How Old are You? - Revisiting an Old PFs Thread

[maximus]

Wisdom is one of those things that is different for different stages of life, what is wise for a 5 year old may not be so for a 50 yr old. Youth is for learning, until you have raised children of your own you can not appreciate the rate at which infants are capable of learning, while adults can still learn and should never stop learning, children are blank slates waiting to soak up information. For you to assume that you have wisdom equal to that of an adult is not really displaying the wisdom a 15yr old needs, in fact just the opposite, such a judgment is foolish.

but don't you see? until you abandon this assumtion, anything we say (whether in actuality it is wise or not) you will never believe to be wisdom. if you walk into this conversaion knowing that we have no wisdom, nothing we say will sway you otherwise because to you it's only the ramblings of a person "afraid of being looked down upon". i am not in this argument one sided, i see both the argument's points, and i think there is a possibility of a settlement here, providing you are willing to take what we say without prejudice.
let me ask you this, if all of what me or mentat or any of the younger people have said came out of the mouth of an older person, would you then claim it to be wisdom, even if it were the same agruement?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by maximus
if you walk into this conversaion knowing that we have no wisdom, nothing we say will sway you otherwise . . . let me ask you this, if all of what me or mentat or any of the younger people have said came out of the mouth of an older person, would you then claim it to be wisdom, even if it were the same agruement?

I am still waiting for you to respond to the point I have laid out twice already:

1. The experience one gains from "doing" provides a unique learning opportunity that is utterly distinct from only studying, thinking and intuitive understanding.

2. Wisdom is the specific term applied to knowledge acquired while "doing."

3. Life has many lessons that need to be learned, and it takes time to get that experience.

4. If you are young, you simply haven't had enough time to acquire many life experiences.

5. However, let's acknowledge that if you are alive, and have "done" things, then you can have some wisdom. But, of all humans alive, those who are older have had far more opportunities for "doing' than younger humans.

6. Further, surviving as an adult is a level of "doing" that creates a major line of demarcation from kids. In survival activities, idealism gets smashed, theories get trashed, and inflated self images get brought down to Earth.

So, kids who claim to be wise . . . it's minds without a clue about how much they have to learn to make it as an adult. Philosohical talk is not wisdom, anybody can talk wise, especially as a phantom handle at forum. Wise in
action, that is the test one must pass.

 

[TENYEARS]

Wisdom is beyond proof. If you need proof to have wisdom or to acknowlege it you don't.

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I am still waiting for you to respond to the point I have laid out twice already:
1. The experience one gains from "doing" provides a unique learning opportunity that is utterly distinct from only studying, thinking and intuitive understanding.

agreed. but that does not mean that you also can get an understanding from studying/thinking, ect.

2. Wisdom is the specific term applied to knowledge acquired while "doing."

not agreed. it is not so narrow a definition. wisdom, to me, can be acquired out of experience. let me ask a question: many people have agreed on this thread that the ability to look in upon yourself and know your true nature is a form of profound wisdom. i believe i have this ability, and can give you proof if you ask. so, the question is: how is this sort of wisdom (profound) gained by experience. i do not believe outer experience has anything to do with it, most of profound wisdom is inner experince, which occurs at both early and later ages. i have had a lot of inner experience, and (admitedly) not as much outer experience.

3. Life has many lessons that need to be learned, and it takes time to get that experience.

this i agree with (as you'll see in an early post of mine). but these time scales are different for every person.

4. If you are young, you simply haven't had enough time to acquire many life experiences.

not necesarily true. an older person will generally have had more outer experiences (which "earns" him some wisdom-profound or otherwise), but may not have had as many inner experiences.

5. However, let's acknowledge that if you are alive, and have "done" things, then you can have some wisdom. But, of all humans alive, those who are older have had far more opportunities for "doing' than younger humans.

more opportunities! that is exactly what mentat said in one of his first posts in here! an opportunity is not always taken. very ofter it is ignored (by older and younger alike). and therefore if a younger person is to take advantages of theirs's and other's oportunities, they can acquire wisdom that another older person may not have.

6. Further, surviving as an adult is a level of "doing" that creates a major line of demarcation from kids. In survival activities, idealism gets smashed, theories get trashed, and inflated self images get brought down to Earth.

very much agreed. but why is it that you think i or mentat can't understand this concept. maybe we realize this, and have felt it's conciquences as well as you have.

So, kids who claim to be wise . . . it's minds without a clue about how much they have to learn to make it as an adult. Philosohical talk is not wisdom, anybody can talk wise, especially as a phantom handle at forum. Wise in
action, that is the test one must pass.

again, why is it that you have so openly assumed that we have no wisdom in action?

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Integral
Why must it be measureable?

Wisdom is recognized in others, not yourself.

this is contradictive. if wisdom is recognizable in others it must be (to some degree) measurable. how else can one say > you have wisdom > you do not > you have some > you have more>
these are measurments!

This is regardless of age.

then your agreeing with mentat and i?

 

[Integral]

Must I state the totally obvious, or are you simply being argumentive.

Were wisdom measurable we would not need to have this conversation.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Are you grown?
Yes, even infants are grown. They grew a little yesterday and so they know about growing, having already grown. Some infants have even grown more rapidly than others, etc, etc.

No matter how fast you learn (or grow), the process still takes time. The more time, the better, regardless of the rate of development.

