MartyrMade

[GloryofGreece]

Another interesting aspect:

Some of the most charitable and caring people I encountered professionally while working in an urban area were from tribal parts of the world, and the local urbanites who got into that career field were generally stunted in sympathy and empathy for others.

I don't know how else to explain this, and it took me many years to see it and process it for what it really is, but urbanites (in general, not all of them) tend to only care about others in their group insofar as they see a personal benefit to themselves. If you just express that sentiment neutrally, I think most of them would agree with it. To them, everything in a group of any kind is like an economic contract where they need to conclude they are receiving a value in return for what they are giving. Even their personal relations they tend to see a kind of give and take contract.

But if you explain to them that there are people who do not think that way at all, I think most of them will disbelieve it.

I think if you are basing most of your interactions off of a sense of reciprocity then that is one thing, but if you are predetermining your interactions in a way that helps to extract a measurable return then you are at least highly narcissistic veering into sociopath territory.

I also think that there are a relatively smallish percentage of intelligent people that honestly believe most people operate in a hyper cynical *(they'd call it realistic) self serving framework. If they are doing something good or nice etc. for someone else either it serves an evolutionary purpose at best or its for their own gain in most cases. These type of people are not a significant part of society from experience and my suspicion is part of what drives these thoughts they have is 1). high in trait neuroticism 2). low in sociability and empathy 3). view themselves as "intelligent" 4). spend a lot of time in their head 5). are deeply afraid of appearing naive.
These type of people usually cannot believe anyone that is of average intelligence can genuinely believe in mysticism, mystery, or miracles etc. nor can they understand why people would do things that do not translate into financial or status gain. They cannot fathom a world where other values are on a higher level and just a real. Furthermore, they also often see their own ideas and worldview in historical people throughout time and in position of power. For example, Alexander the Great or Napoleon or any political actor that had immense power had to do things for status acquisition primarily and exclusively. There is no way someone that is intelligent and skillful would at the same time be religious in any meaningful way.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Another interesting aspect:

Some of the most charitable and caring people I encountered professionally while working in an urban area were from tribal parts of the world, and the local urbanites who got into that career field were generally stunted in sympathy and empathy for others.

I don't know how else to explain this, and it took me many years to see it and process it for what it really is, but urbanites (in general, not all of them) tend to only care about others in their group insofar as they see a personal benefit to themselves. If you just express that sentiment neutrally, I think most of them would agree with it. To them, everything in a group of any kind is like an economic contract where they need to conclude they are receiving a value in return for what they are giving. Even their personal relations they tend to see a kind of give and take contract.

But if you explain to them that there are people who do not think that way at all, I think most of them will disbelieve it.

I think if you are basing most of your interactions off of a sense of reciprocity then that is one thing, but if you are predetermining your interactions in a way that helps to extract a measurable return then you are at least highly narcissistic veering into sociopath territory.

I also think that there are a relatively smallish percentage of intelligent people that honestly believe most people operate in a hyper cynical *(they'd call it realistic) self serving framework. If they are doing something good or nice etc. for someone else either it serves an evolutionary purpose at best or its for their own gain in most cases. These type of people are not a significant part of society from experience and my suspicion is part of what drives these thoughts they have is 1). high in trait neuroticism 2). low in sociability and empathy 3). view themselves as "intelligent" 4). spend a lot of time in their head 5). are deeply afraid of appearing naive.
These type of people usually cannot believe anyone that is of average intelligence can genuinely believe in mysticism, mystery, or miracles etc. nor can they understand why people would do things that do not translate into financial or status gain. They cannot fathom a world where other values are on a higher level and just a real. Furthermore, they also often see their own ideas and worldview in historical people throughout time and in position of power. For example, Alexander the Great or Napoleon or any political actor that had immense power had to do things for status acquisition primarily and exclusively. There is no way someone that is intelligent and skillful would at the same time be religious in any meaningful way.

I’m more or less one of those people that you’re describing. I don’t have an implicit problem with any form of mysticism, just the “organized” form.

I find that the RealPolitik viewpoint explains 95% of all human behavior that I’ve ever witnessed. I’d challenge you to find more than a very few examples of altruistic behavior for its own value.

[GloryofGreece]

Another interesting aspect:

Some of the most charitable and caring people I encountered professionally while working in an urban area were from tribal parts of the world, and the local urbanites who got into that career field were generally stunted in sympathy and empathy for others.

I don't know how else to explain this, and it took me many years to see it and process it for what it really is, but urbanites (in general, not all of them) tend to only care about others in their group insofar as they see a personal benefit to themselves. If you just express that sentiment neutrally, I think most of them would agree with it. To them, everything in a group of any kind is like an economic contract where they need to conclude they are receiving a value in return for what they are giving. Even their personal relations they tend to see a kind of give and take contract.

But if you explain to them that there are people who do not think that way at all, I think most of them will disbelieve it.

I think if you are basing most of your interactions off of a sense of reciprocity then that is one thing, but if you are predetermining your interactions in a way that helps to extract a measurable return then you are at least highly narcissistic veering into sociopath territory.

I also think that there are a relatively smallish percentage of intelligent people that honestly believe most people operate in a hyper cynical *(they'd call it realistic) self serving framework. If they are doing something good or nice etc. for someone else either it serves an evolutionary purpose at best or its for their own gain in most cases. These type of people are not a significant part of society from experience and my suspicion is part of what drives these thoughts they have is 1). high in trait neuroticism 2). low in sociability and empathy 3). view themselves as "intelligent" 4). spend a lot of time in their head 5). are deeply afraid of appearing naive.
These type of people usually cannot believe anyone that is of average intelligence can genuinely believe in mysticism, mystery, or miracles etc. nor can they understand why people would do things that do not translate into financial or status gain. They cannot fathom a world where other values are on a higher level and just a real. Furthermore, they also often see their own ideas and worldview in historical people throughout time and in position of power. For example, Alexander the Great or Napoleon or any political actor that had immense power had to do things for status acquisition primarily and exclusively. There is no way someone that is intelligent and skillful would at the same time be religious in any meaningful way.

I’m more or less one of those people that you’re describing. I don’t have an implicit problem with any form of mysticism, just the “organized” form.

I find that the RealPolitik viewpoint explains 95% of all human behavior that I’ve ever witnessed. I’d challenge you to find more than a very few examples of altruistic behavior for its own value.

One I would say obviously we can agree this is just conjecture and a kind of thought experiment so there's that, but Ill engage some. I would say "realpolitik" is real for the people that believe it and act accordingly. Im simply saying that there are significant amounts of people that are not just low IQ that are average or higher than are also driven by things other than survival and money. There are other values and any person steeped in any real depth of historical knowledge would know that. There are people today that are not only driven by money and power. I see them all the time, everyday. Im also not saying that a ton of people act compassionately for pure compassion sake. I think some more or less do do that. But what I am saying is that many people don't act compassionately simply for money or power. They do it for a variety of reasons and drives.

The cynic is also someone that thinks that all religion and mysticism is at best a denial of death like Becker wrote all his books about. Again that is a view that he has because his is essentially a nihilist or a cynic. There is no true romance, true compassion, or true faith etc. One of the reason psychology is mostly a bunch of bullshit is that it caters to the a relatively small couple subset of humanity. Those that are negative minded and/or ruminate and like to talk about shit etc. Meanwhile there entire swaths of people that are positive minded and not in any kind of cognitive deficient way, not in a denial way, not in a conscious trick way etc. They are simply acting positively most the time. They wake up happy and even when things hit them they keep going and believing things will ultimately work out.

[Speaker to Animals]

Prepare to be surprised by the number of people who think that way, GoG.

[GloryofGreece]

Prepare to be surprised by the number of people who think that way, GoG.

I refuse to be completely disenchanted. I've had people jump me and beat me almost unconscious, i've been dogged struggles in a combat gym, I've worked with the wretched and downtrodden, I've taught the very poor, sent lots of time in trailer parks, etc. , but most of the time most people have treated me fairly and reciprocally. I think that is partly b/c I am who I am and partly b/c most people are decent uncynical folk. Hope is the second highest virtue in our Church. Charity literally means from the latin not just giving alms but literally "loving the poor". Im no Saint, but like Kierkegaard says, I'm becoming a Christian.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I refuse to be the one to burst that optimism of yours GoG. But suffice it to say that our experience differs greatly.

I hope you never lose that viewpoint, honestly. The world needs more people like yourself.

[DrYouth]

Well we're closing on some sort of consensus here...

The west may have accelerated IQ, but it has also accelerated the disconnect between the left and right brain (which is completely consistent with higher IQ which is largely a measure of left brain "executive" capacity)... leading to more "rationalism" simultaneous with more alienation... from one another and from spirit.
This is both the recipe for our "success" and the recipe for our current plight... I.e. loneliness, depression, addiction,

More "tribal" people suffer from less of this.
They are more interconnected, more spiritual, less "rational" perhaps, but less alienated.
If they have lower IQ, and population surveys may demonstrate a trend towards this... it is hardly something they feel they are "suffering" from.

[GloryofGreece]

Well we're closing on some sort of consensus here...

The west may have accelerated IQ, but it has also accelerated the disconnect between the left and right brain (which is completely consistent with higher IQ which is largely a measure of left brain "executive" capacity)... leading to more "rationalism" simultaneous with more alienation... from one another and from spirit.
This is both the recipe for our "success" and the recipe for our current plight... I.e. loneliness, depression, addiction,

More "tribal" people suffer from less of this.
They are more interconnected, more spiritual, less "rational" perhaps, but less alienated.
If they have lower IQ, and population surveys may demonstrate a trend towards this... it is hardly something they feel they are "suffering" from.

I don't think IQ is mostly , certainly not only left brain. I think creativity, entrepreneurship/innovation , aesthetics are all possible something that can be aligned with "intelligence" and maybe are even part of intelligence but in any case this is a clear problem with what smartness entails. Creativity is part of smartness in my opinion and I don't know if its part of IQ. I do know left brain function likely will not help with creative endeavors. And creativity played a huge role in our development as a species that could solve problems and adapt etc.

[DrYouth]

I don't think IQ is mostly , certainly not only left brain. I think creativity, entrepreneurship/innovation , aesthetics are all possible something that can be aligned with "intelligence" and maybe are even part of intelligence but in any case this is a clear problem with what smartness entails. Creativity is part of smartness in my opinion and I don't know if its part of IQ. I do know left brain function likely will not help with creative endeavors. And creativity played a huge role in our development as a species that could solve problems and adapt etc.

Intelligence is classically defined as “the ability to acquire and utilize knowledge.” ...
Creativity is the ability to come up with new ideas through a mental process of connecting existing concepts.
They don't appear to be correlated very highly.

https://psychology.stackexchange.com/qu ... reativity

Results of divergent thinking tests (administered to 228 intermediate school students, of whom about 43 percent were gifted) and calculated correlations between creativity and intelligence measures did not support the threshold theory which posits that creativity and intelligence are related only up to an intelligence quotient of about 120.

Can Only Intelligent People Be Creative? A Meta-Analysis by Kyung Hee Kim found a negligible correlation of IQ and creativity and does not support the Threshold Theory.

The mean correlation coefficient was small (r = .174; 95% CI = .165 – .183), but heterogeneous; this correlation coefficient indicates that the relationship between creativity test scores and IQ scores is negligible. Age contributed to the relationship between intelligence and creativity the most; different creativity tests contributed to it secondly. This study does not support threshold theory.

[GloryofGreece]

I don't think IQ is mostly , certainly not only left brain. I think creativity, entrepreneurship/innovation , aesthetics are all possible something that can be aligned with "intelligence" and maybe are even part of intelligence but in any case this is a clear problem with what smartness entails. Creativity is part of smartness in my opinion and I don't know if its part of IQ. I do know left brain function likely will not help with creative endeavors. And creativity played a huge role in our development as a species that could solve problems and adapt etc.

Intelligence is classically defined as “the ability to acquire and utilize knowledge.” ...
Creativity is the ability to come up with new ideas through a mental process of connecting existing concepts.
They don't appear to be correlated very highly.

https://psychology.stackexchange.com/qu ... reativity

Results of divergent thinking tests (administered to 228 intermediate school students, of whom about 43 percent were gifted) and calculated correlations between creativity and intelligence measures did not support the threshold theory which posits that creativity and intelligence are related only up to an intelligence quotient of about 120.

Can Only Intelligent People Be Creative? A Meta-Analysis by Kyung Hee Kim found a negligible correlation of IQ and creativity and does not support the Threshold Theory.

The mean correlation coefficient was small (r = .174; 95% CI = .165 – .183), but heterogeneous; this correlation coefficient indicates that the relationship between creativity test scores and IQ scores is negligible. Age contributed to the relationship between intelligence and creativity the most; different creativity tests contributed to it secondly. This study does not support threshold theory.

I don't know if they are correlated and I am not arguing with the validity of the paper/article etc. you link. I do think that is a problem with intelligence being defined the way it typically is. I made the case why creativity is important (should be obvious) but i gave some specifics uses of it . Clearly even if you associate IQ with wealth and financial success you also can and should associate creativity with the advancement of civilization, business, economics, and just about every field.