[kurofune]

Who would struggle to be smart in a society that rewards idiocy and blind alignment to asinine political discourses, a society where the loudest opinion is the only one that matters. Enjoy the permanent state of frustration that being "smart" or "rational" will bring you.

Most politicians are exasperatingly dumb, most celebrities are witless mannequins and the richest man in the world is a simple minded moron that acts like a 16yo in the middle of a sugar rush. Don't blame the youth for not wanting to be "smart" when they can see that plenty of mediocre adult content creators can earn more in a week than your average office worker in a month and when their role models are dudes vlogging about getting rich gambling on JPG monkeys and shilling for crypto rug pulls.

[planarhobbit]

Intelligence gives you a choice. You can choose to walk away from this as best as you can and go about your life on your own terms. You aren't guaranteed or given anything else.

You may also participate, if you choose.

This seems to be a sticking point among high achievers, but you really need to dial back any societal expectations you may have. You’re here for a short time, and you’re given the option of watching the spectacle at your leisure. Enjoy it while it lasts.

[kurofune]

I would like to stress that "high achiever != intelligent".

And the choice to "walk away from this as best as you can and go about your life on your own terms" is mainly a money issue and not one defined or solved by intelligence.

[fao_]

Yep. A significant fraction of MENSA are in fact "underachievers" -- due to mental illness or poverty or something else.

source: several relatives are members

[OkayPhysicist]

I'd imagine there's also a strong selection bias there. It's not like being intelligent automatically makes you a member of MENSA. You also have to want to be a member of a society that uses IQ tests as a selection criteria. I'd imagine that self-selects for people who are intelligent but insecure about other facets of their life.

[Raptor22]

> This seems to be a sticking point among high achievers, but you really need to dial back any societal expectations you may have. You’re here for a short time, and you’re given the option of watching the spectacle at your leisure. Enjoy it while it lasts.

You're right, but understand, it takes many intelligent people years to figure this out. It's such a brutal state of reality that many parents are loathe to explain it so clearly to their children.

In my opinion it is a shame that society is mostly driven by the dumber elements of our species. I know this is pie in the sky, but perhaps in the future when humans are multiplanetary, a group of above average intelligence could choose to colonize a planet and only admit those who are similarly above average intelligence. Would be an interesting experiment to see which planet has faster technological and societal progress over time.

[BeFlatXIII]

> You’re here for a short time, and you’re given the option of watching the spectacle at your leisure. Enjoy it while it lasts.

To quote one of Jim Morrison's stage rants from one of the Doors live albums, "I'm just here to get my kicks in before the whole shithouse goes up flames"

[dahart]

It sucks things seem this bad, but there is hope! You do have the ability to make your own life better, and to help others. The truly smart people don’t confuse TV politics with life, and they know how to take stock of what’s good and right with the world in addition to what’s wrong. Seriously. Starting making a list of things that are good, do it today and don’t stop til you’ve listed all good things. Smart people know that there are ways to fix things, and spend their time fixing things.

It has always been true in politics that loud and obnoxious narratives sometimes beat out more reasoned and better ideas. Studying history might interest you to see how bad this was a hundred or a thousand years ago. It is very important to stand back and notice that over time, the better ideas are actually winning. We no longer burn witches or drill holes in the skull to release evil spirits. We no longer believe the earth is flat or allow people to keep slaves. You can rest assured that eventually racism and sexism and wasting all the oil on earth to make a quick buck and other dumb things we’re doing today will go away, even if things seem to be getting worse at this very moment.

The sciences and the arts will continue to move forward like they have for millennia, and many people, both smart and not smart by IQ metrics, will contribute to progress. If you care about being an opinion that matters, consider getting involved.

As far as politicians go, please stop watching TV and start reading more of what the government actually publishes. Governments globally are granting trillions of dollars to fund good science and good art and good public works projects. The government is made of people and can be made better or worse by people. If you believe it’s hopeless and you allow it to be overrun by perceived grift, then that will continue to happen. If you take control and realize that the bad actually hasn’t infected everything and there are good people trying to help and that spending time working on it does make a difference, then your opinion and your effort can make a dent in the very problems you’re talking about.

[teddyh]

> Most politicians are exasperatingly dumb, most celebrities are witless mannequins and the richest man in the world is a simple minded moron

The fact that you believe this only shows you to be gullible.

[kurofune]

>The fact that you believe this only shows you to be gullible.

The fact that you choose to believe this only shows you how little you have been around them IRL. Keep finding solace inside your own narratives and consider yourself lucky, most of them are the dumbest bunch of crooks you could ever find.

[FrenchDevRemote]

it takes more than sheer evilness to stay in power

[teddyh]

This only makes me question your definition of “dumb”.

[amusedcyclist]

That fact that you don't shows you to be bootlicker to power

[swasheck]

both of you are speaking in absolutes and are failing to see the middle. in the us the “exasperatingly dumb” are in power because they cater to the base emotions of their electorate. it’s a hard truth of representative democratic democracy/republics. once in power, those who are able to manipulate the human psyche are able to take those exasperatingly dumb and give them a voice. I’d assert that the ability to manipulate complex systems including people) into the favor of person or party requires a level of intelligence that is not easily dismissed. that doesn’t mean i agree with the goals or means, usually i do not. but the ability to know your audience, and to know how to mollify them to maintain your own power is a sort of intelligence.

[amusedcyclist]

Sure Elon Musk, Kim Kardashian and Donald Trump share similar personality traits that make them very successful in the internet dominated world. Its not something that I dismiss, but I don't think of them as being master manipulators or geniuses, mostly narcissists with right type of mass market appeal who were in the right place at the right time.

[hirvi74]

Well, it seems like narcissism is a better predictor of success than IQ based on said anecdotal observations.

Perhaps that is what psychometrics should truly be trying to quantify and people should truly strive for if they want to "succeed," but let's be honest. What is the point in knowing one's IQ score if you can't proclaim to others about how much smarter you are than them?

[sureglymop]

IQ is not a predictor of success. Very often, a high IQ even correlates with some handicap, e.g. adhd, asperger's, bipolar disorder etc. These are people who generally due to their handicap have it much harder in society, not easier. Beyond that, IQ is about logical thinking ability. But the actions which make you successful might not be at all logical/rational. Furthermore, gifted children often suffer from loneliness. This can affect their development and directly affect their social status and "success" in life.

[teddyh]

> I don't think of them as being master manipulators or geniuses, mostly narcissists

Why? If someone rises to the top of a very competitive scene, what is more likely? Dumb luck? Or something else?

[amusedcyclist]

Well my argument is that all of these guys were the "right person for the job". They didn't rise to the top of a traditional competitive scene like a college exam or a race to a technology, they found that their brand of narcissism was very appealing to certain groups on the internet and they used it to their advantage from there. I don't think everyone who is popular on twitter or Instagram is a master manipulator

[yes_really]

> The richest man in the world is a simple minded moron that acts like a 16yo in the middle of a sugar rush.

Weird how that "simple minded moron that acts like a 16yo in the middle of a sugar rush" became the richest men in the world and revolutionized the rocket-launching and car industries. I wish I acted like that when I was a 16yo and had a sugar rush!

[dionidium]

This rant seems to be premised on the idea that IQ measures how badly one desires to be smart, but there's no evidence that "[struggling] to be smart" can affect your score.

[mdp2021]

> evidence

There is a logical evidence: those attracted to that area will invest more in it. Exercise of natural Intelligence also involves avoiding "early stopping": there a determined personality, facilitated by an interested personality, will push forward.

[trompetenaccoun]

Do you have any reliable data backing this "politicians dumb" claim up? It would be ironic if some of them had you fooled, that wouldn't make them the "simple minded morons" but rather those giving the same parties votes again and again, no matter the results.

[goodpoint]

> Most politicians are exasperatingly dumb

Maybe the ones in your country.

In other countries there's been plenty of politicians that had teaching positions in universities in their past, published in academic journals and so on... and yet know how to act stupid when useful.

[WinstonSmith84]

Yeah, some good picks but let's not put everyone in the same basket ... the richest man in the world has revolutionized the automotive industry along the airspace industry. That's more than any human has accomplished within the modern time, and that guy is still working harder than 99% of us, while he could just enjoy the rest of his life, like many other "retired" billionaires. As for NFTs, it's new and time will tell, many seemingly pointless inventions turned out to be great products when used differently

thinking outside the box is not easy in a society where thinking differently is not socially acceptable

[0des]

Try not to be the guy shoe-horning NFTs into discussion

[WinstonSmith84]

Maybe, you shall read the comment to which I'm replying? Maybe :-)

[ralusek]

I'm not sure that you understand what an IQ test is.

[Tao332]

Yeah, I feel like we were just starting to make some progress towards a generation of kids that might not bully its nerds, but everything kinda went to shit.

Children make the selection. They have an impulse to inflict lasting psychological trauma on kids who are smarter than they are. Like bright feathers in the wrong forest, IQ is a detriment in an environment that's hostile to it.

[missedthecue]

I don't think kids are faced with a fork in the road, with a path toward intellect and a path toward stupidity, and I don't think they choose stupidity because Elon Musk shitposts on Twitter.

In fact I don't agree with basically any of this analysis at all. Sort of the fundamental idea behind IQ is that it's innate, not acquired.

[SalmoShalazar]

IQ is not entirely a measure of genetic intelligence. The environmental component of IQ is huge, so calling it “innate” is wrong.

[seneca]

This is an open debate, and claiming that there's a conclusive answer isn't really accurate. As usual, there's more nuance.

Further, the heritability of potential for high IQ isn't really in question. Put another way, it looks like environment can severely diminish the IQ of a potential high IQ child, but it can't probably can't severely raise the IQ of a child born to low IQ parents.

What is heritable is the potential. Environment determines, to an extent, how fulfilled that potential ends up being. This is why smart kids can study and increase their IQ test scores.

[astrange]

“Heritable” doesn’t mean innate or genetic. Shared environment is a reason something is heritable. You are created inside your mother.

Also, if you’re hanging out with people who talk about genetic IQ all the time you should really get a better hobby.

[sudosysgen]

It's not arguable at all that IQ has a significant environmental component.

[seneca]

Sorry, I should have phrased this better. I don't mean to say environment has no impact. What I intended to say is that the degree to which IQ is genetic vs environmentally influenced is unclear and the subject of debate. Calling environment "huge" and innate intelligence wrong is more an article of faith than a reflection of some scientific truth.

[hirvi74]

If a child was raised in complete isolation, they would have an abysmally low IQ. Studies with such disregard for human life have shown us the consequences of having one of the worst environments when growing up -- from the one I remember the children when introduced back into a normal environment never were able to learn how to communicate with another human. I would be willing to wager those children in a proper environment would be at least capable of speaking.

Perhaps my thinking is wrong or on the extreme end of the scale, but I would argue that we can extrapolate that environmental factors are a much more important factor than genetics considering various environment factors can affect genetics to certain degrees and your genes mean little to nothing in the worst environments -- only beneficial in the right environments.

[rmbyrro]

Was 1975 much different?

[bmitc]

I often wonder about this, but there is certainly an argument to be made that yes, I think it was different. It was at least calmer.

There was so much more long form content. And instead of going online to bitch and moan about things, the only option was to speak, phone, or write each other.

I am often struck by watching media from prior decades. One much source are the presidential debates. There early ones and even as recent as Dole vs Clinton were educated, cordial, and calm, a far cry from the circus and superficial debates we have in the past few.

Where are the long form interviews or speeches? Were can I find speeches like those done by prior presidents, intellectuals, and activists? Is there anyone who comes close to someone like Martin Luther King, Jr.? One could argue that some of these historical figures are diamonds in the rough. Indeed, it is probably true. But one can question if our modern society allows a breeding ground for these people to thrive.

I think basically anything prior to the pervasiveness of the Internet was different. The promises of the Internet came true. It has connected us, in ways never thought possible, but it's connected the deepest of our primal emotions. We simply cannot ingest the amount of information we're bombarded with. It doesn't promote an environment for deep, considerate, and rational thought and discourse.

[sudosysgen]

There is a fair amount of long form calm intellectual content, whether speeches, interviews, or spoken essays, on YouTube. But it's still pretty fringe.

[Bhurn00985]

There is, though I believe improvements in the discovery of such content would definitely be welcome.

[Supermancho]

Airborn Carbon Dioxide increases are diving the ongoing trend for the foreseeable future.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/04/200421090556.h... https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328781907_Are_incre...

[daniel-cussen]

Well smart generally means "good without cheating" whereas you're talking about betrayal which is "only good at cheating."

[option]

You think you are smart but you aren’t

[FrenchDevRemote]

wanting to be smart won't change your IQ

[Tao332]

Not wanting to be will, so the numbers might be distorted from what ones true potential is.

[qzx_pierri]

Don't forget that everything you see online is a facade. 15+ years ago, I fell in love with the internet because it's somewhere I could go to be something that I'm not. I could be LOUD, or I could say things I would normally never say away from the keyboard, and I think everyone bonded together online with this fact in mind. The internet was an escape.

Soon, people began to view the internet as a reality due to the rapid homogenization into 3-4 major websites which are controlled mostly by advertisers. But what I've noticed is that most of the opinions you read online aren't very honest.

Commenters on reddit will grift in the comment section for upvotes. Some commenters on HN will purposely avoid certain topics because their account is tied to their reputation in certain very partisan circles in California. Both of these examples are often the loudest and MOST SEEN (or unseen...) replies due to the low effort alignment with the popular opinion at the time.

Although the internet seems more real everyday, I truly believe it's never been further from reality. No one is truly able to say what they want due to the (seemingly) dire consequences of saying "F*ck it" and stating your true opinion (which isn't all the time, but the option no longer exists). And this even applies in the short term. If you aren't banned, you're downvoted (HN, reddit, Lobste.rs, every website with a comment section...) or filtered by an algorithm tuned to keep corporate sponsors and advertisers happy (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube).

Inb4 "If you have opinions that are reprehensible enough to need silenced, you aren't worth being heard" - Give me a break. No one is perfect. Not to put you on trial or put words in your mouth, I just wanted to include that bit.

> Who would struggle to be smart in a society that rewards idiocy and blind alignment to asinine political discourses

I agree with this to a point. A lot of this happens online first, and companies will do whatever they can to align themselves with what's popular online at the time. These companies align to whatever the most virtuous opinion is at the time. To touch on your original point, these few dozen companies can almost be viewed as a microcosm of society as a whole. None of their alignments are real. Maybe that's why you roll your eyes when a big company suddenly aligns to some virtuous "cause" very soon after a viral movement online?

>a society where the loudest opinion is the only one that matters

I agree, but only on the internet. Conversations in real life don't contain upvotes or retweets. Even if people seem to behave this way in real life, everyone has their own thoughts and opinions. This will always be true, because those thoughts and opinions are one of the few things that define a person.

> the richest man in the world is a simple minded moron that acts like a 16yo in the middle of a sugar rush

There seems to be a lack of self awareness in this statement... Do you really believe this? This isn't a snarky post at an attempt to seem condescending either - I'm genuinely interested.

> when they can see that plenty of mediocre adult content creators can earn more in a week than your average office worker in a month

Content creation is NOT easy. Have you ever tried to do it? I know it seems like I'm nitpicking your post, but you seem extremely jaded. If you made a strong effort to take an objective look at the world at large, I promise you would reconsider some of these claims. Or not. But what matters is that you are honest with yourself.

[BlargMcLarg]

>I truly believe it's never been further from reality

The joke is that of all sites, imageboards are probably the only places you'll see real stories called out as fake more than the other way around. Those are also the few places you can be about as real as legally possible, if you're willing to give up your sanity for it.

>I agree, but only on the internet. Conversations in real life don't contain upvotes or retweets

I believe GP is more alluding to how the world overvalues charisma, which is absolutely true. So much importance is put on presentation, social skills and the likes, it's hard to argue we're all saints willing to filter based on information alone. Even democratic voting has surprisingly many similarities to upvote culture, when you think about it.

If it was just conversations we'd have to care about, that'd be one thing. But in a way, this charisma requirement has seeped through the entirety of the world. Partially because even in real life, you're still competing with whatever is available in the other party's hand with a few swipes. Partially because the interconnectivity of today has absolutely exploded options, and humans are brutal enough to filter lesser options.

[Tao332]

Those first couple paragraphs offer a good explanation for why I feel disgust every time someone refers to some part of the internet as a place. People stating that they feel unsafe on Twitter makes about as much sense to me as saying they feel unsafe holding a newspaper.

[daniel-cussen]

At Stanford no less. As long as you obey the dogmas, you can be a moron who lied and cheated her way in and be fine. I think that's enshrined by admissions, one of the edge cases is being extremely left-wing politically active, that'll get you in easy. That's how 10% of the undergraduates are like that, and they're the worst students studying political majors. College admissions is political speech.