That is illogical. If my rate of learning is greater than that of another person, then I will acquire knowledge without having to pass nearly as much time as the other person.

I cannot speak for the other members, only for myself. It should be clear by this time that we can all have our own take on this wisdom issue. You spoke of infants and open mindedness relating to possibly being a part of wisdom, but after reading the dictionary definition you provided as representing your understanding I see little or no room for consideration of open mindedness in infancy playing a part of this and therefore I would say that bringing it up is more of a dodge on your part.

Not at all, as my mentioning infants, and their open-mindedness, was not a way of showing that children can be wise, but rather a way of showing how many older people have closed their minds. If they would return to their previous open-mindedness, it stands to reason that the infant has greater potential for wisdom than the more elderly one.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I am still waiting for you to respond to the point I have laid out twice already:

1. The experience one gains from "doing" provides a unique learning opportunity that is utterly distinct from only studying, thinking and intuitive understanding.

Why is it unique?

2. Wisdom is the specific term applied to knowledge acquired while "doing."

The dictionary and I disagree with you here. You se, one can make application in one's mind, and thus still be being wise (using "applied knowledge").

3. Life has many lessons that need to be learned, and it takes time to get that experience.

Yes, but the amount of time that it takes maximus (for example) may not be nearly as long as the amount of time it took you, or nearly the amount of time you think it should take. Honestly, at what age does one become a candidate for wisdom?

4. If you are young, you simply haven't had enough time to acquire many life experiences.

But the idea that wisdom = life experiences (or = the result of applying life experiences) is your postulate that you have yet to prove/substantiate.

5. However, let's acknowledge that if you are alive, and have "done" things, then you can have some wisdom. But, of all humans alive, those who are older have had far more opportunities for "doing' than younger humans.

But "doing" and "wisdom" may or may not be as intrinsically related as you think.

6. Further, surviving as an adult is a level of "doing" that creates a major line of demarcation from kids. In survival activities, idealism gets smashed, theories get trashed, and inflated self images get brought down to Earth.

Not necessarily, but usually I guess. So what? That just means that the theories need to be refined to actually prepare us.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Integral
Must I state the totally obvious, or are you simply being argumentive.

No, simply being argumentative would be to tell you that you should have used a question mark at the end of that question .

Reasoning is to tell you that what is "obvious" to you may be dead wrong, and thus not "obvious" to us (if we happen to be on the right track, and I'm not saying we are, I'm just saying we might be - and saying "it's obvious that you're not" isn't going to teach us anything).

Were wisdom measurable we would not need to have this conversation.

What?! Were wisdom measurable we could prove it through continuing this discussion. Were wisdom immeasurable, we could prove it through continuing this discussion. Either way, debates are for reaching the optimal conclusion, and we don't reach them by saying "I'm obviously right, and you'll realize that when you get older".

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
Why is it unique?

This statement proves we have no basis for continuing to discuss this. Mentat , go for it. If I am still alive when you discover the difference between learning from doing and learning from your mind, I'd like to hear about it. Good luck.

 

[Integral]

You'll figure it out... When you get older..

 

[maximus]

i hope you're joking, Integral. this is exactly the reason that this conversation is going no where. please abandon any assumsions and approach this with an open-mind. (same goes to LW, because you can't just give up. answer the question if you can. if you can't, state so)

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Mentat
That is illogical. If my rate of learning is greater than that of another person, then I will acquire knowledge without having to pass nearly as much time as the other person.

This is the old knowledge/wisdom merry go round thingy, and the fact that someone may learn at an accelerated pace is something I've already addressed several times.

Not at all, as my mentioning infants, and their open-mindedness, was not a way of showing that children can be wise, but rather a way of showing how many older people have closed their minds. If they would return to their previous open-mindedness, it stands to reason that the infant has greater potential for wisdom than the more elderly one.

Well that is not the take I got from it at all and it has already been mentioned that some may become more wise than others, so I think we are only going over the same ground again, and again.

 

[Another God]

Here's the thing though, you two just discussed all about 'how wise one can be' with time...but what you are forgetting, is that most people, honestly, simply are not that wise...no matter what age. And to me, this is the important point. While I am not as wise now as I may be in 10 years time, I am still dead on certain that I am wiser than most people I deal with, no matter what age they are.

I can see people who are 10 or 20 years older than me, and I can just see them making the same mistakes I made when I was 15, and even worse, they are making the same mistakes that I decided I would never make when I was 10... All my life I have been able to assess a situation and say "No, that looks stupid, I won't do that" and then when the time comes for myself, I know which option to choose. But some, No, most people can go through their whole lives, and not learn from some of the most obvious mistakes. They just don't seem to understand that they are their own biggest problem, that they make bad choices, that they don't think before they act...etc.

Age definitely makes available a much broader field from which you can acquire your wisdom...but some people, no matter how experienced, will never be wise.

 

[BoulderHead]

AG,
I'm fairly certain that what you have mentioned was agreed to by most if not all the posters previously.
I'm thinking I have gone as far as I'm able with this 'wisdom' topic.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by maximus
i hope you're joking, Integral. this is exactly the reason that this conversation is going no where. please abandon any assumsions and approach this with an open-mind. (same goes to LW, because you can't just give up. answer the question if you can. if you can't, state so)

You are too funny. Don't you think you have any development left? Does a human being suddenly fully develop at 14 or 17?

If you watch the brain of an infant develop, to give an analogy, you would see it start off relatively smooth on the surface, and each week that goes by bring more bulges (gyri) and indentations (sulci). Similarly, as children mature hormonal changes kick in. So clearly there are physiological aspects to being a kid.

In addition to pure physiology, part of what stimulates change is the environment. Children who are not talked to or touched, for instance, do not develop as well as children who are.

At your age, your physical devleopment isn't complete, and you haven't yet been exposed to certain environmental conditions that complete one's psychological development. As you learn survival skills, and to take care of yourself, you will see another sort of development begins to take place in you that is not there now.

Those of us who've gone/going through it have been trying to say that this is where it is decided how wise one becomes. The lessons are powerful and intense compared to living at home as a sheltered kid. Some people face it courageously, even eagerly, hoping to be developed as fully as possible by it. Others don't do so well. Then beyond that, there is the point where you are doing okay, and you can decided to experience new things. Will you choose drugs, beating your wife, stealing? Or will you choose love, philosophy, meditation, physical fitness? In these ways people get to choose their lessons. And as one gets older, one starts to keep certain activities/behaviors, get rid of others that have no value. But it is hard to know until you give things a try whether they are right for you . . . it takes time.

How can we prove this? There is no way to prove it. Why don't you understand it? Because you aren't there yet. How can you understand what you don't know about? You can't. It is like if human eyes took 20 years to develop, and people who have already developed them keep telling you what sight adds to perception. You keep arguing you can't "see" the slightest difference. Well, of course you can't!

Can you trust what adults say about this? Well, here's where you should apply your scientific mind and take note of feedback that is 100% unanimous. It probably means there is something to it.

 

[BoulderHead]

adding another log to the fireplace...

There are no doubt some reasons why a candidate for President, say of the US, must meet a certain age requirement.
I don't think it is all just a conspiracy of old people, but more of a recognition of something.

There is one of these age limit rules that confuses me, however; Why can a young man of 18 be drafted and sent off to die, yet he is not allowed to purchase liquor until he is 19 or 21 ?
That one always smelled foul to me.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
This statement proves we have no basis for continuing to discuss this. Mentat , go for it. If I am still alive when you discover the difference between learning from doing and learning from your mind, I'd like to hear about it. Good luck.

So because I asked you a question, which you have not answered, and which I wish to know the answer to, you don't think we can discuss?

I would have assumed that you would have wanted me to start asking you questions. It is, after all, better than just stating my opinion (as others seem content to do).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by maximus
i hope you're joking, Integral. this is exactly the reason that this conversation is going no where. please abandon any assumsions and approach this with an open-mind. (same goes to LW, because you can't just give up. answer the question if you can. if you can't, state so)

Listen to my man maximus here, he's right. Unless "teacher" and "student" positions are established at the onset of the conversation, we must all remain open-minded.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
If you watch the brain of an infant develop, to give an analogy, you would see it start off relatively smooth on the surface, and each week that goes by bring more bulges (gyri) and indentations (sulci). Similarly, as children mature hormonal changes kick in. So clearly there are physiological aspects to being a kid.

In addition to pure physiology, part of what stimulates change is the environment. Children who are not talked to or touched, for instance, do not develop as well as children who are.

At your age, your physical devleopment isn't complete, and you haven't yet been exposed to certain environmental conditions that complete one's psychological development. As you learn survival skills, and to take care of yourself, you will see another sort of development begins to take place in you that is not there now.

Those of us who've gone/going through it have been trying to say that this is where it is decided how wise one becomes. The lessons are powerful and intense compared to living at home as a sheltered kid. Some people face it courageously, even eagerly, hoping to be developed as fully as possible by it. Others don't do so well. Then beyond that, there is the point where you are doing okay, and you can decided to experience new things. Will you choose drugs, beating your wife, stealing? Or will you choose love, philosophy, meditation, physical fitness? In these ways people get to choose their lessons. And as one gets older, one starts to keep certain activities/behaviors, get rid of others that have no value. But it is hard to know until you give things a try whether they are right for you . . . it takes time.

Unless (as I've been saying) someone were to plan ahead for these experiences - that would be the truly wise thing to do, wouldn't it?

How can we prove this? There is no way to prove it. Why don't you understand it? Because you aren't there yet. How can you understand what you don't know about? You can't. It is like if human eyes took 20 years to develop, and people who have already developed them keep telling you what sight adds to perception. You keep arguing you can't "see" the slightest difference. Well, of course you can't!

Then at what age is one a candidate for wisdom?

Can you trust what adults say about this? Well, here's where you should apply your scientific mind and take note of feedback that is 100% unanimous. It probably means there is something to it.

Ha! No offense, but an enormous majority of the humans in this world are theistic, does that mean that it must have some truth to it? A great majority of people who call themselves "Christians" behave in a way that contradicts Bible principles, does that mean that it's now OK, because most people agree that it is?

Seriously, it is always possible that everyone else really is driving on the wrong side of the street .

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
So because I asked you a question, which you have not answered, and which I wish to know the answer to, you don't think we can discuss?

I would have assumed that you would have wanted me to start asking you questions. It is, after all, better than just stating my opinion (as others seem content to do).

The problem is, nothing I or anyone else says is being accepted by you or Maximus. I have said it a dozen different ways that learning while doing involves more aspects of a human being than just learning with the intellect. I know this because I do both, so I can compare. If you read my last response to Maximus on p.15, I also tried to explain again what the "gauntlet" of survival does to people.

What it boils down to is, you have an opinion you can be wise now. The arguments you put up, if true, might make you right. But I say that you need time and life experience, and so all your ideas are wrong. Who is right? You are determined to have it your own way, so what can I say?

You want "proof" but all there is to consider is the personal testimony of people. There is not proof of wisdom or studies done or absolute logic.

One thing I do understand is the desire to avoid the stupidity one sees in many adults. Like AG pointed out, it does seem like very few adults are wise. But I also believe almost all adults are wiser than when they were kids, and if someone is headed for wisdom, they still have to put their time into get life experience.

Young people think like this all the time you know. I did and I bet most of the other adults posting here did too. Looking back, the reason I couldn't understand is because I lacked the very thing I needed to "get it": wisdom.

Now as an older person, I seldom meet someone I can't learn something from, young or old. Why is that? Is it because I am meeting smarter people? Or is it because I am listening better? To me, one of my most valued personal treasures is having learned to listen -- and I mean really listen, without bias or my mind going.

In any case, you can accept the unanimous agreement of the older people here that wisdom takes time, or you can try out your own theory. I am not going to try to "prove" something that can't be proven because that is a big waste of everybody's time.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
The problem is, nothing I or anyone else says is being accepted by you or Maximus.

That's because you are not supposed to just be "saying" things. You are supposed to be substantiating them. Surely this is obvious to you.

I have said it a dozen different ways that learning while doing involves more aspects of a human being than just learning with the intellect. I know this because I do both, so I can compare.

But why must your experience be mine?

What it boils down to is, you have an opinion you can be wise now. The arguments you put up, if true, might make you right. But I say that you need time and life experience, and so all your ideas are wrong. Who is right?

The one that can substantiate their claim. I have presented a dictionary's definition of "wisdom" and my definition of "wisdom", and I don't see anything in either of them that doesn't allow people of all ages (not counting the first 5 or so years of life, but that's just because they don't yet have enough "knowledge", and thus can't apply it (which is what wisdom is, "applied knowledge")) to partake of it.

You are determined to have it your own way, so what can I say?

Right back at ya.

You want "proof" but all there is to consider is the personal testimony of people. There is not proof of wisdom or studies done or absolute logic.

Why not?

Now as an older person, I seldom meet someone I can't learn something from, young or old. Why is that? Is it because I am meeting smarter people? Or is it because I am listening better? To me, one of my most valued personal treasures is having learned to listen -- and I mean really listen, without bias or my mind going.

And yet you are not listening to me, or maximus.

In any case, you can accept the unanimous agreement of the older people here that wisdom takes time, or you can try out your own theory.

So you refuse to explain why you believe the way you do - and will just leave it at "it worked that way for me, and the rest of the older people here, so it'll work that way for you too"?

I am not going to try to "prove" something that can't be proven because that is a big waste of everybody's time.

But why can't it be proven?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
That's because you are not supposed to just be "saying" things. You are supposed to be substantiating them. . . . But why must your experience be mine?

I don't have to substantiate them because wisdom is not something that lends itself to objective proof. It is a philosophical idea, so one's personal experience is all one has to judge by.

Originally posted by Mentat
The one that can substantiate their claim. I have presented a dictionary's definition of "wisdom" . . . So you refuse to explain why you believe the way you do - and will just leave it at "it worked that way for me, and the rest of the older people here, so it'll work that way for you too"?

I don’t want you to feel I’m giving up on you, but I don’t think you understand the problem. You seem to want acceptance that you can have wisdom as a kid, and I for one cannot give it. I will try once more to explain why, but I believe if we disagree, you have to just go ahead with your own idea.

First, and this is my absolute, number one reason: I have never, ever met a wise kid. I have never ever read a book of wisdom written by a kid. Every person I know with wisdom has lived through things. All the people famous for being wise I know of, like Socrates or Confucius or Meister Eckert, had lived through things. I have read and studied philosophy probably more than most, so I don’t consider myself naïve on this (i.e., should I trust that I have sufficient breadth of education to speak of wisdom?). So, based on my own experience with what it takes to acquire wisdom, I don’t believe youth can be wise.

Second, you like to quote the dictionary, but that is not a proper source for this discussion. Dictionaries are language tools. When it comes to difficult philosophical subjects like wisdom, they usually provide only the common usage by the population. A much better source is philosophy dictionaries and encyclopedias, and I will quote to you from two.

First the short definition: “1. Prudent judgment as to how to use knowledge in the everyday affairs of life. 2. The correct perception of the best ends in life, the best means to their attainment, and the practical intelligence in successfully applying those means.”

Now there you see the essence of what most of us have been saying. It is knowing how to live successfully (and that can include one’s inner life). The part we have been adding is, until one lives and tries out things, one does not know for sure. You can look at what is going on in the world, and you can have very perfect ideas about how things should be, but until you actually apply the ideas, it is all theory. I suppose you can have wise theories, but I would never come to you for advice, no matter how brilliant you are, over someone who has actually achieved what they are going to give advice about.

