Levels of "Wisdom"

[stargroup100]

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

[Zageron]

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:

• Generally do not have strong opinions unless spurred emotionally.
• Poor or nonexistent rational discourse. When one is provided it may not make sense in context.
• Usually blissfully content with their situation, and are unconcerned with anyone or anything.

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:

• Mature, and have an apparent lack in the ability to argue.
• Powerful understanding of nearly everything to do with non-academic issues, without the need for an education surrounding it.
• Optimistic to a fault.

-------------------------

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.

[Cavernio]

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.

[Reincarnate]

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.

[devonin]

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

[Zageron]

Re: Levels of "Wisdom"

That.
Is the best thing I've read all year*.

[stargroup100]

Re: Levels of "Wisdom"

Omg devonin XD

[mymission247]

Re: Levels of "Wisdom"

that is a mouthful

[Sailortrance]

Re: Levels of "Wisdom"

that is a mouthful

That's what she said.


Guess my Tier?

[Trumpet63]

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.

[hi19hi19]

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."

[ilikexd]

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."

I was wondering when somebody would point that out.

[Trumpet63]

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."

Wow really? That's kind of harsh.

[hi19hi19]

Re: Levels of "Wisdom"

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]

Re: Levels of "Wisdom"

all intellectualism is pseudo-intellectualism