Do you think you're smarter than most people?

[PirateClock]

[U2]NIubSGIRPbM[/U2]

Highly educated white people have lowest birthrate, won't be long till we are the minority! You being gay doesn't help either Slurpeeclock, at least donate sperm or something you dick.

[Slurpee]

Highly educated white people have lowest birthrate, won't be long till we are the minority! You being gay doesn't help either Slurpeeclock, at least donate sperm or something you dick.

the idiocracy thing never bothered me nearly as much as potentially contributing to explosive population expansion. the more people there are the worse off every individual person is. if we exhaust every natural resource, our entire species effectively murders itself, and in a population that's already exceeded carrying capacity for our current standard of living, what is breeding for gene proliferation but creating disproportionate resource drains?
zero population growth.
if my behavior and ideas work well enough while I'm here to inspire and enact more good than harm then I'll die happy. and to believe that my offspring is merely a proliferation of me and not an individual unto itself is to believe I'm merely my parents' son, so to me it seems it's not only more comforting, but more likely that proliferation of ideas is ultimately more important, more effective to the end of a legacy of my personal consciousness after I die, and thus more worthwhile than putting my boy sploo up a girl's hoo ha and making a little me.
we have to be smarter than our respective genetic predispositions toward reproduction- they are dumb, outdated machinery.

edit: or maybe you were joking. anyway I posted the video because of the bit about how dumb people can be without realizing it. the dumbpocalypse bit was just a bonus.

[Silly Putty Clock]

I almost voted dumb as hell boy, but then I considered how stupid everyone else I know is and refused to accept that I was anywhere near that bad.

[Slurpee]

I'ma be real, I voted way smarter.
humility's one thing, but regular people are fucking stupid as hell, and part of the reason I know is because I know I'm not obscenely smart. (if you've ever blown somebody's mind with baseline observations about an abstract concept you know what I mean.) afaik intelligence is a measure of one's ability to gain, retain, and apply knowledge, and I didn't independently deduce logical mathematical concepts all throughout the california public school system's logic-free "it's like that because it is- just memorize it and don't worry" math department so I could say I'm dumber than most people- I'm pretty fucking smart.

[EnglishClock]

Yeah, people are idiots.

I'm currently creating a film noir for college with a group of 3 other girls my age, and none of them have heard of the alcohol prohibition. They thought I was a "smartarse historian" for mentioning it.

(anecdotal evidence I know, but I just wanted to mention this in here)

Way smarter.

[AstronautClock]

Yeah, people are idiots.

I'm currently creating a film noir for college with a group of 3 other girls my age, and none of them have heard of the alcohol prohibition. They thought I was a "smartarse historian" for mentioning it.

(anecdotal evidence I know, but I just wanted to mention this in here)

Way smarter.

hai there SmartarseHistorianClock

[Slurpee]

not to state the obvious or imply anything about anybody itt but lowballing your estimation of your own intelligence doesn't make you more enlightened than anybody, especially if you just use the smug self-satisfaction you get out of it to insinuate that everybody with high appraisals of their own intelligence are somehow prejudgmental and close-minded (or ego-driven)

[Slurpee]

anecdotal/empirical

edit: by definition "smart" implies a higher-than-normal intelligence. would somebody who could reasonably be acknowledged as being smart not therefore be considered smarter than most just by virtue of being being considered smart to begin with? whence with 21 years of exposure to people who widely consider me smart, and who I consider not-really-all-that-smart-to-be-perfectly-honest, is it not therefore a reasonable conclusion to draw that I'm smarter than most people?

maybe I just spent too much of my life incorrectly assuming other people would know better than my perpetually confused little self, and then snapped too far back the other way into unrealistically high self-appraisal, or maybe I've just been told one too many times that my confusion just means I'm thinking, which is more than most people do.
or, maybe I'm pretty smart.

[Silly Putty Clock]

At this point maybe this should go to the debate forum instead of the spam forum

Fuck you, I wanted to maybe participate at some point if I felt like it.

[Slurpee]

Statistically speaking, if most people are dumb, then aren't the other two options more likely?

I don't see where likelihood enters into it.
what's the sense in applying the overarching trends of the entire population to a given individual (as opposed to, say, an unidentified one selected at random)? if there exists a possibility that rules about the majority don't apply in every case, wouldn't they have to be shown to apply conclusively for an individual case, independent of likelihood?
statistically speaking, it's more likely that the pope is chinese.

[Slurpee]

as to the gifted student thing, I've been a C, D, and F student for most of my life- I caught on fairly quickly that academic success is not a measure of actual intelligence, and I've been spending a lot of time peeved at the public school system ever since. a few good teachers here and there improved my ability to learn, gave me an appreciation for knowledge, or even, holy hell, tested my critical thinking skills, and while I appreciate that, and some of them even candidly acknowledged that it was clear from the quality and direction of what little work I actually did that I was not supposed to be a C, D, and F student, these things are not the sole reason for (or even a major factor in) me thinking me gots da smart have

[Slurpee]

and while I agree that articulation is not necessarily indicative of intelligence, in my case I do think it's an expression of it. I use language as a way of not only expressing but explaining and extrapolating on complicated cognition that arises primarily from internal reflection on and deconstruction of external facts and ideas, and it's very much a conscious process.

[Slurpee]

Well if most people are stupid and most people are told they're plenty smart and think they're smarter than everyone else, why is it that you would think that in your case that means that you are necessarily smarter than them? What is the thing that differentiates you in this instance?

me thinking I'm smart isn't based solely on other people thinking I'm smart. if it was I would know something was up because that's not the way smart people draw conclusions. I only brought up other people's perception to demonstrate the persistency of the dichotomy.

Not really. You're applying a single dimension as though it overrides all the other dimensions, whereas in this instance you have not provided a single overriding dimension in application to yourself.

that's because I'm not arguing that I'm smarter than anybody else, I'm responding to your supposition that it's unreasonable for me to conclude that I am.
my reasons for that impression come from a lifetime of experience, thought, and reflection, and they are multifaceted, personal, and difficult to summarize. hence I'm not interested in defending them in sum total- merely in expressing that it's not fair to assume they originate from my ego.

So in other words you're "very gifted, but need to apply yourself" (something I heard plenty myself and I'm guessing you've heard more than once, right?)

not really.

I think I see where you're going with this. just because people are often told that they're gifted, and that that doesn't necessarily mean that they are, right? well, it doesn't follow that just because somebody acknowledges such an implication, they necessarily aren't.

as I said, "these things are not the sole reason for (or even a major factor in) me thinking me gots da smart have."

And yet, despite your recognition of this fact regarding articulation, you seem to be of the impression that, because of a lack thereof, that such an internal reflection is not present in the majority of others. Why is that?

I was conveying my interpretation of my own purposes for articulation.

you said the two of us are articulate, but that's not necessarily indicative of intelligence, and I mean to say that in my case I think it is.

I did not say a lack of articulation is indicative of a lack of internal reflection, and if I implied that, I cheerfully withdraw it.
it's perfectly reasonable that one could be intelligent but incapable of adequately expressing oneself through eloquent use of language.

[FLOUNDERMAN_CLOCK]

I think I'm smarter than Corpsegrinder. Therefore, I am.

heeeere we go

[mauserclock]

ps.

intelligence, the defining of - can vary based on how you perceive it.

examples of varying intelligence:

autistic children who will destroy you in mathematics, english, music (composing of), etc. they are not, by any means, intelligent out of their specific field but are geniuses within it.

we standardize intelligence based on the concept of being able to understand and create new ideas at a relatively fast pace and with quality and or understanding previously understood data/information and being able to manipulate/build upon it.

the length of this conversation does not show quality intelligence. it is merely inane chatter over the varying [opinionated] standards of defining intelligence.

ohh great

[Slurpee]

I think it would be very difficult to reasonably conclude that given the abstract nature of the question and the ambiguous nature of the evidence.

Also I'd like to state that I'm not trying to make you feel bad for thinking you're smarter than average, more like make everyone explore how common a belief that is and not fall into common mental traps.

okay, let me put it this way: is it not apparent that I've already put considerable thought into it?

I'm fairly comfortable in the knowledge that I have, and that the disagreements you have and potential missteps you mean to point out have so far been entirely the result of assumptions on your part and miscommunication on mine.

But you just said...

Really, this statement here seems to disagree, as the basis is that people thinking you're smart is why the conclusion that you are smart is reasonable.

actually, I just said, "I only brought up other people's perception to demonstrate the persistency of the dichotomy," which I think you'll find explains this- it was meant to be demonstrative of the argument I was putting forth that "smart" by nature implies "smarter than most."

Then I find myself at a loss as to why you included this in your argument as a basis of determining rationality.

I'm not arguing my rationality, and that certainly wasn't the basis of it, I just was responding to you.
   "Mind you, this is the country of 'gifted students'. I've been told all my life that I was brilliant, but the more I'm told that the more I suspect that it is not the case, because it is so staggeringly disproportionate to my actual experiences."
you said that I don't know why you did it.

In response:

• It cannot be based on an empircal judgment, as you do not have empirical experience or evidence regarding the specific intelligence of the majority of individuals, only your personal impressions of the scant few persons you have met in your lifetime, even fewer of which you would have established a relationship in-depth enough for analysis, even fewer whom would provide conclusive demonstrations to their overall intelligence in all regards.
• If the basis of your conclusion is based upon that, then it is prejudicial as it makes assumptions about the characters of individuals whose intelligence you would have no accurate means of judging; it's forming preconceived notions regarding the intelligence of the average person.

"empirical" just means based on observation and experience, and that's why I qualified it with "anecdotal."

this is exactly what I didn't want to get into because it's not what I mean to argue, because, as I meant to imply, I can't sum up my entire life's experiences which led me to feel, at this moment in time, that I'm probably much smarter than most people.

but just to attempt to clear up any misconceptions about where this might be coming from, at the risk of complicating the matter further:

throughout my life I've noticed a consistent trend of a lack of a critical thinking in my fellow human beings, be it taking information as presented without considering its origin or the veracity of the process by which it was obtained (e.g. believing a newspaper article that says something about studies without any critical examination of the studies themselves) but insisting on its accuracy, applying inductive reasoning passed the point where it is practical to do so (that's to say, twisting the facts to fit a preconceived notion without any sense of alternative explanations. 48% of people believe in ghosts), failing or often refusing to consider all facets of an issue (the first time I learned about the scientific method, I had to explain to my teacher that I felt sugar pills could not be reasonably used as a control in an experiment to measure behavioral changes in people as opposed to caffeine, because the sugar pills, duh, contain sugar, and are thus a variable), an inability to produce personal interpretations of information independent of what is heavily implied or suggested (I've only ever been in one english class where more than 2 or 3 of the students were capable of diverging from the instructor's interpretation of the text), an inability to or extreme difficulty in reconsidering something they've previously thought to be true (this kind of goes hand in hand with the ghost thing. watching the daily show with some folks a while back, the guest had written a book about how much of our dna we share in common with fish, and somebody in the room spoke up "nah-ah. we didn't evolve from fish, we came from monkeys." there was a murmur of agreement.) an inability to recognize and reconcile cognitive dissonance in themselves (can't tell you how many times a conversation has shut down because somebody was uncomfortable with having to think, and suddenly snapped at me for thinking I'm so fucking smart) an inability to oftentimes even accept the application of lateral thinking (when sharing the blue eyes logic puzzle with people I've been told it's "stupid" and "doesn't make any sense"), or even just not being able to figure things out as quickly as they should (other people's slow cognition has been a thorn in my side for my entire academic career).

I know that I'm capable of recognizing when I'm wrong, and changing my mind, and thinking critically about something, even if I agree with it, because I'm with myself a lot of the time, and I've seen myself do it. I actively try not to fall into any of the familiar trappings of ego. a thinker yourself, since you seem to feel it's reasonable to believe these traits are common to the majority of people, you may have dwelt, as I have, a bit too lingeringly on nihilism when left to grow despondent or listless. an active mind wanders, philosophically, and nihilism is an easy thing to get hung up on. in this state, I have sought intellectual equivalence, from a multitude of sources, with an -alarming- rate of failure. from family to teachers to peers to strangers, as much as seven out of every ten times, early on I'm stopped dead in my tracks with "say, you're pretty smart, wow. hey, did you catch jersey shore last night? there was this smart guy it was really funny" or something of the kind, and I'll follow the change of subject because I'm not a douchebag, but it's fucking disappointing. you know how oftentimes you can tell that somebody understands and cares about what you're saying, when they ask a really good question, or they rephrase or extrapolate on information that's entirely new to them? maybe I just grew up around a disproportionate sample of dumbshits, but I can't help but conclude from experience that it's fucking rare as all hell.

and what's more I have found a minority of people who do think on the levels that I think, and actively interpret and apply ideas not just on traditionally intellectual/academic studies, but whatever stupid shit we happen to be talking about, be it video games, movies, or even something like... well, jersey shore. smart people just converse differently. my closest friends are all around my level of intellect, and even though we have a variety of interests that the others often do not share, the pleasure of their company from the mutual ability to bounce entertaining creative musings and interpretations off of each other overcomes what would otherwise be crippling social barriers. we have nothing in common, except for our intelligence level and the sense of humor that extends from it.
I, of course, operate on the assumption that the multitude people I've met and reached out to intellectually is an adequate sampling of the larger human population. I may be mistaken.
but I digress.

this is just a bit of my experiences, which I'm only sharing to demonstrate the manner of where my approximations of other people's intelligence comes from, to demonstrate that it IS based on something, and that that something is not ego.

I don't think I've ever said that you aren't smart, just that the things presented don't constitute evidence of that.

I'm not attempting to produce evidence of my intelligence- only of my opinion on my intelligence not necessarily being drawn from ego, prejudice, or close-mindedness.

On an entirely arbitrary scale, you could easily say "Yes, I have concluded that I'm pretty damn smart." However, you have (on the other hand) asserted conclusions regarding the majority of others on that same scale, specifically placing them lower on that scale than yourself.

I am just not seeing a reasonable or logical basis behind that conclusion.

that's because I'm not producing one, and I have no intention of doing so. my reasons for the belief, as I said, come from a lifetime of experience, thought, and reflection, and they are multifaceted, personal, and difficult to summarize.

the affirmative argument here, if there is one, isn't mine. my opinion on how my intelligence stacks up is my own, from my own reasons, and is scarcely fit for debate. the matter under discussion is your implication that those reasons are ego-driven and prejudiced. the burden of proof falls to you, and you've only produced arguments based on mistakes you feel most people make, and all the supposed shortcomings in what little of my reasoning has shown through prior to this post you've seen fit to point out have failed to prove conclusively my reasoning is flawed... so nyeh.

[I1I1I1I1I1I1I11111I1I1I1IIIIIII1I1I1I1I11I]

I am smrt

[I1I1I1I1I1I1I11111I1I1I1IIIIIII1I1I1I1I11I]

I mean smart