Slashdot Mirror


Can High Intelligence Be a Burden Rather Than a Boon?

HughPickens.com writes David Robson has an interesting article at BBC on the relationship between high intelligence and happiness. "We tend to think of geniuses as being plagued by existential angst, frustration, and loneliness," writes Robson. Think of Virginia Woolf, Alan Turing, or Lisa Simpson – lone stars, isolated even as they burn their brightest." As Ernest Hemingway wrote: "Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know." The first steps to studying the question were taken in 1926 when psychologist Lewis Terman decided to identify and study a group of gifted children. Terman selected 1,500 pupils with an IQ of 140 or more – 80 of whom had IQs above 170. Together, they became known as the "Termites", and the highs and lows of their lives are still being studied to this day. "As you might expect, many of the Termites did achieve wealth and fame – most notably Jess Oppenheimer, the writer of the classic 1950s sitcom I Love Lucy. Indeed, by the time his series aired on CBS, the Termites' average salary was twice that of the average white-collar job. But not all the group met Terman's expectations – there were many who pursued more "humble" professions such as police officers, seafarers, and typists. For this reason, Terman concluded that "intellect and achievement are far from perfectly correlated". Nor did their smarts endow personal happiness. Over the course of their lives, levels of divorce, alcoholism and suicide were about the same as the national average." According to Robson, one possibility is that knowledge of your talents becomes something of a ball and chain. During the 1990s, the surviving Termites were asked to look back at the events in their 80-year lifespan. Rather than basking in their successes, many reported that they had been plagued by the sense that they had somehow failed to live up to their youthful expectations (PDF).

385 comments

  1. Define intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

    1. Re:Define intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're too lazy to look it up? Just because we can't define intelligence to 5 digits of precision doesn't mean it isn't a useful concept. We can still talk about a correlation between X and intelligence, as long as the correlation is strong enough that it will hold for any reasonable definition of intelligence.

    2. Re:Define intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a high IQ and I have found it easier to digest information, correlate that information and draw conclusions that my peers
      This was identified in early grade school and resulted in both selection into gifted programs and the occasional beating on the playground by my peers
      As a result, I have usually sought to disavow any claim to intelligence and work with people at the level that they are comfortable at, only bringing on additional capacity as needed to keep things moving along
      Being identified as 'exceptional' is both gratifying and painful, and I would normally attempt to avoid it.
      This because people both set higher expectations for me and seek an opportunity to prove themselves by besting me

    3. Re:Define intelligence by penguinoid · · Score: 2

      You're too lazy to look it up?

      Looks like you're too lazy to look it up too. We don't know, and can't agree upon, a proper definition of intelligence. And it makes a difference what exact definition is used in a study. The definition of "intelligence" used in this study is IQ, so your link is to the wrong article.

      I suspect we won't be able to clearly define intelligence until we create a general AI...

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    4. Re:Define intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, so you agree, we have no idea what it is or how to measure it, or if we are measuring it properly but it ends up not really being very important. Everyone who I have seen use IQ, for example, has seemed to have some form of agenda including exclusion, social darwinism and just general ego massaging. We like it in US public schools, for example, because it allows us to immediately reduce funding for "gifted" students to what by definition ends up being a very small selection of children. It's way cheaper than providing for advanced classes for the upper third of performers like we used to do, because we've "scienced" ourselves into believing that only those above 2-3 sigma deserve attention.

      As with every single attempt to use psychology or sociology, we should completely and totally abandon attempts to apply it and keep studying it until the results are entirely predictable. The entire world is not a lab for experimentation, and the absolute worst things happen in government and corporate environments when people who barely understand the theory itself start trying to apply it (usually with some very nebulous ulterior motive to begin with).

    5. Re:Define intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, so you agree, we have no idea what it is or how to measure it

      No, we do have a rough idea what it is and how to measure it.

      It's a bit like processor performance: we can't define it to 5 digits of precision (if you define it using a benchmark, then someone will complain about your benchmark, and if you define it using an average of benchmarks, then someone will complain about your set of benchmarks, etc).

      we should completely and totally abandon attempts to apply it and keep studying it until the results are entirely predictable.

      By that logic we should forget about Xeons and put 6502 chips in our supercomputers until we agree on a precise definition of processor performance.

    6. Re:Define intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a study using IQ reports a weak correlation, then you have to specify the exact definition. But if it reports a strong correlation, then you can claim a result about "intelligence". You can do this because variations in the definition of intelligence are not enough to nudge a strong result.

      BTW this point was premptively addressed in your parent.

    7. Re: Define intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aha? An oral savant? Just as some are math savants, others can manipulate some other medium, to create a product. Is it intelligence? Or some other process that allows intellegence? Remember, intelligence does not equate to being street smart, or useful, intelligence is the tool to create with, and the collary, being a useful person, doesn't mean being a tool to destroy, or a fool.

    8. Re:Define intelligence by penguinoid · · Score: 2

      No, because there is all kinds of intelligence that is not measurable by IQ tests. For example, a huge chunk of our brains is the visual cortex, but for some reason people don't consider it a sign of intelligence to be able to be able to distinguish basic objects like apples or elephants, or to recognize spoken words (especially with background chatter), or to hold a meaningful conversation. Yet anyone who's tried to have a computer do it knows what a PITA it is. Speaking of computers, just about every math skill is done better by computers, but almost no one considers a computer intelligent.

      So at the very least you have 1) raw brain/computing power 2) specialized skills 3) knowledge/data/programming which is rather like precalculated solutions.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    9. Re:Define intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can't agree on a proper definition of existence, mind, love, or being a speculative twat while ignoring the reality of the situation. Yet all of those things clearly are, as you have demonstrated two of.

    10. Re:Define intelligence by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 0

      I have a high IQ and I have found it easier to digest information, correlate that information and draw conclusions that my peers
      This was identified in early grade school and resulted in both selection into gifted programs and the occasional beating on the playground by my peers
      As a result, I have usually sought to disavow any claim to intelligence and work with people at the level that they are comfortable at, only bringing on additional capacity as needed to keep things moving along
      Being identified as 'exceptional' is both gratifying and painful, and I would normally attempt to avoid it.
      This because people both set higher expectations for me and seek an opportunity to prove themselves by besting me

      I feel your pain, I do

      I always suspect that I am 'different' from the rest ever since I was a little kid --- and even without 'trying' I always manage to 'get the answer'

      That brought a whole lot of jealousy and angst amongst my peers - and when that happened in the midst of the cultural revolution of China, of course I got in trouble very fast

      All kinds of labels were heaped on me, 'counter-revolutionary', 'foreign-spy', whatever that you could imagine I was burdened with it

      But unlike you, I refused to back down --- why should I?

      Why should I fall into their level of mediocrity, to dumb down myself, to stoop low, just so that I could be one of them?

      Fuck that!

      I am what I am. If I am born 'different' so be it

      By the time I took the IQ test I was in my mid-twenties, and at that time I was already in the USA, and the result wasn't actually surprising, at least not to me (supposed to be one in 300+ million, or something like that)

      Am I 'special' because my high IQ? Not really. As I said, I am what I am. Even if my IQ level turns out to be a goose-egg, I am still what I am

      I do not despise those who can't comprehend the things that I can, no matter how they try. I mean, why should I?

      They are they. I am me

      They have their own lives to live. I have mine

      But I continue to be me, that 'me' that I am born with

      I continue to do the things that I want to do, even if the society around me doesn't appreciate what I do

      Hey, I have but one life to live, and I am going to live it to the fullest

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    11. Re:Define intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I analyze things to the 10th level and way over analyze everything. That in itself is a problem. If I hit an unforeseen snag or something I did not plan for along the way, I relentlessly try to fix or work around that snag and keep my original plan on track instead of stepping back, taking another look at the situation and deciding if I should go a different direction.

      About my analyzing everything.. I've counted the white reflectors embedded in the road and the white lines per mile on interstates, some places have more lines per mile then others (in case you wondering there are roughly 140-150 white lines per mile on US interstates that I;ve been on with a reflector at every other line). I spent time researching federal highway codes before to see if there was a spec or a range and wonder the process behind the difference. Different equipment, different specs, did the spec change, does the crew doing the lines turn a dial or something, is that thing calibrated? etc.
      Most city sideways are concrete or brick and many have asphalt patches in some spots but not others. Who makes the decision to not put or not put the bricks back in or not put down concrete after digging up a section? Those cast iron grates that are around tress on sidewalks, who and how often does someone come by and evaluate when they need to be replaced or a new larger one put as the tree grows, I've seen some that the trees are growing into the grate and some that looked like they've been swapped out. Some have a hold for a tree but no tree there at all. I could go on and on. I constantly observe and wonder about too many things. Not to the point it bothers me, I am just interested and like observing things and wonder why.

    12. Re:Define intelligence by GaAs+oldAce · · Score: 2

      You're too lazy to look it up?

      Looks like you're too lazy to look it up too. We don't know, and can't agree upon, a proper definition of intelligence. And it makes a difference what exact definition is used in a study. The definition of "intelligence" used in this study is IQ, so your link is to the wrong article.

      I suspect we won't be able to clearly define intelligence until we create a general AI...

      KIDS! please.. adhominems do not allow such a good point to be explored in the discussion so dial it down a notch or two!

      I agree that we would need an open ended general definition for what intelligence is otherwise the argument becomes so subjective as to be philosophy and not science. I sometimes wonder if the view such as yours, that we would need to develop a general AI to understand intelligence is semantically, a step that may lead attempts at defining intelligence in a "Nuts and Bolts" way astray. By your very definition, in order to understand the thing, we have to create the thing we don't understand, which sounds like creating an infinite improbability engine.. or something.. Better example, it sounds like painting ourselves in to a corner by the notion that in order to create a widget we would need that widget as a preliminary step to building it, which is as I said painting ourselves into a corner mentally.

      There has already been some interesting work along the lines of defining intelligence in a general sense mathematically and a few models exist that attempt to mimic how networks of neurons process information, (back propagation networks with feedback, Dr Jeff Hawkins's Memory prediction model paradigm , as described in his book On Intelligence and my personal favorite: Alex Wissner-Gross's work demonstrating the defining equation: F = T S which states that intelligence is a force which uses it's available energy to maximize its future freedom of action.) None of these definitions are complete but they do give us some interesting and insightful clues as to what the general characteristic intelligent entities should possess are.

      1- Intelligent systems should be able to be intelligent independent of outward observable behavior (We can be intelligent just lying around thinking and not outwardly "Doing" anything.)
      2- Intelligent systems should gather information in the form of patterns and sequences of patterns, be able to recall them from memory and recognize patterns or partial patterns it has seen before and based on this collection of memory and experience, be able to "Predict" what pieces of information are coming next based on past patterns. Perceptions of these patterns and sequences should therefore be immune to variation in terms of being viewed in different settings, from different angles, and in the presence of noise and conflicting data, incomplete patterns and most importantly be viewed with an awareness of time.
      3- Intelligent systems should be able to use the benefits endowed by the characteristics of 1 and 2 in order to use it's available energy, assets and surroundings in order to maximize its future freedom of action , whether that freedom be, winning a game and continuing to play, ensuring it's own survival or the survival of other beings or assets under it's care or achieving a pre-defined objective in the presence of uncertainty.

      Again I say that the definition is not complete, because there are certainly aspects that can be added to this that would better describe humans, higher mammals, or advanced autonomous computer systems behavior in such a way as to lead to better understanding of what is going on inside our skulls or that would lead to (in the case of computer, robotic and software systems ) design parameters. To say that we have "No idea" of what intelligence is, at this point in the game.. in 2015 is not entirely true as a lot of serious work is being ap

    13. Re: Define intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear you my friend.I am also a very quick learner.TTo the point of madness. But I was suffering tremendously the I asked myself the question. I should be able to make myself happy.That was when I turned my intelligence on itself and reached budhist enlightenment.

    14. Re: Define intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intelligence: when you learn easily. If you are presented with the stupidest material to learn, of course you will fail.

      Imagine a test that says; 2 + 2 = 5, if you already know the answer you will fail.

      There are 2 types of intelligence: fluid intelligence and crystalized intelligence. Fluid intelligence is what babies do. They do experiments and learn about their world.

      Crystalized intelligence is the knowledge that you have that is ready to apply.

    15. Re: Define intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you try to measure the intelligence of a dog, how would you do that?

      Solve integrals? Or solve problems other dogs can solve?

      Of course, you would do the second...

      And how can you classify humans?

      Because if I do a test now on how 15 years old use an Iphone and then do the same on 55 years old, guess what? The 15 years old look a lot more smarter...

      But when it comes to performing estandard Jobs like journalism, engineering, medicine, architecture, legal practice, etc., I bet on the 55 years old.

      So you need to get rid of the cultural bias. The same happens if you change countries or if you go to a village in the Middle of the amazonas River and find a tribe who see a white person for the first time in their entire life... If they don't kill you because they think you are a zombie or a vampire...don't laugh this happened to a french reporter in 1988,in PerÃ...

      Of they don't killer you, how do you test their intelligence?

      Some psychologists have deviced tests that absolutely have nothing to do with culture: no letters, no numbers, just raw intelligence... The problem: it is based on geometry, and naturally men are more inclined than women to solve geometric problema, so men come out as a groups as more inteligente than women.

      Now if you think that the ability of survival means you are inteligente, you are onviously wrong, for example females may be more inclined to flirt and have sex to obtain the things they need and want.

      How would you design a test for that? Measure the body shape and the Number of smiles? Is that an intelligence test?

      Then they acr surprised that intelligence is not in directo correlstion with success...

      Of course not. You are measuring 2 different things...

    16. Re: Define intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are an idiot.

    17. Re: Define intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you could live more peacefully and without fighting the rest of them if just mimic. . . but you never will be one of them because you are like the rest of us . d.being defensive is very tired

    18. Re: Define intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a IQ around 150, however I also have some Asbergers traits too. I don't mind being different, and I find my high intelligence quite useful in allowing me to simulate behaviors I see in others but don't have innately because of those autistic tendanceies. I consider myself quite happy compared to those around me. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for my wife who has an IQ substantially higher than mine.
      Firstly, after she was tested the teachers at her school wanted her to do a whole bunch of extra curricula classes after school, it felt like punishment to her.
      Now the biggest problem she faces is dealing with the stupidity she sees around her. She can barely tolerate how slow I am, and is constantly annoyed by the ineptitude of everyone else. She seems to have a problem accepting just how little everyone else understands: always expecting more than what most people are capable of, knowing full well they will disappoint.
      She watches a minimum of three TV shows at once, flicking between them unless she is is doing something else at the same time otherwise she works out the plot too fast. Imagine continually spoiler alerting yourself!
      Given what I would consider is too little information she "guesses" the right answer with a success rate north of 95%, so she is rarely surprised.
      My assessment of her is that she is slightly less than averagely happy, and that is with me doing practically all I can to make her happy.

    19. Re:Define intelligence by StrangeBrew · · Score: 1

      "I do not despise those who can't comprehend the things that I can, no matter how they try. I mean, why should I?" I agree with this statement. What I find difficult to stomach is people who refuse to question things with the intelligence they were born with.

    20. Re:Define intelligence by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Amen!

      --
      Irony included

  2. Ignorance is bliss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which I guess is why children and the senile are happier.

    1. Re:Ignorance is bliss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Point a loaded gun at a playful dog and he'll be all excited by the new game.

    2. Re:Ignorance is bliss by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 2

      Exactly. Point a loaded gun at a playful dog and he'll be all excited by the new game.

      Apropos of little - what I hate most is the happiness of the stupid.

    3. Re: Ignorance is bliss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's why I like to crash mongoloid kids' parties with a homemade flamethrower.

    4. Re:Ignorance is bliss by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Maybe the researchers (or journalists reporting on the article) aren't intelligent enough to realize that correlation does not equal causation. Maybe people who aren't wasting all their time enjoying themselves are both less happy and more intelligent.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    5. Re:Ignorance is bliss by Macman408 · · Score: 1

      Maybe the reason why geniuses are so miserable is because they look around and find themselves surrounded by morons.

    6. Re: Ignorance is bliss by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      Alrighty then, who was it that invited Howard Stern?

    7. Re:Ignorance is bliss by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe the reason why geniuses are so miserable is because they look around and find themselves surrounded by morons.

      Maybe - it (might) be dependent on several things: definition of genius (high level abilities across a range of fields); reaction to competition.

      Not being a genius I'd be guessing - and that'd be ironic given my experience with people who consider me "very intelligent" and then say "I don't understand why you don't waste your abilities" (i.e. why aren't I famous/richer/better fit their stereotype of what "smart" people do). My experience is that the smarter someone is - the less certain they are of their abilities (the more you know, the more you know you don't know). One perception is that society (the average) recognises and rewards those that are not as clever as they claim to be (or good). E.g. Not so smart. If you are so smart why don't you cure cancer/old age? Smarter. Because I can extrapolate. (none of those things would improve the world in which I live) Not so smart You are an idiot.

      As someone mentioned earlier in this thread - expectation is an important component. One of the smartest people I know lives under a bush - his family had high expectations for him and got him scholarships in the "best" schools. Their expectations were that he would do much "better" than them (make more money, get more respect). He thought (correctly) that they were ignorant and relied too much on the opinion of those "who appointed themselves as peers". So he went the the "best" schools - on scholarships offered to raise the academic ratings in order to attract the offspring of the wealthy, and not surprisingly was victimized and did not get to join the exclusive boys clubs. I don't know whether the unrealistic expectations of his family or the first-hand insights into the lives and realities of those who society calls successful, caused him to reject societies expected standards. He's clean and healthy - and one of the happiest people I know.... so I have no reason to doubt he's still very, very smart.

      Some things he's said:- the very smart are a threat to those that are not so smart - so if you're smart, play dumb; the only way to get smarter is to challenge people who are even smarter (so being surrounded by morons might have several effects); most people are too stupid to know how stupid they are; approval is a prison - pick your jailer carefully; most things are without reason or purpose and the dumbest thing is to search for reason where there is none; happiness is a choice; don't ask me - if you can't work it out the answer is valueless.

      My point - if I have one, is that I'm not sure "smarter" people are unhappier because the smartest people I've ever met are not obviously smart (they hide their abilities). There is a myth that those that are much smarter than the average have an advantage - which is like believing that because you have 20 years experience at fighting you can beat someone twice your weight who has no experience. Numbers of people is like the weight of your opponent. It also overlooks the fact that in life we rarely get to chose the games we play - you may be much smarter than your colleagues, but they may have devoted their lives to licking arses - and if you are so much smarter than your boss unless he takes advantage of your superior abilities you are of no greater value than your dumber colleague. You are also more cautious about implementing changes - your dumb colleague is not. Perhaps being smarter means that you are unwilling to shit upstream because of the perceived consequences (you drink that water) - your dumber competition is not so constrained and achieves greater financial success.... Does your extra smart make you aware of this? Does your extra smart make you realise that there is no point in trying to educate your dumber competitor or their customers?

      Tricky..

    8. Re:Ignorance is bliss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the reason why geniuses are so miserable is because they look around and find themselves surrounded by morons.

      It is very depressing both in terms of our outlook to the future and in terms of our empathy of others, I sometimes wonder if this is why people who are significantly above average IQ, tend to lack empathy, because it hurts too much to empathize with so many idiots.

    9. Re:Ignorance is bliss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for saying it!!!

    10. Re:Ignorance is bliss by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Maybe the reason why geniuses are so miserable is because they look around and find themselves surrounded by morons.

      High IQ people are not miserable, they are just not particularly happy. They are about average.

    11. Re:Ignorance is bliss by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Maybe the reason why geniuses are so miserable is because they look around and find themselves surrounded by morons.

      in the country of the blind, the one eyed man better keep his damn mouth shut if he knows what's good for him.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  3. Obligatory Vonnegut Quote by cahuenga · · Score: 0

    Just about every adult human being back then had a brain weighing about three kilogrammes! There was no end to the evil schemes that a thought machine that oversized couldn't imagine and execute.

    So I raise this question, although there is nobody around to answer it: Can it be doubted that three-kilogramme brains were once nearly fatal defects in the evolution of the human race?”

    ~ Kurt Vonnegut, Galápagos

  4. *Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by pla · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well now, this should end up a wonderful thread full of angsty "geniuses" whining about how they can totally identify with the Termites because no one "gets" them.

    1. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well now, this should end up a wonderful thread full of angsty "geniuses" whining about how they can totally identify with the Termites because no one "gets" them.

      But, but, BUT! This isn't at all about brains or geniuses, this is about the lack of a truly objective definition and measure for a "boon"!

    2. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geniuses who talk about their genius rather than their accomplishments are not really geniuses, as intelligence without application is pointless.

      Then again, how could one self-assess the difference between being so smart that people can't follow what they're saying v/s being a really bad communicator who isn't really smart? Compound that with American society, in particular, where everyone's told that they're a winner even if they're not...

    3. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      Geniuses who talk about their genius rather than their accomplishments are not really geniuses, as intelligence without application is pointless.

      Then again, how could one self-assess the difference between being so smart that people can't follow what they're saying v/s being a really bad communicator who isn't really smart? Compound that with American society, in particular, where everyone's told that they're a winner even if they're not...

      Are you aware that some people cannot "talk" about their accomplishments because of where they work?

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    4. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Livius · · Score: 4, Interesting

      intelligence without application is pointless.

      Yet physical beauty without application is highly rewarded.

    5. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by pla · · Score: 1

      What exactly do you want me to notice in the mirror?

      I made no claims about my own intelligence or angst; only a throwaway joking comment about the self-assessed intelligence of the average Slashdotter.

    6. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you aware that some people cannot "talk" about their accomplishments because of where they work?

      As a researcher, I apply Occam's razor and note that it is impossible to tell, in this case, whether the person has accomplishments or not, and therefore I must assume that the simpler and more likely conclusion is that they have no accomplishments to their name.

