Wanna talk to me?
While I can't guarantee I'll respond, mostly because I'm not sure if I'll check and see your comment or query...
I'll try :-)
Brettpeirce (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Brettpeirce, you will have seen a message at the top on every page about my reply here until you have checked it. Welcome! --Dgbrt (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- -> That would indeed help remind me to check, now wouldn't it? Assuming, of course, that I notice that notification (and I'm logged in... :-D) Brettpeirce (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 My intelligence rant
I'm quite sorry for disturbing (dividing, perhaps) the talk page of the comic with my walls of text (you may remove them, if you're an admin--I won't mind, as I know I have been read by at least one person--you!). I was emotional, am tired, and am stupid, too (actually stupid, as in, actually mentally challenged, not "stupid" in the predominant, metaphorical sense of "temporarily irrational" or "temporarily doing unpractical things"--I believe that "stupid" and "smart" should refer strictly to one's real mental standing--unpopular as this position (and the very position of existence of a numerical intellectual standing to begin with) is).
My point was simple: the comic's last panel basically says, "being smart doesn't matter" ("...because there are other things that are important in a discussion, such as politeness, sense of relevance of comments, being of specific use in the situation at hand, etc."). My rant was an obtuse way to communicate that such implications, if left uncommented and uncriticised, are going to obscure the importance of intelligence in popular perception, through contributing to brushing it off and viewing it in narrow terms of academic and logical ability (nothing could be farther from the truth; intelligence, I.Q. is MUCH more relevant than that, it permeates all areas of functioning). For instance, intelligence, the "smartness" that Randall by and large ridiculed here (i.e., the trait that White Hat had in mind) contributes to politeness and to amount of knowledge as may be productively provided in any, any at all, discussion, as well as ability to be of specific, tangible assistance in any at all interpersonal problem.
Sorry. Bye! 18.104.22.168 12:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Regarding (--yes--I've already begun saying my farewells and then returning with additions here as well) the relationship of intelligence and "academic and logical ability"--the perspective to have is that those do not constitute intelligence, but only indicate the real thing, the real mental trait. They--memorisation of facts and conscious mental manipulation of e.g. logical relationships--are just most observable, most measurable, least likely to be afflicted by adverse social circumstances, most consistent and persistent. But they correlate with the plethora of social desirable and interpersonal outcomes that I indicated: to all kinds of interpersonal and intrapersonal success, such as wisdom. Wisdom, however defined, correlates with I.Q.; this is a phrasing that expresses well my whole point, that makes clear that my intent was to bridge the hard, scientific concept of I.Q. and real-life functioning, such as knowing how to behave pleasantly in a conversation. Randall's comic destroys that bridge; it sarcastically posits that "smartness" is "not relevant" to "things that matter". This is a position I cannot stand. 22.214.171.124 12:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Also: the correct repartee to claims (so common) that "intelligence means nothing without..." ("...wishing others well, 'confidence', 'effort', 'trying your best'") is: "just like with lungs or with kidneys. You lack them, you die, your intelligence cannot be put to use. what's your point?" Such claims detract from determining the ROLE of I.Q. in wishing well, in confidence, in effort, and so on and so on. They keep from determining the cognitive components of various behaviours. Do you see what I mean? Such claims causally separate and ostracise intelligence among all mental traits, and result in it being largely unstudied. All I want is for people to ask themselves the simple question, "when I successfully do something, either socially or for myself, has intelligence (I.Q.) contributed to it, and if so, to what degree?". Comics like that harm this kind of introspection, by ridiculing the notion of individual "smartness". 126.96.36.199 12:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- The point is to replace the simple causal fork of "I.Q. + effort = achievement" with a network of causal interactions between the three--ALL three, including the ways that innate I.Q. contributes to tendency to give effort. Comics like that contribute to keeping to the simple linear equation. 188.8.131.52 13:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Every time you hear a claim (so common) that "some people with high I.Q.'s still make mistakes/stupid decisions/behave in a hostile/irresponsible/irrational way...", ask yourself, "have I dutifully researched the magnitude of the difference between intelligent and unintelligent people in that respect? does this cliche carry the danger that I fail to appreciate this difference?" The point is, people will again and again and again refer to the fact that intelligence doesn't make you some supreme, perfect being, a god incarnate that never errs... This begs the question... Whom are they going to convince by stressing that? What does this thought process reflect? Why do people have to reach as far as to say the self-obvious fact that "people with I.Q. still make mistakes" in order to discredit the concept in some way (most likely, to comfort a stupid person)? What is it that has made I.Q. a god concept, a solver-for-all-problems, which to subsequently shoot down from this elevated position?... I'm tired, Brett. 184.108.40.206 14:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)