Levels of "Wisdom"

[hi19hi19]

I've always thought that this thread was a bit hypocritical, and the fact that Stargroup even bothered to create it solidly puts himself in group 3.

An interesting an idea, perhaps, but needing to compare oneself to others by some arbitrary metric is in itself "not applying your intelligence well in reality."

[ilikexd]

Originally Posted by hi19hi19

I've always thought that this thread was a bit hypocritical, and the fact that Stargroup even bothered to create it solidly puts himself in group 3.

An interesting an idea, perhaps, but needing to compare oneself to others by some arbitrary metric is in itself "not applying your intelligence well in reality."

I was wondering when somebody would point that out.

[Trumpet63]

Originally Posted by hi19hi19

I've always thought that this thread was a bit hypocritical, and the fact that Stargroup even bothered to create it solidly puts himself in group 3.

An interesting an idea, perhaps, but needing to compare oneself to others by some arbitrary metric is in itself "not applying your intelligence well in reality."

Wow really? That's kind of harsh.

[hi19hi19]

Originally Posted by Trumpet63

Wow really? That's kind of harsh.

As if labeling entire groups, regardless of context, with the blanket statement, "not really [having] the mental capacity to examine social issues and process arguments" isn't also harsh.

Categorization for the sake of categorization is a psuedo-intellectual pursuit.

[MinaciousGrace]

all intellectualism is pseudo-intellectualism

[hi19hi19]

Originally Posted by MinaciousGrace

all intellectualism is pseudo-intellectualism

I'm 99% sure you're trolling but I'll address this anyway.

Intellectualism is valid if discarding emotion in analysis actually reveals some new and valuable insight.
This is the essence of Stargroup's "why?" test (which I do think is a somewhat useful metric, but I certainly draw different conclusions from it)

But my greater point is just that this thread itself fails the "why?" test. What are you going to do now that you've grouped everyone into classes of wisdom?
Implement some kind of eugenic culling of the ignorant to make sure only the wise live on?
Segregate people's rights and privileges dependent on whether they can process the "full implications" of some example concept?

Everything that can result from this sounds either dystopian or flat out immoral.
It's categorization for the sake of categorization. I fail to see the point.

[stargroup100]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

Let's have some fun talking about this.

I made this thread for fun with the idea that we could casually discuss what it means to be wise or insightful by introducing a concept I thought was fun. Categorization, for some reason, is something I like when I read about a topic. It helps me visually imagine separate cases and concepts for me to understand individually before I look at the larger picture, whatever it may be.

I don't see what's wrong with analyzing something just because it's fun. I never said this was academically rigorous in any sense (in fact, the opposite), and I never suggested this would necessarily have direct applications in the real world, and I most certainly would not even go near suggesting that we should segregate people's rights or privileges using some kind of metric such as this.

And I'm not labeling attributing a negative generalization to an entire group of people either. I didn't say that all people of a certain kind fall into tier 1 because they're that stupid, or even anything remotely similar to that. I'm by definition categorizing people of particular traits together, which is totally different. It's like saying that categorizing people above 250 pounds as obese is prejudice against fat people.

So I don't see what the fuss is about.

[Spenner]

Aside from what's already been discussed, I feel like wisdom is contextual, and based on how much mindfuless a person has for the subject in thought. Mindfulness would be the state of taking every realistic and valid point and allowing it as part of the aspects of whatever question is being asked.

After enough practice being mindful of such things you kind of get a general sense of "wisdom", from personal reflection or from seeing a pattern of behaviour in things which has been validated, and can be reiterated in the other things you see.

I've been having a lot of that "reiteration" and recurrence of tendencies in things around me lately, which makes me feel compelled to explore things more than just philosophically (chemistry especially). I feel like diving into the absolute application of philosophical insights is what validates wisdom in a lot of respects.

Not for everything of course, just my recent experience on the subject.

[hi19hi19]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

I made this thread for fun with the idea that we could casually discuss what it means to be wise or insightful by introducing a concept I thought was fun.

I don't see what's wrong with analyzing something just because it's fun.

Excusing something as fun doesn't make it right.

Originally Posted by stargroup100

And I'm not labeling attributing a negative generalization to an entire group of people either.

Except you did. Repeatedly.
"... their limited mental faculties in these ways makes them prone to logical fallacies, emotional biases, etc... The majority of people with basic education will belong here."
"Most of the honor students from school or scholars will fall into this category... [they have] impaired ability to understand things that are outside of problem solving techniques they are used to or involve systems they are not familiar with..."

Last I checked, "impaired ability to understand" and "limited mental faculties" are extremely judgmental labels to apply to a group of people.
Don't pretend you aren't making judgements, because your posts say otherwise.

Originally Posted by stargroup100

So I don't see what the fuss is about.

The fact you can't see the problem is in fact making a good case for your theory, but certainly not in the way you intended.

[stargroup100]

Originally Posted by hi19hi19

Excusing something as fun doesn't make it right.

Doesn't make it wrong either.

I'll admit you were right on one point, and that's your criticism towards my generalizations of people with varying amounts of education. I can imagine a lot of ways in which that could be recognized as a bit judgmental, so I took into account what you said to change the wording of the original post.

However, what I actually wanted to convey was something different than what you're interpreting. I had no intentions of comparing groups of people/students of very different backgrounds and status. Rather, it was geared more towards what I thought was a typical representation of a middle-class public school. Clearly, not explaining this context was not good on my part. But anything else regarding generalizations are more the direct result of consequences of traits that I describe and attribute.

I don't have anything against open discussion (which is kind of the point) and I'm open to changing my own views and opinions if someone provides good arguments. If I say something wrong or come across as ignorant, inconsiderate, etc. I don't mind people calling me out on it. But you kinda took something I legitimately didn't handle correctly and blew it out of proportion, which is kind of a dick move. Eugenic culling? Are you serious?

[hi19hi19]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

Doesn't make it wrong either.

Yes it does.
If the topic is fundamentally flawed or immoral, "fun" doesn't excuse it.
I can't believe you're actually trying to argue that. Holy shit.

Originally Posted by stargroup100

But you kinda took something I legitimately didn't handle correctly and blew it out of proportion, which is kind of a dick move. Eugenic culling? Are you serious?

You propose the "why?" test.
Well, why the hell are you even making this thread?
You mentioned FUN, okay, I suppose that's one reason to be labeling entire sections of the human population as mentally impaired sure, but it's a pretty sociopathic one.
I mean you're getting your kicks labeling others as "lacking mental faculties", what are we supposed to expect?


btw the new wording is at least slightly more tolerable, but it still doesn't get past the pointlessness of categorization for categorization's sake.
Categorization in the real world lets us do things- we'll categorize that guy as mentally ill so we can give him help, etc.
If you're not into eugenics, I'm still waiting for what you're going to DO with these categories...
Other than suck your own dick and feel superior to everyone else for having thought of them, which is the inherent hypocrisy I mentioned earlier.

[Trumpet63]

hi19hi19, If you think stargroup has it wrong, you're meant to propose an alternative. If you think the mere premise of categorizing people based on wisdom is wrong, say so, and make your argument from that stance.

All you're saying is that he has it wrong, and that you're offended by his descriptions. In fact, making a commentary on someone's wisdom IS inherently offensive, but nonetheless this thread is based on the assumption that people have differences in wisdom, and stargroup has attempted to specify the "symptoms" by which people with differences in wisdom can be recognized.

There is nothing that stargroup has done to indicate that he feels superior to anyone else, except perhaps to attempt to measure himself using his own metric, and indicate his findings. However, it is his premise that some individuals are more wise than others.

Maybe we should talk about math, and the categories assigned to groups of symmetries of n-dimensional spaces. Although there may not be an immediate use at the time, history has shown that such things are tied to the advancement of science. The standard of value here on the FFR forums is much less strict, however I feel that this thread has surmounted the necessarily low bar.

[hi19hi19]

Originally Posted by Trumpet63

All you're saying is that he has it wrong, and that you're offended by his descriptions. In fact, making a commentary on someone's wisdom IS inherently offensive, but nonetheless this thread is based on the assumption that people have differences in wisdom, and stargroup has attempted to specify the "symptoms" by which people with differences in wisdom can be recognized.

I'm not offended by the descriptions so much as the self-serving nature of the discussion.
To me, there is no point to discussion the symptoms by which we can categorize people's wisdom, other than to compare or offend.
I'm challenging Stargroup to provide one.

Originally Posted by Trumpet63

Maybe we should talk about math, and the categories assigned to groups of symmetries of n-dimensional spaces. Although there may not be an immediate use at the time, history has shown that such things are tied to the advancement of science.

There's a difference here- the researcher himself is not a group of n-dimensional spaces.
Stargroup himself IS part of his own categorization, and the post was originally worded such that he was clearly making a judgement of others.
Even after substantial edits, it still has elements which to me distinguishes it as not being a particularly abstract or impartial categorization (see below)

Originally Posted by Trumpet63

There is nothing that stargroup has done to indicate that he feels superior to anyone else

Saying things such as, "I acknowledge and know that the people of this tier are well beyond me" implies comparison; couple this with strong -as you admit, fundamentally offensive- judgements and I'd hope you see where my objection is coming from even if you don't agree with it.


Regardless, at this point I should just leave as I don't think I'm adding anything to the thread.
I've made my view known already and stargroup made some decent edits.
I still think it's a fundamentally flawed presentation, if other people believe the discussion is worth having then go ahead.

[hi19hi19]

Look before I go to bed I'm going to make my point as clear as possible so that I don't have people messaging me later on.

Start with some simple statements:
1. People are going to be offended if you say they have limited mental faculties.
2. "For fun" is not a valid reason to categorize people in such a way that they would be offended.
3. Creating a system of categorization, then both explicitly stating and implying you are placing yourself within these categories of your own creation, can be seen as self-serving.

With those statements in mind:

Stargroup has not presented a reason other than "for fun" for his categorization to exist.
This is not a sufficient reason, and I challenge him to give one that is.

If he cannot present a reason for this categorization to exist, that's strong evidence that the categorization is fundamentally self-congratulatory, or meant to offend people, both of which are objectionable to me and the standards of this forum.

If he can present a strong reason for this categorization to exist, then why the hell is that reason not stated in the OP? If he does finally give a reason, that's evidence that the initial argument was presented extremely ineffectively.

[stargroup100]

Firstly, I never explicitly stated what category I put myself in. Secondly, what would be your stance on other valuations of any kind of intelligence such as IQ? If you have a problem with things like that as well, then it's understandable you would also feel that way about this.

[hi19hi19]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

Firstly, I never explicitly stated what category I put myself in.

Hey, nice job not reading what I wrote!
I never said you stated what category you were in, I DID say you explicitly compared yourself to other people in those categories.
If you're trying to deny that, see the direct quote from your OP I mentioned in my reply to trumpet.

Originally Posted by stargroup100

Secondly, what would be your stance on other valuations of any kind of intelligence such as IQ? If you have a problem with things like that as well, then it's understandable you would also feel that way about this.

IQ was developed by Sir Francis Galton, a prominent eugenicist (in fact, he was such a big believer in hereditary intelligence that he coined the term eugenics himself)
He used his IQ test to argue for, among other things, forcing high-IQ couples to have lots of children.
Are you sure you want to equate the reason for your system to exist to his? Because I agree, it's really easy to draw the same conclusions from both!

Also I'll note, all the natural results of IQ, such as the Mensa organization, are incredibly self-congratulatory as well.
Considering your categorization is both objectively less quantifiable AND inherently more judgmental...



Also, you've still yet to answer my question of "why did you even come up with this categorization and make this incredibly judgmental post" other than "for fun" so until you do I'm just going to assume you have no rational answer.

[stargroup100]

I feel like that's cherry-picking. "Some people use IQ in an immoral way so there is no justification for having the concept of IQ." From an academic standpoint, there are lots of viable uses for IQ as a measurement, just as there are lots of practical uses for standardized tests as a skill assessment. You can test to see if you can find correlations, and then examine these correlations in order to help people improve. For example, if high IQ correlates to being successful, you can try to examine what an IQ test tests for that causes this, and then train people in those areas to better prepare them. IQ is a wide-spread concept today and has been discussed extensively, and yet I don't see any serious progress towards any extreme, immoral implications such as eugenics. EDIT: This is similar to saying that Darwinism/evolution promotes survival of the fittest and so weaker people need to be left behind, so this makes evolution immoral.

In general, any meta-understanding of a particular issue helps to understand issue specifics. Philosophy of science, for example, is relevant to science because it helps us understand what kinds of questions science can or can't answer, and why. It helps us distinguish science and non-science. Similarly, understanding what makes someone smart or wise can help us understand what a smart or wise person would be capable of and how to work towards being that if it is possible.

Even the evaluation of myself within these categories serves to help myself practically, not because I want to stroke my ego. If I can identify traits that would make me acknowledge that someone is more rationally-minded than me, I would then try to learn and adopt some of their thinking in order to make myself more rationally-minded. It's like looking up to someone you think is better than you at something and trying to learn from them. In your own mind you have a valuation as to who you consider to be better than you and who is worse, and you emulate the better.