—“Why do so many high IQ people amount to nothing?”–
Because conscientiousness and ambition are equally important legs on the step stool to accomplishment.
It is not actually enjoyable being exceptionally smart after grade school. Exercising that intelligence in the marketplace (world) produces competition that results in interpersonal frictions.
The joy in life is largely the result of cooperation with others in the absence of stress.
Smart people have many options for working with others in the absence of stress and enjoying life’s journey.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Prose And The Difference Between
There is a vast difference between people who speak in poetic, mythic, literary, and analogical verse in order to communicate to the unwashed a truth inaccessible to them by operational description – and those people who speak in poetic, mythic, literary and analogical verse because they do not know of the truth of what they speak and so cannot speak in operational verse. One learns the use of aesthetic parsimony only to improve upon the communicability of what he has to say. But he must have something worth saying upon which to improve. Otherwise he is just another actor in someone else’s clothes speaking someone else’s verse, the meaning of which he does not, and need not grasp, taking applause he did not earn. -
Prose And The Difference Between
There is a vast difference between people who speak in poetic, mythic, literary, and analogical verse in order to communicate to the unwashed a truth inaccessible to them by operational description – and those people who speak in poetic, mythic, literary and analogical verse because they do not know of the truth of what they speak and so cannot speak in operational verse. One learns the use of aesthetic parsimony only to improve upon the communicability of what he has to say. But he must have something worth saying upon which to improve. Otherwise he is just another actor in someone else’s clothes speaking someone else’s verse, the meaning of which he does not, and need not grasp, taking applause he did not earn. -
—“We Can’t Measure IQ Above…”—
—“WE CAN’T MEASURE IQ ABOVE…”— While a grain of truth, that’s not quite right. We can use 160 as a test measure, or 160 on distribution (S.D.). We tend to conflate them. Like testing any of the arts, testing intelligence can be accomplished through triangulation to produce ordinality whenever cardinality fails. I know that Chomsky is smarter than I am because I am very conscious of his thought process when speaking and I cannot do that without side-tracking. (And believe me I can take you through a very long train of thought that will devastate even the smartest of people. But he is much better at it.) I know some people can tolerate reading certain categories of text more so than I (anything that demands empathy is off my radar. I get exhausted. Just the data please. ). I know that some people have superior ability to maintain categorical states (math and chess for example). I get … something between bored and tired. The only way I can play chess is to abstractly control the board, and leave traps for my opponent. I am not a cunning player. I have never met anyone anywhere close to me in certain other abilities. In other words, it is just increasingly expensive to test as we pass 140/150 because all gains after that appear to diverge from g (where all abilities scale in parallel) into where individual abilities scale and others don’t. So above 140/150 we no longer get meaningful measures because g is a decreasingly meaningful aggregate. That does not mean that we cannot test the various abilities that we coalesce into g. Chris Langan has a very IQ (g) but he makes a profound mistake in equating symmetry with intention. Einstein did not have that impressive an IQ but was extremely diligent and made few mistakes other than ‘the constant’. Chomsky made a brilliant contribution by applying Turing’s insights to language. But his errors outside of his field are the product of having confidence in his institutions rather than analyzing the demonstrated behavior of humans throughout history. Hayek was terribly smart and covered vast intellectual terrain before he understood that then only answer empirical to the question of politics was the common law of tort – and not economics, or politics. Popper and Mises had insights but were half wrong because they could not escape the framing of their cultures. Marx could work like few other men in history, but he was wrong on first principles and after reading Menger died knowing he was wrong, and his life wasted – he just couldn’t’ say so since Engels was supporting him. This is a very common problem because it is the harmonic (market consequence) between the various cognitive abilities we possess that produces a ‘market for correspondence’ or what is more easily envisioned as “an accurate model of the world and our projections of that model into models outside our direct experience.” In other words, demonstrated intelligence is the result of a competing market of mental agencies any of which can go wrong, and any of which can excel. Just like everything else in evolution. Cheers -
—“We Can’t Measure IQ Above…”—
—“WE CAN’T MEASURE IQ ABOVE…”— While a grain of truth, that’s not quite right. We can use 160 as a test measure, or 160 on distribution (S.D.). We tend to conflate them. Like testing any of the arts, testing intelligence can be accomplished through triangulation to produce ordinality whenever cardinality fails. I know that Chomsky is smarter than I am because I am very conscious of his thought process when speaking and I cannot do that without side-tracking. (And believe me I can take you through a very long train of thought that will devastate even the smartest of people. But he is much better at it.) I know some people can tolerate reading certain categories of text more so than I (anything that demands empathy is off my radar. I get exhausted. Just the data please. ). I know that some people have superior ability to maintain categorical states (math and chess for example). I get … something between bored and tired. The only way I can play chess is to abstractly control the board, and leave traps for my opponent. I am not a cunning player. I have never met anyone anywhere close to me in certain other abilities. In other words, it is just increasingly expensive to test as we pass 140/150 because all gains after that appear to diverge from g (where all abilities scale in parallel) into where individual abilities scale and others don’t. So above 140/150 we no longer get meaningful measures because g is a decreasingly meaningful aggregate. That does not mean that we cannot test the various abilities that we coalesce into g. Chris Langan has a very IQ (g) but he makes a profound mistake in equating symmetry with intention. Einstein did not have that impressive an IQ but was extremely diligent and made few mistakes other than ‘the constant’. Chomsky made a brilliant contribution by applying Turing’s insights to language. But his errors outside of his field are the product of having confidence in his institutions rather than analyzing the demonstrated behavior of humans throughout history. Hayek was terribly smart and covered vast intellectual terrain before he understood that then only answer empirical to the question of politics was the common law of tort – and not economics, or politics. Popper and Mises had insights but were half wrong because they could not escape the framing of their cultures. Marx could work like few other men in history, but he was wrong on first principles and after reading Menger died knowing he was wrong, and his life wasted – he just couldn’t’ say so since Engels was supporting him. This is a very common problem because it is the harmonic (market consequence) between the various cognitive abilities we possess that produces a ‘market for correspondence’ or what is more easily envisioned as “an accurate model of the world and our projections of that model into models outside our direct experience.” In other words, demonstrated intelligence is the result of a competing market of mental agencies any of which can go wrong, and any of which can excel. Just like everything else in evolution. Cheers -
–“Why Are Smart People So Quiet”–
–“WHY ARE SMART PEOPLE SO QUIET”– **I’ll give you a much better answer.** To begin with we do not rely on others for our understanding, only information that we do not yet know. That said, here is why we are quiet: 1) You learn fairly quickly that you cannot help people to come to a conclusion faster than they are able to comfortably do so with confidence. 2) You learn fairly quickly that giving them the answer early will lead to resisting it – fighting it, or denying it, because they didn’t ‘own it’ by going through the journey. 3) You learn fairly quickly that people grow suspicious of you and even avoid or exclude you if you make them feel inferior, inadequate, or unable to gain pleasure from working themselves or with others to come to a shared conclusion on their own. 4) You learn fairly quickly that people will overload you with decisions that are uninteresting – and you prefer to work on things you find interesting yourself. 5) You learn that the way to help people using your intelligence is to (a) let them come to you, (b) provide them with the next step in their reasoning (assist them on their journey don’t force them into yours), (c) in groups, prevent them from doing wrong or harm, and suggest paths of opportunity rather than give them the answer. 6) You only aggressively dominate the conversation (because we can generally do so with trivial ease) to prevent an immoral, unethical, criminal, or otherwise terribly harmful wrong. In other words, you learn to speak with other humans like parents talk to children. If you do this, people will generally like you very much. We all want leaders. We just want leaders who we choose, and we choose them because they help us on our journey just as much as they take us with them on theirs. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
–“Why Are Smart People So Quiet”–
–“WHY ARE SMART PEOPLE SO QUIET”– **I’ll give you a much better answer.** To begin with we do not rely on others for our understanding, only information that we do not yet know. That said, here is why we are quiet: 1) You learn fairly quickly that you cannot help people to come to a conclusion faster than they are able to comfortably do so with confidence. 2) You learn fairly quickly that giving them the answer early will lead to resisting it – fighting it, or denying it, because they didn’t ‘own it’ by going through the journey. 3) You learn fairly quickly that people grow suspicious of you and even avoid or exclude you if you make them feel inferior, inadequate, or unable to gain pleasure from working themselves or with others to come to a shared conclusion on their own. 4) You learn fairly quickly that people will overload you with decisions that are uninteresting – and you prefer to work on things you find interesting yourself. 5) You learn that the way to help people using your intelligence is to (a) let them come to you, (b) provide them with the next step in their reasoning (assist them on their journey don’t force them into yours), (c) in groups, prevent them from doing wrong or harm, and suggest paths of opportunity rather than give them the answer. 6) You only aggressively dominate the conversation (because we can generally do so with trivial ease) to prevent an immoral, unethical, criminal, or otherwise terribly harmful wrong. In other words, you learn to speak with other humans like parents talk to children. If you do this, people will generally like you very much. We all want leaders. We just want leaders who we choose, and we choose them because they help us on our journey just as much as they take us with them on theirs. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
Russia And America
(a) the USA (state dept) was profoundly stupid not to bring a weak russia into nato at any cost thereby uniting german technology and russian resources. That is one of the greatest policy errores in history ( which the USA seems to stumble into regularly.) (b) Putin’s only error (as a resident of Kiev myself) was in using deception of the little green men, insurrection, and propaganda rather than picking up the phone and just speaking the truth: —“We just can’t allow our Don Basin tech, and only warm water port out of our influence so we are going to step in, and ask for your support, and pay for this undesirable action with discounted gas to ukraine for 50 years. I will work to help world leaders understand why this was an unfortunate necessity for the preservation of the international balance of powers.”— (c) Postwar American policy is trivially simple, but stated morally instead of descriptively: “This can’t happen again. So: 1) we will work to force states to focus on modernization and joining the world economy, and prohibit territorial expansion, or opposition to that integration of trade. 2) We will work to support self determination to the extent that it does not violate #1 -borders and trade. This will assist in the development of economic integration and limit future wars. 3) BUT if you choose self determination and choose poorly in violation of #1 we will punish you regardless. it is this last “BUT” that Americans don’t state. There is nothing in that foreign policy that wasn’t stated by Burke, Smith and Hume. The USA has a long history of criticizing the “constant wars” of european countries. But the price of creating the international order is policing contradictions of it. And so the USA became what it despised. Because all empires have no other options. Rule by commerce, rule by violence, rule by deceit (religion). -
Russia And America
(a) the USA (state dept) was profoundly stupid not to bring a weak russia into nato at any cost thereby uniting german technology and russian resources. That is one of the greatest policy errores in history ( which the USA seems to stumble into regularly.) (b) Putin’s only error (as a resident of Kiev myself) was in using deception of the little green men, insurrection, and propaganda rather than picking up the phone and just speaking the truth: —“We just can’t allow our Don Basin tech, and only warm water port out of our influence so we are going to step in, and ask for your support, and pay for this undesirable action with discounted gas to ukraine for 50 years. I will work to help world leaders understand why this was an unfortunate necessity for the preservation of the international balance of powers.”— (c) Postwar American policy is trivially simple, but stated morally instead of descriptively: “This can’t happen again. So: 1) we will work to force states to focus on modernization and joining the world economy, and prohibit territorial expansion, or opposition to that integration of trade. 2) We will work to support self determination to the extent that it does not violate #1 -borders and trade. This will assist in the development of economic integration and limit future wars. 3) BUT if you choose self determination and choose poorly in violation of #1 we will punish you regardless. it is this last “BUT” that Americans don’t state. There is nothing in that foreign policy that wasn’t stated by Burke, Smith and Hume. The USA has a long history of criticizing the “constant wars” of european countries. But the price of creating the international order is policing contradictions of it. And so the USA became what it despised. Because all empires have no other options. Rule by commerce, rule by violence, rule by deceit (religion). -
Philosophy For Grown Ups
1. The only truths we know for certain are falsehoods. Everything that is not false is a truth candidate. This is the inverse of the fallacy of justificationism and the central insight of the sciences: the means by which we invent or grasp an idea contribute nothing to whether or not it is true or false. Only exhaustive falsification and survival from criticism deliver confidence that actions produce anticipated outcomes due to our comprehension of cause, effect, and the operations that are possible. Otherwise we are forever justifying whatever it is we seek to justify by any set of excuses we can imagine. This is why astrology, numerology, theology, philosophy, and the pseudosciences are so common – justification means absolutely nothing. 2. The only preference we know is the one we demonstrate. The only good we know is the one we mutually demonstrate by acting upon. People report very differently from what they demonstrate. The only morality we know that is we must avoid criminal(material), ethical(direct), and moral (indirect) imposition of costs upon one another. The only moral actions then are those that are not criminal, unethical, and immoral, and that means the only moral actions consiste of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality. Ergo, all moral actions are those that are not immoral. There is no recipe for moral action other than that which is not immoral. 3. People always and everywhere demonstrate that they are neither moral or immoral but amoral and rational, doing what they must in all circumstances that they exist in. it is just disproportionately advantageous to act morally for the simple reason that the returns of cooperation always and everywhere defeat the returns on individual action. This is why exhaustive forgiveness of ‘cheaters’ in all walks of life will generally reform them. Because it is in their self interest. This is why we demonstrate altruistic punishment also (high cost of punishing cheaters), because the returns on cooperation are so valuable that we evolved to pay the high cost of punishment in order to preserve the high value of cooperation. 4. People notoriously think they are right and in the right, and acting morally, which is why we have courts of one kind or another among all peoples at all stages of development. And while rules of decidability in courts in matters of conflict vary from the poor and underdeveloped where interests in things, kin, and relationships are rare and collectively owned, to the wealthy and developed where things, interests, kin, relationships, and contracts are universally allocated to individuals and individually owned, the means of decidability in every single civilization is RECIPROCITY. 5. There exist then only one negative moral rule and one universal test of morality: “Do not unto others as they would not have done unto them”. There is only one positive moral rule: the extension of trust to non kin that we extend to kin, until it is no longer empirically possible to trust. – this optimizes cooperation by continuously training malcontents that it is in their interest to cooperate, and ostracizes (punishes) those who do not. 6. There are no conflicts that are not decidable by tests of reciprocity. None. This is why all international law is limited exclusively to the test of reciprocity. So logically(rational choice) and empirically (demonstrated action), and universally (all laws domestica and international at all scales) morality is anything that is not immoral unethical or criminal in that it imposes costs upon the efforts already expended to obtain a non-conflicting interest, in a good, relationship, or opportunity. As far as I know no argument can defeat this that is not in and of itself an attempt at reciprocity (theft, freeriding, parasitism, conspiracy). Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine