![]() |
Levels of "Wisdom"
Let's have some fun talking about this.
I put "wisdom" in quotes because it's not really the dictionary definition of wisdom. Rather, I am merely putting into different levels a particular metric of intelligence. Hopefully I'm not going to get the comments I'm expecting to get. I'll assume you guys are smart enough to know that I'm not assuming this describes the general intelligence of a person. The particular metric I will be attempting to classify is the ability to understand the reasoning and thinking of others and apply it to a realistic interpretation of the world and reality, a kind of logical or rational empathy. I'm aware this is a very informal definition, but it's difficult for me. Hopefully, after explaining more in detail, someone might be able to help me refine this definition. Just to give this particular metric an arbitrary name for reference, let's just call it "PR-wisdom" until someone comes up with a better term. Honestly I have no idea what the PR stands for. Personal relations, practical rationality, psychological response, you make up whatever you want. Tier 1: Blissful Ignorance The people at this tier do not really have the mental capacity (or choose to not use it) to examine social issues and process arguments, and as a result, cannot say much even if they wanted to. They tend to keep to themselves and strong opinions are emotionally based as a result. Not being able to answer and being in this tier is not a result of lack of knowledge or interest, but rather the ability to process rational ideas in the first place. Traits:
Tier 2: Natural Idiosyncrasy The peculiar name comes from the basic idea that when people in this tier do anything "strange" or "irrational", they tend to be easily explained or predicted by psychological/sociological/etc phenomena. It's "natural" because even if you don't agree with them, you can at least understand how they came to their conclusions based on their experiences. The people who begin to take awareness in more social and philosophical issues. They are aware of their existence and can process basic ideas. While most people in this area are humble and normal, their limited mental faculties in these ways makes them prone to logical fallacies, emotional biases, etc. This makes them more prone to delusions, and those that are deluded and possess other strengths/talents tend to be very influential among subsets of other people in this tier. Traits:
Example notable people:
Really wish I had more examples of people who are not so disagreeable, as this kind of makes this tier look bad, but that isn't the defining characteristic or point. Tier 3: Psuedo-intellectual These people tend to have very rational minds and can explain their ideas logically. What separates this group from higher tiers is their impaired ability to understand things that are outside of problem solving techniques they are used to or involve systems they are not familiar with and don't realize the impact of them. They characterize arguments across the scope they know, and sometimes fail to acknowledge impacts outside of that scope. The name does not imply that the people here are not actually intelligent, but simply that they do not always apply their intelligence well in reality. This is the border tier that tends to separate the intelligent from the wise. Physicists and philosophers deeply involved in more complex fields tend to be criticized of this. Physicists may lose track of the difference because plausibility and real world application, and philosophers may regress so far into rational thought that its real world significance and relevance starts to diminish. Traits:
Example notable people:
Tier 4: Primitive Sage Interestingly enough, those in this tier tend to be less focused on academic pursuits than the previous tier. This is because these are the people that still relate to commoners while having the faculties to rationally process ideas. These people also tend to spend more time understanding how others think, and their insight comes from experience and frequent thinking relating to these matters. The people at this tier are capable of taking issues and looking at them from different angles, able to think outside the box a little bit, can find the valid points within each argument and weigh their validity in context. Traits:
Example notable people:
Tier 5+: Philosophical Guru The people here are not only able to deeply understand many social issues and logical arguments, but is capable of complex problem solving due to a sufficiently broad range of knowledge and usually deep knowledge in certain subjects. These people are extremely rare, as these people combine two different paradigms of mental processes which naturally try to pull each other apart. It is basically a combination of the strengths of the previous two tiers and applying them to a deeper understanding. Unfortunately, since I acknowledge and know that the people of this tier are well beyond me, there is not much else I can confidently describe meaningfully. Traits:
Example notable people:
(There are probably many other historically recognized brilliant minds that I could list, but at the moment I have not done much research to confirm others.) The "Why?" Test One method I think would work in differentiating people of these tiers is what I call the "Why?" test. Start by discussing an issue, and when they make a point that can be broken down in terms of reasoning, ask "Why?". Then once they give you an answer, ask "Why? again, and repeat this ad nauseum. The ones that merely shrug off the question and don't really care to answer it probably belong to tier 1. Those that attempt to answer the question and very quickly get stuck tend to belong to tier 2. Those that manage to actually break down their reasoning to basic axioms/ideas and are generally logically consistent throughout will belong to tier 3 or above. Anything higher is more difficult to differentiate, as it depends on the issue being discussed and acknowledgment of deep insight into a particular issue. For instance, someone that interrupts the chain of "Why?"'s and can explain clearly why the chain is misleading probably belongs to tier 4 and above. In summary: Tier 1: Cannot form a coherent idea Tier 2: Basic answers, difficulty supporting them Tier 3: Can support answers fairly well, but often misses deeper details (context, other systems), slightly narrow-minded Tier 4: Able to view issues from many different perspectives and can give credit to each in proper context Tier 5: Can do what tier 4 people do but with deep insight and very strong problem solving Here is an example of what you might hear from the different tiers in a "Why?" test: Topic: Should gay marriage be legalized? Tier 1: "Naw dude, that's wrong." Why? "Cause people gotta be people, you know?" The person at tier 1 simply can't answer any further, or will say something almost completely incoherent. Tier 2: "No, marriage should be between a man and a woman." Why? "The bible tells us that." Why? "The bible is the word of God." Why? [Here is where the person may fail to explain why the bible's teachings here are relevant.] The person at tier 2 could not go very far down the chain before being unable to rationalize their arguments. His basic principles are rooted emotionally from experience and surroundings. If he were to continue down the chain, he would probably mistakenly resort to common logical fallacies. Tier 3: "Of course it should be legal!" Why? "Gays deserve the same rights as anyone else." Why? "There is no justification to treat someone unfairly. This unfair treatment would be immoral." Why? "All people are morally equal." Why? "Equal moral treatment of all humans is beneficial to societal health and development, and in addition alleviates suffering in many ways." This person manages to break down his argument into many basic rational principles that are generally very agreeable and are generally valid. However, he may latch onto this logical progression to dismiss most counterarguments in various contexts because he doesn't believe they are worth addressing given this reasoning. In addition, we can see this "Why?" chain going much further, in danger of going into infinite regression, which will likely be tangled by muddy arguments and definitions, going off-topic, and/or detachment from real world relevance. Tier 4: "Sort of. We should give them marriage-like rights, but call it something else and give it a different legal definition." Why? "This pleases the conservatives who want to preserve the sanctity of marriage while giving gay couples the rights they deserve and avoids potential legal loopholes that could be exploited." The person here understands all of the basic ideas the person at tier 3 understands, but factors in various other systems (legal), in addition to using problem solving to attempt to please as many people as much as possible. Despite the fact that the argument of the guy at tier 3 is more favorable to the argument of the guy at tier 2, this person still understands where the tier 2 person's argument is valid, and attempts to give credit where it is due. Tier 5: I honestly have no idea what someone at this tier would say because I'm not smart enough to imagine what people smarter than me would say. lol One common misconception that most people have reading this, is that they think each tier addresses the way they approach particular issues, rather than intellectual capacity. To demonstrate what I mean, here is an example: "I honestly don't care if gay marriage is legal or not." Why? "I'm not gay so it doesn't affect me." This person would not be tier 1 simply because they do not care about the issue, but rather tier 2 and possibly tier 3 because they can rationalize to some degree why they don't care, indicating that they do have some capacity to think. Since no further explanation is given here, depending on the context of the reply, this could put the person at either tier 2 or tier 3. Assuming the context of intellectual discussion, this person is probably not tier 4+. Someone at tier 4 would more likely be able to formulate a more contextual opinion, so they wouldn't phrase their response in this way. Any comments or criticisms? Any examples to share? :D |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
I think I'm a tier 1 person. *shrugs*
honestly though lol |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
tier 6 jesus
|
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
Quote:
Because the latter can put you in any of the above tiers. |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
Quote:
I'm generally agreeable and easily swayed by different perspectives and this is probably from not having many deep-rooted beliefs about issues, and even if I do I tend to keep them to myself (probably from not being able to rationally argue those beliefs as strongly as an assertive person would). I can remember back in high school learning of the Four Temperaments, myself falling under Phlegmatic and Sanguine, though mostly the former. "The Dude Abides" |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
That would probably put you somewhere between tiers 2 and 3 then, but knowing you it's probably closer to 3.
EDIT: Ooooh this four temperaments thing is cool. |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
Your system approaches reality a bit more if you move your examples all down 1 tier.
|
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
I'm not sure if this system only applies to real life and not both real life and the digital world. If it's concerned with real life, then I have to say I feel like Tier 1 is implying that one is actually able to respond to such a question in a given situation in terms of self-consciousness (which can be entirely different on the internet).
About 3 weeks ago, two guys at university, though they did not seem like properly registered students at all, walked towards me and confronted me with the question "Do you believe in God?" I was stunned by the fact they walked towards me without any hesitation and asked me that. I was having quite the trouble to decide what to do at first. "Should I answer them or not?" was my debate, and then I simply decided to take your Tier 1 route to avoid an open discussion about a topic that I simply did not feel comfortable with at that point. On my way home, sitting in the bus like every day, I couldn't stop thinking about that question. I seriously put myself in the spotlight and tried to answer that question only to myself, with all possible routes taken into consideration. Why should I believe in God? Of what use would it be to do so? What do I expect from God as a return if I were to believe in him? In which occurences did I feel like God was close to me? Does one actually have to know the Bible in order to be considered a religious? I was fascinated by the sheer range of directions this question denotes, and I felt bad for not answering these two guys properly. (To me they seemed to be 35-40 years old, in case it interests somebody) Now would my behaviour still count as Tier 1 or would it be higher? What I'm trying to get across here is that "silent thinkers" are sub-consciously higher positioned in this system than they are able to rationally express in real life due to past events like social-isolation and bullying in my case. But in the digital world, where I would be willing to attempt to answer such a question if someone confronts me directly and expects an honest answer, obviously implying that the person who is asking me will listen and is aware of the fact that there also will be an unavoidable discussion, it is different. I don't feel any pressure, I know I have time to think, I know I can look up stuff in case I am unsure about the quality of certain arguments about something I barely touch at all. Of course some people still would go the Tier 1 route to avoid lengthy chat conversations, but I would not if the potential for a mannered discussion is there. Typing this feels like I have two different "me's" acting differently and independently from each other, one on the internet and one in real life.. it makes me feel guilty lmao |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
When reading the tier listing and characteristics, I found myself placing parts of myself in the first three tiers.
Tier 1: I am pretty quiet and keep to myself. Social issues are for the most part ignored on my part because they don't interest me or don't seem to directly affect me. Tier 2: I like to think I am quite humble and have been told I am. I feel like a pretty normal, average Joe if you will. I am not incredibly intelligent and know I fall into logical fallacies as much as I wish I didn't. Tier 3: I've been through high school and a year of college now, so I'm moderately schooled. But the main part of myself I see in this tier is this: sometimes get emotional when against irrational opposition. Irrationality, from my point of view, just simply does not make sense to me. I can not imagine how other people could not think about something the same way as me. Because what I consider logic when arguing with an irrational person does not seem to work, I will turn to emotions to hopefully hit on something they will understand and make my point. I feel I'm like Tier 2.25 with parts of myself in each of the first three. Maybe we can place me more concretely. -o24 |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
Quote:
Quote:
Tier 1 does not imply you aren't answering because you are not comfortable or you don't know enough information to formulate an opinion or you haven't had the time to think about it. It means you're too dumb to be able to think about it even if you were given information and comfortable. It is silence not by reason or choice, but because there is nothing you can say. I think I need to redo my description of Tier 1. Quote:
|
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
Is it possible to be a mixture of tiers?
|
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
The only difference I see between Tier 1 and Tier 5 seems to be willingness to learn more about reality itself. (which includes yourself)
Tier 1: Lack of empathy. (You're in your own bubble and everything else doesn't matter.) Tier 2: Lack of open-mindness. (You believe in absolutes because it's convenient and seems to work most of the time. (God/Family)) Tier 3: The average folks (You can hold an argument with logical ideas, but may occasionally slip.) Tier 4: The specialist (You're really effective in everything related to your interests/field, but may lack information and willingness to care about other things.) Tier 5: The know-it-all (You found a perfect middle ground for yourself intellectually and can answer complicated multifactorial questions with solid critical thinking. Your curiosity level is off the charts and you love learning about new things constantly). T5 description usually also happen to be true for T2-T4. It's just how far it goes that makes a difference and the capabilities/willpower to get there. Could that sort of summarize OP? Probably not worded optimally, but the idea should be here. |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
I used that list format and edited the first post to see if I can be more clear.
I did make a few incorrect, hasty generalizations which I should have fixed now. I was too lenient in trying to soften the description of tier 1 that I made it sound like people that lack interest in issues belong there. People seem to think that the tiers are separated by approach towards a particular issue. Rather, it should be a measure of how deeply you can understand rational arguments as well as understand different perspectives, and if possible, analyze them and put them together constructively. So no, you can't really be a mixture of tiers. If you don't have interest in a particular topic, that does not mean you're tier 1 because you don't care. In fact, understanding why you don't care in terms of the topic's significance to your views could put you in tier 3 or higher, as this could demonstrate that you are able to rationalize your decision-making process. You can, however, be a particular tier at first, then as you understand more and become wiser, go up. (I used to be classic tier 3 up until recently) |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
I never really thought of wisdom as something that could be measured.
|
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
Quote:
this is categorizing a particular metric of wisdom/intelligence |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
I think I'd still call that "measuring wisdom." Not in the normal sense, as in there isn't some kind of "WQ," but it's still a measurement of some sort.
I like the four temperaments thing, though. Definitely melancholic and phlegmatic. As far as my level of wisdom, I couldn't say. I definitely don't meet the first three, and I really don't feel that I'm intelligent enough for the fourth category. |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
Quote:
|
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
Quote:
It would be difficult to give some sort of measure for a person's intellect in this way, but you can categorize the level of depth of their thinking by particular characteristics. |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
The idea of a wisdom quotient is kinda funny tho. Do you think it could work?
|
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
Well to be honest I don't think this qualifies as wisdom. That's why I put it quotes in the thread title and explained.
And intelligent quotients don't mean much either. They can sort of separate people into categories below 120-ish, but anything higher and using that measurement as an evaluation of intelligence is ridiculous. |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
I like the idea but I don't feel like there's much of a consistent foundation for these tiers outside of maybe Tier 2 and 3. Much of it relies on perception of ability without any objective assessment of ability. As such, as you've pointed out to an extent, this is more for fun than actually categorizing anything properly.
Tier 1 applies too subjectively because many people respond this way not because of capacity to respond, but because they don't give a shit about the topic matter and or are not well versed enough in it to comment either way. Obviously you'd have to differentiate between these for this tier to matter at all. Tier 4 and 5 are just too nebulous and perception dependent for my tastes IMO. In tier 5 you emphasize traits such as 'down to earth' and 'very mature' and 'optimistic'. These aren't really objective traits; they're entirely subjective and down to interpretation. Many people will consider someone 'down to earth' and someone else won't. Definitions of maturity vary so wildly I doubt you could find any consistency here. If anything I feel like this is only pandering to people smart enough that they seem really smart to the average person without being so smart as to alienate them. Many of the most extremely intelligent people are not well received by their peers in terms of idea sharing etc because people have nothing in common with them and therefore have no objective way of assessing their ability. This is a bit of an aside but most people you would probably consider really smart and extremely wise are only about 1 standard deviation above where you fall intellectually. People are not accurate whatsoever in differentiating and assessing the ability of people significantly smarter than they are. Anyway, criticism aside I enjoyed the read and your ideas. Quote:
IQ is well correlated with life outcomes and academic performance right up until you get close to the ceiling of the test (which is 145 for most basic tests and 160 for most of the bigger batteries like the WAIS). And to be fair, even tests that have used extremely dubious normalizations to measure IQ well beyond 160, even they've shown half decent correlations between IQ and outcomes in the stratospheric range. (I think it was Silverman that did a longitudinal study that looked exclusively at 160+s if I recall correctly). Now, whether you want to call what the test is measuring intelligence or not is another debate entirely, but whatever it is measuring is fairly useful and can be measured fairly accurately. |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
I'm pretty much with Reach on this. Tiers 4-5 are measuring effectively personality, not ability. Further, real-life philosophical gurus have been far from relating to the average person; Nietzsche would hardly fit into tier five. There are other obvious but unanswered questions, e.g. how are you measuring any of these traits like maturity, since ways of measuring these things differ and even people who measure these things professionally aren't always in agreement.
|
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
Quote:
I don't think there's a tier of wisdom really. Either people are insightfully sound, insightfully unsound, or on the approach of one of the two. But it is also contextual. Spending time delving into a variety of subjects and just exploring things in the manner of which your mind allows will expand the subjects which your intuition can dissect. |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
Finally I'm getting some fun replies to this.
Quote:
If they have a rationalized answer, they're not tier 1. But you are right in that if they don't give more rational discourse you probably couldn't further analyze their level of understanding. I edited the tier 1 example to try and get across the fact that it is not because of an approach towards a particular issue that classifies people. Quote:
And you're right, it would be difficult to measure things like maturity, but I'm not necessarily saying that these traits are requirements to meet a particular tier. Some traits are the result of being able to understand certain things. For example, understanding certain kinds of social interactions very well could imply that someone will seem mature, because if they were being immature that would demonstrate that they are not applying what they understand. I would say the separation between tier 3 and tier 4+ mainly comes from being able to put things into larger contexts in addition to breaking down details. One example of this would be realizing that two topics that seem unrelated actually have a very direct correlation, and that in turn implies many other things being related as well. |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
I try my best to learn as much as possible about the things that interest me.... just for the sake of curiosity and self-enlightenment
I feel like I have an open mind and while there are a lot of topics that don't interest me, I try not to generalize and draw conclusions to ideas outside my scope of knowledge. If someone talks about something I don't have definite knowledge about I just sit back, listen and learn. Pseudo intellectuals are pretty much the worst people ever. I'd rather hang out with an idiot that at least knows and admits hes one than someone who always has their two cents to put in even if they know nothing of the topic. arrogant pseudo intellectuals just make me cringe hngggggggg on a funny note: I was playing Bioshock Infinite the other day and in one part of the game there is a blackboard with 'fancy scientific mathy' stuff to make it look complicated. what was hilarious though was one of the 'functions' I saw on the board was (sinx)^2 = 2sinxcosx [i dont know how to write exponents in this forum lmao]. I was like lmfao that isn't even correct its supposed to be sin2x, which would be the double angle formula for the sin function. I was like they obviously did it on purpose to see if anyone would notice. It's funny that the equation is wrong. It's even funnier that the formula is hardly complex, and is taught in most precalculus classes in high schools....... |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
Quote:
I come from a background in psychometrics (BS.c in Psych, I basically specialized in that though), so I actually really like stuff like the list you've made here. But using terms like 'a general kind of real-life wisdom' or 'certain kinds of social interactions' just doesn't cut it in that domain because it has no scientific (or more specifically psychometric) value. It's too vague. You've left it open ended to the point that it basically comes down to what someone thinks. Now I know the point of this list isn't to be used per say as a psychometric assessment tool, so you never really intended to be specific to the point of this being able to be used as a diagnostic tool. But I'm thinking that's the line that Arch is coming from; the list isn't specific or rigorous enough to actually be used in a reliable and accurate way. You'd have to majorly refine pretty much all of your terms and come up with concrete criteria that are reliable. I feel like what you're leaning towards here is very akin to what most people would describe as emotional intelligence, except you've gone in one direction with it. However, if you're familiar at all with the concept of emotional intelligence you'll know that it has been a train wreck in the psych community because all of the metrics that people have developed have been pretty much garbage in terms of their accuracy. As it turns out, it's really hard to measure stuff like this accurately. Measuring personality and 'intelligence' has been 100x more successful. Some people hypothesize that this is because when attempting to measure EI and EI related ideas, personality factors and intelligence end up confounding your measurements (some people think it's just a combination of personality and intelligence and not actually a thing at all). To name a few problems you can run into when you're not extremely specific with your criteria: Not actually measuring what you intend to measure (e.g. as above, measuring personality instead), measuring something else we already have metrics for, and extremely weak reliability /predictive power. |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
I'm a seventh degree wisdomlord
|
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
I think I'm blissfully ignorant. I have the view where you don't need education to be smart and I stress that a lot and I get a lot of my research about certain things from my friends points of views about certain topics (but will read into the odd thing every now and then). I also have the strong opinion quality from the 2nd level of wisdom which is Natural Idiosyncrasy.
|
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
I don't think these tiers are very leveled, I think you think more people fit into tier 1 than actually do, and I think you're amalgamating things that aren't really related.
|
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
I'm also amused that as you presumably want to move -up- these levels through reflection and education, you first have to become academically gifted, and then become no longer academically gifted.
|
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
I think Reach basically summed up everything I didn't quite like in my own thread and more.
And I still think people are misinterpreting what I describe as tier 1. I don't think anyone smart enough to walk into this thread is intellectually challenged enough to qualify as tier 1. While it is possible that I am combining concepts that aren't related, it's more about looking for generalizations and descriptions of a large subset of the tier, if not a majority. Which means, for example, I don't necessarily think people need to get "dumber" to go from tier 3 to tier 4. I would elaborate and talk more but I'm on vacation and typing from a phone is annoying. lol |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
I'm surprised.
