Personality Cafe banner

61 - 76 of 76 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
612 Posts
It doesn't matter... There is a manifesto to clarify the agenda they call communism, first of its kind, since it is etymologically consistent with the denomination, it is communism or nothing is. If the communists can't get a clear conception of what communism is, then let's not pretend otherwise.
So if a scientist write a bad article to popularize their theory, but then go forwards to upgrade their theory without popularizing it, you will hold, as someone interested in their theory, accountable only of the popularization or actually the strong upgraded theory?

Because I'm not going to strawman the author of the theory I'll choose the later, but free to you to contradict your own political system by strawmanning someone you're not that interested in, because deception and consensus would suddenly be better than the actual consistency of a theory.

The harder it is to understand a phenomenon, the more vulnerable to deception and oblivious to consistency. The consensus is a force that is made of average ability for consistency in a group. So the more complicated the issue the more it aligns with the politics of the most deceptive.
I don't think so, I will never understand most of the sciences, but for the experts in the field there's no deception in the complexity of the phenomenon, there's deception to the novice.

And we could take many example of politics which are deceptive not from their complexity, but actually from the sheer will to provoke deception so to gain a temporary consensus from the people. There's an apparent complexity in the current administration of most countries, but actually it's just more something of a clusterfuck than complexity because inconsistent.

But maybe we agree on this, I don't think that there's a problem between us here.


? No. Unless you mean the consistency of someone depends also on others not agreeing to destroy that person.
Two example. Climate change is a complex phenomenon which is brought up as something consensual among experts, it gives to the appreciation of the public something which is confirmed by many experts. The consensus is something very important for experts when they plan to popularize a scientific knowledge to the non-experts of the field.

Second example. We have many conception of the world which are socially constructed which continue to act on our everyday life, those are consensual opinions, but if you come to have a complete different understanding of something which goes against the consensus, you end up alone and unable to interact with a part of the social world.

Unless we have a very different definition of consistency and consensus, those are two example where consensus and consistency largely cross the consecrated field of expertise and the one of politics, and are normal if not healthy.

?? To be successfully critical is to raise the level of consistency. If an opinion can be proven absurd, then it is not the most consistent opinion anymore.
Well, it depends, if the theory hold to the critic, the theory find itself more consistent from the trial, but it may fail to be occupied by a new one which will turn to be more consistent, until it's being replaced by a new ones. But then it's not a critic anymore as it has been countered.

Also a theory can be very consistent but with limits which should not be crossed.

Also, when we haven't a better theory, we may use one with weaknesses, and then we can manipulate this theory informed from its weaknesses, and that's also not problematic.

Actually many theories are known to have many limits, what's important is to never forget those limits, thus to be aware of the current critics which contains the theory where it's useful and efficient, and keep it away from the phenomenon it would produce only biased or outright wrong results.

I can prove you that quantum physics is absurd in the case of cooking, it doesn't turn that quantum physics is less consistent, or even more consistent, we need to trace the continuity between the theory and its critics. That's also an important part of critic.

But here again, I don't think we disagree that much.

Then it can't be true that nothing is meant to last forever. This is the limit of your concept and by extension your epistemology.

Epistemology is made of the talent it takes to analyze itself, in other word, you can't possibly grasp the epistemology of the more talented. Such talent is not developped by manipulating oneself in relation to symbols but actual events. Making sense out of symbols is a byproduct of such abilities, whereas post structuralism and the crisis in academic research are a byproduct of a lack thereof. As far as I'm concerned, I have concrete skills and innovations to back me up by a huge margin. Epistemologically speaking, I'm thus and still part of the solution ; the litterature you study is part of the problem.
I don't understand the: "it can't be true that nothing is meant to last forever."

And no, we have many epistemologies coming from post-structuralist conceptions, post-structuralism is an epistemology by itself actually. We're doing science from it, even physicians are beginning, and have actually began for awhile, even as precursor of the social sciences. Wether we begin with the first relativist theories of physics, or from the Gödel's incompleteness theorems, both those case have ended the objectivist and positivist epistemologies dear to the modern scientists. Philosophers have tried to keep the positivist approach longer, despite some precursors, like for example Nietzsche or Wittgenstein, but ultimately, they're also giving up.

Some post-structuralists went too far, definitely, and we're beginning to see many alliances between the materialists and post-structuralist approaches, not so much as a coming back to the old epistemologies, but to better understand what the mostly positivists approaches were blind to, and what they got right. This is symptomatic of a critic, and can only reinforce the materialist approaches as we're seeing its limits in comparison to the more and more consistent post-structuralist approaches.

There's nothing to lose from criticizing an epistemology or a theory as long as we're able to discern the continuity between the position being criticized and the ones criticizing, both, in the end, forming two fields able to cooperate, and knowing the limits of eachother.

And indeed, modernity is part of the solution, I'm not an advocate of ruptures, I'm an advocate of continuity, even during revolutions, wether scientific or political. But, and maybe we disagree here, as a user of post-structuralist epistomologies in my, hopefully, future field of expertise that is social anthropology, I have to advocate for those epistemologies. Or my work is for nothing as it would means I wouldn't be able to produce consistent knowledge. I lose far too much with just a materialist approach as I lose the sight of its limits. Thing is, we have already many example that the post-structuralist approach works, so I'm quite confident with all this
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16 Posts
Rich. Wealthy. Clever. Wise.

Who defines those. As Vinnie said, if its enough it's fulfilling enough.

To me, for personal material happiness around say 7 to 9k a month is more than enough. At this stage of my life, more is already irrelevant. To someone 50 million a month is a joke. To a 3rd person 500 a month is enough.

Likewise with smart.
Business savvy? Great negotiator? Inspirational leader? Inventor-innovator? Excellent risk manager? Sll of those and more, or none of those and somethingbentirely else suck as apparent luck. What is smart?

I seriously do not know.

But if its defined by a clear sum of money, or a certain kind of trophy SO, or certain social connectivity, it all suddenly becomes more measurable.

Also smart. Is that a self perception, a collective opinion, a hidden value treasure? What is smart so thatbthe relative side from it takes a nap.

So if youd ask me why I consider myself still smart whole not having built the first million, or billion.. ..Id ask you OP, why couldnt there be a dumb person who is already into the mid billions?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,432 Posts
So if a scientist write a bad article to popularize their theory, but then go forwards to upgrade their theory without popularizing it, you will hold, as someone interested in their theory, accountable only of the popularization or actually the strong upgraded theory?
Suppose that you name a hypothetical phenomenon XXXX, that has yet to occur, and then as you realize the hypothetical phenomenon YYYY is more likely to occur, would you decide to call it XXXX instead because hey, it's just a word so let's upgrade it? It is not an upgrade. It doesn't add to XXXX.

I don't think so, I will never understand most of the sciences, but for the experts in the field there's no deception in the complexity of the phenomenon, there's deception to the novice.
Only experts aren't deceivable, that is the whole point. The consensus aligns with the most deceptive viewpoint when it comes to mental tasks well above the average ability for consistency in a group, not below.

But maybe we agree on this, I don't think that there's a problem between us here.
Two example.
Well it's not like those were a counter argument to what I said.

if the theory hold to the critic, the theory find itself more consistent from the trial, but it may fail to be occupied by a new one which will turn to be more consistent, until it's being replaced by a new ones. But then it's not a critic anymore as it has been countered.
The ability to point out inconsistencies on one's own stems from the ability to correct them on one's own. There is a difference between having a better concept to suggest and thinking it's ok to publish it in its current state.

Also, when we haven't a better theory, we may use one with weaknesses, and then we can manipulate this theory informed from its weaknesses, and that's also not problematic.
It is very problematic.

Actually many theories are known to have many limits, what's important is to never forget those limits, thus to be aware of the current critics which contains the theory where it's useful and efficient, and keep it away from the phenomenon it would produce only biased or outright wrong results.
What's important is that you won't get good at innovating with this half assed attitude. You will never build the ability to quit defending the indefendable on your own. You will end up in opposition to the best alternatives without even realizing.

Only garbage rules have exceptions. Here's one that has none : if you can't figure out the solution for your problem you're part of the problem.

I don't understand the: "it can't be true that nothing is meant to last forever."
If all theories are to be disproven someday, so will the theory that they could all be disproven. Theory that crumbles under its own weight. If it's right it's wrong, if it's wrong it's not right. Hence it is absolutely right that it is wrong, an undisprovable truth.

