Reply to Shawn Maybe hypothetically, but it’s realistically impossible to know. It’s not like someone behaves a certain way, then obtains a high IQ, and begins behaving differently. I suppose you could look at cases of traumatic brain injury to show that going from a higher IQ to a lower IQ alters one’s behavior, but that seems rather unfair.
The room grew silent. I cursed myself for losing control and creating a scene. I tried not to look at the boy as I paid my check and walked out without touching my food. I felt ashamed for both of us.
How strange it is that people of honest feelings and sensibility, who would not take advantage of a man born without arms or legs or eyes-how such people think nothing of abusing a man born with low intelligence. It infuriated me to think that not too long ago I, like this boy, had foolishly played the clown.
And I had almost forgotten.
I'd hidden the picture of the old Charlie Gordon from myself because now that I was intelligent it was something that had to be pushed out of my mind. But today in looking at that boy, for the first time I saw what I had been. I was just like him!
Only a short time ago, I learned that people laughed at me. Now I can see that unknowingly I joined with them in laughing at myself. That hurts most of all.
Probably right. Someone with a high IQ more than likely has an enjoyable and profitable job ie. is a "success" and would rather support the system than destroy it. Especially compared to someone with a menial minimum-wage job.
Deleted UserAugust 03, 2020 at 15:33#4396890 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Hypothesis: I'm wicked smaht. Then Shawn, "
How does being wicked smaht alter or modify one's behavior?
— Shawn
Answer: it doesn't, I've always been this way.
We're all pretty smart. So what?
Deleted UserAugust 03, 2020 at 16:02#4396940 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
High IQ doesn't have anything to do with behavior, such as nazi-Germany leaders, scored very high on iq tests, and allthoug their ethical decisions making wasn't the best, but in other fields, like math, war strategies, architecture they were at its best, and completed their work at the best they could, and were very successful in what they did related to work skills.
In general most notorious leaders tend to have high IQ. But iq fails to measure social, economical, and ethical skills.
To be perfectly "good" and "bad", both seem to require high IQ to complete the act at its best.
Reply to Shawn It seems so that gifted individuals find best jobs, and many of them tend to be pictured as "psychopaths", "sociopaths". But being gifted has nothing to do with choosing right or wrong in all ethical acts, ethical "goodness" only applies to the skill-set that requires you to complete your job task.
You might have "good work" -ethics, but bad in other categories of ethics.
It seems so that gifted individuals find best jobs, and many of them tend to be pictured as "psychopaths", "sociopaths". But being gifted has nothing to do with choosing right or wrong in all ethical acts, ethical "goodness" only applies to the skill-set that requires you to complete your job task.
You might have "good work" -ethics, but bad in other categories of ethics.
Thanks batsushi7, I think you have a valid point to make here. Mind if I elaborate?
When does a intellectually gifted person realize that they have achieved satisfaction?
Reply to Shawn One thing that's incredibly important for a high IQ is self reflection and understanding. It also helps if one is creative and intuitive.
According to the Big Five, those with a high percentage in O, also known as Openness, are a lot more creative and more intelligent than those whom are not. The qualities go as OCEAN, openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism.
The MBTI, or Myers Briggs Type Index, is another personality type similar to the Big Five. The types are set up as dichotomies. They go as: Introversion or Extroversion, Sensing or Intuition, Thinking or Feeling, Judging or Perceiving. According to IQ tests and research papers, Introverts are 60% smarter than Extroverts, Intuitives are about 80% smarter than Sensors, Thinkers are 70% smarter than feelers, and Judging and Perceiving make no difference. This leads us to believe INTJ and INTP are the highest IQ of all. The rankings go: INTJ, INTP (About equal), INFJ, ENTP, etc. Though this is a highly indicative test for who is high IQ or not, there are some definite exceptions. Magnus Carlsen being the biggest one in my opinion, who is ISTP and is ranked number one in Chess Internationals.
It seems we are getting closer to defining what is and isn't a good classification for who is going to be high IQ. The Right Brain is used for creativity, or Intuition usually, the Left is used for Logical thinking, or Thinking, it would thereby follow that those who are high energy in both departments are able to have high IQ.
How does having a higher IQ alter or modify one's behavior?
Seemingly a simple question, hmm.
It all depends on what IQ measures. If IQ measures intelligence then it affects your decision making process and attitude, which in effect, determines your behavior.
How does having a higher IQ alter or modify one's behavior?
Seemingly a simple question, hmm.
I'd like to contextualize this question not intraspecies, as comparative conduct within the human family, but interspecies, as comparative behavior between various life-forms. Note that this is for the reason that greater differences in IQ exist between species than within a given species.
How do humans, supposedly the species with the highest IQ on the planet, compare with other animals with respect to behavior/conduct. This reminds me of what Aristotle said:
[quote=Aristotle]At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.[/quote]
Aristotle is also known to have said something to the effect that humans are rational animals (IQ)
This is, quite obviously, an ethical assessment but there's no doubt that ethics is critical to our survival as a species.
An interesting fact is, if theism is false, all the wonders of the universe, including life, especially life that's capable of developing a self-sustaining harmony, an equilibrium, between the various forces that act on it, arose in the complete absence of [I]intelligence[/i]. Humans, despite having the highest IQ of any known life, are a far cry from achieving anything like blind chance has on Earth. Doesn't this mean that, in some sense, random throws of a die or a coin exhibits greater [genius-level] intelligence than an actual intelligent being? This is the paradox of intelligence - given the current status quo regarding intelligent life, it can't compete with pure randomness in performance. So much for IQ.
How does having a higher IQ alter or modify one's behavior?
I saw this movie called Charley where this person had an operation or some such shit and it turned him from being dumb as shit to being a brilliant fucking egghead. When he was a dumb fuck, he'd say dumb shit, but when he sharpened up after the surgery, he had all kinds of jaw dropping things to say.
I think if you want an answer to your question, you'd go watch that movie.
VagabondSpectreAugust 14, 2020 at 18:14#4430430 likes
I.Q doesn't cause intelligent behaviour, intelligent behaviour is itself what I.Q tries to measure.
In other words, I.Q is a measurement of behaviour.
Having a large vocabulary, the ability to perform mental-spatial reasoning, and the ability to recognize patterns are examples of faculties that support "high IQ behaviour" (actions that will lead to a high score on an I.Q test).
In other words, I.Q is a measurement of behaviour.
The problem with IQ tests is that people are intelligent with regard to their goals. A Buddhist monk or a Beatle-esque fool on the hill may not pass the logic parts of an IQ test, but he has diverted his mind elsewhere. If the human psyche is as deep as Nietzsche for example would say it is, than there does't seem to be a way to measure someone else's intelligent imo
god must be atheistOctober 23, 2021 at 11:24#6106790 likes
An interesting fact is, if theism is false, all the wonders of the universe, including life, especially life that's capable of developing a self-sustaining harmony, an equilibrium, between the various forces that act on it, arose in the complete absence of intelligence. Humans, despite having the highest IQ of any known life, are a far cry from achieving anything like blind chance has on Earth. Doesn't this mean that, in some sense, random throws of a die or a coin exhibits greater [genius-level] intelligence than an actual intelligent being? This is the paradox of intelligence - given the current status quo regarding intelligent life, it can't compete with pure randomness in performance. So much for IQ.
You discount the fact that randomness has had a much longer time (four billion years on this planet) to effect change than man has had with his intelligence, which is roughly 100000 years to a million years maximum. This is a ratio of roughly 400,000 to 1.
Now conceptualize that theism is NOT false. In that case it must be true that God had an infinity to think about, plan, and conceptualize actions to come up with creation before he started the project. In this case God with his infinite wisdom compares to randomness rather poorly as an achiever.
I like sushiOctober 23, 2021 at 11:46#6106800 likes
Reply to Shawn It doesn't anymore than consumption of chocolate.
In my opinion, there's a direct correlation towards IQ and beauty and aesthetics itself.
Opinions are opinions. Evidence works better. There is a vague link between health and wealth and IQ but it isn't massive. It is a 'factor' not a 'determining factor'.
Bret BernhoftOctober 23, 2021 at 13:35#6107000 likes
I personally feel that the higher the IQ, the greater potentiation for divergent and/or novel behaviors (which (the behaviors) might be more likely to be labeled as odd or illness) in the individual or collective. Whether true free will is exercised or not, depends largely on other factors.
TheMadFoolNovember 19, 2021 at 14:29#6221130 likes
How does having a higher IQ alter or modify one's behavior?
It depends. For most people probably not at all as most people don't vary that much in terms of IQ and a bigger influence on how it would modify someone's behavior would likely be due to their knowledge of having an IQ at whatever mark. If you value IQ and found out what your IQ was it would mean more to how you act in the future than to someone who simply didn't give a toss about what others said or didn't say their IQ was.
Attention to anything modifies your behavior towards it to some degree. Modifying our behavior is necessary. Why you ask in relation to IQ specifically rather than something else is for you to reveal to us if you wish to.
TheMadFoolNovember 20, 2021 at 07:34#6223200 likes
You discount the fact that randomness has had a much longer time (four billion years on this planet) to effect change than man has had with his intelligence, which is roughly 100000 years to a million years maximum. This is a ratio of roughly 400,000 to 1.
Now conceptualize that theism is NOT false. In that case it must be true that God had an infinity to think about, plan, and conceptualize actions to come up with creation before he started the project. In this case God with his infinite wisdom compares to randomness rather poorly as an achiever.
Hadn't though of it that way. :up:
onomatomanicNovember 20, 2021 at 19:08#6224200 likes
Doesn't this mean that, in some sense, random throws of a die or a coin exhibits greater [genius-level] intelligence than an actual intelligent being?
Pure trial-and-error is less efficient than design, of course, but it can be more effective - because it has no qualms about exploring the entirety of the solution space.
The concept [of evolvable hardware] was pioneered by Adrian Thompson at the University of Sussex, England, who in 1996 used [a field-programmable gate array] to evolve a tone discriminator that used fewer than 40 programmable logic gates, and had no clock signal. This is a remarkably small design for such a device, and relied on exploiting peculiarities of the hardware that engineers normally avoid. For example, one group of gates has no logical connection to the rest of the circuit, yet is crucial to its function.
TheMadFoolNovember 20, 2021 at 19:44#6224420 likes
Comments (43)
Not sure you are saying what you mean to say, here. :chin:
Quoting Daniel Keyes: Flowers for Algernon
And of course:
There are many books by highly gifted individuals that describe a path, such as Flowers for Algernon, or Heinlein's books about developing a high IQ.
In terms of behavior, it tends towards a slope of "commodification", as to utilize this new-found ability into a source of economic enrichment.
Ya?
Anarchy much?
Probably right. Someone with a high IQ more than likely has an enjoyable and profitable job ie. is a "success" and would rather support the system than destroy it. Especially compared to someone with a menial minimum-wage job.
We're all pretty smart. So what?
I mean, there's some kind of behavior at play here with regard towards increasing intelligence in a evolving socioeconomic reality, no?
Behavior determines thought, no?
Therefore, how does super-intelligence determine future thought?
In general most notorious leaders tend to have high IQ. But iq fails to measure social, economical, and ethical skills.
To be perfectly "good" and "bad", both seem to require high IQ to complete the act at its best.
Very interesting. So, rewarding jobs are inherently rewarding to gifted individuals. Fitting in?
You might have "good work" -ethics, but bad in other categories of ethics.
Thanks batsushi7, I think you have a valid point to make here. Mind if I elaborate?
When does a intellectually gifted person realize that they have achieved satisfaction?
I'd imagine never. The parallels between comfort and boredom become quite evident for a highly intelligent person. So I'd imagine.
~J.S. Mill
According to the Big Five, those with a high percentage in O, also known as Openness, are a lot more creative and more intelligent than those whom are not. The qualities go as OCEAN, openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism.
The MBTI, or Myers Briggs Type Index, is another personality type similar to the Big Five. The types are set up as dichotomies. They go as: Introversion or Extroversion, Sensing or Intuition, Thinking or Feeling, Judging or Perceiving. According to IQ tests and research papers, Introverts are 60% smarter than Extroverts, Intuitives are about 80% smarter than Sensors, Thinkers are 70% smarter than feelers, and Judging and Perceiving make no difference. This leads us to believe INTJ and INTP are the highest IQ of all. The rankings go: INTJ, INTP (About equal), INFJ, ENTP, etc. Though this is a highly indicative test for who is high IQ or not, there are some definite exceptions. Magnus Carlsen being the biggest one in my opinion, who is ISTP and is ranked number one in Chess Internationals.
It seems we are getting closer to defining what is and isn't a good classification for who is going to be high IQ. The Right Brain is used for creativity, or Intuition usually, the Left is used for Logical thinking, or Thinking, it would thereby follow that those who are high energy in both departments are able to have high IQ.
It all depends on what IQ measures. If IQ measures intelligence then it affects your decision making process and attitude, which in effect, determines your behavior.
Society is filled with an awful lot of high IQ people behaving very badly at every level of society.
I'd like to contextualize this question not intraspecies, as comparative conduct within the human family, but interspecies, as comparative behavior between various life-forms. Note that this is for the reason that greater differences in IQ exist between species than within a given species.
How do humans, supposedly the species with the highest IQ on the planet, compare with other animals with respect to behavior/conduct. This reminds me of what Aristotle said:
[quote=Aristotle]At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.[/quote]
Aristotle is also known to have said something to the effect that humans are rational animals (IQ)
This is, quite obviously, an ethical assessment but there's no doubt that ethics is critical to our survival as a species.
An interesting fact is, if theism is false, all the wonders of the universe, including life, especially life that's capable of developing a self-sustaining harmony, an equilibrium, between the various forces that act on it, arose in the complete absence of [I]intelligence[/i]. Humans, despite having the highest IQ of any known life, are a far cry from achieving anything like blind chance has on Earth. Doesn't this mean that, in some sense, random throws of a die or a coin exhibits greater [genius-level] intelligence than an actual intelligent being? This is the paradox of intelligence - given the current status quo regarding intelligent life, it can't compete with pure randomness in performance. So much for IQ.
https://kingsanda.tumblr.com/
I haven't felt such a deep connection with Schopenhauer in such a long time.
Kingsanda...
I saw this movie called Charley where this person had an operation or some such shit and it turned him from being dumb as shit to being a brilliant fucking egghead. When he was a dumb fuck, he'd say dumb shit, but when he sharpened up after the surgery, he had all kinds of jaw dropping things to say.
I think if you want an answer to your question, you'd go watch that movie.
In other words, I.Q is a measurement of behaviour.
Having a large vocabulary, the ability to perform mental-spatial reasoning, and the ability to recognize patterns are examples of faculties that support "high IQ behaviour" (actions that will lead to a high score on an I.Q test).
The problem with IQ tests is that people are intelligent with regard to their goals. A Buddhist monk or a Beatle-esque fool on the hill may not pass the logic parts of an IQ test, but he has diverted his mind elsewhere. If the human psyche is as deep as Nietzsche for example would say it is, than there does't seem to be a way to measure someone else's intelligent imo
You discount the fact that randomness has had a much longer time (four billion years on this planet) to effect change than man has had with his intelligence, which is roughly 100000 years to a million years maximum. This is a ratio of roughly 400,000 to 1.
Now conceptualize that theism is NOT false. In that case it must be true that God had an infinity to think about, plan, and conceptualize actions to come up with creation before he started the project. In this case God with his infinite wisdom compares to randomness rather poorly as an achiever.
Quoting Shawn
Opinions are opinions. Evidence works better. There is a vague link between health and wealth and IQ but it isn't massive. It is a 'factor' not a 'determining factor'.
I personally feel that the higher the IQ, the greater potentiation for divergent and/or novel behaviors (which (the behaviors) might be more likely to be labeled as odd or illness) in the individual or collective. Whether true free will is exercised or not, depends largely on other factors.
What's the difference between a genius and a time traveler? One term for stupid people is troglodyte.
It depends. For most people probably not at all as most people don't vary that much in terms of IQ and a bigger influence on how it would modify someone's behavior would likely be due to their knowledge of having an IQ at whatever mark. If you value IQ and found out what your IQ was it would mean more to how you act in the future than to someone who simply didn't give a toss about what others said or didn't say their IQ was.
Attention to anything modifies your behavior towards it to some degree. Modifying our behavior is necessary. Why you ask in relation to IQ specifically rather than something else is for you to reveal to us if you wish to.
Hadn't though of it that way. :up:
Pure trial-and-error is less efficient than design, of course, but it can be more effective - because it has no qualms about exploring the entirety of the solution space.
We have all the time in the world - Louis Armstrong (James Bond, No Time To Die)
:wink: :smile: