functional definitions of either concept, it wouldn't hold.[/quote] I'm going to stop this before it gets started: Arguing about definitions is one of the most pointless things you can do in a debate. Outside of mathematics, dividing up the world into neat little categories that definitions can completely encapsulate is impossible. There will always be edge cases which fit into more than one category or none. [quote=Razib Khan]For most of the stuff I’m concerned with, the messy shapes of reality which are the purview of biological science, we are all fundamentally nominalists in our metaphysic. We may accept that we’re idealists in the sense of cognitive or evolutionary psychology, but human intuition does not make it so. The categories and classes we construct are simply the semantic sugar which makes the reality go down easier. They should never get confused for the reality that is, the reality which we perceive but darkly and with biased lenses.[/quote] [quote=Gary Drescher]If there seems to be some substantive consequence to a decision to define a word one way or another, that is a sure sign that the word is already smuggling in an implicit, intuitive definition. Then the real underlying question is whether the implicit definition does or does not coincide with the proposed explicit definition - which is indeed a substantive question.[/quote] My point is that having a fuzzy definition of "religion" and "supernatural" does not detract from the predictive power of postulating "all cultures have some form of religious and/or supernatural beliefs". A blurry circle is still identifiable as a circle. [quote]The concept of human universals is not core to anthropology. It is not a component of some grand anthropological theory. It's heavily favored by pop evolutionary psychologists who need grounds for claiming their field can attempt to overstep and then unify the other social sciences. There is a reason when you cited this stupid shit you cited [I]someone citing an evolutionary psychologist citing an anthropologist[/I], not [I]an anthropologist[/I].[/QUOTE] The [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor"]reason I cited it[/URL] was that it was the first result on Google that had a convenient list of them. I [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy"]didn't think it was important who wrote it[/URL], because it wouldn't matter assuming they copied it faithfully from the original author. If you have a reliable source that tells me why the entire concept of Human Universals is bunk, I would be very glad to hear it.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36386666]My point is that having a fuzzy definition of "religion" and "supernatural" does not detract from the predictive power of postulating "all cultures have some form of religious and/or supernatural beliefs". A blurry circle is still identifiable as a circle.[/QUOTE] It's not a blurry circle, it's a nebulous and meaningless shape-type thing. That you are scared of semantics is meaningless to me. You're either accepting the concept of this "universal" being meaningless as it is too broad, or untrue for any meaningful definition. Which, I don't particularly care. [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36386666]If you have a reliable source that tells me why the entire concept of Human Universals is bunk, I would be very glad to hear it. [/QUOTE] If you can't grasp from what I just said what the issue is, you've probably got too much dain bramage to appreciate it as said by any other sane man.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36383174]Also, fear of the unknown isn't necessarily the only explanation. Religions enforce group cohesion for example.[/QUOTE] That is a result of religious practice, not a cause. There are a [I]lot[/I] of things that enforce solidarity. Religion arose from superstition, which arose from fear of the unknown as a survival mechanism. (e.g. there is something rustling in that bush. The people who thought it was an oogy boogy demon didn't get ate by whatever was actually there.) Solidarity came much later. Spiritual belief and superstition vastly pre-date organized belief. The only way you can claim that religion arises as a means of solidarity in a population is by claiming religion is not derivative of superstition, in which case you hold a clear and evident bias toward expounding some supposed intrinsic value of religion.

Streetsmart Vs. Booksmart. Which would you rather be...??!!!!

[QUOTE=Reserved Parkin;36394067]Streetsmart Vs. Booksmart. Which would you rather be...??!!!![/QUOTE] "Street Smart" is a thing dumb people made up so they can pretend they're smart. [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] "Street Smarts" are called [I]survival instincts[/I], and [I]everyone[/I] has those. Like, in their fucking DNA.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36393809]That is a result of religious practice, not a cause. There are a [I]lot[/I] of things that enforce solidarity. Religion arose from superstition, which arose from fear of the unknown as a survival mechanism. (e.g. there is something rustling in that bush. The people who thought it was an oogy boogy demon didn't get ate by whatever was actually there.) Solidarity came much later. Spiritual belief and superstition vastly pre-date organized belief. The only way you can claim that religion arises as a means of solidarity in a population is by claiming religion is not derivative of superstition, in which case you hold a clear and evident bias toward expounding some supposed intrinsic value of religion.[/QUOTE] I'm not seeing why it can't be both at once. I can envision specific supernatural beliefs spawning from fear of the unknown, but you need something else to make them persist through generations. I'm also confused as to why you're saying that spiritual belief predates organized belief. I'm not talking about Catholicism or other massive canons, I'm talking about the small religions that small tribes had. As far as I can tell, if you have an individual who can use spoken language and who comes to be in possession of a supernatural belief, it'll most probably spread and get integrated into the group's memeplex on a timescale of days.

Well that was a stupid read. I guess that I'm smart, because my social life isn't the best and I'm an atheist. I'm now waiting to be a gay lonely vegetarian But there are some other points that I can agree with. Overall, "inteligent people" oversee the importance of socializing, and society just assumes that people can't really change so they don't actually try that much t all

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;36370921]Also, all I'm pulling away from this articles are that all intelligent people are hipsters.[/QUOTE] How big are their hips, as I ask in sarcasm.