One can only be sure that a proposition is absurd, with all what it implies.

However the ability to check the consistency of a semantic structure cannot be built by merely playing with observations and symbols. Structuralists or post, they're a bunch of scholars who only know how to think in a vacuum and never built a brain by confronting its nonsense to complicated skills that take actual coordination of one's thoughts in a consistent universe which has very little patience for paradoxes and incompleteness.

The proper method of investigation is the one that fulfills the purpose of the neural system. It doesn't matter if the world is made of substance, structures, forces, what matters is to not trip over your own foot. Then as a byproduct you might eventually get a few ideas about reality that don't trip over each others.

Philosophers have tried to keep the positivist approach longer, despite some precursors, like for example Nietzsche or Wittgenstein, but ultimately, they're also giving up.
Yes right, I'll turn it all into a nice little timeline of losers and pin it on my fridge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
612 Posts
Suppose that you name a hypothetical phenomenon XXXX, that has yet to occur, and then as you realize the hypothetical phenomenon YYYY is more likely to occur, would you decide to call it XXXX instead because hey, it's just a word so let's upgrade it? It is not an upgrade. It doesn't add to XXXX.
One word: continuity. If one phenomenon isn't radically different and keep most of the points identical, we don't need to call it otherwise. Communism is a big theory with a bunch of divers opinions, that make no sense to change completely the term as it would enforce division when it isn't required, or, this is somewhat not so much of a "logical fact" (which is a new concept which doesn't make any sense), but an historical and social fact. Some do so, some doesn't, because we know where we come from, some doesn't or want to cut the continuity. History is as important as logic, and you're putting forward logic far more than history. Which is completely logical regarding the difference of epistemologies we adopt. But that's what post-structuralist have tried, and kinda successed

If you read Foucault, you actually read mostly a book with referencs to historical documents, with no mention of other philosophers or any other works, he's known for doing that a lot. To look at sciences as a contingent historical fact, is absolutely obvious, it may be useless to the person doing science, but it's important in the "how" this bunch of people came to study this particular phenomonen with that particular technology, and that other particular theory. And a honest epistemologist have to consider the contingent, thus signify that it could have been otherwise, something quite obvious. What is less obvious, is to say that it couldn't have been otherwise, that would be something to be proven.

Only some kind of philosophers, as well as religious people, say that it couldn't have been otherwise, not your rigourous scientists who are into epistemology.



Only experts aren't deceivable, that is the whole point. The consensus aligns with the most deceptive viewpoint when it comes to mental tasks well above the average ability for consistency in a group, not below.
In what context what you just said wouldn't make the consensus on climate change align with deception? But climate change isn't actually a deception. I don't understand what you want to convey here. Is climate change a deception or not?

The ability to point out inconsistencies on one's own stems from the ability to correct them on one's own. There is a difference between having a better concept to suggest and thinking it's ok to publish it in its current state.
Of course it's different, but they're both scientifically legit.

What's important is that you won't get good at innovating with this half assed attitude. You will never build the ability to quit defending the indefendable on your own. You will end up in opposition to the best alternatives without even realizing.

Only garbage rules have exceptions. Here's one that has none : if you can't figure out the solution for your problem you're part of the problem.
Every rules have exceptions, that's actually the ground to imagine alternatives and progress. By saying that only the good rules are the ones with no exceptions, you forclose science. Funny, isn't it? You're into the epistemologies from before Gödel who logically proved that no theory of mathematics could be logically forclosed, it's 1931, you're old ^^. Come on, in 2031, you'll be one century late, :).

If all theories are to be disproven someday, so will the theory that they could all be disproven. Theory that crumbles under its own weight. If it's right it's wrong, if it's wrong it's not right. Hence it is absolutely right that it is wrong, an undisprovable truth.

One can only be sure that a proposition is absurd, with all what it implies.
That would be true if logic wasn't busted as something consistent all the way up and down, but it has, so no, it's historicaly consistent, logic isn't as reliable as you would believe. It's still remarkably consistent for something which is supposed to not having any foot in empiricism, cause the biggest source of contradiction, is materiality, not ideas. When we come to accept that ideas can be inconsistent by themselves, in a total exclusion of historicity, thus are meant to be logically found inconsistent by their own rules, you don't look at things the same.

Welcome in the post-structuralist era, isn't that fabulous?

However the ability to check the consistency of a semantic structure cannot be built by merely playing with observations and symbols. Structuralists or post, they're a bunch of scholars who only know how to think in a vacuum and never built a brain by confronting its nonsense to complicated skills that take actual coordination of one's thoughts in a consistent universe which has very little patience for paradoxes and incompleteness.

The proper method of investigation is the one that fulfills the purpose of the neural system. It doesn't matter if the world is made of substance, structures, forces, what matters is to not trip over your own foot. Then as a byproduct you might eventually get a few ideas about reality that don't trip over each others.
You're the one cutting logic and every sciences from their history. Social and historical constructions are as real as any scientific theories, not more, not less. And you can't understand the world around you without those mental representations, you're confounding the map and the territory, thing is, you can't know the territory without the map. They're not separable entities, like logic isn't separable from the human mind.

If I had to give an explanation on the why you reject post-structuralism, which is just an hypothesis, I'll not claim having the truth, is, that you're fighting against the cognitive dissonances that results from the post-sturcturalists epistemologies. As they take the universality (but the limits we know from Gödel demonstration) of logic as granted and trivial, as well as the contengency of logic and its historical construction at the same time. It's hard to get used to it, but eventually, it all make sense.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,408 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,432 Posts
Holy shit, so much arrogance for a wannabe student.

That would be true if logic wasn't busted as something consistent all the way up and down, but it has, so no, it's historicaly consistent, logic isn't as reliable as you would believe.
That's pretty cool but I'm not talking about logic. Since logic is so wrong according to logic, how about you step out of the logos and fix those piss poor cognitive abilites of yours with skills that aren't made of words. Then maybe you will be able to build rules that have no exceptions and distinguish the method of investigation from the logos. Until then, you will be limited to believe it cannot be the case. You'll limited to believe science is built on rules that have exceptions. My approach of science has been built out of actually pioneering, unlike yours. It's not like you can grasp what I'm talking about anyways, since for you.. well.. it's a long suit of words.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
217 Posts
Because sometimes not being rich is the smarter decision, if becoming rich in your country or area can only be done by stripping others of opportunities or bringing inequalities on some level.

Richness moreover is sometimes measured in number of loyal friends, artistic life, musical talents, an active mind, health, traditions, land or even friggin beetles for all I know, rather than our typical plastic currency; some richnesses are greatly undervalued.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,304 Posts
"If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?"

Do you agree with this study? I'd agree with it more if my personal experiences didn't contradict its findings so much. (...)
Interesting way of looking at things, and interesting question. This study says that the data suggest a much smaller influence: about 1 or 2 percent. While Psychologist Jordan Peterson said that various studies have shown that the most important factor of success in life is willpower followed by intelligence. Have whatever opinion you would like on him on a political stance, but as far as psychology is concerned, I don't think Jordan Peterson is a fraud.

Of course luck plays a role. We aren't all dealt the same hands or live in the same enviroment. This is why Jordan Peterson also said, that number one trait is for financial success is conscientiousness, a personality trait marked by diligence, perseverance and self-discipline.

The part where it says that grades and achievement-test results were markedly better predictors of adult success than raw IQ scores is new for me, I always thought it was otherwise.

He is right that many people fail to break into the job market because they lack skills that aren’t measured on intelligence tests. They don’t understand how to behave with courtesy in job interviews. They may show up late or fail to dress properly. Or on the job, they make it obvious they’ll do no more than the minimum, if that. Being socially appropiate is more important than being intelligent when you get a job.

Well said, diligent, motivated kids will work harder to answer tough questions than equally intelligent but lazier ones.

You missed the point about conscientiousness. Some workplaces respect it, others don't. Those that don't respect it will likely have low productivity. The point is conscientiousness about yourself, not in the workplace. To be dilligent, preseverent, responsable and self-disciplined in your private life that includes a lot more than your job. If you're only going to want to work at that job for the rest of your life, no matter how dilligent you are there, you won't be right.

Again, you went off the mark, the being expected to show up on time is related to being conscientiousness, but its main source and cause is being socially approapiate. That the study also mentioned they are important. The part where you argue that they're only taking up the slack for those who are less conscientious is not about being conscientious but about lacking dignity and self-respect as well as in part social skills. If you don't develop dignity and self-respect, you won't be able to stand up for yourself when someone walks over you. If you don't respect yourself, it becomes easy for ill intended people to take advantage of you since you won't defend yourself. And if you won't develop social skills, you may upset your boss without noticing or make inappropiate jokes with your colleagues and not earn their sympathy, the workplace is a social enviroment like any other, the article didn't expand on this subject but touched it a bit. It is not being conscientious that is the problem in those cases.

But I see you got the right idea at the end, it's not about not being diligent, you should be diligent, it's about expecting to and wanting to take your fair share and not allowing ill intended people to walk over you or use you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Judson Joist

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,340 Posts
Discussion Starter #71
"If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?"

Inside the mind of Donald Trump.
Don't you mean: "If you're so rich, why aren't you smart?"
:wink:
Because sometimes not being rich is the smarter decision, if becoming rich in your country or area can only be done by stripping others of opportunities or bringing inequalities on some level.

Richness moreover is sometimes measured in number of loyal friends, artistic life, musical talents, an active mind, health, traditions, land or even friggin beetles for all I know, rather than our typical plastic currency; some richnesses are greatly undervalued.
I should point out that my point on the notion of trait Conscientiousness differs from the article's general topic.

Jordan Peterson...whatever opinion you would like on him on a political stance, but as far as psychology is concerned, I don't think Jordan Peterson is a fraud.
I agree with him most of the time up until he starts talking about "self-sacrifice." He equates individualism with self-sacrifice which is a blatant contradiction. When I hear "self-sacrifice," it sounds like "collectivism," and yet he's critical of collectivism. It's confusing, though, because in the same breath, he both criticizes and promotes collectivism. Only his brand of collectivism is supposedly some form of individualism. It's one or the other Jordy. Don't try to be both.

Then again, if he were to say that he's recommending an ideal balance between individual liberty and "social order" (based on justice, not oppression), that would make perfect sense. But he never phrases it that way. It's always "sacrifice this" and "responsibility that." As if responsibility is a "burden." It's not! Or rather, it doesn't have to be. "Adulting" isn't too terribly difficult. It's just a matter of utilizing strategy and logistics to one's advantage.

Jordan Peterson also said, that number one trait is for financial success is conscientiousness, a personality trait marked by diligence, perseverance and self-discipline.
Must...resist urge...to reference...the Soul of Perseverance...from Undertale!

better predictors of adult success
The modern-day workplace will destroy everyone just the same.

He is right that many people fail to break into the job market because they lack skills that aren’t measured on intelligence tests.
I wonder if he's ever worked a blue-collar job in his life. And if so, how long has it been?

They don’t understand how to behave with courtesy in job interviews.
Well, that's on them. That right there definitely is a matter of the individual.

They may show up late or fail to dress properly.
Two things I've never done. I've always been known for being reliable. I'm also known for dressing "plainly" ("practically" is how I prefer to think of it). Huffleclaw, represent!

Or on the job, they make it obvious they’ll do no more than the minimum
Some jobs are all or nothing. 100% is the max. For example, I used to proofread Yellow Page ads for a living. Can't really go any extra miles when what miles there are is the extent of what there is. Oh, but they'll still tell you to "give 110%" or whatever.

Being socially appropriate is more important than being intelligent when you get a job.
But does "appropriate" mean "conducive to civility" or just "conformist?" Civility and conformity aren't the same concept.

diligent, motivated kids will work harder to answer tough questions than equally intelligent but lazier ones.
The question no one is asking is: "What's the root cause of demotivation?" If people are overworked and underpaid, then is that some sort of character flaw? Should we be on the side of Ebenezer Scrooge or Bob Cratchit? And why is Bob Cratchit assumed to be lazy just because he ranks among the working poor?

You missed the point about conscientiousness.
No, I understood their point perfectly. I just don't agree with it because it contradicts my real-world experiences.

Some workplaces respect it, others don't.
Oh. Well, maybe I've never worked in a place that respected it.

Those that don't respect it will likely have low productivity.
More like high productivity but low quality. They value speed of production over orderliness. In some cases, they expect both speed and perfection, even from people who are new to the job (and are making less than $12/hr., therefore not justifying the stress).

The point is conscientiousness about yourself, not in the workplace. To be diligent, persevering, responsible, and self-disciplined in your private life, that includes a lot more than your job. If you're only going to want to work at that job for the rest of your life, no matter how diligent you are there, you won't be right.
Job security doesn't exist anymore, so none of that matters.

The part where you argue that they're only taking up the slack for those who are less conscientious is not about being conscientious but about lacking dignity and self-respect as well as in part social skills.
Legalize a non-lethal form of dueling. That's my suggestion. Maybe pugil stick fighting. No one incurs any lasting damage, but everyone gets to engage in catharsis (which is a basic human need).

If you don't develop dignity and self-respect, you won't be able to stand up for yourself when someone walks over you.
In the work place, if you stand up for yourself, you get fired. We live in an age in which "the law" exists to protect vulgar parasites. That's why parasite enablers (mostly liberal Democrats) tell us that we "can't take 'the law' into our own hands." So then what use is "the law" to The People? Natural Law supersedes political law. Natural Law is The People's weapon.

The purpose of "the law" is not to protect The People from the state, not to protect the individual from the mob, not to protect the poor from the rich, not to protect the worker from the manager, not to protect the artist from the censor. The purpose "the law" is to uphold the status quo, no matter how oppressive it is. That's why there are so many unconstitutional laws. That's also why psychopathic bullies reign supreme throughout all institutions of society. School, workplace, what have you.

If you don't respect yourself, it becomes easy for ill-intended people to take advantage of you since you won't defend yourself.
Defending yourself gets you fired from a job or expelled from school. Refer back to what I said about "the law" being set up to enable "predatory parasites." That's why I sometimes refer to law-mongers as "parasite enablers."

And if you won't develop social skills, you may upset your boss without noticing or make inappropriate jokes with your colleagues and not earn their sympathy
Just about every workplace has a Keith, a Pam, and someone who always says, "That's what she said."

the workplace is a social environment like any other. The article didn't expand on this subject but touched it a bit. It is not being conscientious that is the problem in those cases.
Right. My point is - why persecute the people who are being conscientious?

But I see you got the right idea at the end, it's not about not being diligent, you should be diligent. It's about expecting to and wanting to take your fair share and not allowing ill-intended people to walk over you or use you.
Also, I'd like to be allowed to make at least $12/hr. at some point. Or better yet, $30k a year. In college, they taught us that we'd be allowed to make $30k/yr. by the time we were 30. I'm 40 now and I've never made that much. Most money I've ever been allowed to made was $12.50/hr. and the last time I made that that much was December of 2001. And keep in mind that I haven't worked "McJobs" since the '90s. It's just a cruel fact of reality that all jobs are "McJobs" now in terms of workplace misery and low wages. Oh, but they still want us to believe that it has something to do with personal character flaws or something rather than it being a systemic issue.

Newsflash: Individual workers don't set their own wages.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
"If you're so smart, why aren't you rich? Do you agree with this study?

I can only answer that question based on my own life experience and I am sure others have a different take the question. As I have gotten older I have given this some earlier thought. I have not walked the walk or talked the talk to become rich. I did not do what it takes, I missed or ignored opportunities, I do not have the right personality, I have valued my independence and privacy above riches. It is who you know, and being in the right place at the right time. My introvertedness clashed with that. Also coming into play is Persistence, Inspiration, Hard work, Smart work, and yes some luck. I have been able to be 95% self employed in my lifetime. I have adult children who are successful, and independent with good families. A wife whom I will grow older with. And their is a modest bank account with no debt of any kind. Conscientiousness has played a role in the success, Paying attention to detail, Dotting the I's and crossing the T's. It is doing what needs to be done, when it needs to be done if you feel like it or not.

There is more to being rich then dollar bills. I consider myself Very Blessed with more important riches. We all at sometime need to assess, Where we want to go and not go, What we will do and not do, What stresses we will accept and not accept. I made my choices, I am living with them. I have no regrets about riches.
 

·
Registered
♂️ Xennial - Melancholic/Choleric
Joined
·
3,834 Posts
Some people have high abstract intelligence but low practical intelligence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
I think it's often because the majority doesn't appreciate or maybe even truly comprehend genius. Nikola Tesla died in debt. Confucius spent most of his life in poverty. Great thinkers like Copernicus were never recognized in their lifetimes, nor were many great artists and authors. Unless it's something that has almost an immediate benefit that can be seen, like a new iPhone, then people really don't care about intelligence, let alone wisdom.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
"If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?"

Do you agree with this study? I'd agree with it more if my personal experiences didn't contradict its findings so much. In my experience, trait Conscientiousness is absolutely not respected in the workplace. Oh, sure, people are expected to show up on time, but Conscientiousness goes way beyond that. From what I've observed (and experienced firsthand), people who are more conscientious always end up taking up the slack for those who are less conscientious. Doesn't matter if we're talking about an office, a factory, or even outside the workplace. And this system of sub-stratification that subordinates the more civilized person to the barbarian certainly does not improve wages or living standards for the conscientious person. In fact, it only dumps ever greater burdens on our shoulders while the degenerate Philistines laugh at our struggle. Meanwhile, our overlords turn a blind eye to our misery while smug self-help gurus spout phrases like "Just deal with it," "Suck it up," or "Get over yourself." Never do they turn their criticism to the Philistine barbarians that lack conscientiousness.

So what are your experiences with this phenomenoid? Have you been rewarded - or at least appreciated - for your conscientiousness? Do people respect you for it, viewing you as a reliable pillar of strength? Or do people exploit you because of it, viewing you as "that nerd who does other peoples' homework?" And what about the notion of "sacrifice?" We all know what Ayn Rand would say about that, right? I get so sick of hearing everyone (regardless of their religious or political bent) squeal about this notion of "sacrifice." Let me tell you what that means in real life. It means conscientious people sacrificing on behalf of barbarians. What's the result of that? It enables exploitation, subordinating the more civilized person to the less civilized person. What happens when someone with a barbarian mindset is allowed to believe that their degenerate way of life is superior to that of the more civilized person? It perpetuates misery in the workplace and in general society. Beyond that, even, it allows the barbarian to feel entitled to bully the conscientious person, ensuring that the conscientious person endures not only a lack of a decent wage, but also a lack of respect in the workplace. This might explain why so many blue-collar workers remain trapped in a high school gym class mentality (speaking from experience here as a blue-collar "everyday joe," myself). But it's really no different in the office, now that I think about it.

Over the course of 20 years, I've worked in one restaurant, two department stores (at one, I was a Housewares clerk just like Ash from 'Army of Darkness'), two offices, and at least half a dozen factories. Somewhere in there, I did a short stint as a vacuum cleaner salesman, and also made two attempts to make money online. In all the time, the most money I was ever allowed to make was $12.50 an hour and the last time I made that much was December of 2001. After that, I never made it back up to $12 an hour. At one point, I was working in the sterile lab of an orthopedics plant for $7.75 an hour. That's just 50 cents above minimum wage. And this was a reputable orthopedics plant in Warsaw, Indiana (the "Detroit of the orthopedics industry"). I won't name any of the specific companies I've worked for because it doesn't matter. They're all the same.

My point is this: Be diligent, but don't sacrifice yourself to the "god" of your enemies.
No, because success often requires a foundation and simply being intelligent doesn't mean you have that. For example in the US to be built up for adulthood it requires assistance from parents, and school. If say you went to a bad public school, or your parents didn't care about or support you in anyway you might not be able to succeed as easily as someone with support. For example trying to get a driver license, trying to get into college, trying to make friends can be hindered by a lot of other factors that you really can not control. For example if you are smart in school, you might still get bullied. Is that YOUR FAULT?
 

·
私を愛して
ESTJ; LSE; 3w4; Sp/Sx
Joined
·
14,683 Posts
"If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?"
Don't need to be rich to be smart. But, if you've got nothing to show for it, then can you really call yourself smart? At least show your capabilities instead of telling them.
 
61 - 76 of 76 Posts
Top