|
Well myself I get what you are saying as you intended it.
|
|
|
|
|
jeron1 wrote: This, I think.
Gotta agree with that. Refusing to accept reality is the definition of insanity I suppose. Dang it. 
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Mensa is weird.
The few people I know that were mensa, were not pleasant, mostly large ego and obnoxious.
if you want to have a quality chat on various topics, find local groups with in-person meetings.
Also, being intelligent is different than being informed and be able to talk about stuff.
Again, I know a lot of people who are intelligent but only in their fields, they are not curious about anything else.
Good luck.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
|
|
|
|
|
Maximilien wrote: with in-person meetings
This. 
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Something over 40 years ago now I joined Mensa and went along to some meetings (North London-ish). Meetings were chaotic, childish, and seemed primarily to act as a vehicle for getting drunk or laid or both. Very little indication of different-to-normal intelligence. Didn't renew my membership. Maybe it was just that group, maybe things have changed.
|
|
|
|
|
DerekT-P wrote: Meetings were chaotic, childish
So it's like CP?
DerekT-P wrote: primarily to act as a vehicle for getting drunk or laid or both
Ok, so it's not like CP.
DerekT-P wrote: Didn't renew my membership. Maybe it was just that group, maybe things have changed.
Thanks for this. This was also my concern. I see IQ tests as mental mast********, but I also like the idea of weeding out the fluff. Go figure.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
IQ doesn't measure intelligence. IT's a circle jerk
|
|
|
|
|
Maximilien wrote: The few people I know that were mensa, were not pleasant, mostly large ego and obnoxious.
That's been my concern as well. It would be worse, not better. IQ tests aren't perfect (diff discussion for a diff day) but they can most certainly give a false sense of something.
Maximilien wrote: if you want to have a quality chat on various topics, find local groups with in-person meetings.
Easier than said than done. I've ran meetup groups before, and I used to check them out. While people don't bicker and argue as much in person, you're not always meeting a genius.
Maximilien wrote: Also, being intelligent is different than being informed and be able to talk about stuff.
Yeah. There's more than one type of intelligence though. I totally agree; I would just extend that concept of saying a person that can chat coherently is expressing a different kind of intelligence ya know.
Maximilien wrote: Again, I know a lot of people who are intelligent but only in their fields, they are not curious about anything else.
I used to think this, but no longer do. I don't define knowledgeable as intelligent. To me, being intelligent takes a certain amount of introspection that a lot of people don't have. Granted, others may refer to this as wisdom, but after years of talking to non-introspective peeps I'm no longer convinced they're even intelligent by the classic definition. I'm jaded man.
Maximilien wrote: Good luck.
Thanks buddy.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: IQ tests aren't perfect (diff discussion for a diff day) but they can most certainly give a false sense of something.
They are wrong, according to them I should be half genious and I know I am not.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: While people don't bicker and argue as much in person, you're not always meeting a genius.
Genious tend to be a bit difficult socially, being that much "ahead" mostly isolates them from a good part of people.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Yeah. There's more than one type of intelligence though. I totally agree;
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I would just extend that concept of saying a person that can chat coherently is expressing a different kind of intelligence ya know.
is that not actually eloquence?
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I don't define knowledgeable as intelligent.
Not the only one thinking this
Jeremy Falcon wrote: To me, being intelligent takes a certain amount of introspection that a lot of people don't have.
Do not forget the ability to observe, to analyze and to adapt to the surroundings / current situation. I find that the most important part of intelligence.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Granted, others may refer to this as wisdom
For me wisdom is the hability to use the knowledge the proper way.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: Genious tend to be a bit difficult socially, being that much "ahead" mostly isolates them from a good part of people.
Oh I know. I've argued over the years with people like on CP on crap I was 100% correct about before it happens. Most of my experience here has been nothing but arguing with people pretending to be smart.
Nelek wrote: is that not actually eloquence?
One could argue that being eloquent is a form of intelligence. This is squabbling over semantics man. This is what I'm talking about. People just argue to sound smart but while losing the actual point of the message.
Nelek wrote: Do not forget the ability to observe, to analyze and to adapt to the surroundings / current situation. I find that the most important part of intelligence.
People should adapt, but not at the expense of becoming dumber or not true to themselves. The fact that I've been trying to adapt means I agree with the idea. But as always, there's going to be a stupid argument on CP, etc. by people who are just not worthy of other people's time. So, there's adaptation and then there's wasting time in life with mindless repetition. Find the balance, else we have no advancement in life.
Nelek wrote: For me wisdom is the hability to use the knowledge the proper way.
Side note, I'm sure you know, but you and I have had some decent chats. So, I know there are peeps here that can hold a normal conversation with some substance. They just be rare.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Side note, I'm sure you know, but you and I have had some decent chats. So, I know there are peeps here that can hold a normal conversation with some substance. They just be rare.
Awww, get a room, you two... 
|
|
|
|
|
Ha ha ha ha
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't like vouyerism... turn around
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: People just argue to sound smart but while losing the actual point of the message.
I didn't argue to divert the attention or to be smart. I just asked a question out of curiosity because for me they are not the same. One can be intelligent without being eloquent, viceversa, both or none... they are neither exclusive nor binding to each other. (Not sure if "binding" is the right word here, I hope you understand me)
Jeremy Falcon wrote: People should adapt, but not at the expense of becoming dumber or not true to themselves.
Agree
Jeremy Falcon wrote: people who are just not worthy of other people's time.
I don't know if it is Einstein's for sure but: Do not argue with idiots, they will drag you to their level and win you due to (by?) experience
Jeremy Falcon wrote: So, there's adaptation and then there's wasting time in life with mindless repetition
Repetition might be a good tool too, not just mindless. Toddlers learn / calibrate motorics thanks to repetitions. OK, granted small modifications are mostly there. One could argue is a try and error, but still is repeated a lot.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Side note, I'm sure you know, but you and I have had some decent chats.
That's why I participate instead of ignoring
Jeremy Falcon wrote: So, I know there are peeps here that can hold a normal conversation with some substance. They just be rare.
Thanks
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: The few people I know that were mensa, were not pleasant, mostly large ego and obnoxious
I’ll have to admit that’s the first thing that came to my mind when I read this thread. I knew one guy who reminded everyone all the time he was a part of Mensa and anyone else’s opinions were wrong if they disagreed.
A Fine is a Tax for doing something wrong
A Tax is a Fine for doing something good.
|
|
|
|
|
I found them pre-occupied with party hats, games and hitting on the good-looking ones. Not like when there's a lot of drinking going on.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
Probably smart enough to stay off the Internet.
>64
Some days the dragon wins. Suck it up.
|
|
|
|
|
Not in Ceprano, anyway.
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
-- Rigoletto
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Just want to know where the intelligent people are
They are in cabinet or parliament, whatever you call it from your side.
|
|
|
|
|
Based on the current lot, I suspect not. There's one thing to be incompetent; another thing entirely to be so blatantly obviously incompetent and easily exposed. I know a couple of MPs and they're dedicated, hard-working, talented and very intelligent. Whilst they hold various portfolios I suspect they're too intelligent to rise any higher.
|
|
|
|
|
DerekT-P wrote: Whilst they hold various portfolios I suspect they're too intelligent to rise any higher.
Probably because the ones that rise are mostly not the intelligent, but the charismatic who move masses.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
devenv.exe wrote: They are in cabinet or parliament, whatever you call it from your side.
Not from what I've seen.
|
|
|
|
|
Some quote I saw in the 70s or 80s : "They who are smart enough to run the country are smart enough to stay out of politics."
And there's also Douglas Adams' view of politics as well -- "People are a problem".
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm. I've never sought out intelligent people, other than those who were intelligent at getting along with others. I've encountered plenty of smart people whose intelligence was wasted because they were first-order asshats. I've also found folks in less-exalted societal positions who possessed profound wisdom. A good example is my car guy John, who barely finished high school and is largely self-taught. He has maintained my vehicles for 30+ years now. Part of any car repair is John showing the part(s) affected and explaining in detail what he had to do to fix the problem. I like John a lot, and his explanations have changed my driving habits on occasion.
As I've gotten older I've realized "smarts" aren't as important as the ability to get along, understand another's viewpoint, and to recognize that answers for me may not work for someone else.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Wheeler wrote: I've never sought out intelligent people, other than those who were intelligent at getting along with others. I've encountered plenty of smart people whose intelligence was wasted because they were first-order asshats.
I think you hit the nail on the head man. And I see that getting along with folks takes a certain amount of both and also some introspection. You can be "dumb smart" as in you know a lot about a subject, but that's just being a parrot and repeating crap you memorize. Doesn't mean that person is a genius, etc. At best they'd be better than average about one particular subject only.
Gary Wheeler wrote: As I've gotten older I've realized "smarts" aren't as important as the ability to get along, understand another's viewpoint, and to recognize that answers for me may not work for someone else.
Agree buddy... well in theory. Don't think I'm mature enough to just ignore the fluff yet. Thar be a lot of it. And ultimately that's what's driving this sense of isolation I get. Like, I dunno about you, but even on CP I know I have very little in common with most people here. Once you've experience some things, you just know who lacks it ya know. And it's a lot of peeps. So, really hard to talk about something that you know for the rando on the only end is completely clueless about, but they swear they're not.
I'm learning to avoid it man... just reeeeeeaaaalllly slowly.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
