Two types of Intelligence
I think Intelligence is made up of following two factors:
- Correctness. How right/wrong you get it
- IQ. How complex a concept you can handle
- So it’s possible for a genius to be wrong in a very complex way.
- Or a retard may get it right and not know why.
I think right/wrong are partially hormonal; adrenaline is released for threat = wrong situations. Dopamine is released as a reward = right situations. People who get it wrong habitually are reacting to adrenaline rather than dopamine.
The ability to make and follow through on the right decision relates to willpower which is not related to IQ.
An example of someone who’s intelligent but gets it wrong would be Richard Dawkins; he’s mainly motivated by sadism so reaches the wrong conclusions, but does so in a complex way so as to confuse people.
- Correctness. How right/wrong you get it
- IQ. How complex a concept you can handle
- So it’s possible for a genius to be wrong in a very complex way.
- Or a retard may get it right and not know why.
I think right/wrong are partially hormonal; adrenaline is released for threat = wrong situations. Dopamine is released as a reward = right situations. People who get it wrong habitually are reacting to adrenaline rather than dopamine.
The ability to make and follow through on the right decision relates to willpower which is not related to IQ.
An example of someone who’s intelligent but gets it wrong would be Richard Dawkins; he’s mainly motivated by sadism so reaches the wrong conclusions, but does so in a complex way so as to confuse people.
Comments (79)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4395/defining-good-and-evil
Not true, IQ tests measure more than logic. Knowledge, for starters. Congnition, comprehension, pattern recognition...and ya, logic.
https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/intelligence-deary.pdf
I disagree. I think intelligence is made up of two factors:
1) Conception of reality in the mind
2) Neural connections in the brain
The intelligence of religious people is impaired by belief in something they can't know; such that the contents of the mind effectively disable the brain. The brain works better dealing with truth. It experiences cognitive dissonance less, and is able to make more dense, straightforward and closer connections. In short, the brain that models reality the closest works best.
I'm not religious myself but it seems to me that Atheists are mentally impaired; there is no firm evidence either way for/against God but there is a simple choice between glass half full and glass half empty and Atheists choose empty; to the determent of themselves and those unfortunate enough to be around them. Atheism also seems to correlate with sadism; which is unhealthy mentally.
^I think (For now) the only factor that made up intelligence is IQ. Hmmm, you are free to teach me more though : D
Quoting karl stone
^Hmmm, not exactly, I think religious belief and intelligence has really weak correlation. Some of the people that we could deem smart, are religious people. Example : Blaise Pascal, Fyodor Dostoevsky
Quoting karl stone
^I agree with this, but you must understand that in religion, there are many concept that is real in it.
I think what I'm getting at is that moral intelligence is different from IQ. Murder is wrong for example but intelligent people still do it (to their great detriment). Similarly you get good people who generally do the right thing but have a low IQ.
And yet, these people whose intelligence is supposedly impaired have dominated human culture for at least thousands of years. This consistent record of successful adaptation suggests that, generally speaking, religious people are modeling human reality pretty darn well.
As example, Catholicism dominated Western culture to a degree unimaginable today for 1,000 years, and continues to have a billion members, while few people could accurately quote anything any scientist has said, if they could even name a scientist.
Another example, the current President. Although he lies with almost every sentence, and shows every appearance of being a moron, he is President and we are not. His success at reaching his goals suggests he is modeling reality pretty darn well, at least better than his many experienced and intelligent competitors.
Your theory...
... is generally sound.
But you aren't applying your own theory very well when you consistently ignore the human reality.
^Yes, I agree, not all Good, Altruistic people are smart, and not all Evil, Egoistic people are stupid. But I would argue we should put aside moral when we want to judge a person "Does he/she has High Intelligent or not?". Because I don't (too) agree with the concept of Moral Intelligence (I think the word should not be "Intelligence" it should be "Moral XXX" in which I don't know what XXX is because i'm not a native english speaker : D).
How does atheism correlate with sadism? Are you saying we should let everyone believe whatever they like - and that contradicting someone is an act of cruelty? I could not disagree more. If Dawkins were forcing people to read his books, that would be cruel. And worse, if he threatened people with everything from social exclusion to everlasting torture if they didn't believe every word he said, that would be intolerable.
Well maybe we need the term 'effective intelligence':
IQ * Moral Correctness = Effective Intelligence
So for example:
Richard Dawkins: 180 IQ * 25% = 45 effective intelligence points
A normal person: 100 IQ * 75% = 75 effective intelligence points
Both Atheists and Theists try to spread their beliefs. Both beliefs are wrong but Atheism makes people unhappy and some Atheists use this to inflict pain on people. Theism in contrast makes people happy.
^That's better..... that's mean you don't need to be smart to live good, the most important thing is you need to be a person with Good Moral Character : D, which I hope that is correct hahaha.
IQ is not an individual quality. It's a statistical measure of intelligence relative to that of others. So, i really don't know what you're saying here.
Quoting diesynyang
Right, but that's a good brain - not a good mind. It really would help if you'd understood the point I was making before replying.
Quoting diesynyang
Must I understand that? If I must - why didn't you list any?
^Yes, that's why my point is "You can know a person has high intelligence or not, based on their IQ, and for now, only IQ". We are not disgreeing i think.
Quoting karl stone
^Wait... fair enough, you haven't really made your point clear. So, you are saying that religious people has a "Good Brain" or "Good Mind"? and can you define those term for me to understand : D
Quoting karl stone
Some of it are :
- The View that we as human, have problem, and most of those problem comes from "Desire", "Desire" that implanted since birth. (psychology supported this) (and modern or ancient philosophy support it)
- The view that human, on the deepest core, is evil (Psychology term is "tend to do evil")
- The view that there are chaos in this world, and without "Order" we won't be happy. (Philosophy support it, or law theory)
- The View that, under the sun (or in the universe) none are eternal. (Philosophy supported it)
- The view that we won't be happy even if we are able to satisfy all of our impulse. Happiness doesn't come from us satisfying our "Desire"/"Impluse" (Is an ancient idea, but epicurus make it popular I think).
- The view that to strive, we must suffer (or not avoiding pain). (Nietzsche support it)
- ETC
As example, Catholicism dominated Western culture to a degree unimaginable today for 1,000 years, and continues to have a billion members, while few people could accurately quote anything any scientist has said, if they could even name a scientist.
Another example, the current President. Although he lies with almost every sentence, and shows every appearance of being a moron, he is President and we are not. His success at reaching his goals suggests he is modeling reality pretty darn well, at least better than his many experienced and intelligent competitors.
Your theory...
In short, the brain that models reality the closest works best.
— karl stone
... is generally sound.
But you aren't applying your own theory very well when you consistently ignore the human reality.[/quote]
Humankind is struggling from animal ignorance, into human knowledge over time. At one time, religion was the best understanding we could muster - but that was overtaken in all sorts of ways. From religion, all manner of specialist fields of knowledge grew - politics, philosophy, economics, law, science.
Each of these specialisms dropped an epistemology of faith - whereas religion retains that epistemology. i.e. it's true because the Good Book says so. It's not good enough in any other area of knowledge - because each of those would move forward, they have to be able to correct mistakes on an ongoing basis. Religion can't do that because it purports to be the word of God - the absolute truth, and requires unquestioning belief, not inquiry.
What do you we find when religion and specialist fields of inquiry come into conflict? People getting murdered, and not by those who favor inquiry. The religious kill people to maintain the ignorance of faith, and that, until very recently, has been the nature of civilization.
^Ohh! Now I understand your concern. Your concern are "Religion can't evolve, and in this reality which everything evolve, there will come a time when those evolving idea will conflict with religious idea, so it's better to put away religion, than to stuck on a stagnant way of thinking" (and also conflict of idea makes murder as you say).
We are starting to get into specific here, because you're implying "Religious people will murder people to defend their view", in which, hmmm that's not exactly correct.
Also, conflict raise because there are disagreement. But there are some "Basic Concept" that will (or should) not, or will never change. I think believing those concept is okay, because it in par with reality and it is indeed happen.Some of those "Basic Concept" is in my previous post.
— karl stone
^Wait... fair enough, you haven't really made your point clear. So, you are saying that religious people has a "Good Brain" or "Good Mind"? and can you define those term for me to understand : D
Brain - lump of grey matter in the skull
Mind - contents of understanding
why didn't you list any?
— karl stone
Some of it are :
- The View that we as human, have problem, and most of those problem comes from "Desire", "Desire" that implanted since birth.
- The view that human, on the deepest core, is evil (Psychology term is "tend to do evil")
- The view that there are chaos in this world, and without "Order" we won't be happy.
- The View that, under the sun (or in the universe) none are eternal.
- The view that we won't be happy even if we are able to satisfy all of our impulse. Happiness doesn't come from us satisfying our "Desire"/"Impluse" (Is an ancient idea, but epicurus make it popular I think).
- The view that to strive, we must suffer (or not avoiding pain).
- ETC[/quote]
Oh, right - so you're a Buddhist. I find it quite difficult to relate to Buddhists, because they suppress their emotions, wants and other natural impulses. How can you not see that as disabling?
Quoting karl stone
^ Ummm my list, are Judeo - Christian concept / w \. ps. I also thought that Buddhist concept is arguable : D
Quoting karl stone
^wait, so you're saying Blaise Pascal have little understanding of reality? and Dostoevsky too?
really? and you can also said "Bad brain can produce good understanding?" really?
I'm agnostic leaning towards Deism.
Evil = Wrong = What is pleasurable in the short term (and painful in the long term).
People are fundamentally not evil; they are fundamental Good (=Right) because its in their own interests to be right. Being Evil (=Wrong) is in no-ones best interest.
Ahh, there are many debate in this issue. Because people tend to choose Short-term good then long-term/complex good. and with your view, short term good = bad
(In which you can argue again and said, that mean they are stupid, in which the argument come back again by saying "They have low Effective Inteligence")
— karl stone
Quoting Devans99
So where in the world are there atheists indoctrinating children under threat of violence, social taboo, and eternal damnation? Nowhere! It would be considered child abuse and rightly so. Yet religion does this all the time.
How does atheism make people unhappy? It might make religious people unhappy - but there's nothing inherently unhappy about atheism. Life is a miracle on its own merits. It doesn't need to be gussied up with fairy tales to make it worthwhile. But if you indoctrinate a child with powerful philosophical concepts from infancy - and then dash those ideas in adulthood, you have an unhappy adult. But whose to blame? I say - the child abuser!
Atheists are also misguided but not all are well-meaning (e.g. Dawkins). They hurt people and do not enlighten them.
I spent some years as an atheist and it was a depressing experience; would not wish that on anyone.
I think we can't say "Atheist are more happy than religious people" and said "A child with Religious Doctrine implanted since birth will be Unhappy adult". Atheism is not inherently wrong, religion also not inherently wrong.
But, both of those concept have their own merit and bad side. You shouldn't say 1 concept has no value what so ever dude, that's called ignorance dude / _ \
btw, what are your view on my statement "People are not fundamentally good" : D i'm interest in your view hahaha
1) Science addresses facts about reality.
2) Religion addresses our relationship with reality.
Apples and oranges.
Oh, okay - the 'something out there somewhere' view of the universe. You reject religion - that would require some sort of discipline and standards from you, but wish to retain the comforting sense that someone is on overall charge? That's convenient! lol...
I'm agnostic on epistemic grounds. I know I don't know if God exists or not, so I don't worry about it. I focus on what I can know. However, I think there's a distinction to be made between God and religion. I know religion is bunk! It's the political philosophy of ages past - and there's no basis to assume religion is morally or intellectually superior to anything written today.
Quoting Devans99
Evil is just a word - meant to denote extreme forms of wrong. But it's a matter of perspective, and belief. Imagine, for example - someone killed a person and tore out their heart and ate it. That's evil, right? But if your tribe believes that eating the heart of a vanquished enemy will give you his strength - then killing and cannibalism are good. You not only defended the tribe, but increased your ability to defend the tribe.
This is important, because consider the Nazis - indoctrinated with false beliefs. They were not even religious beliefs, but pseudo-scientific ideas about a hierarchy of racial types. Acting on those idea - just following orders, they murdered millions of people, and they thought it right and good.
The point I'm coming to is this - because right and wrong is a sense, not a definition, it matters what people believe. It matters that they know what's true, because false belief can justify any degree of evil - and make you believe it good.
That would mean people are evil=wrong. We defined wrong as what's pleasurable in the short term and painful in the long term. That would make people short term creatures. But we are long term creatures: even an 80 year old has an average life expectancy of 10 years.
So normal people are long-term creatures. Right=Good is what's pleasurable in the long term. So people are fundamentally good.
Quoting Devans99
^No dude, it's not about life or death (because most of our decision isn't exactly about life or death situation) . it's about the Net Happiness and Net Suffering. What your argument is true IF
People are a happy human, which most of us are happy people, and the period of that happiness is long.
Umm basically, your argument is true if you agree with the statement "The World is a happy place filled with little suffering, and most of the people live a happy live"
you get the gist of it?
Science points to a creator of the universe (of some form). I do find it reassuring to know the universe was designed rather than just a random occurrence.
Quoting karl stone
That makes the tribe as a whole wrong and unpopular with other tribes. They would not last long as a tribe.
Quoting karl stone
The Nazis were wrong and they paid the price for it.
Quoting karl stone
Right and wrong are mathematical concepts:
Right = pleasure>pain
Wrong = pleasure
Creative editing on your part. Science was only one of the disciplines I said, grew out of religion. There was also philosophy, politics, law, economics etc... do they not address our relationship to reality?
Or to put it another way: bananas and bananas!
^Exactly, everyone did the wrong thing most of the time. Most of them did the wrong thing. and most of them THINK and also FEEL that the way to have a long term happiness IS that wrong thing.
Have you ever heard the phrase "I Feel something so Right, doing the wrong thing" ?
That is the proof, and this world reality is the proof, that human are fundamentally Evil. We are bondage by it, we are not free.
that's why a morally good person, according to Kant, is a free person. That's why lock's (i think) said that a good person who lived by the social contract is Living Against His Nature.
: D
Humans are natural optimisers so we tend to get it right (=good) rather than wrong (=evil)
Really? What exactly, in science points to a creator?
Quoting Devans99
It's a hypothetical example used to illustrate an idea - the idea being that right and wrong are fundamentally a sense, that works on knowledge (false or otherwise.) It's like me saying imagine there was a four seater plane crashed high in the mountains... And you saying, "Awww no, a Sesna can't fly that high." So what? What does that have to do with whether cannibalism is inherently right or wrong?
Quoting Devans99
Were they? So you're the absolute arbiter of right and wrong, are you? So, what you're saying is - ordinary people did what they did, believing and knowing it was wrong. No! They acted on lies, but they believed it was right.
because right and wrong is a sense, not a definition
— karl stone
Quoting Devans99
( / w \ ) Ahh I see what you're getting. You believe that human (Because of reason that you said) Tend to do Right things, you believe, or maybe you hope that in reality, human tend, or should to do the right things.
BUT, psychology, statistic, anthropology, social science said otherwise, "We Tend to do the wrong thing". we should (if listen to desire) do the wrong thing
You look into the Process, and Input (That is, because human are X, human are (Output) Good).
"X" is your argument btw (Optimiser, long -term creature, etc)
While I look first in the output (that is, This world is "Z", because human are bad, why human are bad, because [Input research journal here])
Z is my argument (Filled with suffering, filled with wrong decision, etc)
The reality are this world is bad. For your argument to works, the world must be good. The people who today (in TED, etc) is a kind of people who are acting againts their impulse and natural desire.
Saying human is fundamentally bad, doesn't mean we have a pessimistic, this world couldn't be a better place view.
Because by saying human is fundamentally bad, there's hope that human can rise more beyond natural instinct, beyond animalistic instinct, beyond our implanted program. Saying human is fundamentally bad, is a statement full of hope dude / w \
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
Quoting karl stone
Right and Wrong are mathematical. The Nazis did what was pleasurable for them in the short term, but they were wrong because it was painful for them in the long term (loosing the war).
Quoting karl stone
Scientific progress is an example of right: Pain in the short term (working on the discovery) but pleasure in the long term (exploiting the discovery). Even the person who's theory was superseded benefits in the long term.
335
?diesynyang If everyone was doing the right thing, the world would be a happy place.[/quote]
Girlfriend asks - do these jeans make my bum look fat?
No dear. It's your giant fat bum that makes your giant fat bum look big!
Later, why am I sleeping on the sofa? I did the right thing!
I think humans want to do the right thing but sometimes fail. They are attracted by the short term pleasure of wrong. But humans are more right than wrong; we would not be the dominant species if we got it wrong most of the time.
Anthropic principle.
Quoting Devans99
Quoting Devans99
- The Weak Anthropic explains the universe must be compatible with life for us to be here. It does not explain why the universe is compatible with life.
- The Strong Anthropic explains that the existence of multiple universes with different properties account for our fine-tuning. But other universes are statistically likely to be like this one (Life supporting) so the SAP does not explain why the multiverse is fined-tuned for life.
How about doing some actual research rather than making whimsical claims? I really don’t understand the point of throwing out random unfounded opinions when there is plenty lf data out there to either back up or dismiss our rather sketchy idea.
You’re asking a psychological question. You’re idea of IQ and intelligence quite uninformed. I posted a link above detailing what “intelligence” means and how psychology is progressing toward answering various questions surrounding this subject with varying degrees of success.
Opinionated assertions are nothing more than ... well, just that. Step it up my friend if you want a seroius discussion.
Explain please.
Someone with low willpower but high IQ will make mistakes like eating sweets; they are attracted to the short term pleasure.
Someone with high willpower but low IQ will not make the same basic mistakes. They have the willpower to cope with short term pain in exchange for long term pleasure.
Quoting Devans99
^Yes, Yes, I do agree with that, yep, YES!.... when Willpower is weak, Impulse is strong! (The Impulse to do the wrong things) (The impulse that is planted since birth)
Quoting Devans99
^ It's not that simple, takes this example:
1) A person was given 2 choices, 1 choice would give him pleasure and happiness in the long term, but the other will bring displeasure to a group of random people. Knowing that, People will choose the first choice!
2) A Person was given a choice, to save 1 disabled person that he love, or to save 3 healthy, smart person that could bring good to the world and him in the long run. Knowing this fact, he would still choose number 1
3) A Child when without proper education, is an egocentric human.
Not all human, and not most human, want to do the right things, even after they know the consequence beforehand.
Quoting Devans99
^ We are dominant, because through evolution, we are STRONG (Strong doesn't mean morally good). In the past we do many many bad thing (Slavery, Extreme Racism, War, Cannibalism, Human Sacrifice, Mass murder). We are able to stay exist because, we are weak and couldn't fully achieve our desire.
Human without proper education are Evil, a person that lives in the natural state are Evil.
By the way, Fundamentally means. "When you strip everything away (Education, Parent, Value, etc) you're left with X"
Example : When you strip Iron-man of all it's suit, money, power, genius, he become a normal man
that mean, when you strip a human of all of it education, value that's teach, contract and responsibility, you're left with Egoistic Human (Which is evil)
If you don’t have an objective means of measuring then it is merely your personal assertion. You are obviously entitled to hold the opinion that I am “ineffective” just as I am you. So what?
I think "intelligence" is one of those words that we all understand, in general terms, but prove difficult to pin down when we try. There are lots of words like this, e.g. "quality" (cf. Pirsig), "beauty", "wisdom" (often considered to be a complement to intelligence), "God", "truth", "good" and "evil", and so on. Perhaps these terms are intended to be general and inexact, because that's how we use them? I'm not sure.
I am sure that, whenever I have seen attempts to define intelligence with precision, all we get is a discussion about the relevance and meaning of IQ tests. (Human) mental acuity, and the terms that describe it, are difficult to discuss. Distinguishing intelligence, wisdom, understanding, and so on, is somewhat dependent on these things actually being distinct in the first place, and I don't think they are. They, and the terms I forgot to list because I didn't think of them, all act together to describe our mental acuity and ability, as far as we understand it and them. They are related, not distinct. They are associated, not independent. They interact to produce the mental acuity we are so proud of.
Just my two pennyworth. :wink:
Can you give a specific example?
Quoting diesynyang
It's clearly wrong to save 1 person rather than 3.
Quoting diesynyang
We are dominant because of our ability to work as a team; for which a natural understanding of right and wrong is required.
Quoting diesynyang
But it's not natural for a human to have no upbringing. So humans are naturally good.
I think IQ and willpower are distinct enough. Willpower is required to make the 'correct' decisions. IQ is required to understand complex situations.
The link I provided as an overview of what “intelligence” means in psychology and a review of how it is measured. It is helpful to know this if you’re talking about this subject.
Also, you’ve still not answered my question. How are you measuring my “effective intelligence”? You’ve presented an opinion of me not a means of measuring my “correctness.”
New idea? It appears that what you’re referring to is either part of some personality trait (“grit” or the more convential “conscientiousness”), or an issue of morality.
Adrenaline is also helpful for brain functioning. Like everything too much will produced drawbacks. When you do exercise epinephrine levels rise and increase blood flow. There is some evidence to suggest that this hormone can actually increase a persons ability to solve problems due to the physiological effects on the brain. This, I would randomly speculate, is maybe why physical fitness correlates with the g-factor (although how high the correlation is I cannot remember, but it’s significant enough aafter error margins are taken into account.)
It doesn’t matter what you “think” even by your own standards. What matters is whether you are right or wrong. How do you know you are right? Anyone can have any number of singular reasons for thinking they are “right.” What is is regardless.
Which of these disciplines focus on falling in love with reality? Emotions Karl. Human emotions. Note how your list of nerd disciplines has little to say about them.
Here's an example to illustrate why this matters. This is a philosophy forum. It's about logic, right? Only on the surface. An inch below that surface this forum, any philosophy forum, is really fueled by human emotions.
Imagine that the mods removed all the screen names from the forum so that it was impossible to tell who said what, and there was no way to claim credit, establish a reputation, receive applause etc. This would be a better setup technically, logically, because removing the screen names would kill many emotional distractions in the threads. It would also kill the forum as most members would soon stop participating given the forum would no longer be a suitable vehicle for pursuing what we're really interested in, our emotional agendas.
Gotta go, more later...
"Red" and "green" are 'distinct enough', but when it comes to seeing colour, both are necessary, and not obviously distinct. Both are colours, and both are associated with seeing colours. I'm not saying that you can't distinguish (for example) IQ and willpower, but I am saying it's a fruitless endeavour. They belong together. The sense they convey does so as part of a greater whole.
Quoting I like sushi
I would measure correctness as the tendency to use willpower in order to exchange short term pain for long term pleasure. Being rude and unhelpful may give you a short term kick, but it is counter productive in the long term.
Adrenaline is a stress hormone and it's damaging to the system in the long term (which is what matters). It's the fight/flight response, a danger signal. It does help cognition but only in the short term.
I think you get individuals with high IQ and low willpower. For example an intelligent person who overeats and is overweight.
Then you also get people with low IQ and high willpower. These are nice people who do the right thing but struggle with complex situations.
IQ tests exist. There are various ways of measuring willpower (walking on hot coal for example). So its possible to separate the two.
Acting offended is your “adrenaline” not mine. I actually find this quite painful. I’m not enjoying it, but I realise you may have something to say in repsonse to my questions.