Here is a longer explanation of wisdom to ponder:

“A form of understanding that unites a reflective attitude and a practical concern. The aim of the attitude is to understand the fundamental nature of reality and its significance for living a good life.
“The object of the practical concern is to form a reasonable conception of a good life, given the agents’ character and circumstances, and to evaluate the situations in which they have to make decisions and act from its point of view.
“These evaluations are often difficult because many situations are complex, conceptions of a good life are incompletely formed, and the variability of individual character and circumstances render general principles insufficiently specific.
“Wisdom may be identified then with good judgment about the evaluation of complex situations and conceptions of a good life in the light of a reflective understanding of the human condition.”

Now kids, I ask you (reading from that last paragraph), how are you going to get good judgment before you practice doing it, and living with the consequences of your judgments? How are you going to use that judgment in complex situations when you don’t have that much responsibility? How are you going to know what the “good life” is until you have tried out what life has to offer and have experiences to help you decide? And without all that, how exactly are you going to reflect on the human condition before you have actually had a chance to test it out very much?

So, I say no kid can be wise, period (my only exception: if you were Jesus or the Buddha or someone similar – maybe). Smart, yes . . . wise, no. And I will never change my mind about that until I meet kids who are wise.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Mentat, perhaps you should retitle the thread, "How old you are, proven by your wisdom, or lack thereof"

 

[The Grimmus]

a poll would have went nicely with this

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I don't have to substantiate them because wisdom is not something that lends itself to objective proof. It is a philosophical idea, so one's personal experience is all one has to judge by.

Then my opinion of wisdom should be exactly equal to yours, shouldn't it? After all, if all we have is our own experience, and wisdom cannot be objectively defined, then in my experience, wisdom is applied knowledge by whoever (regardless of age). Boy, that solved a lot (if you'll forgive my sarcasm).

I don’t want you to feel I’m giving up on you, but I don’t think you understand the problem. You seem to want acceptance that you can have wisdom as a kid, and I for one cannot give it.

All I want is to understand what wisdom really is, and why there are people who think age and wisdom are tied together.

First, and this is my absolute, number one reason: I have never, ever met a wise kid. I have never ever read a book of wisdom written by a kid. Every person I know with wisdom has lived through things. All the people famous for being wise I know of, like Socrates or Confucius or Meister Eckert, had lived through things. I have read and studied philosophy probably more than most, so I don’t consider myself naïve on this (i.e., should I trust that I have sufficient breadth of education to speak of wisdom?). So, based on my own experience with what it takes to acquire wisdom, I don’t believe youth can be wise.

While I hate to use myself as an example (since I'm probably not even wise by my own criteria), I ask again, you've really never found any wisdom in anything I've ever posted here? It's fine if you haven't (I can't take offense), but I didn't think I was entirely devoid of wisdom in my posting here.

Second, you like to quote the dictionary, but that is not a proper source for this discussion. Dictionaries are language tools. When it comes to difficult philosophical subjects like wisdom, they usually provide only the common usage by the population. A much better source is philosophy dictionaries and encyclopedias, and I will quote to you from two.

First the short definition: “1. Prudent judgment as to how to use knowledge in the everyday affairs of life. 2. The correct perception of the best ends in life, the best means to their attainment, and the practical intelligence in successfully applying those means.”

Now there you see the essence of what most of us have been saying. It is knowing how to live successfully (and that can include one’s inner life). The part we have been adding is, until one lives and tries out things, one does not know for sure. You can look at what is going on in the world, and you can have very perfect ideas about how things should be, but until you actually apply the ideas, it is all theory. I suppose you can have wise theories, but I would never come to you for advice, no matter how brilliant you are, over someone who has actually achieved what they are going to give advice about.

But it seems that many people still don't know, after having tried. Thus, they are no closer to wisdom than I am.

Also, I disapprove of your constant reference to "theory" as though it were synoymous to "speculation". I wasn't going to bring that up, but since you mentioned the difference between common-usage and proffesional definitions, I figured you should know that "theories" must be verified by experimentation (otherwise they are not "theories", but "hypotheses").

Here is a longer explanation of wisdom to ponder:

“A form of understanding that unites a reflective attitude and a practical concern. The aim of the attitude is to understand the fundamental nature of reality and its significance for living a good life.
“The object of the practical concern is to form a reasonable conception of a good life, given the agents’ character and circumstances, and to evaluate the situations in which they have to make decisions and act from its point of view.
“These evaluations are often difficult because many situations are complex, conceptions of a good life are incompletely formed, and the variability of individual character and circumstances render general principles insufficiently specific.
“Wisdom may be identified then with good judgment about the evaluation of complex situations and conceptions of a good life in the light of a reflective understanding of the human condition.”

Now kids, I ask you (reading from that last paragraph), how are you going to get good judgment before you practice doing it, and living with the consequences of your judgments?

And yet the definition didn't mention how one acquires practical judgement into situations that they will face, it merely says that they should have it (if they would be wise).

Descartes said: "The end of study should be to direct the mind towards the enunciation of sound and correct judgements on all matters that come before it."

If you unite your defintion of wisdom, with Descartes' rule, then you have: "The end of study (note, not "experience, but study) should be to attain wisdom".

How are you going to use that judgment in complex situations when you don’t have that much responsibility?

Ah, but using the judgements is not required to be "wise", merely being able to make those judgements is to be "wise".

How are you going to know what the “good life” is until you have tried out what life has to offer and have experiences to help you decide? And without all that, how exactly are you going to reflect on the human condition before you have actually had a chance to test it out very much?

By learning about it, and making judgements.

btw, I really hope those questions weren't meant to be rhetorical, but I wouldn't know, so I just answered them anyway.

So, I say no kid can be wise, period (my only exception: if you were Jesus or the Buddha or someone similar – maybe). Smart, yes . . . wise, no. And I will never change my mind about that until I meet kids who are wise.

Wasn't King Solomon wise? Whether you believe he got this from God, or from his own gifts, it is still an example of a "wise kid".

Also, could you please refrain from referring to us as "kids", it's not only deragotory, but patronizing.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Mentat, perhaps you should retitle the thread, "How old you are, proven by your wisdom, or lack thereof"

Actually, I never intended for this to have anything to do with wisdom, or anything like that. I was genuinely asking how old the members here are (kind of an attempt to find out if there were others around my age, and also an attempt to satisfy curiosity).

 

[Zantra]

Ok now that I have a headache from reading 16 pages of posts..

Knowledge and wisdom. Simply put Knowledge and intellect are the ability to absorb information. The rate is fixed from birth. You will always absorb information on a set curve, varied only by your desire to absorp it. Most adults loose that desire the older they get, because as someone stated earlier they become opinionated and set in their ways.

Wisdom is of course how we interpret, comprehend, and apply the knowledge we've gained. But I think here we must separate wisdom and experience.

Experiences are something that cannot be learned from a book. Experience is the difference between knowing all the applied physics in reference to space travel, and being an astronaut who's been in space. You may at 15 posess the knowledge and intellect to make that journey into space, but you still lack the experience of the thousands of hours of flight time, mock up launches, and physical conditioning that are required. Not to mention the social ramifications involved in putting a 15 year old into space. To use a different example, learning to drive. It's a relatively simple thing, and I'm sure the vast majority of teenagers here don't require much in the ways of the basics of driving. However, Actually driving and gaining experience is a different story. You can know how to go, to brake, swerve, park, or whatnot. But knowing what to do when someone cuts you off is a function of conditioning. It's NOT something you can condition your body to do no matter how many books on driving you read. It's a conditioned physical response that no amount of intellect can overcome. But after it happens to it a few times, your body becomes accustomed to it, and your reaction time improves.

Are all adults seperior in intellect? Most definitely not, especially on this board. But they do have something to contribute, because they've gone into space, logged those thousands of flight hours (figuratively) and they've been cut off. You may be able to comprehend physics more completely than they can, but can you balance a checkbook? Maybe if it was put upon you, but since life hasn't required it of you yet, the simplest aswer is no.

Being someone who was forced into early adulthood by my life experiences, I feel I'm able to understand both sides of this discussion. I was always being told what to do by people I felt didn't match up to my intellect or experiences. At the same time I now realize that I still had a great deal of experiences that I hadn't encountered.


"Do not compare yourself to others, for always there will be persons lesser and greater than yourself"

And for the record I'm 28

 

[Mentat]

Thank you for your participation.

Originally posted by Zantra
Knowledge and wisdom. Simply put Knowledge and intellect are the ability to absorb information. The rate is fixed from birth. You will always absorb information on a set curve, varied only by your desire to absorp it. Most adults loose that desire the older they get, because as someone stated earlier they become opinionated and set in their ways.

I don't mind your definition of knowledge, but you are portraying a completely "nature" orientied philosophy, and that isn't comfortable with modern science or philosophy (which demand finding a balance between "nature" and "nurture").

Wisdom is of course how we interpret, comprehend, and apply the knowledge we've gained.

Nice definition for wisdom. I agree.

But I think here we must separate wisdom and experience.

Experiences are something that cannot be learned from a book. Experience is the difference between knowing all the applied physics in reference to space travel, and being an astronaut who's been in space. You may at 15 posess the knowledge and intellect to make that journey into space, but you still lack the experience of the thousands of hours of flight time, mock up launches, and physical conditioning that are required. Not to mention the social ramifications involved in putting a 15 year old into space. To use a different example, learning to drive. It's a relatively simple thing, and I'm sure the vast majority of teenagers here don't require much in the ways of the basics of driving. However, Actually driving and gaining experience is a different story. You can know how to go, to brake, swerve, park, or whatnot. But knowing what to do when someone cuts you off is a function of conditioning. It's NOT something you can condition your body to do no matter how many books on driving you read. It's a conditioned physical response that no amount of intellect can overcome. But after it happens to it a few times, your body becomes accustomed to it, and your reaction time improves.

Basically, you are saying that a younger person cannot have the experience of an older person, and I agree. However, you did say that there was a distinction between wisdom and experience - so are you agreeing that a younger person (perhaps even a 15/16 year old) can have wisdom, just not experience?

Are all adults seperior in intellect? Most definitely not, especially on this board. But they do have something to contribute, because they've gone into space, logged those thousands of flight hours (figuratively) and they've been cut off.

Thus they have experience to contribute, fine, but do they necessarily have greater wisdom?

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Mentat
Thank you for your participation.



I don't mind your definition of knowledge, but you are portraying a completely "nature" orientied philosophy, and that isn't comfortable with modern science or philosophy (which demand finding a balance between "nature" and "nurture").

Not quite sure I follow your interpretation here. What I'm describing to you is a scientifically proven principal. Are you disputing the fact that learning curves are a set rate? That's a proven fact, and I'm not sure if you're disputing it. I'm not saying this from a philisophical point of view, but a scientific one.

Basically, you are saying that a younger person cannot have the experience of an older person, and I agree. However, you did say that there was a distinction between wisdom and experience - so are you agreeing that a younger person (perhaps even a 15/16 year old) can have wisdom, just not experience?
[/qoute]

Yes I'm saying that exact thing. Wisdom and experience are distinct.

Thus they have experience to contribute, fine, but do they necessarily have greater wisdom?

Well not in every case, no. As you said, and I will concede, not all adults are intelligent. that's a function of natural selection, not one of age. But the specifics we're discussing here are the exception to the general rules. Your average 15 year old is not more intelligent or wise than your average adult. And I mean in the broadest sense. But of course most 15 year olds aren't into physics either, so we're talking about specific circumstances. So it is possible for a 15 year old to have more raw intelligence and in some cases insight than an adult, the experience I've outlined about is not possible because experience IS a function of age.


Any questions?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zantra
Not quite sure I follow your interpretation here. What I'm describing to you is a scientifically proven principal. Are you disputing the fact that learning curves are a set rate? That's a proven fact, and I'm not sure if you're disputing it. I'm not saying this from a philisophical point of view, but a scientific one.

That is most certainly not a prove fact. In fact, modern science shows that our genes have markers that allow our very genetic makeup to change, due to external stimuli.

Just for a first-hand example, my I.Q. has increased by 13 points since the first time I took an I.Q. test.

Yes I'm saying that exact thing. Wisdom and experience are distinct.

Well then I, currently, agree with you (until someone else proves otherwise).

Well not in every case, no. As you said, and I will concede, not all adults are intelligent. that's a function of natural selection, not one of age. But the specifics we're discussing here are the exception to the general rules. Your average 15 year old is not more intelligent or wise than your average adult. And I mean in the broadest sense. But of course most 15 year olds aren't into physics either, so we're talking about specific circumstances. So it is possible for a 15 year old to have more raw intelligence and in some cases insight than an adult, the experience I've outlined about is not possible because experience IS a function of age.


Any questions?

Only one, why is it that you think that all of our learning ability is set at birth? A purely "nature"-oriented belief is not well-respected among scientists or philosophers nowadays.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Mentat
That is most certainly not a prove fact. In fact, modern science shows that our genes have markers that allow our very genetic makeup to change, due to external stimuli.

Yes but does that allow for an increase in intelligence, or are we just inferring this?

[Qoute]
Just for a first-hand example, my I.Q. has increased by 13 points since the first time I took an I.Q. test. [/QOUTE]

Intelligence scores can go up as much as 20 points during the course of a lifetime. It's that "curve" I was discussing earlier. As we mature from infant to adult, our ability to analyze and absorb data increases. So everyone goes up a certain percentage. That's not unusual.

Only one, why is it that you think that all of our learning ability is set at birth? A purely "nature"-oriented belief is not well-respected among scientists or philosophers nowadays.

Certain things are set at birth. If you're born with brown eyes you'll always have brown eyes. If you're born with brown hair, it will stay brown unless you're old, or a woman, in which case it will change about 3 times a year;) The curve of learning is only through early adulthood, then it levels off. I'd have to see scientific evidence that specifically says external stimuli directly affect intelligence before I'd concede something that's well established.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Lets see, the physiology of a Human being gives a maximum neural connectivety, somewhere aroung 24/25 years of Age.

The development of the brain requires time to achieve it's capacitance, and the 'organization' that ends up resultant as mind.

There are changes that are afforded only by the processes of life, just like when the apple blossoms on the tree, that doesn't mean the apple is ready to eat...time needs to pass/grow.

 

[tritium_man]

12 million years old... is that ok?

 

[Mistress Lilith]

I turned 18 just on Tuesday. Yay for me!

 

[JetBlckNewYr03]

i have lived the last 15 years of the rest of time.

 

[DR OF DEATH]

i am 3000 years old and am constantly reincarnated as a 22 year old each day

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zantra
Yes but does that allow for an increase in intelligence, or are we just inferring this?

Well, I see no reason why it shouldn't affect intelligence, but no, I have not heard it directly related to intelligence.

Intelligence scores can go up as much as 20 points during the course of a lifetime. It's that "curve" I was discussing earlier. As we mature from infant to adult, our ability to analyze and absorb data increases. So everyone goes up a certain percentage. That's not unusual.

But your "curve" can be changed, otherwise: 1) I.Q. books would not tell ones that study and challenges of the mind increase I.Q.; 2) Monozygote Twins would always increase in I.Q. at exactly the same rate; and 3) I could become addicted to whatever drugs I wanted to, and never have it affect my intelligence.

Certain things are set at birth. If you're born with brown eyes you'll always have brown eyes.

That is, for the most part true.

If you're born with brown hair, it will stay brown unless you're old, or a woman, in which case it will change about 3 times a year;)

So, you are saying that I can't dye my hair?

The curve of learning is only through early adulthood, then it levels off.

Hmm. So a child's intelligence shouldn't change at all then? Why do you think so?

 

[Zantra]

So, you are saying that I can't dye my hair?

Nope, not unless ur a woman or gay;) Men don't care about hair unless they are gay or from California, or both(kidding mostly, but those of you in cali know what I mean;)

Hmm. So a child's intelligence shouldn't change at all then? Why do you think so? [/B]

I didn't say that it shouldn't change. A child's intelligence level naturally changes as it learns more. This is the "learning curve" Everyone has it. Some have a sharper curve than others. Some read at 5-7, and some read as early as 2-3. It all depends on the genetics. You keep insisting that I'm saying children don't increase in intelligence. Quite the contrary, a human being's greatest level of intellectual development is from birth to early adulthood. However beginning in early adulthood, that intellectual curve begins to fade, and though they may still continue to read, study and absorb information, the rate at which they are able to do that does not increase. So their logic, reason, and cognitive skills in effect, "Max out". They may become more learned in the knowledge they acquire, but the intellect with with they manipulate that knowledge remains level.

Read this carefully to make sure you understand where I'm coming from. I'm mostly in agreement with you.

 

[Zantra]

also wanted to add that according to Mensa, the IQ stablizes around age 10

 

[DR OF DEATH]

really i thought you reached your intelectual peak at 21.

at ten my IQ was 101

at 16 it was 114

im now 22 and my IQhas been 124 for the last 3 years.

so i would say that iq doesn't stabalize at ten.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by drdeath
really i thought you reached your intelectual peak at 21.

at ten my IQ was 101

at 16 it was 114

im now 22 and my IQhas been 124 for the last 3 years.

so i would say that iq doesn't stabalize at ten.

I don't disagree that IQ might increase with age, but using your results, for example, it could also be that you are becoming more skilled at taking IQ tests.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zantra
Nope, not unless ur a woman or gay;) Men don't care about hair unless they are gay or from California, or both(kidding mostly, but those of you in cali know what I mean;)




I didn't say that it shouldn't change. A child's intelligence level naturally changes as it learns more. This is the "learning curve" Everyone has it. Some have a sharper curve than others. Some read at 5-7, and some read as early as 2-3. It all depends on the genetics. You keep insisting that I'm saying children don't increase in intelligence. Quite the contrary, a human being's greatest level of intellectual development is from birth to early adulthood. However beginning in early adulthood, that intellectual curve begins to fade, and though they may still continue to read, study and absorb information, the rate at which they are able to do that does not increase. So their logic, reason, and cognitive skills in effect, "Max out". They may become more learned in the knowledge they acquire, but the intellect with with they manipulate that knowledge remains level.

Read this carefully to make sure you understand where I'm coming from. I'm mostly in agreement with you.

Fine, you are saying that a child's intelligence does increase, but at a rate that is determined entirely by genes, right? I still disagree. If I get into a nasty car accident, where my brain is severly damaged, I will not progress in intellect as I might have otherwise. If I am raised in primitive surroundings, with no access to public (or otherwise) learning facilities, my intelligence will not increase as it would have, were it nurtured.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I don't disagree that IQ might increase with age, but using your results, for example, it could also be that you are becoming more skilled at taking IQ tests.

While this makes sense (and has been mentioned many times before, on the PFs), I think it should be recognized that I.Q. tests deal with Mechanical Aptitude, Spacial Reasoning, Logic Ability, Mathematical Aptitude, etc. All things that have to do with your over-all intelligence.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Mentat
Fine, you are saying that a child's intelligence does increase, but at a rate that is determined entirely by genes, right? I still disagree. If I get into a nasty car accident, where my brain is severly damaged, I will not progress in intellect as I might have otherwise. If I am raised in primitive surroundings, with no access to public (or otherwise) learning facilities, my intelligence will not increase as it would have, were it nurtured.

Ok now we're just splitting hairs. The sun could implode engulfing the solar system in a supernova blast, and that might hinder the curve too... hehehe But we're talking "general" circumstances.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zantra
Ok now we're just splitting hairs. The sun could implode engulfing the solar system in a supernova blast, and that might hinder the curve too... hehehe But we're talking "general" circumstances.

But that would mean that people in some Third-World country should eventually evolve a lower "curve" since their "normal" is very different from America's "normal".

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
While this makes sense . . .

The coveted stamp of approval . . .

Originally posted by Mentat
. . . (and has been mentioned many times before, on the PFs)

So?

Originally posted by Mentat
, I think it should be recognized that I.Q. tests deal with Mechanical Aptitude, Spacial Reasoning, Logic Ability, Mathematical Aptitude, etc. All things that have to do with your over-all intelligence.

[?] . . . and that means one can't learn to take the test better?

 

[Matt]

What comes with being 17, just about nothing - except rated R movies.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Matt
What comes with being 17, just about nothing - except rated R movies.

See . . . already you are understanding the potential of seeing the glass half full.

At 16 - drivers license; at 17 - R-rated moves; at 18 - can go to war and kick butt; at 21, can vote and drink beer (legally). Then . . . at 55, can join the seniors organization (which I can't remember the name of because I am too senile).

And me, what do I have to look forward to? Knowing what to choose for the art of appreciation, and making few mistakes in that regard.

 

[DR OF DEATH]

ok sleuth i can see your point slightly, i could just be getting better at doing the tests. but i also see mentats point that iq tests cover overall intelligence not just learning apptitude.

over here its 16=legal sex (gay and straight), and war. 17= drivers license 18= x-rated movies, and drink alcohol legally. 60= pension, discount travel and salvation army (oldies club).