The problem with smart people

[DetachedRetina]

At least in western society.

Smart kids are, from a young age, praised and rewarded simply for being smart. We are told that smarts are inherently more valuable than almost any other trait. We form our self esteem around this idea that we are "smart" and therefore "good."

We criticize those "shallow" people whose entire sense of self worth would be based on being good looking. We criticize those who thoughtlessly follow the tides of the mainstream.

I used to believe that all morality stemmed from critical thought, and that idiots are much more likely to inadvertently be bad people because they won't be as likely to recognize the consequences of their actions as readily, or to approach the way they act logically and empathetically.

But lately I have noticed a great deal of smart people acting very selfishly in my personal life, and a lot of this selfish behavior seems to be stemming from an underlying self-esteem problem as well as an instilled belief that they're always right.

It's true that smart people probably consider morality more deeply than idiots, but I am not sure if I have ever really observed a smart person wielding their power responsibly. I am of course aware that the greatest thinkers throughout history gave a lot of thought to morality, but I'm talking about your run of the mill smart person like (probably) you or me.

It seems to me that we have been taught to believe that being smart is good enough, and we thirstily drink up more and more knowledge hoping to maintain our ability to display our intelligence and repeatedly receive the affirmation we desire. I often also find myself paralyzed by philosophy a lot.

For example, I am not sure what my intentions may be if I give somebody a material possession. But whether I am doing so with true goodness in my heart, or in hopes of reciprocity of some sort, or even because I get off on seeing myself as a white-knight, the fact is that if I give somebody something I have given somebody something. Do you think the ends justify the intentions when it comes to being a good person? Do you think you even care about being good (helping others etc.) and do you think you're doing all you can to use what you were born with for good use or only as a means to serve yourself?

 

[snafupants]

Perhaps you might feel inclined to explain what a smart person wielding her powers responsibly would look like?

 

[Minuend]

Intelligent people are always overestimated.

 

[snafupants]

The word always is often misplaced. To smaller minds, great thoughts perhaps seem homogeneously complex and therefore dismissible, along the lines of being overly abstruse or snobbish; in either case, there's usually a perceived or articulated failure of being not demotic or palatable enough for the general sensibility. This is nothing more than an inferiority complex at large.

 

[Minuend]

Hahaha XD

 

[DetachedRetina]

A smart person wielding her/his powers responsibly would look just like a dumb 'good' person I guess.

I think that a conscious and constant effort to put others before yourself is necessary to be good, and a smart person will be better at knowing how best to do just that (as smart people are better at many things.)

But the key point is that, I think the goal should be the betterment of humanity as opposed to the betterment of one's self.

An example would be if a homeless person asks you for money on the street. How would you approach that situation? There are a thousand rationalizations that are easy enough to come up with for why not to help this person. Probably the one that holds me back the most is convincing myself that I don't know what's best for the person and therefore I had better not to get involved.

But with giving as a focus, I should at least take the effort to treat them with respect and possibly buy them some food. The kindness of a stranger isn't going to make things worse for this homeless person. Even if they are addicts or something, buying them a meal won't be enabling them and neglecting them money is not likely to help them get clean. We know that, but it is much easier to ignore the evidence that is inconvenient to us and fail to help this person just as everyone else does. A smart person would be better able to talk to this person and learn from them what they can do to actually help.

 

[snafupants]

So someone with an IQ of 194 needs to conform to this description of the dumb, good person? There are many ways to advance society, some of which involve destroying it. Hundreds of innovators, philosophers and inventors have been misanthropic, impossibly arrogant and ostensibly cruel, yet society moves essentially in lockstep with their contributions.

 

[DetachedRetina]

A smart person interested in law could fight injustices, a smart person interested in science could fight cancer, a smart person interested in business could run an ethical corporation.

For the most part it seems, our economic system is pretty good at getting the most out of smart, hard-working people. But when it comes to our personal outlooks, I think we could all be getting a lot more done for others. It is a thing separate from merely being smart.

The tallest person should grab the things off the high shelf that's hard to reach, and the smartest person should use this trait to the best of her/his ability to help others.

I think smart people are too wrapped up in tickling their curiosities and using their intelligence to indulge their emotional side. I think the value of intelligence alone that's been instilled in us has put us into a similar cycle that beautiful people go through, where they become overly focused on their beauty and keep chasing more affirmation of their beauty.

But beautiful people aren't necessarily as powerful as smart people. We have more responsibility I think.

Thoughts? arguments?

 

[DetachedRetina]

So someone with an IQ of 194 needs to conform to this description of the dumb, good person? There are many ways to advance society, some of which involve destroying it. Hundreds of innovators, philosophers and inventors have been misanthropic, impossibly arrogant and ostensibly cruel, yet society moves essentially in lockstep with their contributions.

Sure, but being misanthropic wasn't integral to their advancement of humanity.

I think that smart people have an onus to advance society in whatever way they are talented at, but adopting a philanthropic attitude can only enhance their ability to better society.

I think being cruel was incidental to these peoples' betterment of society

 

[snafupants]

Sure, but being misanthropic wasn't integral to their advancement of humanity.

I think that smart people have an onus to advance society in whatever way they are talented at, but adopting a philanthropic attitude can only enhance their ability to better society.

I think being cruel was incidental to these peoples' betterment of society

My contention is that a sense of philanthropy doesn't necessarily lead to paradigm-upending innovation, nor does, indeed, a dash of misanthropy. With the elucidation in your last sentence, though, maybe we agree on the fundamentals of this issue. The one quibble I'd make involves your middle point. There is zero obligation for genius to create genius. That onus is only in your head. In a life in which morality is innately individualistic - put more bluntly, in a life deficient of god and credible celestial ethical dogma - there cannot be any overriding obligations. People tend to tow the line because of fear, DNA programming, myopic operant conditioning, indoctrination, ignorance, religion, punishment and faulty reasoning; another crucial explicative factor is necessity. We reward conformity and decay in industrialized cultures - that's basically what I meant by myopic operant conditioning. Conformity and decay in the sense that watching the same television shows, mindlessly trudging through the same job and having sex with the same spouse for decades is rewarded by other subliminally unhappy, or otherwise superficial, people.

 

[DetachedRetina]

So in a world filled with individualistic moral dogmas, you think that making a blanket statement like "we should all practice focusing on how to help others" has no value?

I definitely agree that DNA programming, myopic operant conditioning, etc. (the list could go on much further I think) are important objects in the shaping of our individual senses of morality.

But I still posit that a constant evaluation of the value of our actions to others can only help others, at least I would doubt that it would hurt them.

Obviously if you happen to be Tesla for example you should by all means devote yourself to science and be a hermit, but I don't think that the natural apathy that follows the realization that we can't truly know the moral choice at all times is unacceptable. We should be constantly striving to help others I believe (and I realize this is a totally subjective value system to have)

But the simplicity of simply asking yourself what is best for another person is often used as an excuse to dismiss it. Clearly it's an oversimplification to say "just be a good person" but I think that reminding yourself of that goal is still useful in ultimately attaining that goal. "Keep your eyes on the prize" sort of deal.

 

[DetachedRetina]

It is easy to succumb to simply floating through life without a second thought as to the direction you're taking.

Even if helping others is not a goal you have, I still think it's important to have some sense of purpose or some goal in life. If nothing else than for your own sanity.

 

[snafupants]

So in a world filled with individualistic moral dogmas, you think that making a blanket statement like "we should all practice focusing on how to help others" has no value?

I definitely agree that DNA programming, myopic operant conditioning, etc. (the list could go on much further I think) are important objects in the shaping of our individual senses of morality.

But I still posit that a constant evaluation of the value of our actions to others can only help others, at least I would doubt that it would hurt them.

Obviously if you happen to be Tesla for example you should by all means devote yourself to science and be a hermit, but I don't think that the natural apathy that follows the realization that we can't truly know the moral choice at all times is unacceptable. We should be constantly striving to help others I believe (and I realize this is a totally subjective value system to have)

But the simplicity of simply asking yourself what is best for another person is often used as an excuse to dismiss it. Clearly it's an oversimplification to say "just be a good person" but I think that reminding yourself of that goal is still useful in ultimately attaining that goal. "Keep your eyes on the prize" sort of deal.

Aha, you finally said it! In such a world of unrepentant atheists, where those atheists are fully informed, intelligent, articulate and naturally caring, humanity would experience an endless springtime. There wouldn't need to be this punishable fiat or artificially crafted obligation to care because humans are outfitted, to some degree, with internal moral compasses. Accepting that basically all religion is irrational and baseless garbage (prove god!), this new world, which replaces religious idiocy and violence, on one hand, with sufficiently enlightened atheists, rational and philanthropic motives and actions, wouldn't recognize current forms of commercial exploitation, ideological delusion and insensitivity. There would be less ideological division; humanism would blossom full flower. Religion is the most baleful attachment humans have ever known.

 

[DetachedRetina]

Aha, you finally said it! Such a world of unrepentant atheists, where those atheists are fully informed, intelligent, articulate and naturally caring, humanity would experience an endless springtime. There wouldn't need to be an obligation to care because humans are outfitted, to some degree, with internal moral compasses. Accepting that basically all religion is irrational (prove god!), there would be little reason in a world bereft of baseless religious garbage, instead surrogated with sufficiently enlightened people, for commercial exploitation, ideological delusion and insensitivity to persist.

Ahh, okay. So what I think is a better way of phrasing what I believe would be

"We should all spend a little more time evaluating the validity of our natural internal moral compasses, and try to refine said compasses based on our observations and sensibilities." And I believe smart people would obviously be better at refining their moral compasses (whatever direction those compasses may show north to be)

Instead we tend, I think, to pay little attention to our moral compasses and let them lead us in whatever direction they may, even if that direction would seem unreasonable to us ourselves if we were to examine it under the light of critical thought.

When religion fades away, I doubt there will be an endless springtime. Why do you suggest that? It seems the things that cause conflict in humanity (some of them at least) are just as inherent and natural as our moral compasses.

 

[DetachedRetina]

Ah sorry you edited, I'll respond to your updated post

 

[nexion]

There are no moral imperatives. That's all I will say for now since I don't really know what this thread is about and I don't know which direction it will take.

 

[DetachedRetina]

Also I am sorry if I appear to be altering my viewpoint as I continue discussion. Some people get annoyed by this. I don't understand why though. That is the point of discussion no?

 

[DetachedRetina]

There are no moral imperatives. That's all I will say for now since I don't really know what this thread is about and I don't know which direction it will take.

I guess I am trying to say that I think the only moral imperative would be to actually have a morality and pay attention to it. I don't think I know any better than anyone else what that morality should disallow and allow, but one should at least examine the world around them and determine a purpose for themselves.

For me, helping others as much as possible seems a valid goal to strive for, but what do I know about how to do that?

 

[lungs]

For me, helping others as much as possible seems a valid goal to strive for, but what do I know about how to do that?

that's where things other than intelligence can come in helpful.

i've been wanting to reply to this thread but i'm 1) annoyed at all the self-congratulating wank, and 2) feeling this melatonin and about to pass out. maybe tomorrow.

 

[snafupants]

Ahh, okay. So what I think is a better way of phrasing what I believe would be

"We should all spend a little more time evaluating the validity of our natural internal moral compasses, and try to refine said compasses based on our observations and sensibilities." And I believe smart people would obviously be better at refining their moral compasses (whatever direction those compasses may show north to be)

Instead we tend, I think, to pay little attention to our moral compasses and let them lead us in whatever direction they may, even if that direction would seem unreasonable to us ourselves if we were to examine it under the light of critical thought.

When religion fades away, I doubt there will be an endless springtime. Why do you suggest that? It seems the things that cause conflict in humanity (some of them at least) are just as inherent and natural as our moral compasses.

I essentially agree with Bertrand Russell that religion is rationally moot, inherently proscriptive and therefore divisive, whereas humanism (and theoretically democracy) is permissive and constructive, generally speaking. Concern for another's happiness and well-being usually trumps an effort to evangelize or circumscribe. Why is religion such a destructive force? Because it foregrounds dogma and faith (which is really ignorance) to the detriment of rational thought, natural human inclinations (towards sex, etc.) and human betterment. I find the surety of religious dogma, minus facts and evidence, especially nauseating. Religion, along with overpopulation, exacerbates nearly every world problem. Why should you clean up the environment if Earth is a limbo, temporal world? An atheist sure wouldn't approach things the same way. Another question: where does "be fruitful and multiply" square with rational thought and real world concerns about overpopulation? Why is it religiously permissible for some retarded Muslim to blow himself up on a bus? An atheist would deal with these issues head on! With ignorance, faith (really the same thing), arrogance and humanity-destroying religious dictums, religion has created a hellish domicile for the human spirit.

 

[snafupants]

I guess I am trying to say that I think the only moral imperative would be to actually have a morality and pay attention to it. I don't think I know any better than anyone else what that morality should disallow and allow, but one should at least examine the world around them and determine a purpose for themselves.

For me, helping others as much as possible seems a valid goal to strive for, but what do I know about how to do that?

That's solid advice. I especially concur with the highlighted sentence. The operative word is examine. So many people do through life blinkered and instructed.

 

[snafupants]

There are no moral imperatives. That's all I will say for now since I don't really know what this thread is about and I don't know which direction it will take.

That's right but this world would be a more harmonious place with empathy and mutual concern.

 

[DetachedRetina]

I essentially agree with Bertrand Russell that religion is rationally moot, inherently proscriptive and therefore divisive, whereas humanism (and theoretically democracy) is permissive and constructive, generally speaking. Concern for another's happiness and well-being usually trumps an effort to evangelize or circumscribe. Why is religion such a destructive force? Because it foregrounds dogma and faith (which is really ignorance) to the detriment of rational thought, natural human inclinations (towards sex, etc.) and human betterment. I find the surety of religious dogma, minus facts and evidence, especially nauseating. Religion, along with overpopulation, exacerbates nearly every world problem. Why should you clean up the environment if Earth is a limbo, temporal world? An atheist sure wouldn't approach things the same way. Another question: where does "be fruitful and multiply" square with rational thought and real world concerns about overpopulation? Why is it religiously permissible for some retarded Muslim to blow himself up on a bus? An atheist would deal with these issues head on! With ignorance, faith (really the same thing), arrogance and humanity-destroying religious dictums, religion has created a hellish domicile for the human spirit.

100% agree in terms of organized large scale religion. But widespread atheism doesn't seem to overcome problems human in nature. We are naturally prone to greed, pride, and other qualities that tend to promote behaviors that negatively impact others.

Hmm.. I guess I always set sail with an opinion on morality and end up arriving again at existentialism. I guess others have said it better before me.

My original idea was that the ability to think critically about our morality doesn't equate to the proclivity to actually do so. I think an undue share of importance has been placed on the ability part by our society in the form of early childhood beatings over the head that being smart is good.

 

[Moocow]

Concerning evolution, at least atheists are aware of human nature. Awareness is the only first step towards harmony.

 

[nexion]

I guess I am trying to say that I think the only moral imperative would be to actually have a morality and pay attention to it. I don't think I know any better than anyone else what that morality should disallow and allow, but one should at least examine the world around them and determine a purpose for themselves.

For me, helping others as much as possible seems a valid goal to strive for, but what do I know about how to do that?

I can appreciate this.

Personally, I think that if someone wants to rip their morality straight from a book someone else wrote or someone wants to say "Fuck morals. YOLO.", then that's their decision. I can't even say I respect it, but I could not walk up to such people and say "You are wrong, morals are worth critical and intense thought and you need to find your own for yourself." because there is nothing I could say that would substantiate that except my own beliefs and values.

"determine a purpose for themselves"

and it is so. Any purpose or lack of purpose will do quite fine. Why should one have to examine the world or even pay attention to morality.

You acknowledge that purpose is subjective and determined by the individual. Why should one have to do anything pertaining to morality? It is whatever the individual wills it to be. The worst part about subjectivity is the realization that what you believe is or should be isn't what others believe is or should be, including the belief that things are subjective (which is why we have so many religious people saying their values and morals are "true").

That's right but this world would be a more harmonious place with empathy and mutual concern.

I find this to be true, but I don't see how that changes anything.

 

[DetachedRetina]

that's where things other than intelligence can come in helpful.

i've been wanting to reply to this thread but i'm 1) annoyed at all the self-congratulating wank, and 2) feeling this melatonin and about to pass out. maybe tomorrow.

Haha, I don't mean to come off as self congratulating. That's actually maybe at the root of what I'm getting at even. We all think we are smart people (probably not geniuses or anything but in general this forum seems home to some above-average individuals,) but what are we doing worth being proud of? We should not be satisfied with possessing an innate quality, we should try to do more for others.

I am probably one of the most guilty parties when it comes to not doing anything of worth for anyone. But the point is to focus on trying (for me at least.)

I include myself in the group of people I criticize here.

 

[DetachedRetina]

Concerning evolution, at least atheists are aware of human nature. Awareness is the only first step towards harmony.

true. I really don't have a problem with widespread atheism, I think it'd be better than the set up we have now by far. I just don't see atheism as the ultimate answer to all of our problems.

 

[Moocow]

We don't want an ultimate answer to all our problems. It sounds too much like death.

 

[DetachedRetina]

I can appreciate this.

Personally, I think that if someone wants to rip their morality straight from a book someone else wrote or someone wants to say "Fuck morals. YOLO.", then that's their decision. I can't even say I respect it, but I could not walk up to such people and say "You are wrong, morals are worth critical and intense thought and you need to find your own for yourself." because there is nothing I could say that would substantiate that except my own beliefs and values.

"determine a purpose for themselves"

and it is so. Any purpose or lack of purpose will do quite fine. Why should one have to examine the world or even pay attention to morality.

You acknowledge that purpose is subjective and determined by the individual. Why should one have to do anything pertaining to morality? It is whatever the individual wills it to be. The worst part about subjectivity is the realization that what you believe is or should be isn't what others believe is or should be, including the belief that things are subjective (which is why we have so many religious people saying their values and morals are "true").

Of course these are my subjective beliefs. But I think that a dogma that promotes the evaluation (on an individual level) of morality and supports empathy is a dogma that is at least likely to promote a more content population if adopted by more people.

I just happen to believe that if somebody floats through life without examining things critically and determining what exactly their own subjective belief system is, they are more likely to indulge in behavior that is hurtful to others. I think this is an intuitive statement and I can't really provide evidence for it, but it makes sense I think, that a conscious effort to direct your actions in a way that you find just is more likely to be more satisfying in the long run to both you and those around you, especially since (as we all seem to basically agree) we have an internal moral compass that is generally empathetic and wants the best for people (with the exception of psychopaths etc.)

 

[DetachedRetina]

We don't want an ultimate answer to all our problems. It sounds too much like death.

 

[MissQuote]

One of, the main perhaps, reasons I am so interested in the subject of Love (how girly of me) - what it is, what causes it, what it means, where to apply it, why people apply it, how to apply it, the psychological, physiological and societal aspects of achieving, offering, rejecting or revoking it and all the rest- is because I have this idea that Morality is nothing but smoke and madness, but perhaps Love is of a more pure stuff.

All actions are of selfish origins. Trying to find a way out of that will take you nowhere but in circles upon spinning circles of moral dilemmas.

Striving to have compassion towards all others despite one own selfishness seems like a pretty good plan to start with.

 

[DetachedRetina]

All actions are of selfish origins.

I have struggled with this one for a long time.

I think when you truly love someone (for example probably your children) your sense of self grows to include that person. You act selfishly for them. That's about the closest thing I think I've attained to love.

Striving to have compassion towards all others despite one own selfishness seems like a pretty good plan to start with.

That is the plan.

 

[Moocow]

I have struggled with this one for a long time.

I think when you truly love someone (for example probably your children) your sense of self grows to include that person. You act selfishly for them. That's about the closest thing I think I've attained to love.

Accurate to my experience and to the studies of psychologists. Self concept diversifies when a mate is introduced. It opens up, sucks them in, and merges.
Not always successfully though. Sometimes it just continuously tries to merge and never quite makes it happen, such as when the tugging forces are unbalanced. For a good harmonious merging of identities, the agreement can only be mutual, like the left and right hemispheres of the brain.
Cliche though it is to say, it's all about communication, and lots of it.

 

[snafupants]

true. I really don't have a problem with widespread atheism, I think it'd be better than the set up we have now by far. I just don't see atheism as the ultimate answer to all of our problems.

Neither do I. Atheism needs to be coupled with increased awareness to achieve full potency. There are many atheists today who aren't that bright, with low levels of consciousnesses, who tarnish the reputation of all free-thinkers. Atheism is a necessary but insufficient avenue to free-thinking (or is it the other way around?); without true intelligence free-thinking is wildly vitiated.

 

[DetachedRetina]

Accurate to my experience and to the studies of psychologists. Self concept diversifies when a mate is introduced. It opens up, sucks them in, and merges.
Not always successfully though. Sometimes it just continuously tries to merge and never quite makes it happen, such as when the tugging forces are unbalanced. For a good harmonious merging of identities, the agreement can only be mutual, like the left and right hemispheres of the brain.
Cliche though it is to say, it's all about communication, and lots of it.

indeed

 

[DetachedRetina]

Neither do I. Atheism needs to be coupled with increased awareness to achieve full potency. There are many atheists today who aren't that bright, with low level of consciousnesses, who tarnish the reputation of all free-thinkers. Atheism is a necessary but insufficient avenue to free-thinking; without true intelligence free-thinking is wildly vitiated.

agreed

 

[~~~]

It's the electrolytes.

 

[MissQuote]

It's the electrolytes.

They're what plants need!

 

[Trebuchet]

I think smartness is orthogonal to goodness. I know some very smart, very good people. They don't make a show of either quality, though, so you have to look hard to see it. I also met a sociopath once, and I hope never to do so again, and he was very, very smart.

Being good takes awareness of what is happening around you and the courage to fix it, which might have bad consequences. If you see something wrong at work, what do you do about it? I nearly got fired twice at a previous job, because I wouldn't participate in a minor corporate wrongness. (By minor, I mean it caused small financial harm or inconvenience, but didn't endanger anyone.) But like now, jobs were scarce. I didn't participate, but I didn't blow the whistle, either. I don't think I qualified as good there. That is what I mean by the need for courage.

Whether good goes with smart also depends on where you live. In my area of California, the less intelligent people are almost all evangelical Christians who belong to a megachurch. These are some of the least good people I've ever met. Sure they donate money (to their church), but they are intolerant, anti-science, smug, and cruel.

We sent our daughter to a preschool run by an evangelical church, which is way more religion-based than when I attended a Methodist preschool as a kid. I mean, when I was a kid, we played with blocks and practiced raising our hands. They spent all day praying and congratulating themselves for being such good people. They made it clear that we weren't welcome, since we didn't hate gays, so we were out of there after a year.

A mom who stayed told me the next year about a little girl who got lice (common among little kids, and easy to treat), and all the other parents told their children to stay away from her and not play with her because she was dirty. The family was so shamed they had to leave the school, and lose their deposit. The fact that they weren't white in a nearly all-white school probably had something to do with it, but I couldn't prove it. So this church looked at an innocent child, suffering from an affliction, and cast her out. They did it cruelly, by socially ostracizing a four-year-old. I'm not seeing the good here. But I know those parents. They are very proud of their virtue and raising their children to be good Christians.

Bah, this is coming across as an attack on Christians, and it isn't meant to be. Nor even an attack on evangelicals. It is more of an attack on the evangelical megachurch in my area, which is extremely powerful and wealthy. Since I'm not a Christian, I don't feel obligated to think Christian = good, and it does get tiresome that so many think the two are the same.

 

[lungs]

i'm pretty sure the only connection between being smart and being a "good person" is that a smarter person can more articulately justify their behavior whichever way they go. this can be either a good thing or a bad thing.

i think decisions about what behavior is best for others is more based on instinct and emotion and things like ingrained beliefs from upbringing, etc. than a lot of people acknowledge. reasoning and facts and justifications come in after the fact. so intelligence doesn't really make any difference except for in the justification stage.

this thread comes off to me a lot like "we have this great power as privileged humans how shall we best exercise it ho ho huff huff." meh. people have different talents. i don't think you have any extra special responsibilities, put your feet up, relax. d:

 

[cheese]

I love this thread! Possibly because I agree with most things in it. And the expansion of self-concept when in love - I theorised that as well and it's nice to see some agreement. Fits in with the fact that separated partners often feel physical pain too (like a limb is missing), that they feel physically truncated, etc. Bunch of synapses firing with no resolution in action because the other isn't there to receive. Kinda like a phantom limb - the partner is still mapped onto the brain's concept of self and self-body, even if they're not actually there anymore. Serious breakups are no trivial things, imo.

I think what's happening in (loosely) jungian terms is blossoming Fe. Still in service of Ti though - your moral musings are still strongly rooted in the idea that we should be internally consistent and not hypocrites, ie we have to sift through our data and weed out any parts of our mental-moral model that aren't in line with basic principles. Very Ti. And you're developing and moving outwards, and taking that information you get outside to tackle problems inside. Perfect mental models are no longer enough, complacency in your ability to handle any mental problem is no longer enough, you now want to take your principles and 'vision' to the outside world. (Or maybe you always have.) That's really cool, because it greatly expands your horizon (no matter if the subject is morals or ice cream manufacturing).

And I do wish we could all be better people as well.

Spoiler

That wish is a dangerous one though, because I'm not sure what it'd do to people who *weren't* 'kind' or 'nice' or 'good'. Fe likes to create cultures and communities, and perhaps if your drive is strong enough you'd, er, eliminate anyone who didn't toe the line. That's where it gets nasty.

And you're very right - intellectual vanity is of a similar mould, and similarly superficial. Again, the innate and internal and passive is no longer enough. There are reams and reams of data out there waiting to be perfectly calibrated and organised, walking systems of code called 'humans' that you could align into perfect harmony within and between each other. And in fact if you *ignore* that imperative and all the data out there, you're ignoring your most fundamental drive which originates from within - the drive to perfect and fine-tune and make internally coherent. That drive when contained within does not properly mature and can never flourish as fully as when it has access to all its tools and subjects and the refinement experience brings.

This is sounding a bit airy-fairy now, but it's basically just a reiteration of a lot of psychological mumbo-jumbo that seems to make some sort of rough sense, and yeah, I identify with what you're saying and with your general questions and overall pattern/focus of thought at the moment. Basically, to Ti the unexamined life is not worth living, the unexamined are incompletely conscious and prone to hypocrisy, hypocrisy is inconsistency, inconsistency is bad and underneath it all we'd instinctively like people to be happy and nice to each other; vanity is a kind of thoughtlessness, comes in all forms and is not exclusive to any one group; and not thinking carefully about everything, especially yourself, is like being an undead, unalive zombie, and everyone knows zombies are dangerous.

Anyway, interesting things to think about. There is definitely a limit to how far you can impose your personal imperatives on everyone else without violating one of your own principles though. When it comes to that you have to make a decision between imperfect harmony and colonisation. I'd guess that most here would laugh off the latter any day, or at least hope they would if faced with that choice.

*edit
Lungs,

Spoiler

I think possibly the main thrust of what he's saying is that people who pride themselves on their ability to think critically and cleverly should actually make use of that ability, otherwise it's just an empty boast. The point about the more intelligent being better people is tangential (hopefully) and on shaky ground.

And then there's also the fact that a lot of these same people who pride themselves on being smart also consider themselves inherently superior to those who pride themselves on being beautiful. There's often a morality-inspired smugness in the former, and the assumption that those who value beauty more are somehow morally inferior. (Hence the 'superficial' or 'shallow' tags.) However it's again an empty, silly boast if they're not actually being better people. Being smart alone doesn't mean shit in this area, and pride is pride. Morality has to be judged in its own arena, rather than with reference to irrelevant things like beauty or brains, and therefore the often-veiled claim to innately superior humanity through intelligence or its valuation is moot.

That's how I'd read it, anyway.

 

[snafupants]

Regarding your last paragraph, Cheese, the framers (nice name) preferred imperfect harmony over brash totalitarian tactics. That's why I referred to Bertrand Russell earlier. More tolerance is needed for a democracy to operate efficiently, without reverting into a paradox. Please note that the United States has never been a democracy; only the suggestive wording in the Declaration of Independence, which was itself cribbed from English aristocrats, would create that illusion. Nonetheless, the notion that tolerance is required to move the levers of an actual democracy (whatever that is) remains a noble cognitive stepping stone for humanity.

 

[pernoctator]

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlF79D0iHaI

 

[Wasp]

I think that a smart person using their abilities responsibly would be someone who doesn't use their abilities to save the word but uses their abilities to save someone's world. A teacher would be a good example. A teacher with a sense of humility and tolerance for others. Anyway thats just my two cents.

 

[Iuanes]

There's obviously a great difference between intelligence, morality, disposition, wisdom and spirit. Also, there a great many kinds of intelligences.

There is no problem with selfishness, no need to feel shame or guilty or figure away around it. Selflessness is literally emptiness. Unless you desire as much, then don't slander selfishness. The trick is to achieve a perception of self that is expansive, that sees the self in others, and is thusly selfish for others.