      In other words, you choose what work you do, don't whine about the consequences. Everyone else made choices too, and they had to face the resulting consequences.

    7. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's not. Do you know any models, or dancers, or anyone else in the performing arts? Even sitting still for a photo takes skill, even if it doesn't seem like it to you. So many beautiful people get thrown out like yesterday's news if they can't hack it, just the "application" is very different than what you're used to. Go tell some random person off the street of how valuable debugging is, and expect them to care.

    8. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I do not know if I qualify as a genius, but I would like to think I am above average in intelligence. I topped my undergraduate class in engineering, scored near perfect score in my GRE (2380/2400, back when it actually included an analytical section with puzzles), and was a graduate student in quantum computing at a top school.

      I subsequently dropped out because I realized two things:

      1. Most of my classmates were really good at the subject (e.g., people who won International Math and Physics Olympiads). They started their PhDs at a really young age, and were almost bored by the coursework. Homework that I would spend a Saturday doing were completed while still in class by these bored teenagers.

      2. Most of them really loved the subject (i.e., people who loved doing physics at the expense of all else, such as dating, money, or having a social life). Or the subject was so easy that they had the time to pursue other things.

      I realized I neither loved physics unconditionally nor was I good enough at it to warrant the pursuit of a PhD, not to mention the subsequent post doc and so on. All this happened at the same time that I fell in love with my now-wife, started a company, and subsequently got into management consulting to make money instead.

      I do not mean to phrase this as a tautology (i.e., doing a PhD is mutually exclusive from making money or having a social life), but in my experience, the biggest sacrifice was watching classmates who were relatively mediocre (in my opinion) get "business" degrees and do exceedingly well in life in terms of money and relationships.

      Most of my cohort completed their PhDs and now have very successful academic careers. I still love math, theoretical physics, and computer science. I keep myself apprised of most of the publications in the field, and occasionally, write a paper or two myself, and I certainly miss the challenge of advanced math and physics. I still envy my peers, and I am sure some of them envy me. But now being in an unhappy relationship, being a parent, having the burdens of a pointless life (the hardest thing I do is a spreadsheet that just helps some fool company make millions of dollars), I question my past choices. So much possibility lay ahead of me, and I gave it all up for what? For a few bucks, beers, and a few lays?

      I'm probably considered successful by the measure of the quintessential American dream -- by ~30, I was a rising star at a top management consulting firm, had over 7 figures to my name, owned a large home in one of the best neighborhoods in Boston, and had a beautiful wife and son. I drove expensive cars, wore bespoke suits and expensive watches, spent time mountaineering in the Alps and the Himalayas, and traveled the world. But still, I always felt that I had missed something. That I will never come ahead of time. That no matter how successful I become in life, I will probably never have a theorem named after me or spend my days basking in the beauty of math.

      No amount of sex or expensive liquor or material goods can equate the joys of just proving a theorem. I will forever have this knowledge, that I could have been more, and chose less. My life now reminds me of a Pink Floyd lyrics -- "Did you exchange a walk-on part in a war for a lead role in a cage?".

    9. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by aristotle-dude · · Score: 0

      What exactly do you want me to notice in the mirror?

      Your hubris.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    10. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Livius · · Score: 1

      Rewarded temporarily is still better than not at all.

    11. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd trade 25 points of IQ for a buff body, conventional beauty, and a 10" dick in a heartbeat.

    12. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well now, this should end up a wonderful thread full of angsty "geniuses" whining about how they can totally identify with the Termites because no one "gets" them.

      Something makes me think that when you were younger you took an IQ test, and it didn't go very well...

      Anyways, if you mean that a "genius" is supposed to become rich, then you're either an idiot, or you don't know what a genius is (and how the world goes). Kanye West makes 1000x the salary of CERN physicists, good luck if you think that he's smarter than them.

    13. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm on television and you're in a fucking trailer, honey."

    14. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Raise children, help them to surpass you and be pleased that you have helped tip the scale of humanity towards the better side of things

    15. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know any models, or dancers, or anyone else in the performing arts? Even sitting still for a photo takes skill, even if it doesn't seem like it to you.

      Calling it "skill" is an insult to human intelligence, and to anyone who graduated in college. It can be acquired in few weeks/months of training. Instead, you need 10 years to become a doctor, 7 to become a lawyer, 7-8 to become a physicist (BSc+PhD).

    16. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm such a good demolishion expert, I could place loads into two twin towers, and cleanly destroy them without killing other NY real estate value, which wasn't cleared for destruction. But unfortunately I can't talk about that with anybody.

    17. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by metlin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can get a buff body with a reasonable workout regimen in less than a year, and many elements of your "looks" can easily be fixed (better hair, wearing contacts, getting teeth fixed, dressing more stylishly).

      If you have game, then your dick size doesn't matter, because history is rife with examples of men with questionable looks and stunning women.

      Ultimately, having good social skills is much more important than any of those things in getting laid.

    18. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 2

      Do you know any models, or dancers, or anyone else in the performing arts? Even sitting still for a photo takes skill, even if it doesn't seem like it to you.

      Calling it "skill" is an insult to human intelligence, and to anyone who graduated in college. It can be acquired in few weeks/months of training. Instead, you need 10 years to become a doctor, 7 to become a lawyer, 7-8 to become a physicist (BSc+PhD).

      Anybody can pose for a photograph looking like a lumpy sack of potatoes. Posing for a photograph and reproducing the body language and visual cues that make people desire you or evoke some emotion in people even when you aren't in the kind of mood you are being asked to portray takes a certain talent. Call it social intelligence or whatever but being able to fake body language, moods and emotions is definitely a skill and therefore models and actors are highly socially and emotionally skilled individuals. The reason people who possess a high degree of the analytic/academic intelligence that makes them good physicists, mathematicians, chemists, programmers, etc... is that this kind of intelligence often seems to be inversely proportional with social skills, and therefore social and emotional skills tend to be a skill set such people hold in contempt. This is also why highly intelligent people usually make absolutely horrendous teachers which is ironic because they often also the first to pull out some phrase like "those who can't do, teach" whenever somebody exposes their utter incompetence in social interactions when in reality that axiom should be "just because you have a 180 IQ, it does not mean that you automatically have the social skills required to teach people how teach".

    19. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gisele Bündchen might disagree with her about 30-50 million dollar salary over the recent years, including times of financial crises.

    20. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok fine, I understand, you had problems with math at school, so you're "socially intelligent" instead. This doesn't change the fact that posing for photos does not require a skillset that is even comparable with a PhD in physics or an MD. Not to mention that in general the photographer is the one who needs the "skillset", not the models, they just do the facial expression they are told to do, they don't need creativity of their own. Same story for pop singers, most actors and TV presenters.

      By the way, this doesn't mean that the show-business is "worse" than anything else. Unfortunately, most businesses don't require "intelligence" as the main quality to succeed, usually being member of some lobbying group is the most relevant thing, or being born in a rich family. I can hardly name a job where intelligence is the main thing: probably only academic research (and not even in all fields) and professional chess playing. So the show-business is not necessarily the black sheep of the economy, it's just the sad norm.

    21. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by metlin · · Score: 1

      I wish I could mod this comment up. There is nothing more joyful than giving your children the opportunities that you never had, and helping them accomplish their own success.

    22. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You deserve better, but only if you decide to.

      If you study great people in history, many of them came out surprisingly late in life. Very very few had a linear evolution from child prodigy to their respective accomplishments. With a 70-80+ potential year life span today, there are more possibilities than ever before.

      Most important: What do YOU WANT? Helping running a company must mean you know about priorities. Do you dare to apply that experience to your own life?

      Just stop hiding.. Stop it. And the self-pity. The "easy" route is never satisfactory and there's no score at the end.

      You don't owe it to anyone else but yourself.

    23. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a world where 20,000 children die of poverty every day, not every child is able to "accomplish success". Myself, since I'm here I try to make the best of it. But, if I could get on a time machine phone and tell my parents to use protection, I would. I don't blame my parents for my existence, per se, they were young and foolish when they brought me into the world. But when I hear someone ramble on about the "gift of life", I want to punch them in the face.

    24. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish I could mod this comment up. There is nothing more joyful than giving your children the opportunities that you never had, and helping them accomplish their own success.

      For that you would have to be with a woman first. This is beyond most geeks for some reason.

    25. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No amount of sex or expensive liquor or material goods can equate the joys of just proving a theorem.

      I think you have some real academic potential in the Social Sciences! Can I be the first volunteer to enroll in a long term study of your theory -- perchance with some hot and not-too-bright undergrads chicksters? I'll do the "prove a theorum part" when I just can't take the unhappiness any more :)

    26. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know any models, or dancers, or anyone else in the performing arts? Even sitting still for a photo takes skill, even if it doesn't seem like it to you.

      Calling it "skill" is an insult to human intelligence, and to anyone who graduated in college. It can be acquired in few weeks/months of training. Instead, you need 10 years to become a doctor, 7 to become a lawyer, 7-8 to become a physicist (BSc+PhD).

      Anybody can pose for a photograph looking like a lumpy sack of potatoes. Posing for a photograph and reproducing the body language and visual cues that make people desire you or evoke some emotion in people even when you aren't in the kind of mood you are being asked to portray takes a certain talent. Call it social intelligence or whatever but being able to fake body language, moods and emotions is definitely a skill and therefore models and actors are highly socially and emotionally skilled individuals. The reason people who possess a high degree of the analytic/academic intelligence that makes them good physicists, mathematicians, chemists, programmers, etc... is that this kind of intelligence often seems to be inversely proportional with social skills, and therefore social and emotional skills tend to be a skill set such people hold in contempt. This is also why highly intelligent people usually make absolutely horrendous teachers which is ironic because they often also the first to pull out some phrase like "those who can't do, teach" whenever somebody exposes their utter incompetence in social interactions when in reality that axiom should be "just because you have a 180 IQ, it does not mean that you automatically have the social skills required to teach people how teach".

      I do not believe this is what it appears to be on it's surface. The idea that someone being very skilled at left brained things does not necessarily indicate that they are not also skilled at right brained activities or activities that are centered on cerebral activities versus activities that involve the limbic or old brain. I find it interesting that those who have a more rounded skill set have expended more work and have a much more rich experience but are not the typical "Geek" or "Nerd" stereotype, because they have sidestepped the trappings of those paradigms while demonstrating a superior usage of those skills and more rich types of intelligence. I suspect you are right that for some who have had limited success in just intellectual topics, while having no success in social or emotional realms make inaccurate statements that most people with no perception of cerebral intelligence accept as "how things are" when the statements such as "Those who can't teach" are just ego defense mechanisms from a nerd who can master calculus but can't interact with normal people around him. (Read: a nerd being defined here as a person with a high IQ and low EQ and high Autism Quotient.) Most are not even aware that there is an emotional type of intelligence and social intelligence as well as purely cerebral intelligence. Despite this the same rules apply to everyone in terms of psychology, ID, Ego and superego. (Everyone wakes up in the morning and is faced with the same competition between doing what feels good (ID), Doing what looks good (Ego) and doing what is good (Super Ego) and when the alarm clock rings in the morning they all fight it out.)

      I find it unfortunate that in America being smart has been pigeonholed into requiring someone to be a nerd or geek, (stereotype) rather than anyone being able to have that facility and have a normal life or above average life in other areas. (This does not mean that having a well rounded life won't draw resentment or jealousy from the stereotypical nerds who would erroneously look at such a well rounded intelligent person and judge them to be less intelligent because they have a normal social life, can stand up for themselves around competitive people without it rattling them and know how to trea

    27. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Prune · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The converse side of this coin is that such great expectations can become a burden on the children (or the one "target" child), even if the parent tries to avoid being pushy about it -- a lot gets across that is never said directly, and even through the mere implication of a future look of disappointment on one's face.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    28. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Prune · · Score: 1

      You're mistaken. Physical beauty is usually manifested from early on, when personality is still being shaped. Most that possess it come to deeply rely on it, and are ill-prepared for when, by middle age, its short shelf life becomes readily apparent.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    29. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not about grades, it is about what one person knows and how they apply their knowledge, I am not an expert in anything I do so this means I always learn from my mistakes and also the things I do that are right and correct!

      We all make choices but do we learn from the results of the choice? If we do not then we do not learn and if we do not learn then we do not grow! I know I use lots of small words here but if I said for i in 1 2 3 4 x y z; do a job; for this a or job ; done would you understand? the brain is trained in many ways some understand what a computer wants and other are totally lost with the thought.....

    30. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    31. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to what government is doing by stealing from those who are too young to vote and from those not yet born, as well as ripping away freedoms our ancestors fought hard to preserve.

      They need to be stopped.

    32. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think sitting for a photo is hard work that requires skill, wait until you reach high school! You ain't seen nothing yet.

    33. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Idou · · Score: 1

      Don't take this the wrong way. This is for your own good, but. . . get over yourself. You stopped being happy as soon as you stopped seeing yourself as an underdog. You are a hairless monkey that occasionally leaves shit stains on your underwear. Be happy that you can feed yourself without help and without getting most of the shit you stuff your face hole with all over your lap. Your "I am awesome but I could have been so much more awesome" lament shows the true reason you are not happy. You are clueless. The dumbest humans are so, so much smarter than the monkeys with fur. The difference between the smartest and dumbest human is just a rounding error in respect to that. "Smart" people are so unhappy because they forget how "stupid" they really are. "Stupid" people are happier because they are more realistic about their lot in life. Understand that if you accomplished anything worth noting in this very big universe, it was being a little less stupid than your genetics and environment destined you to be. Forgetting that you are an underdog is becoming a self-entitled SOB who wastes precious time lamenting about forgone endless potential. . .

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    34. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like your life would be great if you could solve the problems with your marriage. And from what you've said, that seems possible. Try the method in the article (feel free to skip/ignore the one paragraph about God), or consult a marriage therapist (they're not just for couples on the point of divorcing!)

      http://www.richardpaulevans.com/saved-marriage/

    35. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will forever have this knowledge, that I could have been more, and chose less.

      I never thought of myself as being particularly smart, but if you're willing to accept a question and a bit of advice from an idiot then might I ask why you care so much about what other people think or whether you're remembered by your former classmates? In a hundred years, nobody will remember them either and nobody will care. My advice would be to stop agonizing over what might have been and learn to enjoy what you still have in the time you have left. Of course, I'm an idiot so what do I know, right?

    36. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by J-1000 · · Score: 1

      I really like your observations, and I agree with the main part of it: It's better to follow your interests and commit yourself to excellence than it is to follow the money. That said, don't assume that you'd be any happier. More fulfilled in that one particular area, certainly. One thing I don't like about Hollywood is the constant preaching that "following your dreams" is the ultimate point in life. It's not. Don't let yourself be suckered into what ifs and regrets.

      I also wonder why we allow society to limit us so much. You have probably retained most of what you knew back then. You have money to pay the bills. Why not pick up where you left off? What's stopping you? Get into academics.

    37. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Alternately, get University yearbooks with all their MBA graduates, and methodically hunt down and kill each one, to also tip the scale of humanity towards the better side of things. The next guy can work their way through derivative traders. Next up could be upper management of the 10 largest banks and investment houses.

      Or even just kill every second one, and leave a note for the ones you don't kill saying you are watching them.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    38. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by davester666 · · Score: 1

      This process may have to be repeated periodically, because these industries tend to not have a very long-term memory. Maybe start with every 5 years and go from there.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    39. Re: *Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet a model will make more money in 5 years than you shit genius will ever dream about in your entire life. Who's got the fucking brains now, loser? Hunh? Still bitter about being shunnedcand bullied all through school while dreaming of your big revenge? All alone, miserable and with no hope to find a mate, ever. Sucks to be you. Have you considered suicide?

    40. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calling it "skill" is an insult to human intelligence, and to anyone who graduated in college. It can be acquired in few weeks/months of training. Instead, you need 10 years to become a doctor, 7 to become a lawyer, 7-8 to become a physicist (BSc+PhD).

      I've got five college degrees, including a PhD. I was the AC that you're complaining about. I guess I'm insulting... me?

      I've also been dancing competitively for 10 years. And man, do I freaking suck compared to those out there that practice five hours a day, every freaking day. We call this the "application" part, that you're skipping over so quickly.

    41. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by eulernet · · Score: 1

      What is happiness for you ?

      Is it earning a lot of money ? Having a beautiful wife ? Building a family ? Succeeding in business ? Possessing expensive objects ? Travelling around the world ?
      Solving difficult mathematical problems, and be known for that ? Having lot of sex with beautiful partners ? Drinking the most expensive alcohol ? Having good kids ? Helping others ?

      In fact, you are seeking for pleasures and not for happiness.
      Of course, you can find a lot of pleasures in life, in a lot of various ways. But what is happiness ?

      Happiness is very easy to achieve, since it's not related to the outside.
      It can be reached when you feel at peace, for example when you had an orgasm (but this sentiment vanishes quickly).

      Your problem is that you are thinking too much, and that's the curse of the intellectually gifted.
      If I did that, or that, or even that, could my life have been better ?
      The answer is: NO !
      Why are you doing all these things ? Do you seek recognition or fame ?

      I'll give you a little technique, which doesn't require meditation (although it would tremendously help in your case, but meditation is difficult when you are so obsessed with your thoughts):
      act without expectation

      This is called Karma Yoga, and the goal is to purify your mental from expectations.
      Since you seem to have plenty of money, it should be easy for you.

      In your job, work without expecting promotion nor bonus (but you still have to be paid !).
      If you want to help others, do it without expecting thanks from them.
      If you don't want to help others, it's also fine.
      Do things that you love during your free time.
      If you can have a job from that passion, I'm jealous ;-)
      In fact, when you receive a promotion/gift/thanks, be thankful and surprised.

      Discover your passions, what you can do without focusing on money.
      Focus on your inside, instead of your outside.
      When you'll stop focusing on the outside, on expecting something from your actions, you'll discover that happiness is here and now, not elsewhere and in the future or in the past.
      Good luck !

    42. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by eulernet · · Score: 1

      No, this won't work.

      Why should they surpass you ? What happens if they don't have the ability to surpass you ?

      Even if you do your best in education, your children may become thugs.
      Or they can reject your education, since you want them so much to succeed.

      Also, if you believe you're helping mankind, I think you are thinking a little too high of yourself. Do your feet touch the ground ?

      Why not simply make them feel loved unconditionally ?
      Punish them when needed.

      Help them develop their own talents, not yours.
      What do they like to do ? Do you even care ?
      Is "success" so necessary for them ?

    43. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No amount of sex or expensive liquor or material goods can equate the joys of just proving a theorem. I will forever have this knowledge, that I could have been more, and chose less. My life now reminds me of a Pink Floyd lyrics -- "Did you exchange a walk-on part in a war for a lead role in a cage?".

      No offense, not to be callous...if you have 7 figures and can't make time you are just spoiled brat whining.

      Does your fancy science and math work need lots of funding/experiments/research/test equipment/a laboratory?

      I am on the outside looking in, just being straight with you -- what's the hold up?

      I mean, some of us people digging through thousands of "rat holes" (who also love Mencken) and being "just curious" about various things...we would kill for some "social assistance" so that we may do "science and technology" and other research. We sacrifice commercial gains and lots of things, just to do interesting and challenging work, because at the work place we are bored to tears, and we value time more. I would probably be a student for life, if I could afford it.

      re:

      I would rather that we spend the money we spend on social programs on science and technology.

      You have it completely backwards. For some of us (I may be an exception, I make no claims of being "bright" or "useful") we prefer independent research for the most part...your "social programs" are still that, even if you call it "science and technology" funding. It is just conditioning and being led on a leash by commercial interests who don't give 2 craps about me, my life, or my research. They do enjoy mooching off of the taxpayer instead of having to actually compete.

      If you want independent science and technology research, and to help those of us with

      almost pathological thirst to penetrate the unknown, to uncover the secret

      then you should encourage generic "social programs" with as little strings attached as possible.

      Now, you may well say, without certification/degree/experience in the field, anyone could call themselves a "scientific investigator" and just mooch off of handouts their whole life.

      If your "scientific research" is simply "do what other people tell you to do, when they tell you to do it, how they tell you to do it" I submit we need less of that.

      Not for "social justice" not for "world peace" but for independent research and more thorough probing of "rat holes."

      You are being counter-productive. All you want is control over who does scientific research. If you truly wanted scientific research and thorough spelunking of rat holes, you would not be concerned how the money is spent, who it goes to, who qualifies for it, etc.

      Give me your 7 figures if you don't want them. I will not disown you, but others would kill to be in your spot, for 3 figures even, and don't you forget it. No, I am not joking.

      Desperate people do desperate things. I do not have debt, just am completely unimpressed with the "workplace" and comfortable enough for the time being to get some research done.

      Not to be callous; if you want to fund me, I don't need you guiding me or telling me what is "important" to reseach. I will take your opinions into consideration (even someone with no knowledge of the subject, I don't mind hearing people out or bouncing ideas off of them) but it sounds like you just like controlling other people through the tax code, you don't really care about science and technology at all.

    44. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do appreciate your bluntness, nothing personal.

      The vast majority of people on earth would say "7 figures, STFU" so I don't mean to imply that is how I feel, I really don't care how much money you have.

      Just FYI, give you a taste of reality.

      Only on Slashdot ... "I have 7 figures, but am unfulfilled" ... not trying to be a dick...everyone goes through that.

      Take a fucking risk then. If it doesn't have the possibility of death or going bankrupt, you aren't trying hard enough.

      I am only half joking. How old are you? Are you 70 and done for?

      Seriously, grab a note book and start working on whatever it is that interests you. Hit the library or interwebs and get cracking. Are those nagging wife and kids holding you back?

      I just am not sure what the delay is. Did you blow your 7 figures, long gone?

      I am a bit scatterbrained, but when something truly interests me, I drop everything to find it out.

      I take lots of notes, bounce around researching lots of topics, need some variety to keep from being bored.

    45. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by ruir · · Score: 1

      i was also "diagnosed" with higher IQ in my twenties. The fact is that I had always been lazy, and what I accomplished easily took my sis or my mates 3 or 4 times the effort. To this date I have always been able to pick up any difficulties thrown along the way. I have also been an expat for years. Have I been worrying about a postdoc or whatever? No way. it is not worthy the effort. Mostly it is just a scam. Do you know to be rubber-stamped by a bunch of peers to realize your full potential? You surely are jesting me sir. As for happiness, intelligence does come with burdens. You realize much quicker the shit people and the establishment are trowing at you. Often you also do not worry about so other stuff that people take for granted. You also see through the lies of politics and religion or organised "sports". Need I say more?

    46. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure I buy the whole story, with the crescendo and all, but OK, I'll bite.

      I had the same reservations in grad school and decided to stick with science. There too were fellow students whose ability to solve problems almost immediately and without any apparent effort made me wonder why the admission committee even bothered to include me. There was the infuriating social context into which women entered only on an imaginary plane. And on the other side there were exciting business opportunities, with dizzying pay off perspectives and a vibrant social scene that somehow was just as endemic to a well-to-do international business as lonely men were to grad school. And so I was very tempted to get on a next flight out of this Boston misery, and infuse my life with excitement, luxury and much needed romance.

      I knew that I preferred working on scientific problems over anything else, but wasn't willing to give up on the rest of my life for that. Then, on one of the few side trips that I took to explore the business opportunities, I ended up meeting an amazing girl. I convinced her to move to Boston to live with me and I thought that the rest of that town could then go to hell - I have what I need. Focused on science, started a postdoc, stopped doing commercial gigs on the side. The girl split half way through - apparently living with a fellow who makes a postdoc salary and puts in crazy postdoc hours is not that much fun. I decided to cure my heartbreak by working even more. Got a top faculty spot in the same damn town, giving up that sunny California once again. Running your lab required even more work, including a lot of unpleasant crap like begging for money from various government and private funds.

      The science itself is still loads of fun, and although I am not at all sure that they'll name anything after me, I am sure it's worth doing. But I never found a woman to marry, and even though I'd very much like to have kids, the prospects of starting a normal family are rapidly diminishing with every year. I feel like I've robbed myself of a key part of my life so far, and likely set myself up for a very miserable second half.

    47. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dont feel that way, sometimes is better to to give the humans sacred knowledge they only use it to destroy and kill, Einstein once said if he had know waht they would do with nuclear knowledge he'd rather would have been shoe repairer. So feel better, maybe just your save all our planet, the humans are not ready yet for advanced knowledge, they have first to advance in an spiritual level they are still separated by countries idioms and ideas they are not ready yet. just enjoy the travel and yes help others that makes you feel much much better :)

    48. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not disagreeing with you, just adding more detail -- the thing is: Women are people too, and even the really stunning women are still the same value of people as the less well endowed.

      Granted, there's a lot of flings and lusts that follow up immediately on appearances, but that's not really the whole story -- especially if you're looking for a longer term relationship. You'll notice how a lot of the great looking couples end up having their relationship explode spectacularly because they hooked up solely on the basis of "Wow we both look hot".

      If looking good were just a commodity to be traded then only the best looking men (Or those with some other notable asset) would have a chance. But since what you really should do to find a lasting relationship with that really beautiful woman is connect with her as a person...

    49. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Baki · · Score: 1

      I do love my children, I don't regret that we had them and would do it again.
      However, I fail to see how someone could regard children as the goal of their life.

      If the meaning of your life depends on your children, then the meaning of their lives must depend on the meaning of their children, etc. etc.
      So in the end the meaning comes from the last generation of humans that will ever exist?

      I think one must (try to) find meaning in ones own life.

    50. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by ruir · · Score: 1

      Bullshit talk detector on. Are you a consultant, btw? sales?

    51. Re: *Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet a model will make more money in 5 years than you shit genius will ever dream about in your entire life.

      I sincerely doubt it, at least if we exclude VS models or similar (0.01% of models). As a physician, I have had several models as patients. They usually have the least expensive insurance packages with high deductibles, especially when they are 30 or older, when their careers are basically over and they suddenly find out that they might become beggars very soon. One even asked me if a particular treatment could be cheaper in Mexico.

      Yours is the classic, desperate post from the typical "socially intelligent" (read: mentally challenged) jerk who ended up having a "creative" career at 10$ per hour. That's what happens to your life when you vomit before math tests.

    52. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firstly, assuming that what you say it's true (...), you just proved that professional dancing skills can be reached even if it's just a hobby: you did 10 years of "competitive" dancing and you got 5 degrees at the same time. I guess it must not be that hard to be a "competitive" dancer...

      Secondly, College/PhD students work more than 5 hours a day, and quite frankly they tease their brain far more than a dancer. Practice makes perfect only in some fields. All physics PhDs, with the appropriate commitment, could become dancers, but not vice-versa. That's the difference between commitment and intelligence.

    53. Re: *Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet a model will make more money in 5 years than you shit genius will ever dream about in your entire life. Who's got the fucking brains now, loser? Hunh? Still bitter about being shunnedcand bullied all through school while dreaming of your big revenge? All alone, miserable and with no hope to find a mate, ever. Sucks to be you. Have you considered suicide?

      Let me guess: major in humanities or - even worse - college dropout. Now intern or employee in some show-business company (mailing room in a talent agency? Powerpoint slides in a fashion company?) . 40K a year, no hope to make more unless you become a kike, a gay, or a similar wreckage. And you have to wash your boss' car.

      Darling, YOU should commit suicide. And you've probably already thought about it many times.

    54. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by __aabppq7737 · · Score: 1

      society

    55. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      People who (uninvited) talk about their accomplishments are boors.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    56. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by someoneOtherThanMe · · Score: 1

      If the meaning of your life depends on your children, then the meaning of their lives must depend on the meaning of their children, etc. etc.

      Exactly. Because the species with other priorities went extinct already.

    57. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Well now, this should end up a wonderful thread full of angsty "geniuses" whining about how they can totally identify with the Termites because no one "gets" them.

      It's the geek equivalent of teenage girls moaning about how hard it is to be beautiful, and how they wish they could be plain like their friends, who have really great personalities.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    58. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by werepants · · Score: 1

      What do you really want out of life? There is nothing more enduring than fundamental contributions to human knowledge. Newton's laws will be remembered at least as long as this civilization lasts, but who was the king of England while he was developing the Principia? Few people know or care, outside of historians.

      So, if you want to make a lasting contribution to humanity, devoting your life to knowledge is the best hope you have. That said, I'm not convinced that making a lasting contribution to humanity inherently makes your life more meaningful or worthwhile... lots of people have done so and still managed to be miserable.

      The meaning of life is something we must define for ourselves... the fact that you seem unsatisfied suggests that you are pursuing things that aren't very meaningful to you. Resources clearly aren't a problem, so why not give them up and start working in physics? I for one would rather spend my whole life being moderately gifted at something I love than being tremendously successful at something I don't care for.

      Viktor Frankl's writings might be very useful to you - Man's Search for Meaning in particular.

    59. Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* by phorm · · Score: 1

      history is rife with examples of men with questionable looks and stunning women

      How many of those had average income?

  5. Krugman seems pretty happy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As do many fucking idiots who believe they're intelligent.

    1. Re:Krugman seems pretty happy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAHAHAHAHHA. Best comment in weeks.

  6. Re:Can High Intelligence Be a Burden Rather Than . by pla · · Score: 2

    That... That looks like English...

  7. hmm... by dale.furno · · Score: 1

    Set children apart and tell them they are better than the rest and be surprised when they fail to live up to their perceived expectations...

    1. Re:hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And on the other hand, take kids and tell them they won't amount to anything. Some will take it as a challenge and rise to great heights to prove you wrong. Others will believe what they were told and won't reach their potential.

  8. The third factor by Bo'Bob'O · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I surely wouldn't qualify as one of the 'termites' in the study, but there still things in my life I take to quickly. There is a third metric that I am in my coming to respect even more: motivation and inspiration.

    There is a big difference between having the ability to do something, having the need to do something, and having a want and drive to do something. That last one seems to get people much further then being at the very top in intelligence. It also provides a framework of interaction and social connection between peers, if it is truly a passion.

    So maybe it takes being the best and brightest to be first chair violinist in a prestigious symphony, but being brilliant alone won't get you there. Meanwhile hundreds of others have a long and successful career they make out of their perseverance.

    1. Re:The third factor by Bo'Bob'O · · Score: 1

      And just to be clear on my point, I do not think it's something more then just something that can be given, and may even be something that can be measured.

      Yes, fear of an authority figure is one motivation, or want of money, but I don't think that it's capital M Motivation.

    2. Re:The third factor by radtea · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You've likely encountered this quote, but it bears repeating:

      Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race. -- Calvin Coolidge, 30th president of US (1872 - 1933)

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    3. Re:The third factor by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      The ones with the drive and motivation generally exploit the genius of the highly intelligent. Knowledge is a tool but it takes someone who knows how to use that tool.

    4. Re:The third factor by NixieBunny · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Happiness has a lot to do with attitude. I find that being generally happy is easy if you use your abilities to put yourself into situations that make you happy. I used to work for a place that got to be more and more like Dilbert. Instead of drowning in it, I broke loose and made a new life, using my brains to create interesting, fun things. I found part-time work in the sciences, and have extra time to make wacky inventions and volunteer with kids, teaching them how to do similar things. I am careful to take on projects only if they are likely to make me happier. The latest was building the red telephone for this...

      --
      The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
    5. Re:The third factor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Outside of my 'passion' I have pretty much 0 drive.

      Mow the lawn meh, maybe tomorrow
      Wash the car meh, maybe tomorrow
      Fill out that report meh, maybe tomorrow
      Yet another purchase order meh, maybe tomorrow

      Write 3000 lines of code discarding 20k, and it runs 3 cycles faster and removes 2 race conditions? HELL YEAH.

      The problem I have is other people ARE passionate about the above things and think I will be too. Even though I can do all the above things very well. I know my passion is very specialized and accept that not many others care about it. But many do not realize my passion is not theirs. That is the curse of 'being smart' you think everyone thinks like you. You have to realize no they don't. They think because I have passion for one thing it will boil over to others. It doesn't. I do those other things because they need to be done. Not because I care.

    6. Re:The third factor by responsibleusername · · Score: 2

      I would tend to agree. I think that having kids take IQ tests early in life and putting stress on them to succeed purely because a number is a terrible idea, which has happened to a number of people I know. Several people I knew in highschool that had high IQ's and were expected to do great things went into fields they had no passion for (engineering, aeronautics, etc) just because they were pressured to and had the grades to do. Most (or maybe all) ended up dropping out, or switching to something they actually were passionate about. You can't force it, and a high IQ is not all it takes.

    7. Re:The third factor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a third metric that I am in my coming to respect even more: motivation and inspiration.

      I dunno about that. I've met some highly motivated idiots before and they can make quite a mess.

    8. Re:The third factor by chipschap · · Score: 1

      I lived in North Dakota for a while. Just about everyone worked on their yard, their house, etc. and thought that everyone else should do and be the same. For instance, the first weekend in April everyone raked up their yards. There might still be some snow on the ground, but it was the first weekend of April and raking your yard was what you DID. Period. And so on.

      I didn't do those things. I would rather read or do stuff on the computer or go for long bike rides in summer. I didn't fit the norm. But the thing was, while I was perfectly willing to understand that others could have different motivations and priorities, they wouldn't think the same way about me.

      Before you assume that my yard was an eyesore and the house a wreck--- I hired out that work. Someone painted for me. Someone mowed for me. But that wasn't good enough, because I refused to be the same as everyone else.

      So this is sort of the opposite of what the poster above is saying. I didn't think everyone thinks like me --- everyone else thought I should have thought like them.

    9. Re:The third factor by pem · · Score: 1

      Classic ADHD. I was just diagnosed myself, a few months ago, and I'm 54.

    10. Re:The third factor by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

      People frequently mistake not giving a shit for ADHD. Two very different things.

    11. Re:The third factor by johnrpenner · · Score: 1

      i have to agree with your observations — i have a friend, who is very intelligent and gifted, yet he lacks motivation, and gets nowhere.
      without the fire within, none shines without.

    12. Re:The third factor by pem · · Score: 1

      Actually, the thing is that people often don't understand that for many, if not most, with ADHD, the "deficit" in ADHD is not for all things -- just for things that the "sufferer" doesn't give a shit about.

    13. Re:The third factor by NicBenjamin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Who was a better engineer, Lee Felsestein or Woz? Hard to say. Woz was an unparalleled genius in getting less chips to do the same thing who designed the first popular computer system from chips to OS personally, Felsenstein did pretty much the same thing for one of the first trult portable computers.

      Who have the kids heard of? Woz, because he was attached to a genius salesman with the drive to succeed, and they brought in a really smart businessman (Markkula) to do the technical finance/manufacturing shit. Felsenstein is totally unknown because he was attached to Adam Osborne, whose tendency to convince the press that the next great Osborne Computer was so good everybody should wait for it (and nobody should buy the current computer) coined the phrase "he osborned it" when the company went bankrupt.

      IQ is somewhat important in determining whether you're a success, but there are so many other aspects that are more important. Networking, including the network you get at birth from your parents/neighborhood/elementary school; emotional ability to work with other people; etc. are at least as important as IQ score.

    14. Re:The third factor by minstrelmike · · Score: 2

      I think it's pretty damned easy to tell how smart someone is, child or adult, after being with them for a few hours.
      Smart people don't really need to give tests to determine this (within a reasonable range).
      If you can't tell how smart someone is without a test, I'll bet I can predict your own IQ test score ;-)

    15. Re:The third factor by goarilla · · Score: 1

      Isn't that normal. I wouldn't call being bad at something you don't like a disease.
      I worked through high-school French but it never stuck, never for the lack of trying though.
      Am I a ADHD patient ?

    16. Re:The third factor by penguinoid · · Score: 2

      Even worse, intelligent people may be more easily bored, and there is a whole boatload of boring things that are necessary for success.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    17. Re:The third factor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have ADD and I can't even do the things I want to do: study, practice music, programming projects, start learning electronics, brush my teeth, kill myself...

    18. Re:The third factor by Bengie · · Score: 1

      If you have no peers, you can get lonely and no amount of attitude can completely help a human who is lonely.

    19. Re:The third factor by quintessencesluglord · · Score: 1

      Too much of being even moderately bright is banging your head against convention and a society that doesn't cater to you, but the lowest common denominator. A lot of motivation is simply having the will to work out a better method and hoping others will adopt it. Mostly they don't, and remember these are the same people by whom you judge your success. As one of my instructors put it, it doesn't matter if you are the smartest person in the world if no one else glimpses the horizon you see.

      Even the very brightest have their determination beat out of them simply because they realize how pointless it is. The best and brightest mostly don't rise to the top. They simply create defensive strategies to get by as best as possible on their own terms, and display their intellect in ways that doesn't get much reward or attention unless it is furthering the status quo.

    20. Re:The third factor by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Procrastination isn't necessarily part of ADD (if it is at all.)

      Procrastinators tend to see the entire job all at once, see it is a shitload of work, and just say fuck it.

      Break it down into smaller chunks and do just one, and it's easier.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    21. Re:The third factor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that normal. I wouldn't call being bad at something you don't like a disease.
      I worked through high-school French but it never stuck, never for the lack of trying though.
      Am I a ADHD patient ?

      Not likely Goarilla, though it is possible, It would take a professional assessment from a psychologist or doctor to determine that conclusively.

      People frequently mistake not giving a shit for ADHD. Two very different things.

      It is not so much about "giving a shit" (or perhaps it is for some to a point Oligonicella..) as you put it, but being able to recognize and respond to things in a timely manner and if needed, with the appropriate urgency. This can either be from a mental deficit due to ADD or ADHD, and being overwhelmed or it can be from a misjudgment about which things are important and the conflicts that come from them. In psychology generally, doctors look at it like this in terms of the taxonomy of what areas someone can have problems in and what treatment is most appropriate.

      Areas:

      1- Biology
      2- Psychology
      3- Life Stresses

      There are a lot of ways these three things can manifest uniquely as a problem area. If you have a life stress, drugs are not usually the ideal solution, same with psychology problems (IE how you run your brain as a matter of life skill and habits. ) Usually counseling and a change of personal approaches and habits are the correct solution for life stresses and psychology problems. If the problem is of a biological nature, IE a brain chemical imbalance.. it is a hardware problem and you have to treat that as such with drugs, as rarely does a software change (psychology solution or life stress solution ) make effective compensation for a hardware problem. (Fortunately the human brain is a lot more flexible and more forgiving and adaptable than computer hardware. )

      The messed up things here are twofold:

      1-If a life stress goes on for too long, it can start to affect your psychology and if that change in psychology goes on for too long it can start to affect one's biology.
      2- Very often (too often in my view) the wrong solution is applied to a problem when there is a solution for it which would be a better fit, IE Treating a life stress problem with drugs, as opposed to changes in habits or mental paradigms. This is sometimes where addictions come from, they make the problem feel better, but do not solve the actual problem and in doing so, cause other problems. (A doctors first priority is to "do no harm", as is stated in the Hippocratic oath.)

      Actually, the thing is that people often don't understand that for many, if not most, with ADHD, the "deficit" in ADHD is not for all things -- just for things that the "sufferer" doesn't give a shit about.

      Based on the other "ADHD is indistinguishable from not giving a shit" commentary I have above, I would say that:

      1- Sometimes what is referred to as ADHD is a biological brain chemistry problem that is best dealt with by prescribing medication.
      2- Sometimes what is referred to as ADHD is a psychological problem that requires the child (or adult) being given training to learn to mentally change gears appropriately to get things done more efficiently in their lives, or know when it is appropriate to change gears. (as one example of a learning and behavior change.)
      3- Sometime what is referred to as ADHD is not actually ADHD at all, but is something that is happening in the environment and either the person is unaware or as you say, does not give enough of a shit, to notice or account for in their behavior. (Such as a C student wanting to just get a passing grade in a class they don't care about, and the teacher being more masochistic about grading that particular student, based on perceived effort.) It is not a problem to be treated with drugs but by talking.

      All of these situation could be misconstrued as ADHD or ADD and be treated with drugs, but only in about 33.33333333% of

    22. Re:The third factor by RobinH · · Score: 1

      There is some truth to this. I am a "successful" programmer (in my opinion, since I get paid to do it and people are generally happy with the results). My job every day consists of a series of frustrating problems where the solution is not obvious, but I'm sure it should be possible to solve it. A 3rd party library causes a heap corruption about once a week, or customers refuse to send data files in a consistent format. The print spooler service keeps stopping.

      People come to me with the *simplest* of problems, and they can't even be bothered to type their question into Google, let alone *read* the results that come up! Most people aren't even willing to try it or learn for themselves, just waiting for someone's permission, I guess.

      "It just doesn't work" is such a commonly repeated phrase, right next to "the Internet's not working". What doesn't work? Did you try doing it like this? Did it work yesterday? Has it ever worked? Can anyone else get it to work? Don't you want to know how it works? Do you even want it to work, or are you just relieved that you have something external to blame for why you couldn't get your work done?

      Seriously, the key to success is just not giving up when you know something's possible.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    23. Re:The third factor by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      First up and most importantly of all, the measure of success of the ignorant and the measure of success of the intelligent are worlds apart. So yeah, I have a bunch of Bananas or I have more Bananas than everyone else, might work for monkeys but it does not work for intelligent people, nor does striving to achieve marketed definitions of success when you can see through the marketing (ignorance is bliss right up until they shut the gas chamber door and start pumping in you final breath). Now having a very broad sense of humour about all of that crap and that tied into the certainty of the 'LACK' of immortality of the vehicle of you temporary entrapment, it's demands must be met, else you do suffer in many ways, will provide many opportunities for humour and happiness not that you will often bother to share that with others, they will often take offence at the reason for your humour.

      There is deeper meaning to. Have as much fun as possible, whilst causing the least amount of harm possible. Added to Annoy those that break the first rule, apparently it's necessary but don't forget to have fun whilst doing it. And of course Care and share in the wonders and joy of life. Winning at life, is most definitely not winning at greed not matter what the psychopaths say (they can never be happy as they lack that emotional ability regardless of the lies they express about it).

      Happiness in more intelligent people, a measure of their sense of humour as balanced against the level of destructive deceit the can see and understand in the society of which they are a part. If you believe the sewer you are wallowing in is paradise, you'll likely be happy, however if you see the sewer for what it is, unless to have a sufficiently wry sense of humour, you likely will be unhappy. There are of course a range of intoxicating agents to re-introduce you to the world of bliss in ignorance of your youth, even if only temporarily so and fuck all those ignorant annoying ass hats who would deny that escape from them and their offensive nasty attitudes and behaviours. Greed the only measure of success, well, fuck that, I mean how persistent do you really need to be, to be able to light up a joint ;D.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    24. Re:The third factor by pem · · Score: 1
      > I wouldn't call being bad at something you don't like a disease.

      I wouldn't either. And I don't call ADHD a disease, but it's not what you describe. The typical ADHDer either would love French and (assuming his ADHD does not coexist alongside learning disabilities) learn it really well, or hate it and not bother.

    25. Re:The third factor by pem · · Score: 1
      Actually, a lot of ADHD people procrastinate on a lot of things, partly because impending doom can be a focusing event that gets them moving.

      But while they're procrastinating on things that others would think are important, they are usually working on stuff they think is important. Procrastinating on everything is more likely a sign of something else, perhaps depression.

    26. Re:The third factor by pem · · Score: 1

      I haven't tried drugs, but yeah, much of what you describe sounds similar to my experience. A couple of articles I found have descriptions that really resonate with me -- first a more clinical description and then a more informal description of the same information.

    27. Re:The third factor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same AC here. Procrastination isn't even my worst symptom, and "study" in the above list isn't procrastination. (I'm in the habit of going to the library as soon as I'm showered and dressed, so there isn't even a chance to procrastinate.) But I have to sit there and constantly hear myself thinking about things, and I can't read some nontrivial thing at the same time I'm internally discussing some nontrivial different thing, any more than normal people could read the thing at the same time they were having a conversation about the other thing.

      Sometimes I'm so deep inside my own head I don't even see there's a page in front of me... it's no less disabling than blindness. (If geeking and studying is the only thing you give a fuck about)

    28. Re:The third factor by Bengie · · Score: 1

      With ADD or ADHD, stimulants will relax them. The most common drugs for ADD/ADHD are strong stimulants. Give those to regular people and they'll get hyper. You can tell the different between normal and ADD/ADHD with a brain scan, but those will run you around $10k, so most people just takes the doctor's educated guess.

    29. Re:The third factor by ruir · · Score: 1

      You complain they do not bother to use Google. It is worse than that. Most do not even bother to read the errors in english. it is easier to complain actually, and let someone do the reading and thinking.

    30. Re:The third factor by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Who engineered the Commodore 64, which was superior to the Apple II in most regards, including sales? (And, as a sign of things to come, was half the price as well.)

      I wonder what the world would be like if victory went to the most competent and capable instead of the most determined.

  9. Re:Can High Intelligence Be a Burden Rather Than . by jpapon · · Score: 1

    Pretty sure it's someone testing out a bot. At least I hope so.

    --
    -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
  10. Read "Outliers" by lkcl · · Score: 5, Informative

    this is nothing new: i believe the same study was the basis of the famous book "Outliers", which is a fascinating study of what makes people successful. if i recall correctly, it's completely the opposite of what people expect: your genes *do* matter. your attitude *does* matter. your circumstances *do* matter. working hard *does* matter. and luck matters as well. but it's all of these things - luck, genetics, circumstances *and* hard work - that make for the ultimate success story. bill gates is one of the stories described. he had luck and opportunity - by being born at just the right time when personal computing was beginning - and circumstances - by going to one of the very very few schools in the USA that actually had a computer available (for me, that opportunity was when i was 8: i went to one of the very very few secondary schools in the UK that had a computer: a Pet 3032).

    so, yeah - it's not a very popular view, particularly in the USA, as it goes against the whole "anyone can make it big" concept. but, put simply, the statistics show that it's a combination of a whole *range* of factors, all of which contribute, that make up success. just "being intelligent" simply is not enough.

    1. Re:Read "Outliers" by tommeke100 · · Score: 2

      > just "being intelligent" simply is not enough.

      ... or mandatory.

    2. Re:Read "Outliers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just "being intelligent" simply is not enough
      This is very true. Intelligence plays into 'luck'. Luck is just an opportunity that is presented to you. Then having sometimes the intelligence to see that you are even being presented an opportunity. Many people miss opportunities because of preconceived notions or morals. Ability then comes into play you recognize what is going on but actually have the capital or intelligence to do it. Then there is perseverance. I had an aunt who started probably 50 different companies. Not one was successful because just when business started doing a lot better she would give up and get bored and move on. She had all the key ingredients except the will to see it thru.

      For example global warming. I am going long on power companies. Why on EARTH would I do that? They are the 'evil' polluters. I am being presented an opportunity. People still need power. That is not going away. The power companies costs for fuel will go to near 0 but their capex will go way up for a bit. Short term stock prices will be depressed. But long term they have free created product that people need. They will sell that product. The margins on that are out of sight even at 1 cent per KWH. That is 100% profit. Sure some people will create their own but they will still need power pumped in to cover the spots where they didn't make enough. The power companies step in. What little power they do produce will be sold at an even higher premium. The power they produce will actually become a scarce resource which they can sell even higher than they do now. That is 'luck' combined with intelligence (understanding of market mechanics) and perseverance (willingness to put my capital money into these companies long term). That is one *tiny* example.

    3. Re:Read "Outliers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Although Bill Gates certainly had great opportunities and took advantage of them, one pair of traits that is often overlooked now (but not be people in the tech industry in the late '80s and '90s) was that he was 1) exceptionally ruthless; and 2) had the looks of someone who wasn't, just an introverted kid who'd rather be solving calculus problems on his pocket calculator. In fact, by his own admission (much later) he read many biographies of Napolean, and obviously managed to find and read many bios on the US capitalist robber barrons of the late 19th century and early 20th century.

      Gates had his toe on the throats of just about everyone in the PC industry (other than Intel, his co-monopolist) for about 15 years, and he wouldn't let up.

      Just like John D Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and Cornelius Vanderbilt, Gates turned to philanthropy after he'd amassed his fortune, and he'll probably be remembered the same was as those folks 100 years from now.

    4. Re:Read "Outliers" by Sique · · Score: 1

      If you plot the personal wealth curve of people who "made it big", it does not differ from the personal wealth curve of people who won the lottery. For nearly all of them, there is a big jump somewhere during their life, and before and after that, it's no different than for anyone else in the same wealth range.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    5. Re:Read "Outliers" by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

      If you ever came into contact with any of Gates' code, you would know he was a mediocre coder. Gladwell neglected to mention [SOP for that douchetard] that Gates' mom was on several boards with the IBM CEO, which is how Gates ended up with the greatest licensing deal in human history (DOS), that he hired someone to copy Gary Kildall's CP/M and call it DOS [MS would later pay $1 billion in out of court settlement to the holder of the license to it], and that Gates uncle was VP at First Interstate, where he obtained his original financing.

      Otherwise, I agree overall with your comments.

    6. Re:Read "Outliers" by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      bill gates is one of the stories described. he had luck and opportunity - by being born at just the right time when personal computing was beginning - and circumstances - by going to one of the very very few schools in the USA that actually had a computer available

      Yes, and by having rich parents. That is the single most reliable predictor of economic success. As such, it is anything but surprising that Gates was successful.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Read "Outliers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and his dad, Bill Sr? There's a law firm called K&L Gates, the 8th biggest law firm in the US with 2000 attorneys and thousands more staff working there. That Gates is Bill Gates' dad.

    8. Re:Read "Outliers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is success? It seems like my level of success of mainly determined by how well my goals align with others definition of success. Was Bill Gates successful? He got rich, yes, but is what what he wanted? He has made good progress on world health, but that's no where near solved. I don't know what he wants, but what people consider him successful for is generally not what I desire. I am very happy with my life. Many might consider my life not much of a success, but I'm happy and enjoy life. I've easily met all my goals (I don't have any), and accomplished far less than I am physically and mentally capable of. Is that suppose to be bad? Am I suppose to work my ass off? For me being a happy unaccomplished nerd wandering from one mental stimulus to the next is plenty. Is struggling after lofty goals and high expectations really that grand?

    9. Re:Read "Outliers" by Bo'Bob'O · · Score: 1

      it's not a very popular view, particularly in the USA, as it goes against the whole "anyone can make it big" concept.

      I think that is largely a mischaracterization, both by the well meaning and those looking to discredit certain notions.

      I think that firstly, people by a wide margin believe that people should not be -denied- a opportunity. Particularly for arbitrary, non-relevant factors.

      Secondly, many people also believe that we can, as a civilization, create opportunity. What efforts go into creating those opportunities are paid back by the percentage of them who can use those opportunities to excel.

      The second one is the largest sticking point, because how to foster those opportunities is widely debated. Some feel that the best is a wide-open field. Others think that the field advantages some of those arbitrary, non-relevant factors (particularly socioeconomic one) and thus the field needs to be leveled.

        It's not a debate that I mean to stir up 3-deep in a Slashdot thread, but just to say that the vast majority of people at most places on the political spectrum agree: Those that have the ability to succeed, should have the opportunity to. It's just the mechanics they disagree on that are sometimes, sadly, mutually exclusive.

    10. Re:Read "Outliers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But your kid can drop out of college like Bill Gates and live the dream!

    11. Re:Read "Outliers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a fucking cocksucker asshole? Yeah that's likely.

    12. Re:Read "Outliers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It entirely depends on which flavor of "intelligence" you are talking about. The one you are talking about is trumped by one of the other ones.

    13. Re:Read "Outliers" by ultranova · · Score: 1

      It's not a debate that I mean to stir up 3-deep in a Slashdot thread, but just to say that the vast majority of people at most places on the political spectrum agree: Those that have the ability to succeed, should have the opportunity to. It's just the mechanics they disagree on that are sometimes, sadly, mutually exclusive.

      The disagreement is about what happens to those who won't succeed, to Joe Average and Joe Hobo. Currently, Joe Average's position is getting worse and worse, which is a huge problem because modern economy can't actually work without them having money to act as consumers. And as the economy stalls and enters a tailspin, Joe Succesful shifts the blame to Joe Hobo, closing his eyes from the approaching ground because doing something about it would require taking a break from his personal interests to visit the cockpit, and getting Joe Average to get along with it because pretending bad things only happen to deserving people is a pleasant fantasy.

      Of course such situations are always rectified eventually, the only question remains whether it's by recycling the wreckage.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    14. Re:Read "Outliers" by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      It is believed that Gates' parents also pulled strings in IBM that got him the DOS contract.

      "when IBM CEO John Opel heard Microsoft would get the contract, he said "Oh is that Mary Gates' boy's company?" since Opel and Bill Gates' mother served together on the national board of the United Way. Ref

    15. Re:Read "Outliers" by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      If you ever came into contact with any of Gates' code, you would know he was a mediocre coder. .. ... he hired someone to copy Gary Kildall's CP/M and call it DOS

      Microsoft bought DOS from Seattle Computer Products [SCP} and hired its author, Tim Paterson, to port it to the PC. No doubt they copied many ideas from CP/M but not code directly. SCP had written it for their own personal computer and called it QDOS as a joke - "Quick and Dirty Operating System". Microsoft dropped the "Q" and said the "D" stood for "Disk". Gates may have contributed some code. See here

      Later MS did a similar trick with Windows NT (the basis XP and every Windows since). They hired a team from DEC who brought the source code of VMS with them and combined it with some bits of OS/2 to make NT. See here

      Both SCP and DEC sucessfully got damages out of Microsoft later, although just drops in the ocean for Microsoft.

    16. Re:Read "Outliers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DEC dropped the project that was to replace VMS and these were the team that Microsoft hired to create NT.

    17. Re:Read "Outliers" by phorm · · Score: 1

      I'd say that "anyone can make it big" but "most people won't" and "being wealthy helps improve the odds a lot"

  11. Overshot the mark. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    140 is surely a bit high for this oppressive feeling to manifest. I know people with a rather mediocre 115 or 120 who feel this way. I suspect our "everyone is special" culture will also be adding to this milieu, if it already has not done so.

    1. Re: Overshot the mark. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fail to see how an IQ in the top 10% of the population can be called mediocre...

    2. Re: Overshot the mark. by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how an IQ in the top 10% of the population can be called mediocre...

      The way the economy works people tend to sort themselves into groups. Top 10%, for example, would be 120; but most of those 10% have college degrees. Since the mentally handicapped don't go to college, and it actually takes some skill to get through, college grad IQ is gonna be above 100. Most sources I read show 110-115. And 120 is not that much more then 110. Moreover if you're actually in the 120 group you'll probably be associated with highly analytical people who score very well on tests. You're an engineer, or the guy they send to talk to engineers, you'll think your 120 isn't a big deal because everybody you know who has told you his IQ is in the 130s.

      Look at it this way: let's say you're a 1 in a million basketball player. There are 310 million Americans, so you've got 310 American peers. Let's further say you're the 310th. You all play in the NBA. You're probably a marginal NBA player because non-Americans are allowed in, so you're competing against 309 Americans who are better then you and 90-100 foreigners who are literally in your league. Since there are 30 teams with 15 roster spots there are 450 spots, and you're likely second-string on a really bad team (backing up the guy who tries not to get embarrassed by Lebron) or third string to a guy like Lebron. Your basketball IQ score is literally unmeasurable (most IQ systems stop at 160 or 1 in 30k), but since you spend your life dealing with the other unmeasureables you probably think of yourself as mediocre to bad.

  12. Scientific American begs to differ by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some ten or fifteen years ago, Scientific American published an article about the positive correlation of "general intelligence" with virtually every measure of success in life.

    Like earning enough money to be comfortable, having the emotional intelligence to have a successful marriage, etc.

    They showed that "general intelligence" which is correlated with but not directly measured by things like SAT scores, was basically a ticket to (or highly correlated with) a good life, and even good health.

    And the article was mighty persuasive.

    --PeterM

    1. Re:Scientific American begs to differ by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What is 'general intelligence'? (Anything like Colonel Panic?)

      Yes, if you can't read, can't figure out a bus schedule you are in a world of hurt in this society. It does not follow that being able to understand calculus gives you peace, happiness and longevity. There is going to be some broad mean that societal requirements dictate that you need. Other than than, you are at the mercy of lots of other vagaries of life.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Scientific American begs to differ by bangular · · Score: 1

      Maybe this tells us more about intelligence tests than anything. IQ has mostly been dismissed as an end all measure. We now know we can measure a persons intelligence a number of ways. IQ may have been a measure of a very specific type of intelligence, but had little correlation with one's life happiness.

    3. Re:Scientific American begs to differ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      a good life, and even good health

      Not what this study is about. They were looking for "outstanding achievement" in terms of a professional career:

      The successes, whom she called A's were in professions like law and medicine, or were university professors or business executives.

      Maybe many intelligent people know better than to become a lawyer or business executive. I can only say that the careerists I've met are not exactly the most intelligent people I've met.

    4. Re:Scientific American begs to differ by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Some ten or fifteen years ago, Scientific American published an article about the positive correlation of "general intelligence" with virtually every measure of success in life. Like earning enough money to be comfortable, having the emotional intelligence to have a successful marriage, etc.

      It's rare to find an objective measure where being stupid is a good thing, unless you're the cop who figured out the criminal mastermind's plan and got assassinated or similar corner cases. Even if you're not in a position to excel you're not going fail and I'd argue it's just as much your objective successes like a steady job and organized life that puts you ahead of the deadbeat drifters when it comes to finding a mate, tests show your EQ can suck despite a high IQ.

      Obviously the lack of material goods can cause unhappiness, but most of us have the basic needs covered. The rest is pretty much a state of mind, are you happy? I'd be happier eating junk food if I didn't know all the crap it does to my body. I'd enjoy T&A more if I knew it wasn't a biological preference to easy child birth and ample breast feeding. And it certainly doesn't get better if you end up where it doesn't matter because you and everyone you knew will be dead and building a pyramid for a tomb is just stroking your ego.

      I generally find my happiest moments are when I'm too preoccupied or suitably intoxicated not to think too much. Just existing in the moment, feeling good, having fun, enjoying the ride, savoring the taste. If you "pierce the veil" more or less and realize you're playing an RPG to get level+1, skills+1, armor+1, weapons+1 to fight monsters+1 or lather, rinse, repeat what used to be fun just loses all interest. I guess you can call it a more general form of suspension of disbelief, the suspension of further intellectual inquiry. If you're happy, stop thinking. You're only going to ruin it.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:Scientific American begs to differ by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      My problem with General Intelligence is it's frequently a proxy for cultural awareness that's used by the dominant preppy-ass culture to justify them having more nice things then good old boys. I, for example, have sufficient felicity with the language that I can explain precisely why the phrase "sufficient felicity with the language" is somewhat of an infelicity. Most people are gonna need to spend some time on Wiktionary to understand that an infelicity is an awkward way to say something, so my original statement ("sufficient felicity with the language") literally means "sufficient unawkwardness with the language," which is a really awkward way to put it. Since people like me write IQ tests I will never waste time on an IQ test trying to figure out what some obscure word means.I already know it.

      Moreover since people like me like to do shit like take IQ tests as part of a group to see whose smartest I will have a major advantage over many others because I've probably seen the questions before.

      Which in turn means that while my performance on IQ tests can be meaningfully compared to my fellow college-educated-white-people's results it's really hard to argue that my success on an English-language IQ test designed by (and for) Anglophone, college-educated, American white people can be meaningfully compared to the performance of some Indian guy with a PhD in engineering whose mother is illiterate. He probably has more "General Intelligence" then me, because going from illiterate mother to PhD in a technical subject requires lots of brains, but coasting through a liberal arts course in a major University with a 2.6 does not. But since English is his second language, I will kick his ass on the test.

    6. Re:Scientific American begs to differ by ultranova · · Score: 1

      What is 'general intelligence'? (Anything like Colonel Panic?)

      Self-metaprogramming, basically. You are smart if you can repurpose existing neural circuits to handle new problems (because that way your consciousness is freed to consider things like consequences, and specialized circuit is of course faster than general-purpose one), you learn fast if you can build such circuits fast, and you are insightful if you can examine your own mental subroutines and how they work - if you actually learn to reprogram them consciously you'll likely find a new religion or something.

      It does not follow that being able to understand calculus gives you peace, happiness and longevity.

      70 years is equivalent to 411,222,120,000,000 miles. It might not actually be longer, but it sure sounds bigger :).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    7. Re:Scientific American begs to differ by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Looking back on most tests, they just looked for correct answers, while in the real world, there are few correct answers, just less bad ones, and you need to choose your answer based on trade-offs, and these trade-offs change depending on which other answers you have chosen for other problems.

      A better test would be to give a problem that has no correct answer, you are not given the correct tools, some of the requirements are partly contradictory among each other, and you need to have a persuasive argument as to why you answer is a "good" answer, which means also comparing your way to alternative ways.

    8. Re:Scientific American begs to differ by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Even that would be tricky to do right.

      A test written by Kalahari Bushmen would be useless for creating a General Intelligence distribution anywhere but the Kalahari because the tools they have are completely different then the tools anyone else has.

      The problem isn't as bad when everyone on the test is from the same country, but it's still true that a test written by the Duck Dynasty guys demographic would be significantly different from one written by the Hip-Hop demographic, and it would be very hard to judge folks from one of those groups based on their score from the other test. What we've actually got are tests written by that famous WEIRD ("Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, And Democratic") demographic, which of course a) does great on the test, b) has measurably better life-outcomes because we also create most of the social and economic systems that allow one to have good life-outcomes, thus creating c) a very strong belief that we are smarter then everyone else because the test we took in A has a high number and it strongly correlates with B.

    9. Re:Scientific American begs to differ by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      What is 'general intelligence'? (Anything like Colonel Panic?)

      Yes, if you can't read, can't figure out a bus schedule you are in a world of hurt in this society. It does not follow that being able to understand calculus gives you peace, happiness and longevity. There is going to be some broad mean that societal requirements dictate that you need. Other than than, you are at the mercy of lots of other vagaries of life.

      Indeed. just because a square peg fits better into a square hole than a round peg, doesn't mean that if you add additional vertices it will fit even better.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  13. No need to be a genius by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

    Even being above average means you're surrounded by (relative) idiots. Hell, just stay informed about world events, history, literature, and then stand there in disgust as all people can talk about is the latest episode of "Naked and Afraid". This is by no means a recent thing either; every generation throughout history has repeated the same sorry story.

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    1. Re:No need to be a genius by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not so much that others are idiots, it's that they actively resist any attempt at being enlightened. They rejoice in their stupidity.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:No need to be a genius by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of a quote, "In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king."

    3. Re:No need to be a genius by radtea · · Score: 1

      HG Wells' "Kingdom of the Blind" is a better take on the metaphor. Highly recommended. A sighted man falls into a high, isolated Himalayan valley where the population has no eyes. It does not end well.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    4. Re:No need to be a genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, just stay informed about world events

      Maybe. Watching foxnews or reading the huffington post does no make you educated. Most news is pre canned advertising vehicles. Actually watch and read most of these things and ignore the actually point of the articles. But watch the presentation. Notice how they use 'find out' and 'click bait' sorts of things to 'get eyeballs'? Even the prestigious ones do it. They are not selling agenda or information. They are selling soap. The point of the articles are just to get you in to listen to their advertising pitch. These are nothing more than watered down infomercials. They each pick their 'audience' then pander to them in the worst possible ways, then try to sell them soap.

    5. Re:No need to be a genius by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      This is true.

      CNN had a trivia contest hosted by Anderson Cooper and the contestants were the commentators.

      The commentators had become celebrities.

      Sell, sell, sell.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    6. Re:No need to be a genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, studies show that the higher one's intelligence, the more they hold on to their positions, even if shown to be wrong. It is the idiot, that is more readily swayed, than the genius.

    7. Re:No need to be a genius by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 1

      Or this one from Plato which doesn't end well either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

      --
      Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
    8. Re:No need to be a genius by minstrelmike · · Score: 2

      Actually, studies show that the higher one's intelligence, the more they hold on to their positions, even if shown to be wrong. It is the idiot, that is more readily swayed, than the genius.

      That's who demagogues rely on for their support.
      There are upsides and downsides to _everything_.

      The smarter you are, the more that fact hits you in the face every place you look. There actually are benefits to mankind from religion, not just costs. Same with Capitalism, science and whatever pet aspect of life you completely hate or love.

    9. Re:No need to be a genius by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      The ease of being swayed has nothing to do with knowing what is true and what is not.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    10. Re:No need to be a genius by Phaedrus420 · · Score: 1
      --
      And what is good, Phaedrus, And what is not good... Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?
    11. Re:No need to be a genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, studies show that the higher one's intelligence, the more they hold on to their positions, even if shown to be wrong. It is the idiot, that is more readily swayed, than the genius.

      That's who demagogues rely on for their support.

      There are upsides and downsides to _everything_.

      The smarter you are, the more that fact hits you in the face every place you look. There actually are benefits to mankind from religion, not just costs. Same with Capitalism, science and whatever pet aspect of life you completely hate or love.

