So you think you are so smart? I bet you are a fool

  • Thread starter adriaanb
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of parallel processing through language and the benefits of learning from others. It also touches on the idea of humans overestimating their intelligence and the role of instincts in decision making. One person argues that humans are superlative among species due to their ability to use their brains and the knowledge of others, while another argues that this reliance on accumulated knowledge cheapens individual intelligence. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the importance of both individual intelligence and the collective intelligence of humanity.
  • #1
adriaanb
6
0
Newton said it, 'If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants'.

People still think humans are so clever, I don't believe it. Our brains stumbled upon the power of parallel processing, through a language interface. We can benefit from the thoughts of all the people around us and before us. Which got even more efficient through writing, then book printing and now internet.

So we tend to think that the achievement of the whole reflects on us as an individual, like an ant looking at the hill and saying 'look what I built!'. But we ignore the fact that there isn't a single person alive that could invent a knife from scratch, let alone an Iphone.

This overestimation of our capacity is making us think way too complicated about our own motivations. We are guided by straightforward instinctive goals just like all the other species in the animal kingdom. We just use a bigger brain to achieve them.

Many of our behaviours are pre-programmed, some even to come out at the right time. Take teens fighting with parents. Finally some researchers found a link between the amygdala in teens and fighting with parents:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Story?id=4340870&page=1"
But it doesn't occur to them that maybe the fighting is the point. Built into get the parents to separate from the children. Why do you think a bird nudges its young out of the nest at some point? I don't think it says 'Kid, it is time for you to spread your wings and live your own life!' It probably just feels it needs some more space, or get rid of that awful mess.

I was just wondering if anyone had some thoughts on this, let's do some parallel processing here..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
adriaanb said:
People still think humans are so clever, I don't believe it. Our brains stumbled upon the power of parallel processing, through a language interface. We can benefit from the thoughts of all the people around us and before us.
I'm sorry, but this is a rather silly post IMO. You seem to think that it would be more clever to not learn from others. How ridiculous! :rolleyes:

I know that it is fashionable to denigrate humanity as not being anything special, to kind of ostentatiously demonstrate that your egalitarianism extends even to other species. It is a load of crap. By any objective measure humans are superlative among species. We are the fastest, strongest, deadliest animals that exist on earth. All of this is precisely because we use our brains and the recorded thoughts of others so cleverly and effectively.
 
  • #3
I'm sorry, but this is a rather silly post IMO.
That's why everyone was ignoring it.

DaleSpam said:
By any objective measure humans are superlative among species.
That's what our cat overlords want us to think.
 
  • #4
mgb_phys said:
That's what our cat overlords want us to think.
Hahaha :rofl:
 
  • #5
Think about it, have you ever got a cat to:
go out to work everyday and feed you when you come home?
run up to give you a backrub whenever you want?
stop what it's doing to play with you?

Perhaps this should be the new PF t-shirt http://www.choiceshirts.com/item/A11512/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
So what did you invent? What did you add to the human environment?

What you see around you is the result of parallel processing, not individual quality. That leads people to overestimate individual intelligence.

Never did I say there is anything bad about learning from others, or that humans are not the smartest animals. The quality of the reply is inversely related to the number of posts, but that is to be expected..
 
  • #7
It's the result of the cumulative effect of not having to start from scratch everytime.
If I want to invent a mechanical device somebody already makes the metal, the parts, the tools etc , somebody has formulated and published the laws and techniques.

Your post didn't really make a point.
 
  • #8
The point I was trying to make is that there is an immense difference between the intelligence of the whole and the intelligence of the individual. If you take the individual without any outside knowledge. The difference is in 'parallel processing through language'.

Right now it is the sum of individual decisions that is causing problems. And many of those individual decisions are based on very basic instincts. A lot of them aren't obvious at all. But they are not that hard to understand if you look at them in the context of where they evolved.

I think it would be useful for people to realize the background of their perceived needs. But I guess the intelligence gap doesn't find much recognition here..
 
  • #9
adriaanb said:
So what did you invent? What did you add to the human environment?
Plenty. Several patents, dozens of scientific manuscripts, 4 great kids, and a lot of economic value. Stay tuned for more :smile: All of those achievements relied heavily on the involvement of others (especially the kids), but none of them would have been the same without me as an individual.

I'm sorry, but your idea is nothing but a boring liberal cliche. It takes no thought today to come up with some "humans suck" garbage. Your post is bumper-sticker philosophy at best. If you want to impress someone with your genius then try to come up with something original. If you can't do original then try useful, or at a minimum entertaining.

