The same significance as the wind? You say this as if the wind were not so significant. You do realize that it was the wind the brought Christopher Columbus to the Americas no? The wind has shaped and molded every detail of every ‘significant’ event in human history.
What made America so prosperous? Was it the Americans or was it the fact that this ground was fertile and full of minerals. Did you put those minerals here, did you make that ground fertile? Everything the human race has is owed to the wind. Every piece of gold, every discovery and every advancement.
Who built the ships, who managed the sails, who did the preparations to survive such a journey, who did the theorizing that such a journey was practical? I don’t suppose the wind did those things as well.
If I told you the truth, the moderators would close down this thread. All I can say is that the source of all nature is from a source above it, a source that is not random.
I really do think that there is ample room in human conversation for the use of “metaphor.”
Also, humility. Also, wonder.
Yeah, it kinda sucks that we only get to be here seventy-odd years (if we’re lucky), and that we’re stuck on an orbiting rock (we can’t even reach the nearby moon without being fried …), and that we quickly realize … as every single one of our august ancestors did … that we are surrounded by Infinite and Eternity.
No matter which way we look, we are confronted by what we Don’t Know, and probably Never Will Know.
So, “let’s cut one another a whole lot of slack” here. We don’t “know.” Religion doesn’t tell us, and Science doesn’t either. Therefore, both points of view are equally valid, for our “blind-deaf-and-dumb (sux …)” purposes. And so, both of them ought be accepted in our polite water-cooler conversations. Let’s be civil “blind men” as we stand next to this Elephant.
(Which, by the by, the blind-men in the original Fable most certainly were not. That being a key take-away of the story.)
There’s no evidence to suggest Albert Einstein ever took an IQ test, the 160 number sometimes associated with Einstein is a best guess. Likewise Steven Hawking has also been estimated to have a 160 IQ, but has never actually made his test scores public. If Einstein had a personality ‘disorder’ it would’ve more likely been schizophrenia as people with his personality type are more prone to schizophrenia. Type 3s, such as movie stars and politicians, are more likely to be diagnosed with psychopathy.
So are you or are you not saying that you can claim to diagnose Einstein just by reading about him? I really don’t think you can prescribe yourself as one who has expertise above the university level on psychological issues (or any issue) just because you might’ve read a few things about it online. If you do believe that is possible, you’re only fooling yourself.
That’s an important point. A persons wish for the life that they want to live is an imperative. Too often we drink our own kool aid and begin to think that we have the proper way to exist. The most damning evidence against it is that there isn’t a shred of evidence for it. It’s just a flash in the pan social construct that isn’t even near ubiquitous. Even if it were it’s still not meaningful. It’s just collective heuristics. Acceptance seems to be the more meaningful stance… for lack of evidence if nothing else. Militancy is just silliness.
@Ace: I’m starting to think you’re purposely misreading my posts. I didn’t say Einstein had schizophrenia, I said IF he had a personality disorder it would’ve been more likely to have been schizophrenia. I would appreciate it if you stopped putting words in my mouth to satisfy your obvious disdain for me.
I didn’t diagnose anyone and I never claimed to be a psychologist. There is nothing wrong with reading books and applying that knowledge to the real world.
Are you an expert on driving? Maybe you shouldn’t drive a car then. Do you have a degree in English? Maybe you should stop talking. Are you a physicist? Maybe you should stop telling people what does and does not violate the laws of physics.
Are you a historian? Are you a physicist? Claiming to be an expert on things you know nothing about are we?
P.S. I have nothing against you making statements like that, just pointing out the hypocrisy.
Several minutes later, I changed the post to instead ask about what the correct interpretation would be. I will also note that while I do not oppose the use of information gleaned from the web in forum threads, there is such a thing as people thinking they’re suddenly college-grade experts because they are reading about it online.
The key word here is college-grade, meaning you know something to an extent that would usually take a four year university course. Now I know you have never made that claim (and I wouldn’t claim to know much in the way of anything to that extent either), but we need to be careful to not make claims or suggestions that we’re trying to be ‘armchair’ experts of anything and everything (and we’ve actually had people on this forum who were like that).
Much of being an intellectual is parroting information gleaned from professionals. Study allows one to keep in context. There is nothing wrong with sharing the information. The problem comes when a person advises as a professional and atr1337 has never done that.
The point of my statement was not to suggest that Albert Einstein was schizophrenic, I don’t think he was, but to suggest that he wasn’t a psychopath. Lucas has a point in that you might consider someone instrumental in the development of the atom bomb to be psychopathic based purely on that knowledge, but as I understand it Albert Einstein was a pacifist and himself didn’t really care for the idea of anyone having such powerful weaponry. Albert Einstein, from what I’ve read, believed that the Nazis were developing atomic weapons and so he personally wrote to President Roosevelt advocating for the development of an American atom bomb.
It’s not that Albert Einstein wanted the Americans to have the bomb, but that he felt the Americans were the lesser of the two evils. Either way someone was going to get the bomb.
P.S. I am in no way an expert on Albert Einstein, the atom bomb, world war II or psychology.
This is testable. It would require that one first have a concise definition of what intelligence is and then compare ones own characteristics to those axioms.
The plot does thicken however. With the definition comes the probability that there is a gradient involved. This is because some the characteristics that signify intelligence can present when others are not. Therefor there isn’t likely a solid line where intelligence appears all at once. A more modern thought about intelligence is that it to some degree Darwinian. Generalized fitness or the ability to adapt to different environments is now thought of as a form of intelligence. This is something that Tardigrades or Water Bears are good at for instance. This would support the suggestion that intelligence is a gradient as they don’t seem to have higher math skills.
The question may not be about whether one is or is not intelligent but about where one is intelligent. :yes:
