Smartest person you kn(e)w

[smcder]

What is the best biography on Leonardo Da Vinci?

But a product of his times - to be a Renaissance Man today might mean you are an expert it TWO adjoining sub sub specialties of a field or that you have a PhD and can program your DVR.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

I love chess.

I was thinking about this question today. I wonder if one tends to find people to be smart if 1) a person is good at something one values themself, or 2) a person is good at something one is poor at themself.

I tend to find myself thinking people who remember names, dates, details to be "smart" — and that happens to be something I am incredibly poor at. Coincidence?

But that's not to say that people with good memories aren't smart.

There are people with great memories, people who are whizzes at math, people who excel at engineering, spelling, writing, singing, playing an instrument, painting, learning languages, solving problems, athletics, nature, biology, teaching, making connections between complex ideas, and creating.

Western culture tends to value people strong in maths and writing.

And I don't know about genius smart, but as a general rule, we tend to find people with excellent self-regulation to be "smart."

So I guess there has to be somebody alive who is the most talented human in all the above areas. Would they be the smartest person I know if I knew them?

Also, I've always made a distinction between smart and wisdom. I define wisdom as the ability to make good decisions. Someone could technically be very intelligent but not wise. At all.

So who is the smartest person I know? It's probably a toss up between a buddy of mine who is a biologist who seems to know a lot about a lot of subjects (although he is not intellectual in the least) and my wife who has an impeccable memory (which she gave to our daughter, whose is even sharper) and an incredible ability to consume and process information (and who also is not intellectual).

Individuals that value a variety of abilities in the population around them tend to more successful reproduction.

"
So I guess there has to be somebody alive who is the most talented human in all the above areas. Would they be the smartest person I know if I knew them?"

I'm not sure - there at least seem to be patterns of abilities that you see together and those you don't - or very rarely - ability in one area could inhibit ability in another. Or ability may be more determined by practice than genetics ... Studies seen to indicate the best predictor of expert performance is time spent on the task - great chess players mat be more made than born.

Etc etc



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

Steve.

I havent read this thread, and i havent had time to dig deeper, but i was reading a newspaper piece yesterday, and in it was a proffessor talking about inherent intelligence, as i said i havent had time to go into it, but the bit i did read was about human violence, and it explained abit clearer points i was clumsily trying to make in the ferguson thread, i will pick this up with you over there.

Ok



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

The difficulty is in defining that slippery but unavoidable concept of "smart", not so ?

Like obscenity ... you know it when you see it. Unlike obscenity - it can be hidden.

I'm thinking now there is plenty of smart - some studies show extremely high IQs appear at several times the expected frequency ...

And what we lack are other qualities ...

So let me ask this question ... what is the rarest human quality? What does the world need more of?

What is it that there is just too little of?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Burnt State]

Compassion.

 

[smcder]

Compassion.

That was fast ...

;-)

Compassion is a composite quality I think - like wisdom, ... some smarts some raw empathy (but empathy is a requirement for the sadist too) ... selflessness or sacrifice ...

how hard it is "just" to LISTEN sans agenda sans "what am I going to say when they finally shut up" ... but to make a meditation of each word so you really hear them ... To still your voices in the meantime ... exhausting work that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Burnt State]

That was fast ...

;-)

Compassion is a composite quality I think - like wisdom, ... some smarts some raw empathy (but empathy is a requirement for the sadist too) ... selflessness or sacrifice ...

how hard it is "just" to LISTEN sans agenda sans "what am I going to say when they finally shut up" ... but to make a meditation of each word so you really hear them ... To still your voices in the meantime ... exhausting work that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

like lifting weights, it's all in the training. hard work yields good results. learning how to still your own brain is the real trick and if you can learn to turn your brain off and believe that what the person in front of you has to say is really important to them, which makes it really important to you, because other people are really important, well before you know it you can clean and jerk any random thought that sneaks into your brain right out of the picture.

the exhausting bit is just remembering that you have this skill available to you all the time.

 

[Burnt State]

isn't there a story about Buddha on his death bed surrounded by all his wannabe followers who ask him, master what is the most important thing we need to know about your teachings? what is it you want us to carry forward from your death = and Buddha says, there is only one thing you need to remember: compassion.

 

[smcder]

isn't there a story about Buddha on his death bed surrounded by all his wannabe followers who ask him, master what is the most important thing we need to know about your teachings? what is it you want us to carry forward from your death = and Buddha says, there is only one thing you need to remember: compassion.

I believe his last words were "...Rose ... bud .... argggggggh"

No, it was heedfulness ... (cf. mindfulness/awareness)

I remember this because I just listened to a talk that mentioned it and I've heard it several times before. I also read it on a place mat at a restaurant in Illinois in the mid 70s. So I hocked some furniture and got a subscription to Google and did a little research ...

The Dhammapada: The Buddha's Path of Wisdom

I recommend access to insight ... excellent translations of the Pali Canon.