The idea that humans, as a species or as individuals, are somehow less because they learn from others is just plain absurd. That is like saying that a shark is somehow less of a predator because if you take it out of the water it will die. In the same way that a shark's environment is the water a human's environment includes the ideas learned from others.
 
  • #10
How does using the accumulated knowledge of our predecessors cheapen individual intelligence? Don't you think it more intelligent to adapt to the resources available at a given time, rather than shunning clear advantages? Is not parallel processing a product of the physiology of the individual human brain? What is it that you are trying to say? I see no sustenance to your argument as is.

I think that you confuse technological advancement with intelligence; one distinctly precludes the other.
 
  • #11
Not only that, but I disagree with your basic premise that individuals alone can't make a difference.
I would argue that many things have been done solely by individuals.
They may not have learned /everything/ by themselves from scratch, but they took the next step and found something original, usually in solitude or in small groups.

This only but speaks about their intelligence as an individual.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Ayn Rand would have your head.
 
  • #13
adriaanb said:
Newton said it, 'If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants'.

I was just wondering if anyone had some thoughts on this, let's do some parallel processing here..

I have to both agree and disagree with your comments. People gain new independent knowledge either by serendipity or research.

As far as Newtons quote goes, I can totally relate. I've put many a two and two together from the people before, and around me, and created many wonderful new things.

And as to anyone being a fool, I would say that you should stop projecting your own introspections onto others. People don't like that.
 
  • #14
What I am getting at is the enormous gap between the intelligence of the whole, and the intelligence of the individual.

We tend to credit the individual mind with the achievements of the whole. But there isn't anyone alive that could invent a knife from scratch, without any previous knowledge or help from others. I am not saying individuals are unintelligent, but they are very far from the intelligence of the whole.

Even when you look at your behaviour. You were taught from an early age to put your head in books. You know what happens when you drop people in a 'dumb' environment where they are taught the thing to do is to kill the neighbours from a slightly different tribe, or spend years memorizing the koran, or devote all your resources to building Mo'ai statues. They excel at it. And those are people of your IQ. You can say they are brainwashed. But so are you, only in a different direction (but no less unsustainable).

Much of your 'intelligent' behaviour is learned and socialized. So that intelligence you should accredit to the whole, rather than to you as an individual. If you invented something, not only did you need the knowledge of others to get to it, you also needed others to let you know it was something worthwhile to do. And only then did you get to add your bit (which no doubt was a tremendous find).

Look at what motivates a Nobel prize winning scientist. They are not just trying to further the cause of humanity, as much as that is the effect. Scientists, being normal, are a very status conscious bunch. They want to be the best among their peers. The only reason humans evolved the pursuit of status is because that is what gets you in the next generation through 'more food' and 'more sex'. Now there we have Nobel prize winning scientists, motivated ultimately by a mechanism that was meant to get you food and sex. And you don't think there is anything odd about that..

Again, what I am getting at is the gap between the intelligence of the whole, and the intelligence of the individual before exposing it to the whole. The difference lies in the power of parallel processing through language.

Putting the individual in its place is relevant because it is the sum of individual silliness that is causing problems.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
adriaanb said:
So what did you invent? What did you add to the human environment?

What you see around you is the result of parallel processing, not individual quality. That leads people to overestimate individual intelligence.

Never did I say there is anything bad about learning from others, or that humans are not the smartest animals. The quality of the reply is inversely related to the number of posts, but that is to be expected..

I think what every one is objecting to is your assertion that anyone who does NOT invent or "add to the human environment" is a fool! I don't claim to be a genius but that does not make me a fool. Do you not see any room between the two?
 
  • #16
adriaanb said:
Newton said it, 'If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants'.

People still think humans are so clever, I don't believe it. Our brains stumbled upon the power of parallel processing, through a language interface. We can benefit from the thoughts of all the people around us and before us. Which got even more efficient through writing, then book printing and now internet.

So we tend to think that the achievement of the whole reflects on us as an individual, like an ant looking at the hill and saying 'look what I built!'. But we ignore the fact that there isn't a single person alive that could invent a knife from scratch, let alone an Iphone...

I don't agree with most of your theory about intelligence. First of all lots of people could invent a knife from scratch. Anyone with a knowledge of metals, metal working and where to find said material can make a knife. The ipod is a different story because it is made with various electronics.

But in general you seem to have an odd idea about what constitutes intelligence. Just because not everyone is briliiant or a genius does not mean that the standard of intelligence has not gone up in the last few thousand years. I would bet IQ scores today ar egenerally higher than they were 500 years ago, even if one had the iq test back then which I'm not sure was yet present.

If your point is that most people are not as intelligent as they think they are then that's probbaly true, but the same can be said about anything in respect to human's self-regard. Most people usually have a higher regard for their own virtues or achievements than is merited, but that doesn't mean everyone is as dumb as you think they are.
 
  • #17
im questioning your intelligence. it sounds like youre just ranting about yourself.
 
  • #18
More misanthropic ********. Why do people hate their own species so much? It's quite saddening. :cry:
 
  • #19
for sure.
 
  • #20
adriaanb said:
What I am getting at is the enormous gap between the intelligence of the whole, and the intelligence of the individual.

We tend to credit the individual mind with the achievements of the whole. But there isn't anyone alive that could invent a knife from scratch, without any previous knowledge or help from others. I am not saying individuals are unintelligent, but they are very far from the intelligence of the whole.

As I said before, you seem to be mistaking technological advancement with intelligence.

I would disagree with your knife example. Necessity is the mother of invention. I think a cutting implement would be one of the first and easiest tools to be invented by a human with no previous knowledge.

There is no 'intelligence of the whole'. I would challenge you to define what you mean.

adriaanb said:
Even when you look at your behaviour. You were taught from an early age to put your head in books. You know what happens when you drop people in a 'dumb' environment where they are taught the thing to do is to kill the neighbours from a slightly different tribe, or spend years memorizing the koran, or devote all your resources to building Mo'ai statues. They excel at it. And those are people of your IQ.

How is this relevant to your original post? This seems to refute, rather than support your quite unclear points.

adriaanb said:
You can say they are brainwashed. But so are you, only in a different direction (but no less unsustainable).

Would an individual living completely outside of any human society devote their time to building monuments or worship? Or would they attempt to make life easier for themselves by trying to understand their natural environment?

Learning, inventing, creating, pondering; all these are inherent to the individual human physiology, frivolous endeavours arise only through group interactions and social psychology.

adriaanb said:
Much of your 'intelligent' behaviour is learned and socialized. So that intelligence you should accredit to the whole, rather than to you as an individual. If you invented something, not only did you need the knowledge of others to get to it, you also needed others to let you know it was something worthwhile to do. And only then did you get to add your bit (which no doubt was a tremendous find).

What " 'intelligent' " behaviour are you referring to? People are often vague when no substantive argument exists.

I have spent many many days, weeks even, completely alone in one of the largest wild areas left in the U.S. Mostly when I was quite young (<17). I can assure you that you will come up with some completely original devices inventions ect. if you where to ever experience a situation such as that.

adriaanb said:
Look at what motivates a Nobel prize winning scientist. They are not just trying to further the cause of humanity, as much as that is the effect. Scientists, being normal, are a very status conscious bunch. They want to be the best among their peers. The only reason humans evolved the pursuit of status is because that is what gets you in the next generation through 'more food' and 'more sex'. Now there we have Nobel prize winning scientists, motivated ultimately by a mechanism that was meant to get you food and sex. And you don't think there is anything odd about that..

Can you provide evidence for your claims on the motives of Nobel prize winning scientist? That, I am afraid, is another tactic one must resort to when a position is lacking.

Evolutionary psychology is a fairly new and rapidly 'evolving' field. Your appraisal of human behaviour seems quite uninformed, and frankly sounds as if you are assuming your points.

adriaanb said:
Again, what I am getting at is the gap between the intelligence of the whole, and the intelligence of the individual before exposing it to the whole. The difference lies in the power of parallel processing through language.

Again, there is no "intelligence of the whole". I think that you should read up a bit on what intelligence actually is.

Where did the ability to parallel process arise? Where did language arise? In a big glob of collective brains? Or do you think maybe, in the brains of many separate individuals?

adriaanb said:
Putting the individual in its place is relevant because it is the sum of individual silliness that is causing problems.

Now we come to the ugly conclusion of what you are actually attempting to say.

"Putting the individual in its place" is exactly how one goes about indoctrinating and brainwashing and suppressing.

"the sum of individual silliness" hmmmmm... that sounds like a valid definition of a familiar word... SOCIETY. Problems arises when individuals attempt to through off any personal identity and define themselves solely as one piece of a collective whole.

You are defeating yourself. Please stop assuming so so very much and look objectively at what you are saying. I think you will find many holes in your logic. Well I guess you would expect that of yourself though, after all, you are just a lousy individual.

You really are lucky Ayn Rand isn't here to see this.

Do not mistake my motives. This is a harsh critique of your procession of logic and is not meant as a thoughtless derision. Please take the points I have addressed seriously.
 
  • #21
adriaanb said:
So we tend to think that the achievement of the whole reflects on us as an individual, like an ant looking at the hill and saying 'look what I built!'. But we ignore the fact that there isn't a single person alive that could invent a knife from scratch, let alone an Iphone.

No... not 'WE'...but 'YOU'. It is YOU that constructed this scenario about 'WE'. If you're going to talk about 'we', then please state which people that you're representing...just to be clear on this. You appear to be creating your own imaginary impressions of people in your own mind - conjuring your own views about how other people behave.
 
  • #22
Not the strongest post ever I will admit.. what a mess.

But to rescue the main point.. the difference between a human 'sec' and one that benefits from accumulated knowledge is becoming bigger and bigger. That is due to 'parallel processing', since language you can benefit from the thoughts of people around you and before you. Not to the individual brain becoming any better in terms of hardware.

The individual likes and dislikes evolved in a stone age setting. When you put that brain in a modern environment things go wrong.

Look at the male mind. The mind that evolved to think like a hunter. Stone age hunting was a team effort. Because no team wants to share the meat with someone who doesn't pull his own weight, men have a need to impress other men with their skills through playful competition. That is what gets them on the best hunting team and that guarantees them a regular supply of meat. (see other post and http://adriaanb.blogspot.com" [Broken])

In a stone age, small group setting that display behaviour would settle down once everyone knows where everyone stands for every useful skill. But this male status mechanism is incompatible with our very large group, because there is always a higher league to get into. It has become never ending. To make things worse, the schooling system, housing arrangements and office work floor have sorted people along the lines of their abilities. So people's social circle, even though it hasn't become bigger, has become much more homogeneous. And that gives the brain the constant message to keep up the displays or risk losing your livelihood through hunting. There is always someone just above or just below you.

Making money is in part a competition in the male mind, it isn't just about basic needs anymore. This is the drive behind the 'never enough' economy, which is exhausting resources. Males having become stuck in their display behaviour.

That is just one example of the the difficulties of having an ancient brain in a modern environment. Which is what I was trying to get at.. I think.

(sure, women hunted too.. and men gathered.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
From the mouth of the fool gushes forth folly.
 
  • #24
yea, wha?
 
  • #25
adriaanb,

I think you are still quite confused as to what intelligence is. You are continuing to mix advancements of technology with individual intelligence. See if you can get your hands on a psychology textbook and read the sections on intelligence. You could also look up some articles at http://www.apa.org/" [Broken]

Maybe then you can develop your ideas more rationally.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
What I meant with 'how intelligent' is simply 'how many thoughts went into it'. Similar to parallel processing in computers. One computer can solve something in very few steps, when it can delegate work to other computers along the way. That is what you do when you use your knowledge, whether you are aware of it or not.

When you cut your leg and you put some disinfectant on it, is that one thought, or should you consider the thinking that went into understanding and developing disinfectant.

You can make a kid understand sunrise and sunset in minutes. But that is knowledge that took other people long before you years to grasp. You got it from them. So what you are saying may sound very intelligent, it isn't just you doing the thinking.

The gap between the 'processing power' of combined brains and that of a single uneducated brain is getting bigger and bigger. And many of your basic motives are innate, like nobody needed to teach you to like sex and love your children and like competing or gossip etc.

People don't understand the level to which their brain is pre-programmed, and they really don't want to either. All throughout the animal kingdom parents break up suddenly with their offspring around a certain age. But when teenage kids and parents go head to head annoying each other to bits for no clear reason it is 'a hormonal thing'. Sure.
 
  • #28
adriaanb said:
What you see around you is the result of parallel processing, not individual quality. That leads people to overestimate individual intelligence.

May it not be the case that parallel processing occurs because we, as indivduals, are intelligent enough to know that we can gain a higher profit through team work than as an individual.
 
  • #29
If you're smart, why aint you rich?

Unlike many folk here, who don't seem to much like what you say, adriaanb, I think you have a point.

One should recognise that the skills and knowledge many people now possesses are an inheritance provided by the evolution of 'memes' (a word invented by Richard Dawkins) over the last hundred thousand years or so, not genes. During this time we haven't evolved a great deal physically from our savage African ancestors who then roamed the veld not far from here. Nor do we seem to have evolved much mentally, judging from the messes we still regularly get ourselves in. It's the ability to communicate, which we luckily acquired somehow a long time ago, that promoted the evolution of memes accounts for our evolutionary success.

To claim that the technical advances we've made very recently, which allow some of us to live such long and comfortable lives, is a sign of our vast superiority over our fellow creatures, is sheer anthro'centric prejudice that I'm sure my cat would object to, if only she could talk.

She's probabably figured out that we're just easily manipulated, chattering, tool-using African apes --- i.e., fools, as you said!
 
  • #30
I think he's got some good points; it's certainly the case that almost no one who had only ever cut things with their teeth before could invent a knife. But his point about the knife is a double-edged sword, tee hee.

By observing that the innovation of inventing a knife is a difficult mental feat to accomplish ex nihilo that sort of re-sets the baseline for intelligence. Much more humble feats of innovation, like figuring out a different way to drive to work or how to get an iPod to play the music you want are demonstrated to be relatively formidable accomplishments compared to driving to work the way you always have or listening to music with a CD player like you did last time.

And, conversely, things that someone might think are witty and clever, like spamming a hundred science forums with junk threads using provocative titles that are simply an excuse to mention your blog's address at some point, don't seem exceptionally smart at all.
 
  • #31
I am sorry to bring back this thread if most people consider it dead/spam, however it is not only a very interesting argument but also one this hits close to home with me because of the people I knew who argued it.
Firstly, I disagree with the basis of the argument being made: if you are saying that we believe that we are smart because of what we have done, then your argument holds very weakly. It isn't the fact that we can invent things that classifies us as bright, other primates have the power of invention and yet they themselves are not that bright. It is our ability to consistently seek out the truth in any situation, and when we make a blunder, to correct our theories. Even some basic physics can show our ability to consistently find the truth in any situation; take catenaries for example. A very simple being would see no relation which could determine the shape of a catenary. A more advanced being might comprehend that the shape has to do with gravity, but they might also blunder and assume it is parabolic in shape. However, any reasonably able person could show that in fact a catenary follows a hyperbolic cosine curve. Not that this is a great feat or anything, but remember also that the second most intelligent species wouldn't be able to comprehend how to define a function.
As to your argument that we stumbled upon the idea of parallel processing and language etc, this is completely untrue, there is nothing which I can think of which we did not stumble upon for a reason; language was not just the first means of communication we had, it was one of the most efficient, on top of the fact that language was invented by humans, not something which can be found in nature. Do not assume that everything we have discovered had some motivation for discovery or immediate application, we have the ability to think of quantities which do not physically exist and to create whole fields unmotivated by application. All species were given equal footing, yet only humans seem to have the ability to progress. So even if all our intelligence is the result of parallel processing, from what we have seen, no other species has the ability to actually use this to advance themselves, thus humans have reached some sort of intelligence threshold, past which society can advance.
Also, realize that single humans constructed the basis for electromagnetism, calculus, logic and other fields; For every field we have today, it was a single human that made the fist insight into that field, from then on we could build on the idea. Some humans are quite competent on their own and thus your argument that we need society to progress is at best tenuous.
Maybe we are not very intelligent after all, but compared to any other species on this planet we are thousands of more times insightful and intelligent. Not to say that people are the alpha and omega, certainly we make our fair share of huge errors: we often use heuristics even when incorrect, we are still motivated by biological drive even when we think we are not etc.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
I think we're done here. Thanks, everyone.
 

1. What makes you think you are smarter than everyone else?

As a scientist, I do not believe that intelligence can be measured by a single metric. Each person has their own unique strengths and areas of expertise. It is important to recognize and appreciate these differences rather than trying to compare intelligence levels.

2. Are you implying that being smart makes someone a fool?

No, being smart does not automatically make someone a fool. However, intelligence alone does not guarantee success or wisdom. It is important to also have emotional intelligence, critical thinking skills, and humility.

3. How do you define "smart"?

Defining "smart" is a complex and subjective task. In general, it can refer to a person's ability to acquire and apply knowledge, solve problems, and think critically. However, intelligence can manifest in many different ways and can vary greatly among individuals.

4. Do you believe that intelligence is fixed or can it be developed?

As a scientist, I believe that intelligence is a combination of both nature and nurture. While some aspects of intelligence may be influenced by genetics, it is also possible to develop and improve cognitive abilities through learning, practice, and experience.

5. How can you prove that you are actually smart?

I do not feel the need to prove my intelligence to anyone. Additionally, as mentioned before, intelligence cannot be measured by a single metric. It is important to recognize and appreciate the unique strengths and abilities of individuals rather than trying to compare and rank intelligence levels.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
33
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
584
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
805
Replies
1
Views
801
  • General Discussion
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top