4 ms·

They become keenly aware of their small ness in the larger pic ture of exis tence, and they feel help less to fix the many prob lems that trou ble them. As a re

They become keenly aware of their small ness in the larger pic ture of exis tence, and they feel help less to fix the many prob lems that trou ble them. As a result, they become depressed I have heard it's the opposite: that smarter people are happier. I think the problem is these studies on happiness and psychology are so imprecise. maybe also anecdotal evidence and cherry picking. Other char ac ter is tics of gifted chil dren and adults also pre dis pose them to exis ten tial dis tress. Because brighter people are able to envi sion the pos si bil i ties of how things might be, they tend to be ide al ists. How ever, they are simul ta neously able to see that the world falls short of their ideals. Unfor tu nately, these vision ar ies also rec og nize that their abil ity to make changes in the world is very lim ited. Because they are intense, these gifted indi vid u als—both chil dren and adults—keenly feel the dis ap point ment and frus tra tion that occurs when their ideals are not reached. They notice duplic ity, pre tense, arbi trari ness, insin cer i ties, and absur di ties in soci ety and in the behav iors of those around them. They may ques tion or chal lenge tra di tions, partic u larly those that seem mean ing less or unfair. They may ask, for exam ple, “Why are there such inflex i ble sex or age-role restric tions on people? Is there any jus ti fi able reason why men and women ‘should’ act a cer tain way? Why do people engage in hyp o crit i cal behav iors in which they say one thing but then do the opposite? People say they are con cerned with the envi ron ment, but their behav iors show oth erwise. Why do people say things they really do not mean at all? They greet you with, ‘How are you?’ when they really don’t want you to tell them the details of how you are. Why are so many people so unthinking and uncar ing in their deal ings with others? And with our planet? Are others really con cerned with improv - ing the world, or is it simply all about self ish ness? Why do people settle for medi oc rity? People seem fun da men tally self ish and tribal. How much dif - ference can one person make? It all seems hope less. The world is too far gone. Things get worse each day. As one person, I’ll never be able to make a difference.” These thoughts are common in gifted children and adults I think these concerns are common to most people...not just the smart

MawNicker 10y ago
I suspect your notion of intelligence includes more than the quality itself. Humans are complex systems and exist inside much more complex systems. If intelligence were purely adaptive then there would be a lot more of it than there is. If the adaptation of an organism didn't dominate the expression of it's qualities then they would always be manifest; They are not. When they are not, happiness is also often not. It is true that a more fully manifest human is happier. Also that as their happiness and observable intelligence are correlated. But what would result from intelligence that hadn't been able to fully manifest? I suspect the expression of many of these concerns. Your final statement equalizes on this point. In fact, the expression of these concerns is absolutely not equal among humans. I can appreciate the hesitation to accept their indication of higher intelligence. They're not remarkable thoughts. They're absolutely not thoughts we want to reward. They are only occasionally the product of excessive intelligence becoming maladaptive. A person that is failing to cope takes a fairly regular form. This form is ultimately not an expression of their intelligence. You seem to be talking about "adaptive" intelligence. I suspect this is in fact the nearness to an optimal quantity and not merely more of the quality itself. Also, that this fluctuates over time. Adaptation to it is a continuous process of the meta-mind. Ignorance can be recognized as a form of unconscious intelligence possessed by any finite thinking thing. The calculations of this intelligence precede the existence of any particular mind and needn't be known by it. Our capacity to know this form of intelligence is unlikely. Hence your perception of imprecision. The thing you wish were precise never will be. Psychology simply cannot talk about it. As a science it wouldn't intend to. It can only theorize about definable qualities. To understand and properly measure "adaptive" intelligence we would have to subvert the entirety of it's effects. We would have to know what it deemed unworthy of being within the finite knower; Merely to confirm that it was in fact unworthy of being known. We can only pontificate about what "adaptive" intelligence is. Perhaps we can assert it's the correlates of observable intelligence. This demands that it doesn't fluctuate over time. Anything we can know to properly define it is too finite. Knowing it would imply a more "real" intelligence we have yet to define. We cannot "know" the meta-mind.

MawNicker 10y ago

I suspect your notion of intelligence includes more than the quality itself. Humans are complex systems and exist inside much more complex systems. If intelligence were purely adaptive then there would be a lot more of it than there is. If the adaptation of an organism didn't dominate the expression of it's qualities then they would always be manifest; They are not. When they are not, happiness is also often not. It is true that a more fully manifest human is happier. Also that as their happiness and observable intelligence are correlated. But what would result from intelligence that hadn't been able to fully manifest? I suspect the expression of many of these concerns. Your final statement equalizes on this point. In fact, the expression of these concerns is absolutely not equal among humans. I can appreciate the hesitation to accept their indication of higher intelligence. They're not remarkable thoughts. They're absolutely not thoughts we want to reward. They are only occasionally the product of excessive intelligence becoming maladaptive. A person that is failing to cope takes a fairly regular form. This form is ultimately not an expression of their intelligence. You seem to be talking about "adaptive" intelligence. I suspect this is in fact the nearness to an optimal quantity and not merely more of the quality itself. Also, that this fluctuates over time. Adaptation to it is a continuous process of the meta-mind. Ignorance can be recognized as a form of unconscious intelligence possessed by any finite thinking thing. The calculations of this intelligence precede the existence of any particular mind and needn't be known by it. Our capacity to know this form of intelligence is unlikely. Hence your perception of imprecision. The thing you wish were precise never will be. Psychology simply cannot talk about it. As a science it wouldn't intend to. It can only theorize about definable qualities. To understand and properly measure "adaptive" intelligence we would have to subvert the entirety of it's effects. We would have to know what it deemed unworthy of being within the finite knower; Merely to confirm that it was in fact unworthy of being known. We can only pontificate about what "adaptive" intelligence is. Perhaps we can assert it's the correlates of observable intelligence. This demands that it doesn't fluctuate over time. Anything we can know to properly define it is too finite. Knowing it would imply a more "real" intelligence we have yet to define. We cannot "know" the meta-mind.