PDA

View Full Version : Subjectivity Knows No Intelligence Boundary



Mota Boy
01-02-2005, 10:58 PM
I have yet to ever hear this idea discussed, so bow before me for starting it. (If you can google someone that came up with this same argument, then they must've obviously copied off me). Now, each Supreme Court Justice has an outstanding career, a career of which us mortals can only dream. Presidents hold no less stellar histories. They have each graduated first in their class from Harvard, Princeton, Yale or occasionally Standford (I'm sure that must be a source of much ridicule behind the bench). They are smarter than damn near anyone on here...

...and yet, they're equally partisan. Just look at their references, just look at their rulings. Holy SHIT, Scalia can't admit THAT about the right to privacy in regard to a court-ordered search? Kennedy doesn't know jack about the powers of the police! These are some of the smartest, most studied students of law in the U.S., and yet they often viciously compete on certain basic issues. Does this mean that the entire branch is inadequate to defend their job? Does partisanship extend beyond every single boundary one can think of? Does education, or intelligence, matter in terms of where your values lie? Should we rethink the Court?

Discuss.

SicN Twisted
01-02-2005, 11:03 PM
They're not neccesarily that smart. Ever consider that they had such astounding carreers because most of them came from wealthy, connected families? My ass Bush belonged in Yale. And Kennedy was just an illiterate ignorant millionare, and if he wasn't born a Kennedy, he probably wouldn't even be able to hold down a part time job.Being born into privedge doesn't make you outstanding.

HornyPope
01-02-2005, 11:39 PM
Intelligence is a many varied and vast field. One can be well educated, well read, with the top grades and still lack the smarts we hold as common. To be brilliant in one area is to miss out in another. Dr. Watson once asked how come Sherlock Holmes couldn't name two planets off the solar system--the latter replied : "what is it to me? I only know what I need to know. A human brain is like an attic with a limited storage--so store only that you need to retain in your life". Or something like that. Don't remember the exact quote. While this doesn't help with your question, i'm only trying to say that people only remember/know selected stuff. No one human is universal. Not even top grads.

This is also precisely the reason I reject the concept of IQ test for I believe no single test can accurately measure your intelligence.

T-6005
01-03-2005, 12:10 AM
Extremely booksmart people often miss out on basic skills and get caught up in details.

Mota Boy
01-03-2005, 01:06 AM
They're not neccesarily that smart. Ever consider that they had such astounding carreers because most of them came from wealthy, connected families? My ass Bush belonged in Yale. And Kennedy was just an illiterate ignorant millionare, and if he wasn't born a Kennedy, he probably wouldn't even be able to hold down a part time job.Being born into privedge doesn't make you outstanding.Well, I do believe that most Supreme Court justices graduated from the top of their class at Harvard or Yale law school, though I apparently didn't make that clear in my original post. We're not talking about just legacies that got a free ride, but those that stuck to it at elite institutions to the point of blowing their fellow braniacs out of the water.


Pope - as another example, Einstein famously couldn't do basic arithmetic or remember his own address... though that may've been partly due Alsheimer's, who knows.

HornyPope
01-03-2005, 02:05 AM
Heard the story of a german guy who can calculate a 10 digit power of something in less than 13 seconds? The dude still lives in his mother's basement.

RXP
01-03-2005, 06:18 AM
Law lords/justices/whatever are mostly stupid cunts who don't realise what they are actually doing. They believe the law is always there to be found. They rule with their gut and seek the law to say it was there all along.

Contrary to popular belief it isn't exactly that hard to be a lawyer. BELIEVE ME. It's 90% hardwork 10% smarts. The work I do now I find easier than GCSE (15year old) maths or physics. I hardly know any smart people on my course, most of them are just like robots. They just sit there learning facts, learning cases, learning as much as they can but not thinking. I blaim this on most of htem being females and girls are useless at taking an interest in their subject on the whole.

Perfect example is one area that does require smarts, jurisprudence, well all teh geeks who do well in all other aspects of law (by well I mean firsts) do shit in this. They whine and whine about it. But I excel in this because im a lazy cunt but have a brain.

So I don't really know how the courses run in the states. But if it's anything like here, well, it's all about a memory test. Hardly any intelligence is required. The hardest thing has gotta be to get into the ivy league schools, not the actual courses when you get there. Its all about work ethic.

I really respsect Oliver Wendel Holmes though, the guy knew what he was talking about, was honest and frank about what he was actually doing. We need more people like him in courts around the world.

Satanic_Surfer
01-03-2005, 08:24 AM
Mota_Boy: Albert Einstein were not any more intelligent than the rest of us, though he did have a syndrome from birth wich about every 100th person has got today, more or less of it, called ADD/Aspbergers wich rearranges the intelligence in the brain to different parts.
It rearranges it in the way that it adds up more of it in some places of the brain, usually more advanced parts such as math skills, thinking logically and the interests in very complex and special things, while it lessens the abillities in the more usual things such as social skills.

RXP
01-03-2005, 12:36 PM
Newton was the greatest scientist of all time.

Hume and RXP was (are) the greatest thinker.

End of discussion.

SicN Twisted
01-03-2005, 12:46 PM
Doing well at an institution doesn't make you smart. Ivy league schools are like fancy country clubs, they don't require any intelligence, just that you grew up a certain way. I wouldn't go as far to believe that the top student at Harvard law is any smarter then the average bumb on the street. Education simply measures stature, not brains.

sKratch
01-03-2005, 01:55 PM
Mota, as I understood it part of your question was whether or not great intelligence will allow you to rise above partisan decisions. Is this correct? Just want to know if you were saying that before I make a response about it.

Mota Boy
01-03-2005, 09:53 PM
Mota, as I understood it part of your question was whether or not great intelligence will allow you to rise above partisan decisions. Is this correct? Just want to know if you were saying that before I make a response about it.
Yeah. Basically a realization that we rely on a group of nine wise individuals to interpret our laws, and yet intelligence doesn't affect value judgements. The Supreme Court, as well-respected an institution as it is, is, at it's heart, just nine people that can argue their biases very well.

And Sic - I disagree. True, attending, and even doing well in, a certain school does not make you smart, but hard work and the right background alone won't get you to the top. I've spent time around both Ivy Leaguers and regular joes, and, on the whole, there's a large difference.

Betty
01-03-2005, 11:48 PM
and girls are useless at taking an interest in their subject on the whole.

K, seriously, I have to do Vera's job here and say WHAT THE FUCK? If you are joking, you can be forgiven, although it wasn't at all entertaining. If you're serious... then...

Back to the topic, I have mixed opinions on this, but still wanna give them.

I agree that book smarts do not necessarily equal street smarts, but they CAN coincide. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I have both... I lack more in the social skills, but am far from oblivious/inadequate/etc. But I have known people who are both, and I have known people who are one or the other too.

I agree that you do not necessarily have to be extremely intelligent to be a medical doctor/lawyer/etc... but it DOES take a certain amount of intelligence which many certainly lack... and yes a good work ethic can certainly get a lot of averagely intelligent people quite far. Note that these people CAN still be very intelligent. As chemistry students, we always make fun of the pre-med students. Because they will take a course like organic chemistry and think it's the hardest thing ever (apparently the weed-out course), whereas it's a total breeze for most of us. And we could also blow them out of the water in any of their courses if we chose.

I agree with Mota that yes, while people at universities may not all be geniuses, on the whole they are more intelligent than the average uneducated worker. And this not just based on knowledge, but on reasoning skills/logical thinking/ability to understand concepts/etc. Yes, there are a lot of not-so-bright people at my university, but then I go back to Food Basics for a couple of weeks... and wow are they ever worse.

So, overall, my point is that while some people's intelligence may be overrated, not everybody's is. Some are truly brilliant. Also, some people can be book smart/street smart/hardworking/smart at both English/philosophy/math/etc all at once. It IS possible. One does not necessarily not imply the other, even though this can often be true.

And to answer your question Mota... I don't think that genius intelligence necessarily means people will have similar morals, or better morals than those of average intelligence. Although they probably understand why they believe what they do a hell of a lot better, and I think I'd still trust them much more with the court decisions, be they indeed truly intelligent people, and not simply "privileged".

SicN Twisted
01-04-2005, 12:34 AM
I've spent time around both Ivy Leaguers and regular joes, and, on the whole, there's a large difference.

I attended an ivy league school, and then I dropped out because I realized integrity is easier kept as an average joe. I've spent time around ivy students and average joes, and the only difference I've noticed is that the students were from backgrounds which gave them access to better resources, more knowledge, and more respect. I've actually learned more from homeless people on the street then I have from ivy league students. All it takes to be the top at your class at Colombia University is dedication and being well dressed. It has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence - anyone can memorize facts, and getting an A on an English paper only requires proper grammar and syntax, and well as regurgitating the thoughts of our previous generation's intellectuals. Supreme court justices aren't any smarter then factory workers, they've just grown up in high societies.

RXP
01-04-2005, 01:10 AM
Supreme court justices aren't any smarter then factory workers, they've just grown up in high societies.

Indeed. In a biological sense.

However, smarts has a lot to do with upbrinigng and if you're saying it's entirely on what your born with then yes your argument(s) is (are) correct. But being smart has a lot to do with upbringing. Sure some factory worker could have the potential to be smart if he was born into the right family. But hte fact of hte matter is he wasn't.

Did you really drop out of an Ivy league school because of what you said? If so respect to you.

HornyPope
01-04-2005, 01:28 AM
He dropped out of ivy league school to concentrate on his basketball practice. He was so close to making the French national team. Duh.

Regardless of whether the students at Ivy League are smarter than the average joe, you have to be special to excell among of your peers. No stupid people get a top of their class. I have a cousin in Columbia U actually. She's no stupid girl. She is naturally gifted and a hard worker. I command her for her success.

RXP
01-04-2005, 01:50 AM
Very good point. All about excelling in your class as you keep on telling me about Fedorov!

sKratch
01-04-2005, 02:43 AM
There's a problem with linking intelligence with "bias". To do so, you assume that there is an inherent right and wrong, which is to say that there is a "correct" value system. Try proving this, and you should have a rather difficult time. There will always be things, where no matter how educated one is, he or she will make decisions based upon a value that is not linked to intelligence. I know this isn't relevant to the supreme court (at least not in any direct way, and if there is some clever analogy then it's definitely not an accident at 5:45 in the morning), but take for example deciding whether or not to give your life for someone. The only thing having a PhD will do is make you think "shit i spent too much of my life in school, i don't want to die yet!" My point is, some decisions will always come down to value systems disjointed from intelligence. Now maybe if you reach enlightenment and you know everything there is to know, then you can make decisions based purely on your omniscience. Let me know when you get there. Until then, morals or something similar will almost always have at least some effect. The best thing to do, really, is to sincerely consider which choice will be better for the general public despite your bias. This, however, calls for the use of bias, in that you have to make an assumption about what is good for the people. Luckily, societies do have some values which are generally accepted by all. I hope this makes sense. I hate myself for not going to sleep yet.

Betty
01-04-2005, 10:24 AM
[QUOTE=RXP]
However, smarts has a lot to do with upbrinigng and if you're saying it's entirely on what your born with then yes your argument(s) is (are) correct. But being smart has a lot to do with upbringing. Sure some factory worker could have the potential to be smart if he was born into the right family. But hte fact of hte matter is he wasn't.
QUOTE]

This, in response to Sic, gives the impression that you're saying everybody is born with the same intelligence genes. I strongly disagree with that. I think upbringing is VERY important in order to make use of intelligence, to provide work ethic, to provide common sense, etc, etc... but it does not change your innate ability to understand things... and people are different on this level genetically.

Edit: Also, this may be a bold statement, but I think IN GENERAL people from higher society would tend to have better intelligence genes. There are obviously numerous exceptions to this rule.

RXP
01-04-2005, 12:31 PM
Na I don't mean that at all. But I beleive things like judges you don't need to be smart because law ain't hard.

Stuff like being a scientist or something. That's hard.

It's like sport. If I was born into Michael Schumacher's family I woudln't have won 7 world championships, its' stupid to think otherwise.

SicN Twisted
01-04-2005, 12:32 PM
I'd actually disagree with that - not from any sort of statistic, but from my experience with both. Back in the days of the aristocracy, the bourgeois actually looked down on aristocrats for being stupid.

I know alot of people who attend Colombia, and a few of them are among the stupidest people I know - they just have really good work ethic. Stupidity exists among all the ranks, one would learn that if exposed enough to different kinds of people.

Betty, I don't think everyone's born with the same intelligence genes, but I think intelligence genes are arbitrary to upbringing, and intelligence is completely unrelated to level of education.

RXP, I dropped out for several reasons, that being one of them, but definately not the only one.

Betty
01-04-2005, 12:40 PM
Blah, I agree with you guys, but not to the same extent.

There are very stupid people in university, even excelling in university.

There are very intelligent people working at the coffee shop (or whatever example)

BUT, I believe if you did a representative objective statistical analysis on the correlation of intelligence with either level of education attained or family income, I think there would be positive relationships in both cases.

SicN Twisted
01-04-2005, 12:59 PM
There have been IQ tests for young children throughout all economic classes (which while far from accurate, is the most accurate way to test intelligence there is right now), and there's been absolutely no proven correlations. I can't find the studies, but I definately remember hearing a program on NPR about it.

SAT scores prove that intelligence raises with class, but that's definately no fair because the wealthier you are the better education you get and the better prepared you are for the SATs.

Betty
01-04-2005, 01:04 PM
I'd be very interested to see that study... but "no proven correlation" could mean a lot of things. Technically you would need the actual correlation factor and interpret it from there. The conclusion depends on what the initial assumption was and the level of confidence used. Statistics are sketchy to begin with. I'd almost be interested to learn more about them, if the courses weren't so boring.

I agree that people should be tested at a young age.

SicN Twisted
01-04-2005, 01:32 PM
One study I'm positive of is that children in poor drug infested neighborhoods had their IQs tested at a young age, and then later as they grew up, and most of their IQs actually went down. Since IQ has nothing to do with education, the only logical assumption as to why this happened is because harsh conditions of poverty like malnutrition and depression that ensues from not having opportunity causes damage in intelligence.

HornyPope
01-04-2005, 02:45 PM
Don't underestimate the people with good work ethic. When coupled with high ambitions, the two become a powerful drive to push the individual way past his peers in terms of "intelligence"--I use this word very loosely because I believe "intelligence" is more than the one-dimensional prowess we interpret it as in this conversation.

Sure, you can find a lot of gifted people in factories, restaurant kitchens and on the streets among other blue-collar 'occupations' we look downupon as repugnant. Problem is: if they don't build on their potential, they get beaten by those who do. The latter are the types with a good work-ethic, high ambitions and stellar discipline. The former types, on the other hand, although often intelligent and with a good sense of humour and an interesting personna, find little time to advance their natural qualities to the next level and are thus forever content to remain at the stagnant line.

Now, i'm not saying that the only way to advance one smarts is through schooling. I personally have foregon this path (at least for now). I'm just saying that the natural skills you're born can be further enhanced with hard work. Never underestimate those that strive forward.

sKratch
01-04-2005, 04:50 PM
I hate all of you for ignoring my post.

Betty
01-04-2005, 07:55 PM
Dear sKratch:

I read your post and thought "I still think my comment was better" (which nobody acknowledged either by the way)

If you don't remember, I said:

"And to answer your question Mota... I don't think that genius intelligence necessarily means people will have similar morals [to each other], or better morals than those of average intelligence. Although they probably understand why they believe what they do a hell of a lot better, and I think I'd still trust them much more with the court decisions, be they indeed truly intelligent people, and not simply 'privileged'."

I agree with you though... and I guess it is an elaboration on why intelligent people should not necessarily have similar morals to each other... since intelligence is not necessarily related to morals in the first place.

One example... some geniuses believe in god, some don't. That's a world of difference.

SicN Twisted
01-04-2005, 09:21 PM
they don't. there's many different combinations - smart and nice, smart and mean, stupid and nice, stupid and mean. Intelligence and morals aren't related.

sKratch
01-05-2005, 12:19 AM
Dear sKratch:

I read your post and thought "I still think my comment was better" (which nobody acknowledged either by the way)

If you don't remember, I said:

"And to answer your question Mota... I don't think that genius intelligence necessarily means people will have similar morals [to each other], or better morals than those of average intelligence. Although they probably understand why they believe what they do a hell of a lot better, and I think I'd still trust them much more with the court decisions, be they indeed truly intelligent people, and not simply 'privileged'."

I agree with you though... and I guess it is an elaboration on why intelligent people should not necessarily have similar morals to each other... since intelligence is not necessarily related to morals in the first place.

One example... some geniuses believe in god, some don't. That's a world of difference.
Sorry, I made my reply at an odd hour of night (morning) so I wasn't too aware of what else had been posted.

Betty
01-05-2005, 09:25 AM
I think the worst combination is stupid and mean... don't know how those people will get anywhere. Unless it's mean in one of those really manipulative type ways... in which case they could sucker in the other less bright people.

SicN Twisted
01-05-2005, 12:01 PM
I think smart and mean is worse. If you're stupid and mean nobody takes you seriously, but if you're smart and mean, you can be truly destructive. Smart mean people have the intention and the ability to hurt someone horribly, much worse then some ill intending moron who's not smart enough to actually do anything.

Mota Boy
01-06-2005, 07:36 AM
I've actually learned more from homeless people on the street then I have from ivy league students.Just because they have a different type of intelligence or outlook on life than most of the people that you've come into contact with, it doesn't mean that they're smarter.

Also, you're argument rests on the belief that people born into a certain class are condemned to remain in it, something that doesn't hold up to evidence at all. Yeah, it's easier for the wealthy to get into certain schools, but it's not a given that they'll be entirely composed of WASP-y bluebloods.


There's a problem with linking intelligence with "bias". To do so, you assume that there is an inherent right and wrong, which is to say that there is a "correct" value system. Try proving this, and you should have a rather difficult time. There will always be things, where no matter how educated one is, he or she will make decisions based upon a value that is not linked to intelligenceExactly. The Supreme Court, however, has to decide upon many moral issues, such as abortion, gay rights, etc..

I have to go now for the weekend. Quickly though - do you think that Court might need to be revised? Is it fine like it is, or do Justices have too much power?

SicN Twisted
01-06-2005, 11:17 AM
It's quite evident that people born into a certain class are contemned to remain in it - our society has very little social mobility. Poverty is proven to last countless generations, and so is wealth, obviously. It's a complete myth that wealth is accesible.

And I never said poor people are smarter, I simply said ivy league students aren't neccesarily smarter then anyone else, they've just been granted access to the kind of education ivy league students need throughout the first 18 years of their life.

Betty
01-06-2005, 10:47 PM
Regarding social mobility, I have quotes. I was reading just yesterday or the day before.

"for most, the average stay below the poverty line lasts just over four months."

"According to the census bureau, only about one third of those in poverty at any given time will stay there for two years."

"The 2001 census data suggest that your chance of being poor in the United States is statistically negligibe provided you do three things: (1) complete high school (2) marry and stay married (3) take a full-time job, even at minimum wage. If you're married, you won't have children out of wedlock."

"Only 5 percent of those in the bottom income quintile in 1975 were still there in 1991, whereas nearly 30 percent had moved to the highest income quantile."

So take it or leave it. Note that this applies to the US, a more capitalist country, and may not apply to others.

But Sic, really, I am totally not agreeing with anything you're saying in this thread. And I don't even think it's a case of theory/ideology/opinion, I think it's a matter of right and wrong.

sKratch
01-06-2005, 11:10 PM
Exactly. The Supreme Court, however, has to decide upon many moral issues, such as abortion, gay rights, etc..

I have to go now for the weekend. Quickly though - do you think that Court might need to be revised? Is it fine like it is, or do Justices have too much power?
Yes that's where it gets very tricky. You have to think "OK well how do we make it the best for everyone?" You can't, someone will always be unhappy. Generally, we support equality and we fight to give minorities (in many senses, not just race) a fair life. That seems to be a common value which is held as "good". Unfortunately, it doesn't stay this simple.

Does the court have to be revised? Sadly enough, I'm not very familiar with any imbalances of power in the court. It makes me disappointed with myself. I'll assume that because there's no big ruckus about it, there's no dire need of change. I'd be interested to know what some of the complaints are.

SicN Twisted
01-06-2005, 11:22 PM
The poverty line has nothing to do with this, it's just an arbitrary number. I'm referring to class. A minority of people even in the lowest income bracket even come close to the poverty line - i'm just talking about the working class. If you love statistics, check out some on how many working class children end up going to college, and how many working class families end up ever retaining capital? It's very low.

Also, in responce to the "great motivators"

1) complete high school

Easier said then done in a high school that can't afford a library and that has rampant gangs, where you have to get a job to give your family additional support (that most likely requires dropping out of high school) and even if miraculously you're motivated enough to go to class, your teachers don't get paid enough to set you up for decent SAT scores. It's not that easy.

(2) marry and stay married

Eurika, that's the answer to everything. Any poor person can live out the American dream to it's fullest potential simply by getting married, and then they'll infiltrate the bourgeoise with flying colors! I'm curious, which comes first, completing your high school education, or getting married, because I'm sure you wouldn't recommend getting married while still in high school. Since marriage in our society is basically a financial contract, poor people don't get married so often.

(3) take a full-time job, even at minimum wage. If you're married, you won't have children out of wedlock.

So you have a full time job, a wife who's unemployed because somebody has to take care of the kids, and there you go. Steady minimum wage salary for one barely keeping a roof over the heads of your wife and how many kids exactly? Where's the promotion? But it's okay, the benevolent government has contructed affordable housing projects so you don't have to raise your kids in an abandoned building.

I'll reiterate that I never said dirt poor. Being over the poverty line doesn't afford you the tuition of an ivy league college, which your kids are several times more unlikely to get into then rich kids because you just can't afford those books. Fuck, even most middle class families can barely afford a good college.

Tell me Betty, if there's so much social mobility, then how come the class divide has been so stable for so long? How come at least the majority of poor people don't all become supreme court justices? Do you actually belief the right wing mantra that people are poor because they're lazy, and a better life is accesible to all?