Even after all the crap I heard about this thread from a distance, I actually agree with most of it. It would be far more accurate and sensitive if then or more people worked on the initial Tier template, but can't really complain since it's on FFR. Here is a quick example of how I would rephrase the table. Tier 1: Blissful Ignorance ...Lack of noticeable mental capacity which can be used to examine social situations or process meaningful arguments. ...Any given opinions are usually based entirely off of extreme emotion, and are thus usually very uninformed and unhelpful. ...An example of a twisted representation of this tier would be, a thousand years ago, an extremely educated intellectual attempting a conversation with a family farmer. ......That farmer will know everything there is to know about farming for all seasons and weather conditions. ......He may not have the education and social graces to communicate it, but he is certainly not living in blissful ignorance! ......It could be argued, for the farmers case, that the intellectual is living in blissful ignorance of what is actually required to produce food for him to eat. It is worth noting, that this would not apply evenly across time. ...Everyone who existed 5000 years ago was not living in blissful ignorance, instead the scope and scale of this would need to be adjusted. ...If you assume that IQ level determines your position on this tier, then you sadly belong in Tier 1. Traits:
Tier 5+: Philosophical Guru ...These are people who just understand anything you throw at them, in a non-academic sense. ...They have enough life experience to account for any education they may have received. ...Regardless of their intellectual standing, they will understand any issue you bring them at a level which is detached from the one you are presenting. Traits:
Anyway, that's my cents. I definitely don't put any weight on using a list like this. Everyone is different, and like the farmer, have different levels of 'enlightenment' in different areas. We can safely assume that all of us are blissfully ignorant about many things. |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
I just think that a lot of people can be very smart about some things, and can be very open-minded about some things, but not others. I don't think individuals fit into these tiers.
|
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
Someone who is "wise," IMO, is someone who I'd characterize as being very insightful with good advice, decision-making skills, and judgment.
In other words, I think to be "wise" you need a few things: 1. Intelligence (you have to be able to logically pick apart problems and consider all the nuances that come with the context/situation) 2. Experience (when you're making judgment calls, this usually requires a lot of data to calibrate your conclusions) 3. Knowledge (being familiar with a wide array of subjects means you'll be better informed in terms of drawing conclusions) 4. Self-awareness (I think this is important for the sake of remaining impartial when the situation calls for it, as well as being able to change your mind when better solutions exist / checking your ego at the door) A lot of these areas have some overlap but w/e. I think it also depends on whether or not we're talking about "subject-level wisdom" or "general wisdom" (using similar concepts from Spearman's g-factor in terms of variance). For example, some people are considered very "wise" investors, but maybe they aren't similarly "wise" when it comes to, say, dating, etc. |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
Strength is the ability to crush a tomato
Dexterity is the ability to dodge a thrown tomato Constitution is the ability to eat a rotten tomato Intelligence is knowing that a tomato is a fruit Wisdom is knowing not to put tomato in a fruit salad Charisma is being able to sell a tomato based fruit salad |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
That.
Is the best thing I've read all year*. |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
Omg devonin XD
|
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
that is a mouthful
|
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
Quote:
Guess my Tier? |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
Surprisingly this thread hasn't annoyed the crap out of me yet.
I'm also surprised that no one's mentioned Socrates yet? It seems to be the whole basis of you scale, considering you refer to the "Why" test. If you don't remember the story I suggest you look it over again, but basically Socrates, being humble about his wisdom and acknowledging that he knew very little, was beset a task by god to discover whether there was anyone more wise than he. Then he went around and broke people's brains by asking "Why" a bunch, and found that people were idiots. Also he was sentenced to death by poison because of this. stargroup100, now you must die. |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
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." |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
Quote:
|
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
Quote:
|
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
Quote:
Categorization for the sake of categorization is a psuedo-intellectual pursuit. |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
all intellectualism is pseudo-intellectualism
|
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
Quote:
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. |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
Quote:
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. |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
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. |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
Quote:
Quote:
"... 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. Quote:
|
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
Quote:
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? |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
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. |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
Quote:
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. Quote:
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) Quote:
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. |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
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. |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
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.
|
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. |
Re: Levels of "Wisdom"
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. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:26 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution