[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 83 KB, 566x560, 1289518788001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3099934 No.3099934 [Reply] [Original]

Are those who are less intelligent inherently inferior?

Why or why not?

>> No.3099942

curiosity killed the cat

>> No.3099948

>>3099942
Um... please?

>> No.3099952
File: 5 KB, 158x220, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3099952

yes because they do harm to themselves and other people around them

>> No.3099955

>>3099952
not being exposed to pain just makes someone more impressionable and greedy.

>> No.3099961

>>3099952
>>3099955

I'm not talking about the mentally retarded, I'm talking about people who "aren't exactly Albert Einstein".

A better way to say this is: Are the more intelligent inherently superior to their less intelligent peers?

>> No.3099964

>>3099955
but it could also make a person cynical, selfish, and nihilistic

>> No.3099966
File: 194 KB, 466x466, 1295829971867.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3099966

>>3099934

Depends on what your definition of intelligence is.

>> No.3099967

> inherently inferior
"Inferior" implies judgement, which implies values, or criteria.
Talking about inferiority only makes sense if you first define the criterion by which you can classify someone as inferior.
If you decide to rank people by intelligence, then the smarter are superior by definition.
As it is, your question is meaningless.

>> No.3099972

>>3099961

not answerable. say you and i claim to be smarter than britney spears and thus inherently superior to her.

so we go up and ask her if she thinks we are. she says 'who the hell are you?' and then goes home to her mansion and buys anything she wants, never thinking of us again.

so we could say that we still are, but does it even matter? since only we actually care about it.

>> No.3099973

>>3099961
no, because even the most intelligent people have some flaws, which balances out the whole equation.

>> No.3099982

passing on your genetics is the only thing that matters. didn't you go to school?

>> No.3099984
File: 28 KB, 404x267, 1298660878329.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3099984

>>3099966

To continue,

It could be argued that men who spend all of their time working on their bodies are more intelligent than you because they are more sexually attractive to the opposite sex.

>> No.3099988

>>3099966
oh you

>>3099967
you sound defensive

>> No.3100013

I used to think no, but today really made me question otherwise. I felt like an elitist all day.

>> No.3100025

Depends on values.

It's like saying "is being heavier better?" it lacks context.

If one thinks intelligence is a quality, then yes. Otherwise, just no.

>> No.3100045

>>3099988
Not at all. I am confident that I would do well in such a ranking.
I am just being rational here. You can't talk about inferiority if you can't define it, and you can't define it without using some arbitrary personal value. This is no discussion for a scientist, but for your "inherently inferior" people who will argue over empty words.

>> No.3100051

>implying notions of superiority or inferiority are anything but subjective

also, sage in all fields.

>> No.3100111

Capitalism says they are inferior, while Socialism values effort.

Result = Effort (t) * Ability (real IQ) * Environment (% chance)

>> No.3100125

>>3099934
From a genetic standpoint, not necessarily. From an intellectual's standpoint (who has overcame the barbarianism associated with reproduction), yes.

>> No.3100134

>>3100111
no, socialism devalues intelligence and values arbitrary "equality"