BrainGlutton, the truth in that passage is seldom considered. Human intelligence will quite possibly be our downfall. Already, it has enabled us to destroy much of the natural environment irreparably and wage war on a planetary scale. Technology and exploration are seen as advancements, but what are we advancing towards if not our own doom?
That’s weird, I’ve read that story and I don’t remember it being ambiguous about the fate of intelligence. The bit you quoted leaves it open that intelligence leads to some kind of desirable “singularity event” rather than simple destruction. I recalled the story as being unambiguously pessimistic.
Also I found its premise (that an unintelligent entity could “put on” intelligence as a tool when necessary) to be really implausible. Surely it, as a whole, had intelligence all along even if none of its individual members did.
But the claim was made that “if there was a chance of any relation, she would have to at least be named Shania Clemens!,” which is simply not true. I understand that there is no implied familial connection between the two people based on their shared pseudonyms, but making obviously false statements to support an argument that someone else is stupid is ineffective at best.
Hrm, I guess I have to concede the point. But I am awfully certain the person who made the above statement didn’t really mean exactly that.
Sucker, she muttered under her breath as the chump walked off with his diluted cologne…
Not being aware of the fact that Mark Twain was a pen name used by Samuel Clemens does not signify a lack of intelligence anyway. Knowledge of trivia is not the same thing as intelligence at all.
I get that but the answer to someone like that isn’t " If there was a chance of any relation, she would have to at least be named Shania Clemens! " You don’t fight faulty thinking by making a faulty argument to counter it. It’s not logical to deduce anything about a relationship between two people due to their names when they’re both using fake names.That’s the better answer and I’m sure the kids could grasp that pretty easily.
ETA: Or what AnaMen already said.
Guess I’m not related to my grandparents who have the last name Woolsey. Better disown them while they’re still alive!
That’s true. I was just saying that once you learn Samuel Clemens’ real name, you should then doubt that Shania Twain is related absent further evidence. This was in response to a poster who was trying to show that they still might be related even if they don’t have the same last name.
It pushed a button of mine–I often find students defending their views, when evidence for them is challenged, by trying to show they could be true, when the point is to try to show that it is true. I should wait til after finals to post on the dope.
I hope that poster wasn’t me. I admitted that after a few minutes of wikipedia it was clear that they weren’t related ( first line second paragraph ) but without any research it was possible that they were. My entire point was that not enough information was given to come to any conclusion about whether they were related given that one side had said they couldn’t be because they weren’t named the same.
I really, really hope it wasn’t me. I even gave the last name of his last descendant which I wouldn’t have done had I entertained any thought that Ms Twain could ‘still’ be related. At that point, I’d clearly put the time in to know the answer was false and wasn’t trying to hide that fact.
The kids were likely confusing her with the Hemingway granddaughters anyway.
Larger and larger sweat pants would be my answer.
I am considered one of the brighter members of my clan. Once a distant member/friend of the clan came for a visit. During the typical social meet and greet rituals one does upon first contact he said “Hi Bill, you are the smart one right?”. My reply was along the lines of “I suppose, but to be honest I rather be dumber and more happy”.
Not to single out Locrian, but this example does not illustrate what it purports to either. Regardless of whether “religion relies upon ignorance,” a person insisting that they can heal through touch indicates ignorance perhaps, but does not imply a dependent relationship between religion and ignorance, let alone proof of same.
That is to say, the existence of a person who is both ignorant and religious proves little more than the fact that both conditions can occur concurrently.
The whole conversation happened because I forgot (after having charitably interpreted his words) that the first Mark Twain commenter had said that there’s no chance the two are related. So you were responding by correctly pointing out there’s a non-zero chance they’re related, and I (because of how I understood the original comment’s intent, and because I’d forgotten how it was literally worded) misunderstood you to be saying the Twain/Clemens thing is irrelevant and that one needn’t doubt the familial relation just because of the name change.
Denying your limitations is a natural response to a society that condemns you for those limitations. If a person’s worth is measured by appearance, it should come as no surprise that a lot of time, energy, and other resources are spent on attempts to create the appearance that is most prized. If it is measured by intelligence, creating the impression of intelligence becomes tantamount.
When Forrest Gump says “I’m not a smart man,” we know he’s not going to be a garden-variety idiot, because he does not pretend to be anything he’s not. The character was unique and refreshing for exactly this reason.
The average person has an IQ of 100.
That makes sense.
It’s kinda funny that I looked like I was being a dumbass to you because you misread where I was coming from since you read the situation differently than I did. I’m guilty of that one a fair bit myself even though I try to be aware of it and not do it. Sometimes my thoughts run faster than my reflection on them. I wonder how many of the examples in this thread are like that. Probably some.
You should always aim to be the dumbest person in the room.
I don’t think that intelligence is over rated per se. It’s just a convenient trait to claim possession of.
You mention appearance, athletic prowess and financial success as being more valued but they’re not. They’re more admired and envied than valued .
The thing is, most people can obviously see that they are hopelessly outclassed in their field by the athletic, the beautiful and the rich so there’s not much that they can use to hold themselves on a level with these people so they attack their intelligence which they hope will be easier to pass off than any other comparison.
This gives the appearance that they’re over valuing intelligence but it’s really a ploy to give them something to feel superior about.
It works both ways. You have the Absent Minded Professor or the Clumsy one where you denigrate them for not having your street smarts or mad athletic skills but it’s not as common for whatever reason. Maybe, it’s not worth mentioning that you’re dumber than them so next time you want to bag on the beautiful you’ll sound better.
As for the opening of your post, people dislike people who inconvenience them in any way. Any one who inconveniences them for no good reason is stupid and they hate stupid people. I think that’s pretty much it.
Of course we don’t hate stupid people, all forms of art are full of delightful and popular stupid people who usually make us feel better because we’re smarter than them. As long as they don’t get in our way, we like them fine.
Have you seen my baseball?
I suppose the fact that that is much more challenging for some of us than others makes sense, as the more difficult it is the better equipped one should be to meet that challenge. Still, there is at least one person with an impossible task.
It’s also pretty selfish to always strive to position yourself to your own advantage, and if we all had the same goal, we couldn’t even gather in a room together anyway.