At the moment you seem to be pushing the question I’m asking slowly but surely towards an answer. The next, if you cannot guess it, is how do you measure “willpower”? Which if answered would logically lead to how g relates to willpower (meaning how much, if any, overlap there is.)
Anyway, I’ll give you time to read the link. It goes over “intelligence” and recent developments regarding measurement and such well enough.
Enjoy
Quoting I like sushi
Are you saying stress is not a killer? It leads to high blood pressure and heart disease.
Would pain sensitivity make someone more or less “effectively intelligence”? Do those who refuse to walk on hot coals possess “ineffective intelligence”? Is cowardice part fo this dynamic? Have you heard of the psychological use of the term “grit” (prior to me mentioning it already)?
My general point here being that if you have the idea that you have then you should look at these things. I by no means have an encyclopedic knowledge of the psychometrics of “intelligence.” I’ve looked enough to suggest you take on board what I’ve suggested and then tell me what you find.
I’m just as interested as you in this subject.
Note: in the other thread you’re arguing for “pain” yet here it is “bad”? I don’t believe you hold either of these views and that you’re just bouncing ideas around. Good for you.
Of course it's possible. But is it useful?
Quoting Pattern-chaser
So you seem to be replying to a question that wasn't asked. :chin: My question, in case it isn't clear, is this: what value/use do you obtain from separating IQ, willpower, and all the other aspects of human mental acuity?
Curiosity doesn’t need a reason. Sometimes such investigations reveal faults with previously held views on how the world operates.
I think over-sensitivity to pain is likely indicative of low willpower (excepting the Hyperalgesia condition). Abstinence might be another way to test for willpower.
Quoting I like sushi
Cowardice is low willpower.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
If you can measure willpower, you can assess what improves it. High willpower is key to getting the most from life.
Have you heard of “conscientiousness”? There are aspects of this that basically cover what you’re saying. Such things as “industriousness” and “orderlinesss” (also “grit” as mentioned earlier.) These combined with other personality traits can easily add up to make “will power.” Conscientiousness does predict political alignment quite well. It doesn’t correlate to IQ though.
Stress tolerance would fall under “neuroticism.”
I would advise articulating what you mean by “willpower” more carefully. We know what it means generally speaking, and generally speaking it would equate to what is known as “industriousness” - which means precisely what it sounds like; the inclination to apply oneself to some given task/s (hardwork.) In this repsect it seems reasonable to equate “willlpower” with high industriousness and low neuroticism.
How about if we said that willpower (determination) is necessary, but not sufficient (on its own) to get "the most from life"? :chin:
So willpower is an ability we use to deny ourselves things we (think we) want or need? :chin:
Doing the right thing often hurts in the short term (exercise, study, helping people) and pays off in the long term. Willpower is needed to get over that initial pain.
Doing the wrong thing is often pleasurable in the short term (laziness, sweets), but leads to long term pain. Again willpower is needed to avoid the short term temptations.
Perhaps you might use the intelligence the topic title mentions to explain to me what the "right thing" is, and how to recognise it? Will your answer be different from someone else's? Why do you think that might be?
Discussed further on this thread:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4395/defining-good-and-evil/p1
No, I don't think it is. ... Which seems to be the case in the discussion you linked-to too....
But perhaps you might be more convincing if you offer here, as an example, the mathematics behind the reason(s) why we should accept your thesis, as presented in this topic?
net pleasure = pleasure - pain
So eating sweets for example, short term pleasure but long term pain (tooth decay, overweight), so net pleasure comes out negative (its the wrong thing to do).
Or exercise, short-term pain, but long term pleasure from being fit. Long>short so net pleasure comes out positive (its the right thing to do).
Right, wrong are defined here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4395/defining-good-and-evil/p1
You write seemingly with confidence, yet you understand little about Buddhism. And it is no wonder that you find it difficult to relate to something of which you are ignorant.
Buddhism doesn't tell its followers to suppress any emotion. It tells to cultivate positive emotions, while trying to understand the negative ones. When negative emotions are understood, they can be overcome and turned into a positive force.
If/when you read the essay I linked get back to me. If not don’t.
Good luck