      That is almost totally backward to the accepted paradigm of the Dunning Kruger effect. Generally those lacking in mental skills will judge themselves to be more intelligent whist those with higher intelligence or experience in such things will pause to question their own perceptions of given situations. In general it is the "Idiot" as you say, that is cocksure they are right 100% of the time and it makes sense that idiots would think this way, because it is a trapping of ego.. and a form of self deception, How can one ever learn anything if they think they already know everything and get an emotional pay off from refusing to consider that their mental skills could use some improvement, exercise or modification from time to time?

      You are right to point out that there is a trade off to many things in live, no one thing is entirely "Good" or "Bad" on it's own. (Too much of any nutrient has bad side effects or toxicity, Some approaches to accomplishing goals and objectives are more or less effective in different situations, which is why we have the need for things like strategy and tactics.. In electronics and in software programming, there are generally many ways to accomplish the same general goal, but with trade offs in terms of time, efficiency, complexity, energy or accuracy and the solution is most effective when tailored to a particular instance of the problem being solved. The general perception that something is generally "Better" or "Good for you" or "Superior" is more often than not, an oversimplification.

      These concepts are not new as is demonstrated by the Confucius saying "The measure of true knowledge is in knowing the extent of one's own ignorance".

    12. Re:No need to be a genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bollocks. The studies are no doubt flawed and the researchers are holding onto their positions regardless. As am I.

      But do note that people who have thought through all the angles indeed shouldn't be swayed as easily as those who've put no thought into something. You might not notice this though since politeness intercedes. "You raise a good point".

    13. Re:No need to be a genius by Shortguy881 · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see a source on that.

      --
      Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
  14. It is unfortunate by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, this is largely the natural progression of society. Back then, we didn't know how to handle these kids, thus we ham stringed them from the get go. They had the unfortunate luck to be born at a time when we're just awakening to the idea that we should treat children differently than adults, and with absolutely NO awareness that different children require different rearing techniques.

    The good news is that, despite all the bullshit,we really have progressed quite far. I doubt, 80 years from now were you to quiz a similar group of kids from today, you'd get the same response. No, instead you might hear how society let them down, that they always felt society always failed to live up to their expectations.

    Ah, progress!

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:It is unfortunate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Myself and two other friends in craphole Delano Elementary School in Memphis, TN were moved into the GATE program because we had finished every bit of work for the fourth grade for the year. We also completed the geometry and algebra books for seventh grade. In three weeks we finished every assignment for the GATE program and were bouncing off the walls. The school's answer to this was to give us permanent detention for the year. The lesson that reinforced was fairly evident now.

      At the time it made me a worse student as I refused to ever do homework again. One of the friends dropped out in the 9th grade because he was bored all of the time and he received a good paying job with his family. The other friend joined a gang and ran numbers until he was old enough to sell crack and went to juvenile until he was 21. Obviously, none of us has Gates Sr. for a father.

    2. Re:It is unfortunate by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, this is largely the natural progression of society. Back then, we didn't know how to handle these kids, thus we ham stringed them from the get go. They had the unfortunate luck to be born at a time when we're just awakening to the idea that we should treat children differently than adults, and with absolutely NO awareness that different children require different rearing techniques.

      The good news is that, despite all the bullshit,we really have progressed quite far. I doubt, 80 years from now were you to quiz a similar group of kids from today, you'd get the same response. No, instead you might hear how society let them down, that they always felt society always failed to live up to their expectations.

      Ah, progress!

      General truth.
      Pet owners learn that the more intelligent a pet is, the tougher it is to handle; of course, the corollary is that if you can handle them properly, they can be more rewarding. The same is true of kids.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  15. Jim Jefferies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somewhat relevant, I love his bit: "Stupid people buy guns, clever people know they shouldn't, because the world can be a depressing place if you really know what's going on.

    1. Re: Jim Jefferies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's why he left Oz for L.A.

  16. Again by Sqreater · · Score: 1

    Terman should have looked at what I call "mentis," the combination of the individual's accented motivation array and the tool, intelligence, used to build and execute the individual's behavior-space to satisfy that motivation array. Looking at intelligence alone is like staring at a wrench and wondering why it isn't doing something useful. What is happiness? Happiness is being able to build and execute a behavior-space that satisfies one's motivation array. See Warren Buffett. See Albert Einstein.

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
  17. Arrogance, not Intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People who think that they're highly intelligent end up being unhappy, because life has a way of cutting you down to size. If you've built yourself up in your mind to be better than everyone else, then it must really hurt to see all those other people being more successful than you.

  18. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

    Their high priests and emperors would cut the hearts out of living individuals, and then make those victims eat their own still-beating hearts

    I'm rather skeptical that that is actually possible to do.

  19. "Simpsons Already Did It..." by kackle · · Score: 1
  20. Burden, sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the worst things about having a great memory and a high intelligence is that you don't forget your failures and you over analyze them every chance you get. Sounds like fun, doesn't it?

  21. The problem isn't intelligence - per se by the_skywise · · Score: 4, Insightful

    (See? I used per se, so I'm... oh never mind...)

    Intelligence and being highly observant are great skills both in society and from an evolutionary/survivalist standpoint.

    But in a society I've found it brings up two downsides:

    Guilt, because your intelligence allows you to avoid pain or achieve a higher level of comfort in society. You weren't "superman" you just made rational choices based upon your understanding of how the system works and now your friends and family are suffering because they didn't and you want to help them which requires more energy and effort or you can't which means your intelligence has limits and all you can do is watch them suffer.

    Stress and anxiety. Once you figure out that you can problem solve and improve your quality of life it's natural, like any athlete, to grow and push your boundaries. But intellectual pursuits aren't as cut and dried as physical ones - It's easy to know that you can only bench press 200lbs and that's what you need to work on - Less so when you're trying to solve problems like familial and social discord but nobody will listen or trying to improve your company's fortunes by making proper investment choices. More to the point, I'm an engineer and there's nothing more frustrating trying to solve a problem you've encountered with your design that YOU pushed for, can't figure out why it's not working, might not work AT ALL and the boss is breathing down your neck (oh and the company is on the line). There's plenty of days I've driven by a building crew and daydreamed about just running the earth mover or driving a dump truck.

    In an Agrarian society - in a pre-industrialized world these issues just didn't come about for intellectualism - Partially because it wasn't as much of a survival skill. (And that's probably why steampunk is so romanticized today)

    1. Re:The problem isn't intelligence - per se by radtea · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Intelligence in the intellectual, logical reasoning sense is a evolutionary epiphenomenon. It is only weakly selected for. We can tell this because its distribution in the population is so broad. There are no gazelles that run at half the speed of the fastest[*] but there is no shortage of people with IQs that are half the top and still manage to get along (putting "the top" at around 160 and "the bottom" around 80, which is the lower end of the "gets along OK in society most of the time" range.)

      Logical, linear reasoning is a trick we've managed to train our bear to dance.

      Some people happen to be really good at it. This can be a problem for them because so much of what humans do, and the accounts they give of it, make very little sense to the untutored mind.

      We live in the Age of Bayes, and the Bayesian Revolution over the past thee hundred years (which takes in a lot of time before Bayes himself or the recognition that what we were doing is fundamentally Bayesian) has taught us some really important lessons about ourselves. Mostly how damned stupid we have been, even the highly intelligent. We've spent centuries arguing nonsense, from how three is equal to one for large values of three to the dharma of the tao.

      In the past century or so we've been calling out the people who are most "intellectually gifted" and expecting them to solve our problems (in a past age it was the pious, or the people "of good family", etc). This has created a bind for them, because for most of that time we've also had no idea why people do what they do (spoiler: mate competition and selection play large roles, although we are still a long way from any kind of comprehensive understanding.)

      There are also ethical constraints on what can be done to solve human problems. The utopian projects of the 20th century, despite their profound irrationality in so many respects, were manifestations of this belief that the human intellect had all the right tools for the job of reforming the planet. It didn't work, and that leaves us in the situation we are in today, where intellect is suspect as well as desired.

      As such, it isn't necessarily a shock that people identified as "intellectually gifted" should feel less adequate after exemplary lives. Nor is it likely that's going to change any time soon, as we continue to look to the intellectually gifted to save us from ourselves, while steadfastly refusing to spend any time looking hard in a mirror for the source of most human problems.

      [*] this may be false... feel free to fact-check me!

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    2. Re:The problem isn't intelligence - per se by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      and the boss is breathing down your neck (oh and the company is on the line). There's plenty of days I've driven by a building crew and daydreamed about just running the earth mover or driving a dump truck

      HAHAHAHAH
      I take it you've never worked blue collar jobs before?
      HAHAHHAHAHA

    3. Re:The problem isn't intelligence - per se by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just overwhelming. 134 here. It's not ok for me to just do "really fucking good" or "incredible". I'm supposed to "save the world", but nobody is really sure what that means... Just that it should make their live's less difficult or something?

      I can empathize with the first responders to the South Korean ferry that capsized. Target selection is a hard problem in decision theory to start with. It becomes overwhelming as the choice selection scales upwards. Where do you focus your efforts and what is worth doing? You don't want to get mired down in triviality(fighting symptoms instead of root causes) but when you dig at the surface of almost any significant problem facing humanity it is just a symptom. In almost all cases the common denominator is human nature as the root cause and you can't change that without genetics since education investments are lost in a couple generations.

      Jared Diamond/Guns Germs & Steel seems to indicate civilization is a reflection of it's environment. IE. We can't even look to culture as some sort of programming language that can be hacked to modify the underlying incentives as the environment will shape the culture back to it's lowest energy state and you're back to square one.

      Persistent permanent change for the better seemingly can't be achieved so you have to turn back to your customer and manage expectations, but the customer is you and the yard stick you're being measured against is just imprinted memories of high hopes from childhood.

      Everyone wants someone else to make the world a less shitty place, but when that translates to them refusing to be a part of the problem at the expense of their own profit and self-interest suddenly that goal doesn't seem so important. I think the mate-selection thing is right on, and the people burdening smart children with these martyr-complexes are really just hoping someone else will carry water for them so they can have a nicer trophy-wife and not have to compete in a zero-sum game of market competition with an adversary that's smarter than them. Flattery will get them everywhere so they stroke the ego and send these dangerously effective people off on some philanthropic fool's errand so they are out of the way and don't disrupt anything/move their cheese.

    4. Re:The problem isn't intelligence - per se by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      We've spent centuries arguing nonsense, from how three is equal to one for large values of three

      three is equal to one even for regular values of three if you're working on the Galois field of integers mod 2. 3=1 is one of those ideas so mad that only a mathematician could have invented it. Yet modular arithmetic is enormously powerful and turns out to have some quite stuning practical applications too.

      Yay pedantry!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:The problem isn't intelligence - per se by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah: I thought that lament was pretty oblivious as well.

    6. Re:The problem isn't intelligence - per se by catmistake · · Score: 1

      there's nothing more frustrating trying to solve a problem you've encountered with your design that YOU pushed for, can't figure out why it's not working

      Actually, an impenetrable ruse would be slightly more frustrating.

    7. Re:The problem isn't intelligence - per se by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no gazelles that run at half the speed of the fastest[*] but there is no shortage of people with IQs

      Unfortunately, "IQ" is the thing everyone grabs when they talk about this, because we don't know how to physically finely measure raw intelligence. IQ is an interesting measure, as in its use we see its flaws. But it can screw with your thinking and this is a perfect example of it, unless you're being weirdly hilarious, but the results of academic testing does not actually contribute to the aptitudes they're testing, as there is no Stanford-Binet, Wechsler, Woodcock-Johnson, Kaufman, whathaveyou, thing, predating humans to cull from the human herd the slightly less brilliant, nor is having as many reproductive-viable offspring as possible any concern of the smartest people. You also must realize there are people that have a much higher intelligence than you that you would think are stupid. Individually, we must accept that our perceptions are inherently flawed because we are human, and there's other stupid people to consider, also smart confused people, as all defined categories of humans will be philosophically decieved, at best, until they're enlightened, and there is no mating subspecies of enlightened humans driving evolution. Human is a river, man.

    8. Re:The problem isn't intelligence - per se by werepants · · Score: 1

      In an Agrarian society - in a pre-industrialized world these issues just didn't come about for intellectualism - Partially because it wasn't as much of a survival skill. (And that's probably why steampunk is so romanticized today)

      Have you read much steampunk? The seminal work (The Difference Engine) describes a society where intellectualism is celebrated almost above all, to the point that it is the primary driver of fashion. People cut their hair to make their heads look larger, wear spectacles, etc, etc.

      Steampunk is driven by nerds, and while it is a somewhat fractious community, to say it is anti-intellectual shows that you have a deep misunderstanding of what it's about. If anything, it is motivated by a desire to return to a time when technological solutions were seen as the path to progress and the solution to all problems. Contrast to the real situation today: anybody who is paying attention can see that our technology is sufficient to end the vast majority of human suffering, but social/political/personal failings prevent most of these solutions from being realized.

    9. Re:The problem isn't intelligence - per se by werepants · · Score: 2

      The utopian projects of the 20th century, despite their profound irrationality in so many respects, were manifestations of this belief that the human intellect had all the right tools for the job of reforming the planet. It didn't work, and that leaves us in the situation we are in today, where intellect is suspect as well as desired.

      This is an interesting contention. My perception is that some of those great undertakings DID work, and some didn't, but people have become cynical because we've got an incredible amount of technology and yet all of the historical human problems are still with us (poverty, starvation, death from simple diseases, violence, crime).

      So perhaps it is the case that we've grown to distrust intellectuals because they overpromised. Or perhaps we've come to realize that technology is only part (and perhaps the easiest part) of addressing human suffering - these things are political and social problems which don't exist because of a lack of material resources, but because of dysfunctional structuring of society. Of course, you could say that Marxism, etc were attempting to address that specifically and were also shown to fail. I think the root of the problem is this: we've seen the "intellectual apparatus" perform virtual miracles of technological development, but there's also a distrust there because truly understanding how these achievements have been realized can require the better part of a lifetime. The language of technology is incomprehensible to those who haven't devoted themselves to it. However, I don't think we've actually ever attempted to put these intellectuals at the helm of the society, because of this distrust. It isn't honest to say that they've failed at reforming society because politics (at least in the US) has always been the sphere of those with charisma and/or extensive networks among the powerful - which has very little overlap with the technologically-minded population.

      So, the situation is this: intellectuals are celebrated for their ability to create technological marvels, but we aren't comfortable trusting them with the keys to the castle. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe not. I for one always wonder if a government of scientists and engineers would be able to enact similar improvements in our social structures that we've seen in our technological landscape.

  22. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are multiple depictions of this happening within the surviving art of these Mesoamerican and South American civilizations. There are also reports from the Spanish and others from Europe who witnessed such rituals first hand and recorded what they saw. According to their reports, a human in such a situation will live from 30 seconds to a minute. That's more than enough time to force the victim's heart down his throat.

  23. FRIST P0stt!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes! Me being like waaaaay smarter than all you slashdot loosers are teh rediculus burden!!!

  24. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by radtea · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Their high priests and emperors would cut the hearts out of living individuals, and then make those victims eat their own still-beating hearts before burning them.

    Your slip into hyperbole here is not helping your case, which is otherwise pretty accurate.

    The human heart is very well protected. Humans only have ten of fifteen seconds of consciousness without blood flow. Even granted they were using stone knives, which are insanely hard and sharp, cutting through the rib cage, severing the aorta, the vena cava and the pulmonary veins and arteries is not the work of ten or fifteen seconds.

    It is also likely that the victims were too busy screaming to be properly said to eat anything.

    So while the New World was in fact dominated by a blood cult that was carried out more formally in the politically organized areas, and it is not impossible that a few still-beating hearts were shoved into a few still-working mouths, the ritual of "feeding the victim their own heart" was a ritual, not a literal thing, and is best described as such.

    You probably know all that, but the people who believe the myths about non-European cultures likely don't.

    The blood cult was practiced all over the New World, much as the Norse Pantheon is recognizably related to the Sumerian one. Ideas travel. So even amongst the pre-political peoples of what is now Canada the practice of ritual torture, sacrifice and cannibalism was common, as was the denuding of entire landscapes for the sake of game.

    The notion that North American native peoples lived in any kind of harmony with nature is simply false. We have overwhelming archeological and ethnographic evidence to the contrary, and anyone who believes otherwise is engaging in Creationist levels of evidence-denial.

    --
    Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  25. Happy Valley by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpI9yuv6D8o

  26. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by MobSwatter · · Score: 0

    I am not guilt ridden, not Catholic or religious for that matter, not owned and not for sale. Put that in your corrupt republican bong and smoke it...

    Furthermore if you didn't live in denial that recorded history has been shaped and taught to the liking of ruling partys such as corrupt king and cross, then you would be capable of better understanding and even potentially capable of higher learning, (not respective to dope).

    > Inca, Maya, Aztec, Toltec and many other pre-European civilizations in the Americas engaged in ritualistic human slaughter..

    Not unlike the Christian crusades? Spanish conquistadors? Catholic Church orders to destroy all written records of Mayan civilization to shape the memory of that civilization as desired? Current war between Christianity against Islam that functions in denial?

    Now I do hate my ex mother in-law dearly as a member of a crime family, however she did make a statement at one point that does make some sense. "We hate the most in others that which we see in ourselves".

  27. If a high IQ were better for the individual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there would be more people with high IQs. Natural selection, you know. An IQ of 100 is almost by definition ideal.

    1. Re:If a high IQ were better for the individual by cnettel · · Score: 1

      Unless it, say, causes a higher energy usage or makes you slightly more prone to parish from an infection. The selection pressure for most of our evoluationary history might just be a tad different than it is today. It works the other way, too, of course. Other threads note the increased risk of getting depressed from all the "bad news you can't fix". A high intelligence might make it harder to just shrud that off, while you could more easily filter it out with lower intelligence. (Just like kids can hear some conversations and really don't take note of the full depth of what's being said.) This phenomenon might be worse today than it used to be.

    2. Re:If a high IQ were better for the individual by pem · · Score: 1

      That's well overstating a weak case. If you merely want to state the weak case, you might argue that an average IQ of 100 within a society is almost by definition ideal.

    3. Re:If a high IQ were better for the individual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say it is even worse than it looks at first sight. Since there is a measurable advantage with respect to economic success (which gives access to better nutrition, medical help, etc.), there is probably a significant disadvantage in some other aspect of life. How else would a high IQ not result in an evolutionary advantage?

    4. Re:If a high IQ were better for the individual by fodendaf · · Score: 0

      It's well known that high IQ soldiers have lowered rates of survivability on the battlefield. And geniuses often have genetics that predispose them to bipolar disorder and aspergers which can increase their intellect but also reduce the fitness of their offspring.

  28. Duh by Livius · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "We tend to think of geniuses as being plagued by existential angst, frustration, and loneliness."

    This I think comes from identifying 'genius' as someone with special ability but not a popular, cool ability. Exceptional athletes, musicians, and actors are just as much outliers as 'geniuses', but their talents are never liabilities, and only rarely does society genuinely encourage any humility on their part.

    1. Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed it is actually plagued with all that you mention, until the day you realize that hiding your abilities and behaving like the other people is the only way to belong to the rest of the world, is kinda hard not enjoying all things like a football game or a tv series, because you can see it all, feel like you getting to live with kindergarten childs you end boring, but the only way to get thru is to mimic them and behave like them if not you get attacked. So my answer to be a little happy is to behave like the rest, forget all you can do and only use to achive things you want but seldom, the best job positions ar not for the best or the more advanced are for the best friend of the boss, so it is better to be very social than very intelligent., I have suffered it and now I try to see my life as a big vacations because the work is tooo easy nothing seems to be hard , but human relations, the rest is piece of cake . so the study is right, you have to hide andd they dont have to detect you are different, then voila! you are happy at leas more

    2. Re:Duh by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      I don't think that having a "cool" special ability means more happiness.
      Exceptional athletes are typically never satisfied, and exceptional musician seem to have more psychological problems then the average population (suicide, drug addiction, ...).
      Additionally, I've never felt that being good at something was a liability. Only the lack of social skills is.

  29. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    "Why the fuck do you make the idiotic claims that you do?"

    Useful idiots are useful idiots. Ever notice that those who denigrate European and US culture are almost always leftists? They are communism's "useful idiots".

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  30. Persistence is not omnipotent. by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can bang my head against a brick wall all I want, but all I will ever get out of it is a broken head.

    The trick is to pick a battle you can win, and then buckle down and win it.

    I've climbed high in my own life, but that is because my goals were achievable and I had the tools (both born with and the opportunities I needed) to succeed.

    There are many who work hard in life but don't get much of anywhere.

    That said, working hard is the only way to MAXIMIZE your opportunities and inborn potential. Praise your kids for their hard work, not their brains.

    --PM

    1. Re:Persistence is not omnipotent. by E-Rock · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Persistence doesn't mean trying the same thing over and over until it works. Persistence is trying to achieve your goals over and over again until you're successful. So you might bang your head on the wall a few times, realize that won't work and then try different things until you break it down.

    2. Re:Persistence is not omnipotent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anecdote does not equal data, but please allow me to share one.

      I'm faiily intelligent, scoring way above average on tests and in daily life it is really apparent I'm not the slowest banana in the bunch. A friend of mine is quite, well, slow on the uptake. He's not really smart, but he has a certain type of tenacity or drive that keeps him going on and on. I, on the other hand, am quite lazy. Really lazy, just coasting along, I'd say.

      He's done things through just sheer mindless pushing on that I would never, ever achieve. Not because I can't (really, if I set myself to it, it would be trivial) but I'm just so lazy and procrastinating. I really applaud him for being so stubborn and ever going forward.

      Long story short: intelligence isn't everything. You need drive and dedication. Hard works pays off, in the end. Lazy gits, such as me, get left behind. Which is as it should be, really. But it sucks, nevertheless.

    3. Re:Persistence is not omnipotent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Persistence doesn't mean trying the same thing over and over until it works. Persistence is trying to achieve your goals over and over again until you're successful. So you might bang your head on the wall a few times, realize that won't work and then try different things until you break it down.

      You haven't answered the quest of how to choose and become invested in realistic goals. That "broken head" is likely to be an unrealistic goal.

    4. Re:Persistence is not omnipotent. by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      The trick is to pick a battle you can win, and then buckle down and win it.

      Every battle is winnable, it's all about the method. Banging your head against a brick wall endlessly is a sign of persevering with a failing strategy and not picking a battle which is unwinnable.

      Bang your head against the brick wall once. No effect? Move on to hitting, kicking it, running into it, smacking it with a hammer, and then working your way up to something that will eventually break the wall. That is the nature of determination.

    5. Re:Persistence is not omnipotent. by Idou · · Score: 1

      I think the word we want to use here is grit.

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    6. Re:Persistence is not omnipotent. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No, that's determination and creativity. Determination alone is not enough, which was the point of the GP comment.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Persistence is not omnipotent. by outlander · · Score: 1

      Yep. The inability to perform adequate self-assessment lies at the core of Dunning-Krueger.

      --
      "Truth is what works" -- William James "It works!!" -- o-dark-AM comment
    8. Re:Persistence is not omnipotent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, I always loved Maths but only got a B as my final grade in school and failed my first year after repeating it before dropping out in college.

      A few years later I decided to put my savings into funding a degree and I tried at maths again, after convincing the university that I genuinely had the will to do it despite past failures. I ended up 3 years later with a first class honours degree in it, and whilst I'm not a professional mathematician that qualification has put me over and above the vast majority of competing candidates in the software world such that I can consistently change jobs in short order as and when I see fit. Any developer can write software, but math is essential for new and innovative development- that abstract understanding of numerous algorithms and techniques from math is what lets you solve problems that most software developers simply claim to their employers cannot be solved or improved.

      Like many people, what really made me fail at maths was abysmal teaching. It turns out that giving someone a textbook with 40 dull and boring maths problems and just telling them to figure it out themselves isn't in any way a competent method of teaching the subject. Once I started doing degree level stuff I found it way easier for two reasons; firstly it was taught in a less repetitive more interactive manner, and secondly, they covered sub-areas of maths that I found vastly more interesting like number theory and graph theory, that to this day I cannot understand why they don't teach earlier on.

      So whilst the reason I failed early on in it were obvious, it was ultimately only because of perseverance that I ever got where I wanted to be with the subject. Without that I would, like many millions of people in my country each year, have given up on the subject because of the terrible of the subject teaching here.

      I tried in school and didn't do great, I tried again in college but it was more of the same, I tried one more time in university and it worked. You're right. It's not about repeating the same thing over and over. It's about trying again, different things, in the face of failure until you succeed.

    9. Re:Persistence is not omnipotent. by werepants · · Score: 1

      I appreciate what you're trying to say, but every battle is NOT winnable. A big part of success is understanding the system you operate in, seeing where there are needs and opportunities and expending your effort in the right direction. Sure, determination is still one of the biggest assets a person can have, but all the determination in the world has still not been enough for all the perpetual motion yahoos out there to build a functioning machine.

      There is a minimum threshold of intelligence and discretion below which determination will do little for you because you are constantly working on the wrong problems.

  31. Mod parent up, please! by Herve5 · · Score: 1

    That's not to say the study was totally useless, but the objection is fairly striking. Today. Oh well, indeed the decision to run the study was taken 80 years ago -and really it shows...

    --
    Herve S.
  32. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

    "We hate the most in others that which we see in ourselves"

    Reflect on that last sentence as pertains to yourself and your initial diatribe.

  33. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

    It is not respective to myself being a criminal, the family I married into works in blood money and this I have physical evidence of beyond being directly told of this, my family built aircraft in a program that was cancelled in 1964 and that was directly related to my grandfather being victim of a criminal act.

  34. A Rose for Ecclesiastes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I said to myself, “Look, I have increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge.” Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind.

    For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
            the more knowledge, the more grief.

    Ecclesiastes 1:16-18

  35. I made a graph by Ryanrule · · Score: 2

    As intelligence goes up, happiness often goes down. See, I made a graph! I make a lot of graphs...

    1. Re:I made a graph by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Smart ass.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    2. Re:I made a graph by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      As intelligence goes up, happiness often goes down. See, I made a graph! I make a lot of graphs...

      Happiness runs in a circular motion, happiness runs.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  36. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Nah, should be theoretically possible - the heart will keep beating no problem, and removing it shouldn't kill the person until oxygen deprivation starts setting in - people survive heart transplants ll the time. Drug someone enough that the shock doesn't kill them, and they should be capable of surviving at least until the oxygen in their brain is used up.

    Of course without the blood pumping they won't have long - as a reference point nitrogen (or other inert gas) asphyxiation can cause unconsciousness within a few breaths as the oxygen is pulled from the blood, I imagine a cessation of blood flow would be similarly rapid. With powerful enough stimulants though you might be able to keep them conscious a bit longer - nitrogen asphyxiation usually takes a minute of two to actually kill someone, though permanent brain damage starts much sooner. Probably not long enough to eat their own heart, but maybe long enough to take a bite or two. Though WHY they would do such a thing is an entirely different question.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  37. Re:Can High Intelligence Be a Burden Rather Than . by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... can result ... could allow ... likely discovered ... Very likely it was ... probably considered ...

    If you don't know, why post?

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  38. natural selection suggests high IQ has drawbacks by mikeabbott420 · · Score: 2

    There are many obvious advantages to high IQ, if the genes related to it weren't also linked to major negatives then the process of evolution would have selected for them more effectively than it has.

    --
    This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
  39. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... not owned and not for sale ...

    So unemployed.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  40. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

    Actually, self employed for the last 5 1/2 years. I am however am putting that down now to continue what my family started here over in Germany as it looks as if the US is just grasping at pretty much anything it can just to keep itself running. There is better observed capabilities with engineering over there anyway.

  41. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by Bengie · · Score: 3, Informative

    You lose consciousness in under 5 seconds of fresh blood getting to the brain. Better eat quickly.

  42. We have too many people in college / higher levels by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    We have too many people in college / higher levels of the ivory tower some maybe very smart but at times in some fields when it comes down to real world work experience (out side of the ivory tower) they can be very dumb.

  43. Doh! Natural Selection by redelm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If high intelligence were an unmitigated benefit, natural selection would have moved the IQ average to 130, 150 or whatever over the eons. There _must_ be commensurate down-sides. Depression? Slower reflexes? Go fetch!

    As it is, we just have the Flynn effect of average IQs rising about 1 pt per decade over the past century. That might [or not] be considered as fast evolutionary change.

  44. Re:Can High Intelligence Be a Burden Rather Than . by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

    >... can result ... could allow ... likely discovered ... Very likely it was ... probably considered ...

    1. With respect that history has been shaped and taught to the liking of corrupt king and cross.

    2. With respect that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    3. Respect that gospel of the bible itself has been revised several times yet remains gospel, most probably for reason 2 based on human nature.

  45. Salaried grunt work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're a genius you probably have exponentially growing dead-end research needs, and people who want ROI view that as a waste of money, and ask why can't you do just the genius stuff that explodes ROI. They see your wants as "gimmicks" and "toys" because you have "fun" learning them, but it doesn't add to their bottom line in any way. They conclude that you should buy the "toys" with your own money. But you're not exactly earning enough to afford all the toys you might want and a place to put them, and, because you're busy with work and life in general, once you have the toys you don't have the time to do the funky stuff you always wanted to try out. This same boss will call you a socialist if you say education should be free for all (paid by the state essentially), and then wonder why everybody in the workforce is so dumb.

    1. Re:Salaried grunt work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and while bitching that you're just a socialist leech, he'll go buy a fleet of Ferraris with HIS hard earned money, to hide in his 3-story basement.

  46. Re:Doh! Natural Selection by the_skywise · · Score: 1

    Intelligence is a weaker selection trait in the wild then, say, strength, stamina, endurance and mate attraction.

    It only becomes worthwhile once you have a stable society and can then pursue such "luxuries" and, even then, it appears to take thousands of years to become critical to society in general and, even now, it's still not considered a "desirable" trait for mate attraction...

  47. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your family was involved with blood money projects in Germany? Shouldn't you be hiding in Argentina?

  48. I think intelligence frightens some people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow! This article on highly "intelligent" people seems to have mostly brought out comments by the barely sentient!

  49. You're getting it wrong ... again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought there were supposed to be smart people on /.

    OK. Knuckleheads, here is the reason that the smart people you know will never be happy.

    Because they understand that everything sucks, both because it could be better (beer, tax system, etc) and because people who are dumber than they are somehow got in charge.

    Or maybe that's why control freaks can't be happy, same difference tho

  50. Re: What the fuck are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The same artists drawing sea monsters and 90 foot alligators?

    I do believe they exaggerated a bit (they were trying to justify conquering them after all...)

  51. Genius Brother by tquasar · · Score: 1

    My brother Pete got a doctorate in math from UC Berkeley and has no social skills. He has never married and doesn't ever contact me or my sister. I used to call him and there was dead air if I didn't talk to him. He has lived in a tiny apartment for forty years. There are other things from his childhood that affected him.

    1. Re:Genius Brother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > There are other things from his childhood that affected him.

      You evil shit.

  52. Re:Can High Intelligence Be a Burden Rather Than . by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... most probably ...

    Nope.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  53. Intelligence is useless when unappreciated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not enough to be intelligent. You have to have social skills that help you convince others you are more intelligent than them. Otherwise your intelligent decisions will appear merely eccentric or even crazy or foolish. Your successes will be attributed to luck, or the contributions of others. And I don't mean you just need social skills that are better than your average awkward nerd. Your social skills need to be well above average, because you're trying to achieve something exceptionally difficult. Convincing people above you on the social ladder to put their egos aside and acknowledge that you have superior intelligence, which isn't something that comes naturally at all.

    1. Re:Intelligence is useless when unappreciated by PPH · · Score: 1

      You have to have social skills that help you convince others you are more intelligent than them.

      Maybe. But you need social skills to not make the 'average' people think you are shitting on them. There are a lot of not outstandingly brilliant but hardworking and productive people that you will meet. And you will be better off working with them, even if that means keeping a lid on your genius, than trying to convince them that you possess it (even if you do).

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  54. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by MobSwatter · · Score: 0

    > They are communism's "useful idiots".

    Says the US, with both feet in Hitler's toy box.

  55. Can High Intelligence Be a Burden? by koan · · Score: 1

    Only if you have a low tolerance for stupidity, which is rampant in the human species.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Can High Intelligence Be a Burden? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Only if you have a low tolerance for stupidity,

      The stupid are fun to watch.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Can High Intelligence Be a Burden? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The stupid are fun to watch.

      From a distance, and upwind

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Can High Intelligence Be a Burden? by ruir · · Score: 1

      Yep it shows in TV. No, they are not. They are boring.

    4. Re:Can High Intelligence Be a Burden? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Feigned stupidity, like on TV, is fun to watch. Real stupidity is painful to watch, and the deeper the stupidity, the deeper the pain. There is no joy to be had in the observation of people destroying their lives, especially when you know that damage will eventually impinge on you.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  56. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There was plenty of motivation of the conquering Spaniards to demonize the culture that they were destroying

    --
    Wherever You Go, There You Are
  57. Being "not like others" can be a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speaking from an experience shared by many /. readers, growing up "way different" than the average kid, particularly in a way that most kids didn't idolize (i.e. not like 1st-string football players who were "way different" but in a way that brought fame not disdain), can lead to childhood and adolescent angst that followed me into adulthood.

    This led to many missed opportunities growing up which meant I "missed out" on some things that most of my now-adult peers take for granted.

  58. The inventor, Edwin Armstrong (FM, etc.) . . . by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    . . . used to say, "It ain't what people don't know, it's what they think they know!"

    I've come in contact with at least one super genius that I know of, and it was a most humbling experience. I have solved technical problems which previous companies and persons have spent hundreds of thousands, and sometimes millions of dollars, to solve, to no avail. Perseverance prevails when intelligence is sometimes lacking . . .

  59. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

    No, I'm not an Italian sith lord in love with mind control fighting holy wars by proxy through other countries. In fact my family made it out of there long before that fiasco to become involved in US intelligence advanced aeronautical programs. Unfortunately the program was cancelled over what happened to my grandfather in '64 but the plane developed by the program went on to fly in the USAF for a very long time and in that time never had so much as a gun installed on it, not to say I am anti gun but funding for that aircraft was run through an entity that conceptually forbids it. The real loss in the program being cancelled was in what it would have achieved in development for our space program, that goal was escape velocity done with an air breathing jet engine sometime during the 80's.

  60. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The notion that North American native peoples lived in any kind of harmony with nature is simply false.

    Wait, what? That's nonsense. Any kind clearly covers a lot of ground, and some North American native peoples clearly did live in some kind of harmony with nature. They didn't leave it untouched, but they did see themselves as stewards with a responsibility to maintain the land. Again, there's variation between peoples. On the plains they burned down forests to make room for bison. But in other places they set controlled burns which successfully maintained forests throughout thousands of years of continuous occupation.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  61. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    Says the US, with both feet in Hitler's toy box.

    Well, we did import it at great expense, it would be a shame not to play in it.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  62. IQ is linked I income & wealth by TheSync · · Score: 4, Informative

    This study says "Each point increase in IQ test scores is associated with $202 to $616 more income per year...The median net worth for people with an IQ of 120 was almost $128,000 compared with $58,000 for those with an IQ of 100."

    1. Re:IQ is linked I income & wealth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes IQ is linked to wealth in white collar jobs.

      "Over the course of their lives, levels of divorce, alcoholism and suicide were about the same as the national average."
      An intelligent person would simply conclude that IQ, and the higher white collars salaries it can bring, have nothing-what-so-ever to do with happiness.
      Robson,however, claims this proves high IQ causes unhappiness!

    2. Re:IQ is linked I income & wealth by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      Did you even bother to read your own link?? The passage you quote was pointed out to be a problematic assumption once appropriate controls for possible confounding factors were taken into account. A couple sentences after your quote: "But when Zagorsky controlled for other factors - such as divorce, years spent in school, type of work and inheritance - he found no link between IQ and net worth. In fact, people with a slightly above-average IQ of 105 , had an average net worth higher than those who were just a bit smarter, with a score of 110."

    3. Re:IQ is linked I income & wealth by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The citation is wholly inadequate. For one thing, divorce rate and intelligence are related (probably not linearly), and should not be considered independent variables. For another, the test in question was an Armed Forces qualification test, which would attract an atypical test population, not generalizable to humanity at large.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    4. Re:IQ is linked I income & wealth by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Indeed, people with high IQ are less likely to get divorced.

    5. Re:IQ is linked I income & wealth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Zagorsky controlled for other factors - such as divorce, years spent in school, type of work and inheritance."

      Good grief, he "controlled" for years in school and type of work? What a complete idiot. This implies he discounted higher wages due to more schooling or type of work - but those are the 2 biggest cause-and-effect items that relate higher intelligence with higher income.

      Unbelievable.

      Oh, and NewScirentist has a huge credibility problem, I wouldn't trust much of what they publish.

  63. Re: What the fuck are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alright then: looks like the arrival of Europeans didn't have any appreciable effect on the continent then

  64. Yes. by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

    Can High Intelligence Be a Burden Rather Than a Boon?

    Yes, absolutely.

    Society loves a genius, but only long after it is dead.

    1. Re:Yes. by Sir+Holo · · Score: 2

      Oh, also: Genius is simply raw potential. What someone does with that 'potential' is a different matter entirely.

      As said long ago, "Genius is 1% inspiration, and 99% perspiration." I am loathe to quote that weenie, Thomas A. Edison, but the idea of his quote is accurate. It is what you do with that potential that matters.

    2. Re:Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, also: Genius is simply raw potential. What someone does with that 'potential' is a different matter entirely.

      As said long ago, "Genius is 1% inspiration, and 99% perspiration." I am loathe to quote that weenie, Thomas A. Edison, but the idea of his quote is accurate. It is what you do with that potential that matters.

      This varies. There are some that say that Genius is the balance in terms of worldly experience and education. Success comes in terms of knowing how to act in certain environments and showing what you are capable of.. and most importantly, situationally what resource to draw from and when.

      Thomas Edison was heavy on shrewdness and light on ethics. How he behaved with Nicolo Tesla is a perfect example, competing by basically financially stabbing a fellow "Genius" in the back was not a success. Edison by most ethical and social intelligence standards, was a dick. You are right to loathe quoting him.

  65. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 0

    The notion that North American native peoples lived in any kind of harmony with nature is simply false.

    Wait, what? That's nonsense. Any kind clearly covers a lot of ground, and some North American native peoples clearly did live in some kind of harmony with nature. They didn't leave it untouched, but they did see themselves as stewards with a responsibility to maintain the land. Again, there's variation between peoples. On the plains they burned down forests to make room for bison. But in other places they set controlled burns which successfully maintained forests throughout thousands of years of continuous occupation.

    ....and they managed to live on the N-American continent for at least 20.000 years without rotting out large numbers of higher vertebrate species like the currently dominant human cultures on the N-American continent have either managed to do or will do within the next few decades.

  66. Define Achievement by Morpeth · · Score: 1

    Personally, I find defining achievement as wealth and fame as problematic.

    A cop might be a detective and be great at solving serious crimes -- both intellectually an achiever, and also benefiting his/her community; while still being not terribly highly paid or famous. Or what about someone who chooses a quiet life as a homemaker/parent, and raises smart, confident, self-reliant, happy kids? Just a couple of examples I can think of.

    There's a definite western capitalistic/materialistic bias in the study's assumption. You can debate whether it's 'good' or 'bad', but it's still a bias.

    --

    'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
    1. Re:Define Achievement by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      I'd argue that fame is not a component of achievement, nor a result of intelligence. Fame is shallow, and in the final analysis it's just a measure of popularity among average people.

      The world is material; it's made up of physical things. Controlling physical things is not far from the essence of achievement, and wealth is frequently a cause of and the result of controlling physical things. That wealth, if honestly obtained, is a sign of achievement, and great wealth is a great achievement. The other things you mention are very limited in scope, wealth is not.

      There's a definite western capitalistic/materialistic bias in the study's assumption.

      As opposed to a bias toward things that don't exist (immaterial) or that have no measurable value (anti-capitalistic).

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  67. So many things bore me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I have a fairly high IQ plus a pile of education and so much bores me and I find myself toning my intellect down. For instance I am taller than average and find when I walk with a shorter person I will hunch to bring my head down to closer to their level. It seems to make conversation flow better but needless to say it hurts my neck. When surrounded by people who short in the intellectually curious department I just about lose my mind hunching down to their level. I go through life seeing where other people clearly don't have a clue about the world around them and are acting on their terrible understanding. Long ago I stopped even trying to help most people as I never could tell when they were actually appreciative or if they were just being gracious while thinking that I was being a know-it-all shit.

    A perfect example was a guy who was filling in some holes in a wall in a room I was in with a water/powder based filler. He did a great job of making a beautiful corner but then proceeded to use a heat gun to "dry" the filler. Should I have told him that the chemistry of that product does not involve water being evaporated but the water actually becomes chemically incorporated into the final product? I didn't say anything but I felt bad because the guy is responsible for a large building and having his work later physically fail could cost him his job (maybe).

    I also see people making wildly stupid financial decisions, wildly stupid life decisions, and of course make wildly stupid statements on science, engineering, or medicine. I just nod my head and don't offer any counter to the world being roughly 6,000 years old.

    And before anyone completely label me some kind of intellectual snob, I have discovered many a hill-billy who kicks ass; the occasional gem who has taken the crappy opportunities life threw at them and led an intellectually stimulating life. They will have ripped the engine out of something, changed it from carbureted to fuel injected, run it on methane, and now have it crushing various food/bio waste into pellets that they burn all winter in a pellet stove of their own design. That person kicks ass and I want to be around them. They guy who hates his job, hasn't read a book in 10 years, would trade CERN in for sport stadium, and wants to talk about the "Game" is someone who I want to yell at and say "your mouth is producing noises that are making me dumber by the second."

    1. Re:So many things bore me by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Be gentle. Offer improved techniques as suggestions, or even just as possible alternatives. An approach from pretended ignorance can be useful, such as "I've never been able to repair a wall smoothly. Does heating the patch make it better? Does the package say how much to heat it?"

      Young Earthers are a case of willful blindness, and you're right not to waste your time arguing with them.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  68. Other factors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am quite intelligent. I had a fairly high paying job as a software engineer at a very large company. But I could only stay there for half of a career. Being the smart guy was a problem. Everyone turned to me for help. Yet when problems arose, I was the one who got blamed. I also do not have the personality skills to relate well to other people so even amongst the geeks I was an outcast. I am an introvert and socially awkward. Subsequently, I was not promoted much, grew very unhappy, and eventually quit.

    I have been in more social groups in the last few years. But as the person with so many facts which I can recall from memory as needed, I became the guy everyone hated. People don't like being shown up as factually wrong. One of the groups even kicked me out after I was bullied repeatedly and I spoke out against the bullying. The worst incidents were when a couple of guys tried to run their car into mine and when another guy shoved me into a door and then called me an asshole.

    Ignorance is bliss.

    1. Re:Other factors by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Here's a technique to add to your social tools: at the first hint of an inappropriate level of bullying, leave the group. There are plenty of people who don't respond to intellectual challenges with physical violence; choose your friends from among those.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  69. Re:Doh! Natural Selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    If high intelligence were an unmitigated benefit, natural selection would have moved the IQ average to 130, 150 or whatever over the eons.

    Yours seems to be below the average, whatever number that is.

    The IQ is standardized such that the fiftieth percentile has an IQ of 100. It's a definition, nothing more.

  70. Re: What the fuck are you talking about? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Nothing is as sharp as obsidian. It's still used in some surgery.

  71. Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone with an above average IQ will testify...

  72. Catch 22 by Grindalf · · Score: 1

    No one thinks of themselves as stupid. The mentally ill people enumerated above could not discern their own stupidity due to hysterically dissociated ego deflective logic. I think I've made my point! Later ...

    --
    The purpose of existence is to make money.
    1. Re:Catch 22 by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      I've known people who identified themselves as stupid.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  73. Re:Can High Intelligence Be a Burden Rather Than . by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

    >Nope.

    So... Not human nature... Perhaps conspiracy?

    I only venture there as I am in no way the first to raise this question and actions to preserve power structure by ruling party's would still fall within human nature though.

  74. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

    I would have to say the technological part was not so bad, but we played with Hitler's love of the occult in 1954 and that ended the separation of church and state, it has been a downhill run ever since here.

  75. What? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    Next thing they'll tell us that not all the tall people are good at basketball.

  76. rant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    High intelligence CAN be a burden, but in general it is not.

    I have above average intelligence and I'm rarely "happy," and am often a pessimist.

    Meanwhile, mentally handicapped brother is the happiest person I know.

    Obviously being mentally handicapped can be a burden for himself and for others, but we make it work. I can't imagine my life without him.

    Long story short thankfully everybody is different and those of us who excel in one area can help others who are deficient in that area, and vice versa.

  77. The biggest problem: the "long view" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've tested with an IQ in the top 1% of the population. I'll tell you what the biggest issue I see is - having the "long view".

    Now, don't get me wrong, this isn't going to be some humble-brag. My achievement is very average. But my gift/curse is seeing what's going to happen. Like, in a relationship, or in life in general. Considering death. Or seeing red flags in a woman (physical or social), then wargaming out how those will play out.

    The net result is a higher isolation level. A more dour outlook. Less of a desire to perhaps fully participate. On the other hand, I'm much more easily amazed by the universe too.

    But - the long view is the biggest gift/curse.

    1. Re:The biggest problem: the "long view" by Spugglefink · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I can relate to that. People who live more in the moment are happier, because the long view always involves decline, death, and dying. I'm petting and really enjoying my dog, and somewhere I'm thinking how I might have another eight years before I have a 120 pound problem who is pissing and shitting huge logs everywhere, who is going to be a royal bitch to dig a hole for one day. I'm having sex with my wife, and somewhere I'm thinking how much it's going to suck looking at her when she's 80. The big picture long view always seems to have a down side, and it's depressing.

      I can relate to the expectations thing too. Everybody looks up to you, and a lot of them are jealous of you, and it makes it that much harder to choose an ordinary life. I'm a truck driver, and I like my profession fine, but I constantly feel a need to apologize for not owning the trucking company or being a professor or something; for not aiming higher in general. I've found a lot of people don't like me, because they don't think they're good enough for me for some reason, and yet I feel the same toward them. I'd love to just be normal, and not have to think so much about everything. Too much knowledge can be crippling, instead of helpful. It's hard to invest in a business idea, knowing every conceivable way it might fail, and what all the odds are.

      My mother was even more intelligent than I am, and she died young, of alcoholism. She was a miserable woman.

      Intelligence is overrated. One side effect for me is that I can never enjoy the opiate of a nice handy sky daddy to make me feel less infinitesimal in the scheme of things. We evolved to see sky daddies in everything, and I have the same need in my brain as any other human, but there's nothing to plug into it. I haven't found the religion yet that wasn't just totally inconsistent and goofy.

    2. Re:The biggest problem: the "long view" by captjc · · Score: 2

      That has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with outlook and perspective. Lets just say, I'm a pretty smart guy and the best piece of advice that I was ever given was to focus on the now. It is easy to foresee problems and possible scenarios and it is good to take measures to prevent the obvious. However, the sooner you realize that shit happens that you will never be able to plan for or there are simply various inevitable outcomes that will be sad and painful that you simply will not want to deal with, the sooner you will realize that there is just no point in worrying about them.

      It has almost become a catchphrase for me, "Cross that bridge when you get to it." Focus on what can be dealt with now. Try to keep yourself in the best possible situation that you can and don't worry about what is around the corner until it is within sight to actually deal with it. Friends will come and go, loved ones will leave you, cars and tools will fail you when you need them the most, at some point your job will end, and eventually you will die. These are simple truths of life but if you spend even a second worrying about any of them before there is anything you can do about them, it is purely wasted energy that could be put to use tackling the problems that you do have.

      I'm not saying it is easy to change the way you look at the world. It can take some work if not serious effort and it is easy to let yourself fall into ruts of depression and self-loathing. I know, I was there. That is nothing but perverse mental masturbation that does nothing but waste your energy and destroy what little happiness you can achieve. If you can learn to refocus yourself to only what you can affect, the happier and more productive you will become.

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
    3. Re:The biggest problem: the "long view" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But giving up rational perceptions, or the "long view" as we are calling it is to give up on truth. It is to choose to live an irrational life devoid of control or greater meaning than putting one foot in front of the other. Sure it is only a perceptual issue, but after seeing the complexities and brilliance of existence with all its intricacies of patterns and flow how can I turn away, choose to ignorantly play with mud that I don't even understand like everyone else and be happy doing it?

    4. Re:The biggest problem: the "long view" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't found the religion yet that wasn't just totally inconsistent and goofy.

      Have you tried Scientology yet?

    5. Re:The biggest problem: the "long view" by J-1000 · · Score: 1

      "I'd love to just be normal, and not have to think so much about everything."

      You know, it might not help that you're a truck driver and probably have waaaaaay more time to think than the average Joe. :) And don't be too hard on yourself.

    6. Re:The biggest problem: the "long view" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intelligence is awesome, but you need humility and empathy to be happy if you're intelligent. Most Americans lack those, so intelligence doesn't work too well for them.

    7. Re:The biggest problem: the "long view" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm thinking how much it's going to suck looking at her when she's 80.

      While I agree with all you've said, there's a curious upside.

      If you're still with your wife when she's 80, you may well find she is the most beautiful creature in the world, despite all the downsides of aging.

      It's a bittersweet thing, the future.

    8. Re:The biggest problem: the "long view" by Spugglefink · · Score: 1

      I think it's illegal to be reasonable on Slashdont, but after thinking about it, I agree with you. I know intelligent guys who have a totally different perspective. I don't know Arnold Schwarzenegger personally, but I've read "Total Recall," and he seems quite intelligent while also being the sort of "in the moment" person I was talking about. There was even an interesting passage where he talked about how he liked to make decisions without having too much information, because knowing too many details was crippling.

      Now I'm starting to wonder if it could be an introvert/extrovert thing. I can't think of any intelligent introverts who aren't the same flavor of maudlin, introspective basket cases that I am. I can't think of any extroverts who aren't "in the moment" types, whether they're intelligent or not.

      Hmmm.

    9. Re:The biggest problem: the "long view" by captjc · · Score: 1

      There is a possibility that there is an assassin in your house ready to kill you. There is a possibility that an asteroid will strike you. The probability of either of the situations being true is practically zero, but not impossible. You can waste your time wallowing in those situations which will either never happen or you have no control over or you can use your intellect to root out the real problems in your life and solve them.

      This is not about giving up on truth, this is about tackling the real issues instead of "What ifs." Any time spent on thinking about losing loved ones is time that could have been spent with loved ones. Any time spent thinking how they will leave you is time taken away from focusing on why they might leave you and how to prevent that from happening. And any time you think about a loved one dying who isn't at this moment fighting for their lives is not about them, it is about you wallowing in self-loathing whether you admit it or not.

      Priorities.

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
    10. Re:The biggest problem: the "long view" by captjc · · Score: 1

      I was there. In school, I was horribly depressed thinking about all the different ways my life could quickly turn south, in spite of every parent and teacher saying that I will practically be the next Bill Gates. I also couldn't help but dwell on the ephemerality of everything I loved to the point I was more-or-less a nihilist.

      At some point, I realized it was just wasted energy that not only did nothing to help me but actively hurt me. It made me a serious, dour person that nobody wanted to be around. Worse, there is only so much time and energy to spend on thought that using it for what amounts to little more than self-loathing is just pissing away what could be used to focus on my real problems. After much hard work, and many ups and downs, I like to believe that I am a happier, more likable, and more successful person than I was 10-15 years ago.

      It isn't about living for the moment, tomorrow be damned or making decisions with little information. It is about refocusing your introspection to where your real problems lie instead of dwelling on what you have no control over. Turn your gift of analyzing your situation and sussing out the truth into an asset for success instead of a depressing curse. Ask yourself, "Why am I unhappy" and attack those areas with ruthless abandon.

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
    11. Re:The biggest problem: the "long view" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm having sex with my wife, and somewhere I'm thinking how much it's going to suck looking at her when she's 80.

      Meanwhile, others (such as myself) look towards the future picture of children and grandchildren and how we have so much love and experience we can give them.

      Perspective and focus can make a huge impact on overall happiness. Find things to look forward to (while still being responsible enough for planning ahead for the inevitable) - there are too many negative things that aren't worth the time, energy, or emotion to get bogged down with. I sure hope my wife and I grow old enough that we're no longer remotely sexually attractive to a non-senior-citizen - it means we will have the opportunities to do things we enjoy doing and making positive impacts on the people we love.

    12. Re:The biggest problem: the "long view" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better, then, to engage less frequently in mental masturbation and more frequently in the physical variety.
      It might be brief, it might be soul-enriching and fulfilling, but a good wank is hard to beat ;)

      Thus spake the anonymous voice of experience!

  78. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Giant ground sloth was present before those "with nature" humans you talk about, and died out shortly after. In fact, there's a list of about 50 animals that would have been good hunting or human competitors that died out once they go to North America.

    You ideas about what they did are quite trite, and 100% wrong.

  79. A sitcom? by waltew · · Score: 1

    1500 of the smartest people in the world, and their highest achievement was a sitcom?

  80. Re: What the fuck are you talking about? by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

    >Alright then: looks like the arrival of Europeans didn't have any appreciable effect on the continent then

    I wouldn't put the finger on Europeans per se, more of what was brought with them and that was a ruling party's culture, this could be narrowed down to being slavery.

  81. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds to me like you're motivated to demonize the Spaniards because what they directly observed and recorded hurts your sensitive leftist feelings.

  82. The true burden by msobkow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The true burden lies in thinking a "high IQ" means you're better than other people. There are many valuable skills and talents which are not measured by an IQ test, including art, music, empathy, and so on.

    The burden is the arrogance of presuming IQ means intelligence. It does not. It is simply one metric for measuring skillsets.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:The true burden by Shados · · Score: 1

      Let's ignore IQ then.

      Still, the fact remain, by most definition of intelligence, someone very smart would know more things, be more "aware" of the world, etc.

      And the world fucking sucks. The more you know and understand it, the more depressing it is.

    2. Re:The true burden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having a high IQ almost always means you have more utility to society. Try looking at art and appreciating your way to a $120k salary, or empathising your way into a fulfilling, intellectually challenging, financially-rewarding job, or listening to music until you get a comfortable retirement. Hate to break it to you, but those things are not going to happen. Well, maybe if you have super-rich parents, but otherwise...

    3. Re:The true burden by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      Let's ignore IQ then.

      Still, the fact remain, by most definition of intelligence, someone very smart would know more things, be more "aware" of the world, etc.

      And the world fucking sucks. The more you know and understand it, the more depressing it is.

      I agree 100%. Knowing too much and not being able to mentally ignore the obvious bullshit sucks so much.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    4. Re:The true burden by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. My IQ is above average according to the tests I've taken at various times.

      Apparently I have high logical and spatial intelligence, and a good sense of rhythm, but I also have below-average social intelligence and "people skills".

      It's all a tradeoff, very very few people are good at literally everything.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    5. Re:The true burden by msobkow · · Score: 1

      And again, an invalid metric. Having more money than someone else does not make you "better" than them.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  83. Re:Can High Intelligence Be a Burden Rather Than . by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    *parties

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  84. The end game is wisdom, not intelligence etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When (if) one gets over oneself and asks the right questions it is possible to achieve a shift in ones sense of purpose that allows those who find the answers to transition beyond thinking patterns that lead to angst and frustration.

  85. Re:Can High Intelligence Be a Burden Rather Than . by MobSwatter · · Score: 0

    >That... That looks like English...

    Actually, it is more Germanlishy, but as American does pre-date paperclip. English royalty did trade with German and I am a blueblood if that is what you are asking.

  86. This may be why by reboot246 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The danger when you have the intelligence to do anything you want to do in life is doing nothing. You hesitate to focus narrowly on one field of study because that means you'll have less time for all the others.

    I won't say what my IQ is, but it's up there. My grades, especially in science courses, were practically perfect. People were expecting me to go into all kinds of careers, including medicine, chemistry, physics, computer science, etc.. But, I'm interested in everything! Always have been. I chose a career that didn't need much thought so I could keep up with what was happening in science and technology. It's worked. How many 62 year olds do you know who build their own computers? Or just bought two new microscopes? Or diagnose their own problems before going to the doctor?

    I know a lot of successful people. Most of them have very little time for fishing, hunting, camping, going to ball games, watching television, listening to music, playing with the children & grandchildren, or working in the garden. I have all the time in the world to enjoy life. Isn't that what it's all about?

    1. Re:This may be why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are Cucking right !, it is better to have a clam life and none know you are very intelligent, we don't want to win any price at all or being the best, or being attacked and hated for well performing, we just want clam life an normal life, that seems good to me, do the job in a very easy way and have time to play with what we like more of just seeing the sunset, BTW is a very worth time doing that simple things

    2. Re:This may be why by phorm · · Score: 1

      "How many 62 year olds do you know who ... diagnose their own problems before going to the doctor"

      A lot, unless you mean "correctly" and without being a huge PITA ;-)

  87. Re:Can High Intelligence Be a Burden Rather Than . by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

    >*parties

    That would depend greatly upon the beverages being served. Based on observation I'm leaning towards my spelling. ;-)

  88. Here is what you are missing by justthinkit · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here is what you are missing -- helping others.

    Most of the activities of my life have been trivially easy for decades. Helping others remains challenging.

    If you really are "so smart", you are able to see what a disaster this world is today. Well, get busy changing it. You will be up against the most powerful, greedy, selfish & moneyed people on the face of the Earth. Challenge enough for me. What about you?

    --
    I come here for the love
    1. Re:Here is what you are missing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not to sound callous, but that does not give me any kind of pleasure.

      What I find fulfilling is sitting down with a notebook and freshly sharpened pencils, and doodling away math problems.

      What I find interesting is listening to and composing classical music.

      What I find enjoyable is spending time with my family, solving puzzles, rock climbing, having a drink, smoking a joint, and getting laid.

      What I do not find enjoyable is helping people. Now, there are many, many people who find helping people fulfilling. To me, it does nothing. If anything, I disagree with the notion at its fundamental level. I find that we should prioritize helping the planet's ecology over people because there are way too many humans and not enough animals. And we treat the animals and plants on our planet appallingly poorly. I would rather that we spend the money we spend on social programs on science and technology. I care for the survival of the species, but I couldn't care less about the human condition. That's just me.

      I'm glad you find helping people challenging and fulfilling. Not for its own sake, but for your sake. I would be bored to tears, and lack the emotional empathy needed to care. I would much rather spend my time solving the Riemann Hypothesis or watching Star Trek.

      I will leave you with this quote from H.L. Mencken:

      "The value the world sets upon motives is often grossly unjust and inaccurate. Consider, for example, two of them: mere insatiable curiosity and the desire to do good. The latter is put high above the former, and yet it is the former that moves one of the most useful men the human race has yet produced: the scientific investigator. What actually urges him on is not some brummagem idea of Service, but a boundless, almost pathological thirst to penetrate the unknown, to uncover the secret, to find out what has not been found out before. His prototype is not the liberator releasing slaves, the good Samaritan lifting up the fallen, but a dog sniffing tremendously at an infinite series of rat-holes."

    2. Re:Here is what you are missing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well at least YOU get to do what you like to do. Its all about you! LOL.

  89. YES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    next question

  90. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....and they managed to live on the N-American continent for at least 20.000 years without rotting out large numbers of higher vertebrate species like the currently dominant human cultures on the N-American continent have either managed to do or will do within the next few decades.

    Ahem. Rousseau, like Malthus, has a lot to answer for. Savages aren't noble, and humanity is not a curse. Grow up, and read a few [better] books.

  91. And I will leave you with this thought by justthinkit · · Score: 1

    You are headed for a fall.

    --
    I come here for the love
    1. Re:And I will leave you with this thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone is. That's why we all should help others.

    2. Re:And I will leave you with this thought by metlin · · Score: 1

      And why would that be?

      Not everyone is wired the same way, and some of the greatest contributors to science did it out of curiosity rather than goodwill.

      Personally, I think the H.L. Mencken quote sums it all up rather well.

    3. Re:And I will leave you with this thought by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      If this was a purely scientific discussion, I could agree with you.

      My remark is based on the total of what I got from the AC.

      I mean her or him no malice. I'm just hearing warning signs.

      --
      I come here for the love
  92. Re:Doh! Natural Selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If high intelligence were an unmitigated benefit, natural selection would have moved the IQ average to 130, 150 or whatever over the eons. There _must_ be commensurate down-sides. Depression? Slower reflexes? Go fetch!

    Um, hello? Homo sapiens moved from hunter-gatherer tribes to the threshold of being a space faring civilization in less than 25,000 years; that's the equivalent of a microsecond on evolutionary timescales. What the hell more do you want?

  93. Re:Doh! Natural Selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Intelligence is a weaker selection trait in the wild then, say, strength, stamina, endurance and mate attraction.

    It only becomes worthwhile once you have a stable society and can then pursue such "luxuries" and, even then, it appears to take thousands of years to become critical to society in general and, even now, it's still not considered a "desirable" trait for mate attraction...

    This is also based on the assumption that intelligence (which can take many forms) is completely dependent on genetics, as much as eye color is, and has nothing to do with nurture, personal development and self care or even acts of demonstrating intelligence in an objectively measurable fashion.. (all of which are lacking when considering why intelligence is not strongly correlated with natural selection demands on the microscopic measure of single generations.)

    There are so many things that can affect intelligence more strongly than genetics (in terms of intelligence of both parents) which in general is measured in terms of a "Regression to the mean", that is based on genetics my intelligence falls somewhere between the intelligence of my mother and the intelligence of my father.. so in terms of one parent.. the intelligence of the family line may have gone up, while in terms of the other lineage.. for the other parent.. the intelligence will have gone down. In terms of genetics this does not do much to explain any significant generational change in intelligence, so it is patently clear that there are other factors not accounted for purely by genetics or natural selection, though these are factors.. just not big ones, in general (leaving out where genetics contributes to severe autism, retardation or other deficits.) I would say that it is more nurture than nature.

  94. Re: What the fuck are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Flint is better.

  95. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because we have to be burdened with fucking idiots who question whether or not high intelligence is a burden.

    Because we have to deal with people we know are very intelligent, but have been taught that being too smart is bad, and the become fucking idiots.

    Because we have to deal with assholes who are smart enough to know they're lying assholes, but then use that intelligence to make deliberate logical fallacies to illustrate their point.

  96. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Why the fuck do you make the idiotic claims that you do?"

    Useful idiots are useful idiots. Ever notice that those who denigrate European and US culture are almost always leftists? They are communism's "useful idiots".

    Is this supposed to be a joke? A Republican commenting that Democrats are somehow communists or communist prone or useful to communists?

    It does read as partisan propaganda more than it does as any useful contribution to a discussion on the merits of intelligence. Perhaps you are an outlier in one of the negative quadrants with respect to the y value. You are an outlier in terms of being on the rim of the Bell Curve.. but .. definitely not on the right side rim.. definitely the left side. (In terms of the bell curve positive and negative extremes and not in terms of the political left and right to be perfectly clear.)

    I have not noticed that those who denigrate European and US culture almost always being leftists. I have noticed that a lot of Right wing extremists tend to try to:
    1- Tell others what they should think or feel.
    2- Bleat out their perceptions or more often, things they wished were true, stated in the form of observations that other people are expected to adopt as their own perceptions, rather than thinking for themselves.
    3- Make broad comparisons and over generalizations comparing political opposition in their own country to Communists and in extreme cases the Nazi regime, which are not even the same types of government, but these two things are treated as if they are the same thing. This includes saying "Candidate -X is a communist!" without demonstrating that they even have an understanding of what actual "Communism" in terms of Marxist ideology and being able to demonstrate that Candidate -X demonstrates Marxist ideology.
    4- Have 0 respect for the opinions of others and have almost no ability to "agree to disagree" they have to be right otherwise they feel like they are losers, as opposed to respecting the fact that not everyone agrees on everything and that in America, our diversity is one of our strengths.
    5- They tend to accuse political opposition parties of doing exactly what their people do or did when in power.. How many things that clearly were done by the Bush administration were attempted to be blamed on the Obama administration? (Short list: War on Terror, Afghanistan War, Iraq War #2 and its associated cost over runs, The Housing Financial Crisis, The Automotive Industry Financial Crisis, The current economy / job market, Medical care being so expensive despite advances in technology and standards of care in the rest of the world.. the list goes on and on, but they will never acknowledge something that disagrees with their ridiculous, riddled with holes arguments.)
    6- Making the same arguments, repeating the same sound bites, shaking their heads at every turn and doing the same things over and over and over again expecting different results. (Congress trying to overturn Obamacare.. for the 70th or 80th time? Why do I have to pay taxes to support that? Once would have been ok, but how is it democracy if a vote is taken and someone doesn't like the outcome so votes again and again until they get what they want?) Showing no indication of learning from experience.

    My advice.. Stop trying to inject political propaganda into a discussion about intelligence. It makes you look stupid on top of being off topic!

  97. Nothing new under the sun... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. ~Ecclesiastes 1:18

  98. Correlation is not causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rather, a burden causes intelligence, but intelligence cannot solve the burden.

  99. Re:Doh! Natural Selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since IQ is a scale based on average intelligence being 100. Even if everyone got smarter, the average IQ would still be 100.

    A good if not entertaining perspective of this is illustrated in the movie Idiocracy. It just goes the other way.

  100. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Says the US, with both feet in Hitler's toy box.

    Well, we did import it at great expense, it would be a shame not to play in it.

    What does that even mean?

    Hitler's Toy box would be an awesome band name!

    I do believe most of the post WWII UFO sitings, including the Roswell Crash were US Air Force personnel test flying former Nazi "Flying Wing" style aircraft which eventually led to the development of the B-2 and F-117 Nighthawk aircraft.. but were difficult to control without fast, light and powerful computers, hence the multiple crashes, cover ups and whatnot.

    Other than the Apollo program being developed from reverse engineering the V-2 Rocket with the help of Von Braun, I know of none of Hitler's toys in our possession.

  101. High Intelligence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is not addressed here are the following: If a person has intelligence and a "mentor" from an early age, he gains the book based knowledge and the wisdom derived from the mentor. I was above average and may be top 1% of my class and what made the difference was I had a highly intelligent and well experienced mentor. He guided me and told me that get "any degree" It does not matter. Use it as a ladder to move on. Never ever get attached to the one degree rather become an Eagle to view the world from different perspectives. Never compare yourself with others and envy if they are rich. Your goal has to be "happy", so help others and see they don't have things you have. Control your impulses to go after money or fame. They take time and will reach you. Apply your knowledge in field of study to another and try some thing new. Become a child to enjoy the results. So, I started with BS Physics, MA literature, MA Linguists, MS Computer Science, Ph. D Computational Sinusitis, studied Cultural Anthropology, wrote a unique book on Statistics, completed Read Estate Certification, Completed Para Legal studies and now moving to law school. How did I find time? I made it and avoided unwanted deviations and never bothered about opinion of others. I have helped many people and extremely happy. I still drive a 1992 car without shame or worry. So, finding the right mentor in addition to academic achievement is a must for success and happiness with a mind to say " I have enough:, let me help others. I am over 76 with no medical, financial or other problems. So positive attitude, learn to be happy are all part of your character.

  102. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    WTF you calling a Republican? I despise what the Republican party has become. Granted, I despise the Republicans less than I despise the Democrats - but that sure as hell doesn't make me a Republican.

    Your second paragraph attempts to establish a person's intelligence, based on his political thoughts. No point in reading any further, unless I want to amuse myself.

    Then, you have the audacity to offer advice in your last paragraph?

    Grow up, boy. Or girl. The adults were talking, and you should just STFU and listen.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  103. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

    >I do believe most of the post WWII UFO sitings, including the Roswell Crash were US Air Force personnel ...

    I can speak with confidence that this is not true.

    >Other than the Apollo program being developed from reverse engineering the V-2 Rocket with the help of Von Braun

    This is true.

    >I know of none of Hitler's toys in our possession.

    Paperclip included more than just scientists, it also included technological documentation as well as Himler's documentation and Vatican style records of bloodlines and observed traits involving telekinesis, and the mind control bullcrap.

    This was all in safe hands under OSS, but that all changed under the newly established CIA policy with political oversight of classified programs and the thieving ready made killers.

  104. Something I heard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "There are 100 physicists alive today who are as smart as Einstein, but immensely frustrated with their lives because they will never have a significant professional accomplishment to their name, simply because they are not lucky enough to be in the right place and time like Einstein was."
    -A physicist I know

    Said physicist recommended to me to work hard at my career, but to put family at the center of my priorities.

  105. Different motivations by EdwardFurlong · · Score: 1

    Maybe higher IQ means you are not just focused on looks, money, power etc. Those things will not bring you joy. You see how stupid the world is, and as smart as you are there is no way out.

  106. Re:Doh! Natural Selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If high intelligence were an unmitigated benefit, natural selection would have moved the IQ average to 130, 150 or whatever over the eons.

    And how do you know it didn't? IQ is always measured against the current population of similar age, and is recalibrated all the time to have average at 100.

  107. Re:Doh! Natural Selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't say people didn't get smarter but saying that the average IQ will go up is impossible since the average IQ is always 100.

  108. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by GaAs+oldAce · · Score: 1

    >I do believe most of the post WWII UFO sitings, including the Roswell Crash were US Air Force personnel ...

    I can speak with confidence that this is not true.

    What was it that you are confident it was then? Aliens? A claim like that would require way more proof than you probably have to be taken anywhere near seriously.

    as far as Nazi research into telekinesis and mind control? just because it was researched does not mean it was real. Hitler was intelligent but by no means sane, and in a regime like that doing real science is problematic at best.. when the leaders think they know what the outcome of the research "Should" be.

    Keep in mind that, it was scientists in the Nazi party that claimed, because Einstein was a jew, that "Relativity is a jewish farce".

    I am thankful that the Nazi's were that dense, as to, due to their own prejudices, hadicapping themselves away from realizing that E=MC^2 was the key piece of info they needed to develop atomic weapons. We are here, living in the free world because they allowed their hatred of the jews to over-ride their desire to understand how the universe actually was structured to a level of sophistication needed to split the atom. THANK GOD!

  109. Re: What the fuck are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know about Rousseau, but this Malthus dude/chick, where was in LOST?

  110. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do find it interesting that my old Cisco textbook states that the semi-conductor transistor was discovered in 1947, opening the doors for huge computer advancement, the same year as the Roswell Crash was supposed to have happened. All those rumors of reverse engineering a spaceship and the subsequent leap in technology is at least fun to think about. And where do you find that information? On page 47. Maybe someone in the know is trying to tell us something....

    I'm not kidding. Look it up for yourself. Cisco Networking Academy Program CCNA 1 and 2 companion guide, revised 3rd edition. ISBN 1-58713-150-1

  111. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So based on their job the study correlates intelligence? What?

    Also how do you measure happiness? Either the study or this article has a left out a lot to wonder.

  112. Re:Doh! Natural Selection by redelm · · Score: 1

    Certainly -- renorming measures the Flynn Effect. If it helps your understanding, please read the quoted sentence as "... moved the IQ average intelligence level to what we currently consider 130, 150 ...". And since you apparently like pedantry, please learn the difference between ignorance and stupidity.

  113. Re:Doh! Natural Selection by redelm · · Score: 1
    I would consider current [techno-]society as very much homo-sapiens "in the wild". Any outside influences/zookeepers are carefully hidden :)

    But I agree hunter-gatherer societies find other traits more advantageous. Even industrialized societies have lower intelligence advantages than information societies. "Mate attraction" is obviously a second-order effect with lags (it is what used to pay). We are 10 generations into the start of industrialization but only 4 into info.

    The gross advantages of intelligence are quite apparent and quite large. That intelligence is only slowly taking over implies the net advantages (after deducting disadvantages) are much smaller.

  114. Re: What the fuck are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Taking the hearts out, perfectly possible...

    Having concience without blood flowing: not for a second.

  115. Re: What the fuck are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Living in harmony with nature is not the same as living in harmony with one another.

    The last time I checked both tigers and rabbits live in nature... And tigers try to eat rabbits.

    Even today the chinese cultural idea of paradise is considered going back to a natural state, which they agree is impossible, because people would kill each other, so it is contradictory... But the second best is do not ruin nature, since we eat it, it nurtures us.

    You see? A cultural bias is difficult to explain.

    Well, all cultures need warriors. Without warriors and weapons, they can't defend themselves against other warriors.

    If they ritualistically slaughter people or killer them very fast in battle, who cares? They are killed anyway...

    As you can imagine those rituals were requested by religious priests. Warriors would never do that because it requires a lot of time, money, resources and you can get into an ambush for going so slow...

    So the high priest would request fresh blood to satisfy some god, and if the warriors didn't comply, their hearts could be taken out instead.

  116. Re: What the fuck are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you say that the idea that people hate their own behavior when they see it in other people, and that it applies to the person who finally said it, specifically to the first part of his diatribe...

    You mean the part of being catholic or being owned?

  117. Re:Doh! Natural Selection by Bengie · · Score: 1

    Whatever their's is, your's must be lower. Obviously they were comparing our 150 to the hypothetical 100 of a more intelligent society.

  118. Re:Doh! Natural Selection by Bengie · · Score: 1

    IQ is the median of a group. Obviously they're doing inter-group IQ comparisons, not intra. An IQ of 150 in one group can be the IQ of 100 in another group.

  119. Most of the comments here belong in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reddit.com/r/iamverysmart

  120. YES IT CAN BE.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IQ estimated to be 148 by a hospital psychologist.

    Was initially Senior Analytic and had university degree.

    Now killed by psychiatric drugs AGAINST MY WILL etc (8 years of psychiatric drug use).

    No anymore friends etc. to help.

    If somebody wants to help (need place to hide ASAP in europe, preferrably in france): tomtom8034@yahoo.com.

  121. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

    Yes there were life forms recovered, and they could not classify as USAF, German, American or human for that matter. Based on the knowledge I have shared with you regarding OSS/CIA you should be aware of a few things about me and my family and the aspect that one of my family members was present in Roswell in 1947. To provide evidence about that would be insane as the ability to cover up something by the government extends much farther than that of the mob which happens to be pretty extensive.

    I think you might underestimate Hitler's desire to build a master race, and have overlooked his devout Catholic Austrian upbringing. One should never underestimate an adversary.

    Einstein was a Jew, and quite gifted with the love of science over money, not very common in that people. The laws of physics do however change with our understanding, probably be better to establish theory because law is conceptually too strong of a word for something we have only scratched the surface of it is should be understood that causality is a factor on a particle level because different materials react in different ways in different gravitational environments as well as temperature. The definition of energy was a good call though.

    I do find it amusing that you look down upon Hitler while you live in a nation that has applied his practice and thinking, but it would appear that hypocrisy is a pretty standard trait in humanity and contributes to my faith in it, more of the glass half empty type of faith. God is an entirely different subject, sooner or later everyone finds, based on my understanding of religion, my preference is free will.

  122. Intelligence is definitely a burden by tgrigsby · · Score: 1

    Trust me it is. Have you tried arguing politics with a teabagger lately? They don't know history, the Constitution and its the Amendments, basic U.S. governmental function, basic economics, global politics, science, etc. They rant about their hatreds and fears but are unable to formulate a logical argument based on facts, instead blending in their religious beliefs and right wing sound bites as foundational arguments. It's all magical thinking and ignorance, and it makes being the intelligent one in the room a burden.

    --
    *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
    1. Re:Intelligence is definitely a burden by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Your level of intelligence is indicated by your use of a sexual insult early in your rant.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re:Intelligence is definitely a burden by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      I don't see any sexual insults, but I do see a slang term used by the 'Tea Party,' for a while, to describe themselves.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  123. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by An+dochasac · · Score: 1

    I would have to say the technological part was not so bad, but we played with Hitler's love of the occult in 1954 and that ended the separation of church and state, it has been a downhill run ever since here.

    OK so Godwin's Law holds true. I was going to send this link to a highly intelligent friend who constantly doubts his self worth but this whole tangle of threads proves that any mention of intelligence on Slashdot soon evaporates into a singularity of shallow thoughts about politics and religion.

    I'm depressed not because I'm intelligent but because the world must face such vast infinities of stupid...

  124. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Northrop was developing "flying wing" aircraft in the 1930s, and the YB-35 flew on June 25, 1946. Germany also worked on similar aircraft in that period, but to imply that later US development of "flying wing" planes stemmed from Nazi research is contrary to fact. Yes, the control of such craft is more difficult, but no, it does not really need high speed computers - control systems just don't need to be fast and complicated just because it's a flying wing.

    Some modern high speed aircraft use computer control because the aerodynamic configuration that gives the highest performance is inherently badly unstable.

    Over the years, there has been debate about the morality of using the results of vicious Nazi human experiments, mostly in the realm of psychology, I guess that's another of Hitler's toys.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  125. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Nazis and communists have a common desire to control the general population in a roughly similar fashion. They are so far removed from a free society that their differences are inconsequential.

    The US Democrats are and always have been closer to communism that the Republicans. It is not by chance that Bernie Sanders caucuses with the Democrats.

    The repeated attempts to overturn Obamacare have the same status as repeatedly trying to stop a serial rapist, except that stopping Obamacare is far more important. Complaining about not giving up after one failure, is profoundly immoral.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  126. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nazis and communists have a common desire to control the general population in a roughly similar fashion. They are so far removed from a free society that their differences are inconsequential.

    The US Democrats are and always have been closer to communism that the Republicans. It is not by chance that Bernie Sanders caucuses with the Democrats.

    The repeated attempts to overturn Obamacare have the same status as repeatedly trying to stop a serial rapist, except that stopping Obamacare is far more important. Complaining about not giving up after one failure, is profoundly immoral.

    Wow, way to turn around and confuse the issue, Tell me EXACTLY:

    1- How is Obamacare immoral? Because it takes money out of your wallet? Because you enjoy watching people suffer?
    2- How is Congress violating the law and wasting UNPRECEDENTED amounts of taxpayer dollars on basically attempting to overturn a law they don't like again and again?

    Oh and by the way ChrisMaple, TETARD, REPUBLICAN DIPSHIT DUMB FUCK GLEN BECK WORSHIPPER...

    There is NO fucking similarity between Democrats and Communists. Every time one of you uneducated morons say that you don't realize how fucking dumb that makes you look. You need to stop watching fox news and educate yourself. But you won't, because you think you know everything and that you are right about everything. That is why you are such a fucking retarded mess, that is why your life is a mess.

    Do yourself a favor and don't respond, unless you like the sound of people laughing at you! I am laughing at your stupid bullshit.

  127. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF you calling a Republican? I despise what the Republican party has become. Granted, I despise the Republicans less than I despise the Democrats - but that sure as hell doesn't make me a Republican.

    Your second paragraph attempts to establish a person's intelligence, based on his political thoughts. No point in reading any further, unless I want to amuse myself.

    Then, you have the audacity to offer advice in your last paragraph?

    Grow up, boy. Or girl. The adults were talking, and you should just STFU and listen.

    That is such an idiotic response and you are such a fucking retard Glenn Beck wanna-be.. You are fucking ridiculous and you have some SEVERE reading comprehension problems if that is your response....

    you tell me to STFU and listen? I would never listen to someone like you fucking moron!
    You totally ignored that you are off topic, trying to make a political point, and no one cares.. and you don't want to hear it.. You are going to have to build yourself up looking in the mirror again going "I am smart, I know everything, I am smart, People respect me.. People like me.. People don't think I am a Teatard!"
    It won't work, but you will keep doing it because you are desperate, have an incorrect world view and are pissed, because you think you are perfect and everyone you meet knows what an idiot you are.. You have fooled no one. You are the one that needs to grow up.. FUCKING IDIOT!

  128. there's a reason by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    the term is "fool's paradise", never "genius' paradise"

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  129. Re: What the fuck are you talking about? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    Nothing is as sharp as obsidian. It's still used in some surgery.

    well, broken glass of all kinds, obsidian included. been a while, but we used to use broken glass for microtome knives to produce thin slices for electron microscopy.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  130. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    "Why the fuck do you make the idiotic claims that you do?"

    Useful idiots are useful idiots. Ever notice that those who denigrate European and US culture are almost always leftists? They are communism's "useful idiots".

    ever notice that those who have nothing but anecdotal evidence are so certain of themselves? Presumably, a presidential candidate who castigates nearly half the American population as freeloaders because they don't pay income tax because their income is too low (as distinct from those who pay no income tax because they have loophole-scenting lawyers) doesn't count as "denigrating US culture". No, he admires it totally, except for the parts of it he doesn't like.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  131. Re:Doh! Natural Selection by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    Intelligence is a weaker selection trait in the wild then, say, strength, stamina, endurance and mate attraction.

    It only becomes worthwhile once you have a stable society and can then pursue such "luxuries" and, even then, it appears to take thousands of years to become critical to society in general and, even now, it's still not considered a "desirable" trait for mate attraction...

    Similarly; the next most intelligent creatures on earth, chimpanzees, even the other great apes, even the rest of the primates, are nothing more than a footnote in the book of earth's fauna, nor have they ever been terribly significant; and if humanity should vanish there is no possibility that their dominant place in the global ecology will be even partially assumed by apes, despite what the movies say.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  132. Re:We have too many people in college / higher lev by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    We have too many people in college / higher levels of the ivory tower some maybe very smart but at times in some fields when it comes down to real world work experience (out side of the ivory tower) they can be very dumb.

    thats such a cliche, though. one could say that sometimes smart people can have tons of real world work experience, but when it comes down to analytical, theoretical understanding, they can be very dumb.
    of course, that can be said of any two types of knowledge, besides ivory tower/real world. science/arts, for instance.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  133. Re:What the fuck are you talking about? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    How typical. People like you ramble on about things like "tolerance", but you are completely intolerant of any point of view that doesn't agree with your own. You are so very intolerant, that you ASSume that any opposing view must be a Republican point of view. "If you're not with us, then you're against us", right?

    Poor idiot.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  134. Re:Doh! Natural Selection by righteousness · · Score: 1

    Aren't there standardised tests for IQ? So if all the different groups take the same test with the same scoring system, doesn't that mean that an IQ of 100 in one group is also an IQ of 100 in another group?

    --
    Don't fornicate. Seriously, just don't do it.
  135. Personally, happiness is fleeting by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

    My IQ is somewhere above 130, according to standardized tests. I am fully aware that IQ only measures very specific types of intelligence, and that I am probably both above and below average on other types of intelligence. For instance I absolutely suck at general small-talk. I love talking about things inside my sphere of interest, but the general "so, what's up?" kind of small talk completely flummoxes me.

    I would say that being more informed of issues in the world, and being intelligent enough to know that there are better ways, definitely contributes to negatively to overall happiness. I mean, how can anyone be truly happy when there is war, hunger, injustice and exploitation in the world? How can anyone be content with the current situation when people are being mutilated and murdered by religious fanatics because they believe in different fairytales?

    It's not that I never feel good emotions. I am moved to tears by particularly beautiful musical numbers, or sometimes movie scenes or books. I feel joy when I share good experiences with my friends and family. I am excited when I drive go-carts or ride my motorcycle. I am not a "*beep-boop* FEELINGS ARE ILLOGICAL" robot, I just don't think I have ever have felt true happiness, because I wonder and worry far too much.

    Ignorance is bliss.

    --
    Eat the rich.
  136. Re:natural selection suggests high IQ has drawback by Shortguy881 · · Score: 1

    Source?

    --
    Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
  137. You need to sell yourself as well by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    It is not enough to be a genius in this world, you must also have marketing skills. It is very rare for someone to 'find' you out of the blue and determine that you have skills that they need and can make use of. You have to sell your intelligence like any other product. You have to be able to actually solve problems show people how that is beneficial to them. I imagine the ones that can't market and don't reach their full potential from an intellectual perspective are very unhappy indeed.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  138. Re:Can High Intelligence Be a Burden Rather Than . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the comment has been deleted; It seemed like it would've been funny to read.

    I really hate way /. handles comment deletion. We now have these 2 orphaned comments without context - initially I thought you were both replying to http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7279815&cid=49502135 ...

  139. Genetic intelligence VS upbringing by phorm · · Score: 1

    Generally evolution isn't going to go on a per-decade rate, especially for humans that live for 50-100 years. That's something that happens over generations. It's hard to measure in the long-term because the standards of measure have also changed.

    There's also the upbringing factor: development is not only genetics, it's tied to health and nutrition. Your average "poor" person might not have a great outlook in that regard due to malnutrition etc.

  140. better to be smart by geo3rge · · Score: 1

    A lot of the fine article can be boiled down to "If you are so smart, why aren't you rich?"

    I know a lot of musicians (classically trained flute players) who are happy to spend hours a day at practice even though they day job has little to do with music. To simply say that their life is wasted because they are not a super star is dopey.

    I knew programmers at the large corporation I worked at who made good money but were as dumb as a stump. I suspect that they hated their jobs. Yes, these people were successful and had decent jobs -- unless you only define success as being a multi-millionaire.

    Being smart gets you further than grit alone, in the same way that a kind word and a loaded gun gets you further than a kind word alone -- at least is some areas. ;-)

  141. Re:Doh! Natural Selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Parent may have lacked knowledge about the definition of IQ, but knowledge is not intelligence.

  142. Play FOOL, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a really bad pun such phrase, eh? If they are not schizophrenic frauds, it will be schizophrenics constantly complaining that they can *HEAR THE GENIUS GUY THINKING* and making matters impossible everywhere who... will make matters impossible for the genius guy, if they do not make matters impossible because the guy is REALLY, TRULY a genius and the schizophrenic will just JUMP onto The Idea(s) and make the money or snatch the opportunity displacing the genius guy, (as far as possible to deny they were *HEARING* the genius guy in their heads). Things are not that simple unfortunately, but if indeed a genius (or NORMAL...), brain potency will be noticed by the non genius brains (schizophrenics which you call normal), as interference! Or voices in the head or around I the air. So how do you expect to have a genius getting results from genius if all people go perturbed around and start deviating their behavior from normal? And the genius will have no privacy, either. And people identifying him correctly will have an interest to englobe to get the spilled benefits from (determining) the genius. And so on. See how things are now an uphill fight instead of reaping benefits from thinking better, or more, or however you define genius? If this is not evident it is because there is a (communications) continuum and **in the land of blind men the maimed one is king**, so... how many blind men are making noise promoting their maimed one as The Genius over the ones hiding a true Genius because if people know of him they would be deprived of him, or exposed as non genius THIEVES...??? And so on and on... to cover a few books on the analysis of NORMALITY, aka Genius by schizophrenics and common people. - DJB

  143. Memory Palace, William James Sidis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google the title for a perfect example of the headline's question.

  144. Do tell... by iq145 · · Score: 1

    Existential angst, frustration, and loneliness? How interesting...