What is needed most urgently to train and subdue the mind is a quality called heedfulness (appamada).

Heedfulness combines critical self awareness and unremitting energy in a process of keeping the mind under constant observation to detect and expel the defiling impulses whenever they seek an opportunity to surface.

In a world where man has no savior but himself, and where the means to his deliverance lies in mental purification, heedfulness becomes the crucial factor for ensuring that the aspirant keeps to the straight path of training without deviating due to the seductive allurements of sense pleasures or the stagnating influences of laziness and complacency. Heedfulness, the Buddha declares, is the path to the Deathless; heedlessness, the path to death. The wise who understand this distinction abide in heedfulness and experience Nibbana, "the incomparable freedom from bondage" (21-23).

And from The Last Days of the Buddha (original screenplay by Jim Belushi):

Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha

8. And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"[58]
This was the last word of the Tathagata.
58.
Handa dani bhikkhave amantayami vo: Vayadhamma sankhara appamadena sampadetha.

Earnestness (appamada) is explained as "presence of mindfulness." Comy.: "'You should accomplish all your duties without allowing mindfulness to lapse!' Thus did the Blessed One, while on the bed of his Parinibbana, summarize in that one word on earnestness the advice he had given through forty-five years."

 

[smcder]

I bet that's the last time you ask me a Tathagata question ... ;-)

 

[smcder]

Compassion.

Now ... here's a thought experiment ... and for everyone watching the thread ...

How much IQ (or however you want to measure smarts ...) would you give up to become more compassionate?

 

[smcder]

isn't there a story about Buddha on his death bed surrounded by all his wannabe followers who ask him, master what is the most important thing we need to know about your teachings? what is it you want us to carry forward from your death = and Buddha says, there is only one thing you need to remember: compassion.

Here's another eastern take on intelligence that I've been waiting to work into the conversation ...

A man is a good retainer to the extent that he earnestly places importance in his master. This is the highest sort of retainer. If one is born into a prominent family that goes back for generations, it is sufficient to deeply consider the matter of obligation to one’s ancestors, to lay down one’s body and mind, and to earnestly esteem one’s master. It is further good fortune if, more than this, one has wisdom and talent and can use them appropriately. But even a person who is good for nothing and exceedingly clumsy will be a reliable retainer if only he has the determination to think earnestly of his master. Having only wisdom and talent is the lowest tier of usefulness.

- Hagakure

 

[Burnt State]

So, living life in service of others. Is that what I'm seeing here as an intelligent way of being in the world? In asking to question the nature of smartness I think there is great value to be seen in also welcoming the stranger, for you know not what burdens they may be carrying, or how you can ease their mind, by bringing them into a new present moment, to look about in your garden, share wine and some bread & words.

The dedication of service is a path many are familiar with, especially as seen here on the forum. People don't post public opinions without some confidence in the space from which they speak. It can be said that some of us are maybe even too dedicated to our opinions. However, I get the sense that many here are not just carousers of deep thought, but are often exceptional in their fields of work as well.

Some are publicly known ufological figures whose dedication to the task of seeking is well regarded (Ecker, O'Brien, Steinberg) along with many other more quiet, yet seriously dedicated researchers, (yeah, I'm talking about you, @Sentry , and there are more still) and the committed, imaginative skeptics who don't always frequent the space as much (trained, Lance, Angelo), but this whole heteroglossia is a place of plural, & often developed, creative thought - well at its best anyway.

Many strangers speaking in many tongues looking for common translation makes this an intelligent and interesting space of smartness in its own right. Normally, unless you work with a bunch of really exceptional people, it's hard to find a concentration of intellect in so many diverse areas. You'd have thought we should have already solved stuff like global warming and where do UFO's come from by now. But I have found that many strangers here are and have been very welcoming, and very compassionate, skillfully witty (a wonderful intelligence criterion), great storytellers, dedicated seekers and above all else very creative thinkers. Those are the smart traits I value here.

Example: some of the smartness that travels in languages that are very complex or require more layers of thinking I'm always impressed with - threads that teach, and tackle the big C and it's relationship to the paranormal. That ability to speak in many tongues of language and of intellect - that's a pretty impressive trait, in that these skills can be learned, and like any skill, get developed. Who you serve with that skill is another matter.

 

[Soupie]

Well, this thread has taken quite an Adlerian turn! (@Constance might appreciate the linked website.)

Alfred Adler’s Concept of “Social Interest” | Phenomenological Psychology

One of Adler’s key concepts is that of social interest. “Social interest” in German is “Gemeinschaftsgefuhl,” which translates as “community feeling,” as opposed to one’s private interests or concerns. One’s “style of life” is the set of construals and personal narratives one has devised in order to cope with being-in-the-world. If one has social interest then one evidences or enacts a “useful” style of life. If one does not have social interest then one is self-absorbed and is concerned only with one’s self. Such a style of life is “useless.” ...
​

Like his more popular contemporaries, Freud and Jung, some of Adler's ideas seem to have been right in the money, while others not so much. According to Adler, an individuals level of mental wellness can be measured via their level of social interest. An interesting notion.

Anyhow, in the interest in representing the reductive side of the discussion, I was thinking about the brain and "smartness."

I recently read an article about a 40 year old, employed, father of two who, it turns out, is operating with roughly 75% of his brain mass missing. It's quite astonishing.

Here is a man with a brain 25% the size of the general populace, and he's getting by just fine.

However, that's not to say there are not consequences. His IQ is apparently 75, with the average IQ being 100. Someone considered "gifted" would be in the 130 range.

So some of the man's mental functioning is definitely impacted. (If we assume the lower IQ is due to his brain size, which is not proven.)

Anyhow, we know the brain is remarkable plastic and that important functions/abilities have multiple pathways — brain regions and networks responsible for performing them.

My thought is that via the evolution and adaption paradigm, the core mental functions for survival will be very, very robust and redundant. These mental functions will be very ancient and represented amongst many species of life. Different types of species may have different core mental functions: tree dwelling species, water dwelling species, social species, non-social, predator type, prey type, etc.

Yet for various reasons, there may always be emerging, novel mental functions. However, these newer mental functions will not be as robust and will not have (as many) multiple pathways/brain networks supporting them.

So for example, the ability to recognize and feel disgust for rotten food is a very robust and universal mental and behavioral ability, but the ability to, say, write a (good) novel will be a very specialized and easily-disrupted-via-brain-trauma ability.

I'm treading on thin ice here, but we all grew up with kids or know people who get by "just fine" but definitely have a "quirkiness" to them. Social intelligence (social skills) — at least on the level required in modern human culture — seem to me to be a relatively recent ability. And a very fragile one; one that brain trauma can easily and sadly disrupt. Im not suggesting that such individuals cant enjoy life nor that theyre unintelligent. Just that their ability to socially function at a high level has been compromised.

On the other hand, maybe these mental abilities arent fragile because theyre novel and lack support from multiple pathways... Maybe its simply because some mental abilities require so much of the brain to be performed. Thus, as these abilities require a large portion of the brain, any damage to the brain will surely disrupt these multi-brain region reliant abilities.

What I'm getting at is that while most humans are smart — brilliant really — compared to most other animal species — some humans appear capable, a la Oppenheimer and others, of operating at another level. Do they just have a greater capacity to do things the average Joe can do, or do they have novel abilities the avergae Joe does not? And can some of it (but not all of it) be due to the structure of their physical brain?

 

[DaveM]

This story is not about smarts but what it takes to reach enlightenment. Milarepa, the Buddhist sage, was passing along his final knowledge to his closest disciple when he told him he had one final thing to tell him.

Milarepa pulled up his robe and exposed his buttocks to his disciple. His bottom was hard with calluses. Milarepa asked his disciple if he understood. Enlighten came from sitting long periods of meditation. Not so much from knowledge or smarts.

 

[smcder]

No one has answered my question ... ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Burnt State]

Now ... here's a thought experiment ... and for everyone watching the thread ...

How much IQ (or however you want to measure smarts ...) would you give up to become more compassionate?

I don't think you have to give up any general iq smarts to become more compassionate. When you know more about other people, you understand their situation better and can understand why people do what they do. So IMHO as intellect increases so should compassion. I know that hatred can work like a capacitator to interupt the flow of compassion which makes evil scientists, evil geniuses and capitalists out of some smart people. But my experience has taught me that the more I increase my awareness of other people's situations the easier it is to forgive them.

 

[smcder]

I don't think you have to give up any general iq smarts to become more compassionate. When you know more about other people, you understand their situation better and can understand why people do what they do. So IMHO as intellect increases so should compassion. I know that hatred can work like a capacitator to interupt the flow of compassion which makes evil scientists, evil geniuses and capitalists out of some smart people. But my experience has taught me that the more I increase my awareness of other people's situations the easier it is to forgive them.

"But my experience has taught me that the more I increase my awareness of other people's situations the easier it is to forgive them."

Establishing that general principle undermines your own argument - once you are smart enough to figure that out or accept it on principle, then intelligence doesn't factor into it.

So how much IQ would you give up?






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Burnt State]

"But my experience has taught me that the more I increase my awareness of other people's situations the easier it is to forgive them."

Establishing that general principle undermines your own argument - once you are smart enough to figure that out or accept it on principle, then intelligence doesn't factor into it.

So how much IQ would you give up?

I don't think people live by general principles, or always apply logical thinking to emotional situations. Learning about other people's situations is about life experience, call it a kind of social wisdom that coincides with intellect.

 

[Soupie]

No one has answered my question ... ?

I wouldnt give up any intelligence to gain more compassion.