7 ms·

"...dangerous, vindictive and controlling..." I think the low end of human "intelligence" is something other than what you are talking about here. I think the

by bilbo0s 14y ago

"...dangerous, vindictive and controlling..." I think the low end of human "intelligence" is something other than what you are talking about here. I think the low end of human "intelligence" would generally be associated with something more akin to mental retardation. Whereas what you're pointing out is more... like the behavior of a sociopath. Dangerous, vindictive and controlling is not a sign of a lack of intelligence... in fact... it's probably the opposite I would imagine.

ekianjo 14y ago
> Dangerous, vindictive and controlling is not a sign of a lack of intelligence... in fact... it's probably the opposite I would imagine. I am not sure I understand why you think this way.
- alan_cx 14y ago
  Because he doesn't equate "intelligence" with "good".
  - ekianjo 14y ago
    Any supporting evidence ?
    - polymatter 14y ago
      Intelligence[1] "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills" Good[2] "that which is morally right; righteousness" Intelligence relates to an ability to do something, Good (in this context) relates to a moral judgement. They may be related in that to do Good you may need Intelligence, but its conceivable that someone could have Intelligence but may not be Good, or vice versa. [1](http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/intelligence?q=intelligence http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/intelligenc...) [2](http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/good?q=good http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/good?q=good)
- eitland 14y ago
  Because history (esp. European history I guess) will show you that brilliant techies have done really cruel things.
  - ekianjo 14y ago
    Yet history shows that the greatest "techies" (Kepler, Newton, Galileo, and others) did not work alone and were certainly depending on others to establish their theories and measurements - and many were very much "humanists" and universal thinkers who cared very little about politics and frontiers. Even Einstein who was a key player in developing nuclear power was against any use of it in military conflict. So, I would like to see your list of brilliant and yet cruel techies.
    - elliptic 14y ago
      I believe Newton and Galileo worked alone for much of their lives. Kepler was far more intellectually generous.
      - ekianjo 14y ago
        Newton was certainly known to be a recluse, but he was a teacher in university and spread knowledge around him. Besides, all his work rested on centuries of work before him and he recognized the heritage of others in his discoveries.
- mapt 14y ago
  Lying, manipulating, and tricking ("outsmarting") others require considerable theory of mind, persuasive ability, creativity, and conscientious problem-solving execution. A dumb person is not able to perform these activities well.
  - ekianjo 14y ago
    Understanding others, showing sympathy and compassion, being capable of working with other people with a common goal without conflict certainly require wits as well. Don't you think? It was even supposed not so long ago that dog brains grew larger over time because of their constant social contact with humans.
    - mapt 14y ago
      I would quote a passage from an online novel: " In the beginning, before people had quite understood how evolution worked, they'd gone around thinking crazy ideas like human intelligence evolved so that we could invent better tools. The reason why this was crazy was that only one person in the tribe had to invent a tool, and then everyone else would use it, and it would spread to other tribes, and still be used by their descendants a hundred years later. That was great from the perspective of scientific progress, but in evolutionary terms, it meant that the person who invented something didn't have much of a fitness advantage, didn't have all that many more children than everyone else. Only relative fitness advantages could increase the relative frequency of a gene in the population, and drive some lonely mutation to the point where it was universal and everyone had it. And brilliant inventions just weren't common enough to provide the sort of consistent selection pressure it took to promote a mutation. It was a natural guess, if you looked at humans with their guns and tanks and nuclear weapons and compared them to chimpanzees, that the intelligence was there to make the technology. A natural guess, but wrong. Before people had quite understood how evolution worked, they'd gone around thinking crazy ideas like the climate changed, and tribes had to migrate, and people had to become smarter in order to solve all the novel problems. But human beings had four times the brain size of a chimpanzee. 20% of a human's metabolic energy went into feeding the brain. Humans were ridiculously smarter than any other species. That sort of thing didn't happen because the environment stepped up the difficulty of its problems a little. Then the organisms would just get a little smarter to solve them. Ending up with that gigantic outsized brain must have taken some sort of runaway evolutionary process, something that would push and push without limits. And today's scientists had a pretty good guess at what that runaway evolutionary process had been. Harry had once read a famous book called Chimpanzee Politics. The book had described how an adult chimpanzee named Luit had confronted the aging alpha, Yeroen, with the help of a young, recently matured chimpanzee named Nikkie. Nikkie had not intervened directly in the fights between Luit and Yeroen, but had prevented Yeroen's other supporters in the tribe from coming to his aid, distracting them whenever a confrontation developed between Luit and Yeroen. And in time Luit had won, and become the new alpha, with Nikkie as the second most powerful... ...though it hadn't taken very long after that for Nikkie to form an alliance with the defeated Yeroen, overthrow Luit, and become the new new alpha. It really made you appreciate what millions of years of hominids trying to outwit each other - an evolutionary arms race without limit - had led to in the way of increased mental capacity. " - http://hpmor.com/chapter/24 http://hpmor.com/chapter/24
prawn 14y ago
Maybe it's not that, at our worst, we're capable of being so much worse than animals, but that we can just do it so well. Or the disappointment that many could do better with a little thought, but don't think much. And there are probably comparative examples of each thing in the "animal kingdom" too. Resorting quickly to violence to get our way (schoolyard thugs) or to get revenge or to intimidate (posturing gangs). Setting up cultish situations to dominate women and reap rewards of power, money and more (creepy sects). Online bullying (all over the place), gossip, etc.

by bilbo0s 14y ago

ekianjo 14y ago

> Dangerous, vindictive and controlling is not a sign of a lack of intelligence... in fact... it's probably the opposite I would imagine. I am not sure I understand why you think this way.

alan_cx 14y ago
Because he doesn't equate "intelligence" with "good".
- ekianjo 14y ago
  Any supporting evidence ?
  - polymatter 14y ago
    Intelligence[1] "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills" Good[2] "that which is morally right; righteousness" Intelligence relates to an ability to do something, Good (in this context) relates to a moral judgement. They may be related in that to do Good you may need Intelligence, but its conceivable that someone could have Intelligence but may not be Good, or vice versa. [1](http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/intelligence?q=intelligence http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/intelligenc...) [2](http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/good?q=good http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/good?q=good)
eitland 14y ago
Because history (esp. European history I guess) will show you that brilliant techies have done really cruel things.
- ekianjo 14y ago
  Yet history shows that the greatest "techies" (Kepler, Newton, Galileo, and others) did not work alone and were certainly depending on others to establish their theories and measurements - and many were very much "humanists" and universal thinkers who cared very little about politics and frontiers. Even Einstein who was a key player in developing nuclear power was against any use of it in military conflict. So, I would like to see your list of brilliant and yet cruel techies.
  - elliptic 14y ago
    I believe Newton and Galileo worked alone for much of their lives. Kepler was far more intellectually generous.
    - ekianjo 14y ago
      Newton was certainly known to be a recluse, but he was a teacher in university and spread knowledge around him. Besides, all his work rested on centuries of work before him and he recognized the heritage of others in his discoveries.
mapt 14y ago
Lying, manipulating, and tricking ("outsmarting") others require considerable theory of mind, persuasive ability, creativity, and conscientious problem-solving execution. A dumb person is not able to perform these activities well.
- ekianjo 14y ago
  Understanding others, showing sympathy and compassion, being capable of working with other people with a common goal without conflict certainly require wits as well. Don't you think? It was even supposed not so long ago that dog brains grew larger over time because of their constant social contact with humans.
  - mapt 14y ago
    I would quote a passage from an online novel: " In the beginning, before people had quite understood how evolution worked, they'd gone around thinking crazy ideas like human intelligence evolved so that we could invent better tools. The reason why this was crazy was that only one person in the tribe had to invent a tool, and then everyone else would use it, and it would spread to other tribes, and still be used by their descendants a hundred years later. That was great from the perspective of scientific progress, but in evolutionary terms, it meant that the person who invented something didn't have much of a fitness advantage, didn't have all that many more children than everyone else. Only relative fitness advantages could increase the relative frequency of a gene in the population, and drive some lonely mutation to the point where it was universal and everyone had it. And brilliant inventions just weren't common enough to provide the sort of consistent selection pressure it took to promote a mutation. It was a natural guess, if you looked at humans with their guns and tanks and nuclear weapons and compared them to chimpanzees, that the intelligence was there to make the technology. A natural guess, but wrong. Before people had quite understood how evolution worked, they'd gone around thinking crazy ideas like the climate changed, and tribes had to migrate, and people had to become smarter in order to solve all the novel problems. But human beings had four times the brain size of a chimpanzee. 20% of a human's metabolic energy went into feeding the brain. Humans were ridiculously smarter than any other species. That sort of thing didn't happen because the environment stepped up the difficulty of its problems a little. Then the organisms would just get a little smarter to solve them. Ending up with that gigantic outsized brain must have taken some sort of runaway evolutionary process, something that would push and push without limits. And today's scientists had a pretty good guess at what that runaway evolutionary process had been. Harry had once read a famous book called Chimpanzee Politics. The book had described how an adult chimpanzee named Luit had confronted the aging alpha, Yeroen, with the help of a young, recently matured chimpanzee named Nikkie. Nikkie had not intervened directly in the fights between Luit and Yeroen, but had prevented Yeroen's other supporters in the tribe from coming to his aid, distracting them whenever a confrontation developed between Luit and Yeroen. And in time Luit had won, and become the new alpha, with Nikkie as the second most powerful... ...though it hadn't taken very long after that for Nikkie to form an alliance with the defeated Yeroen, overthrow Luit, and become the new new alpha. It really made you appreciate what millions of years of hominids trying to outwit each other - an evolutionary arms race without limit - had led to in the way of increased mental capacity. " - http://hpmor.com/chapter/24 http://hpmor.com/chapter/24

prawn 14y ago

Maybe it's not that, at our worst, we're capable of being so much worse than animals, but that we can just do it so well. Or the disappointment that many could do better with a little thought, but don't think much. And there are probably comparative examples of each thing in the "animal kingdom" too. Resorting quickly to violence to get our way (schoolyard thugs) or to get revenge or to intimidate (posturing gangs). Setting up cultish situations to dominate women and reap rewards of power, money and more (creepy sects). Online bullying (all over the place), gossip, etc.