• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Re:People who worship intelligence

  • Author Author AprilR
  • Create date Create date
  • Blog entry read time Blog entry read time 2 min read
I knew of a few people who treat intelligence above any other character trait. My dad was raised in such a family, he was called a retard and that he would not be able to get good marks on the university exams. He still speaks so proudly that he got first place and how that "showed his dad" But it only makes me sad. He did not have to get first place, to prove himself after all.

Intelligence is something you are born with, and it is limited. It is under no one's control. Autistic people, or disabled people in general having to "prove themselves" with their intelligence, the thought of that disgusts me.

I once got called "that girl is not very smart is she" by one of my uncles, whom i suspect also verbally abused my dad the same way. I remember that day clearly, i cried so much afterwards. I felt like i was a disgusting person who should not exist.

Some years later, that uncle had a brain surgery that caused the loss of memory, and most of his brain functions. He was bedridden and had to live with a caregiver afterwards. When i think of this, i feel guilty too. Because i somehow, wanted to prove it to him that intelligence means nothing in this world because it is not certain that you will have it. And later, when something like that happened i felt conflicted. I felt like my anger and sadness that day caused this even though i know it is impossible.

Still i felt sorry for him, and i hope he was in peace when he died a few years later. In the end, everyone is powerless against what fate has in store for them. It made me think that. And shaped my beliefs about such people.

Comments

In my world people valued good looks and confidence above everything. If you were shy and insecure, then you were considered to be pretty low in the pecking order. Sorry, that you went through that, but unfortunately good character is pretty much universally overlooked as inferior to material possessions.
 
Those are also valued in the society i live in. People always praise others over their "social intelligence" I had a coworker who used to brag about her lying skills and how easily she can do it. It baffled me, why would you brag about something like that?

It seems like people don't value things like a good character, virtue and behavior. It is all so strange to me
 
In my current world, people value titles so much that for a degreed professional to be addressed as "Mister", "Missus", or "Miss" (followed by their surname) is considered a vague insult. Instead, the accepted practice is to address (for example) John Smith, the lawyer, as "Attorney Smith". This irks me, as the elevation of professional titles smacks of classist elitism, and being addressed as "Engineer Cryptid" just seems weird.
 
Yes, professional titles are also used a lot here. It is another show of superiority or ego boost for those people.
 
Slime moulds exhibit intelligence, what does that say about intelligence?
(nothing against slime moulds by the way, some of my best friends <dot dot dot>)

I've met so many highly intelligent people who exhibit rank stupidity sometimes, but do it very intelligently! 🙄
It ain't what ya got, it's how you use it that matters.
 
Evidence, please? Links to peer-review journals in microbiology preferred.
I wasn't making a serious empirical argument, but there are studies that show slime moulds can connect points of nutrition with similarly intelligent decisions as the software used for planning efficient transport routes, such as railways and road networks. I can't be bothered to find academic references, in particular because it doesn't matter, it was an arbitrary example - the point was to question what intelligence actually is, or more accurately, what we all defining it as being. It certainly doesn't require self awareness to exhibit intelligence, yet most people link the two inextricably.

If you want to fact find for yourself I'm sure you'll find something among the hits for "slime moulds show appearance of intelligence" in duckduckgo.
 
You "can't be bothered", eh?

Why not just admit you don't know what you're talking about instead?
 
So I guess you too "couldn't be bothered" to look for yourself then?
Or did you take the time and find something to show I don't know what I'm talking about?

To say I'm wrong is one thing, but to say I don't know what I'm talking about without saying what and why just seems rather discourteous.

Evidence, please? Links to peer-review journals in microbiology preferred.
If you are familiar with microbiology that you can fully understand journal publications, then I would imagine you could trash any conjectures I may have with ease, and if you so sure you know I'm wrong, advance the discussion with an empirical argument against my ideas.

But if you go back to my previous comment, I actually just asked a question based on well recorded behaviour, nothing more. Are you saying that this behaviour does not constitute intelligence?
Cool! Let's hear your argument then, rather than just a personal put down? Don't just tell me I'm wrong, show me why I'm wrong!
(The personal put down's are fine btw, just awfully boring frankly).
 
Elitist? No . . . I'm just one of those weird people who believe that the burden of proof rests solely on the person stating a claim. Otherwise, any claim stated without supporting proof can be dismissed without supporting proof.
 
Elitist? No . . . I'm just one of those weird people who believe that the burden of proof rests solely on the person stating a claim. Otherwise, any claim stated without supporting proof can be dismissed without supporting proof.
State clearly what it is you want proof of if you've really got anything of substance to say.
You're welcome to dislike me all you want, but if you can't even say why I'm wrong, then you're just saying I'm wrong because you're right; so where's your proof?

If you recall, science is more about being able to prove a theory wrong - no theory can be proven right. So maybe explain what your 'burden of proof' is all about. Are you saying every opinion stated here has to have a scientifically explained and peer reviewed 'burden of proof' included, just for you? Wow! I live to serve you, my master!

(BTW, not even sure what Microbiology has to do with the definition of intelligence, maybe you can explain in detail too while ignoring all my questions?).
 
Elitist? No . . . I'm just one of those weird people who believe that the burden of proof rests solely on the person stating a claim. Otherwise, any claim stated without supporting proof can be dismissed without supporting proof.
Oh me oh my they do cry,
That Boogs - he really knows nothing,
And now I'll happily say why,
His ideas need soundly crushing.

He asks a rhetorical question,
But won't provide cast iron proof,
Of something or other not stated,
To demonstrate he knows the truth.

But a question is just invitation,
For others to contribute.
To lay down rational argument,
For evidence based dispute.

How can one 'prove' a question?
That doesn't make sense to me.
If only the critic explained,
Then surely the light I would see!

But sadly I'm just derided,
With no real reason given.
Nothing to show I'm misguided,
And no alternative vision.

Beat me up with intelligence,
Break my arguments thus.
Don't withhold your benevolence,
And deny there's aught to discuss.

But a personal opinion is trite,
With nothing to back it all up.
I call BS, that's right,
Just a storm in a tiny teacup.
 
"Those who attack the questioner reveal their lack of credible answers." -- my Philosophy professor from uni

Everything I have read about slime molds leads me to the conclusion that their food-attraction sense has a similar mechanism as the food-attraction sense among green plants.

Neither slime molds nor green plants have brains or anything resembling a neural network. Both simply grow toward their food sources because that is how they evolved through natural selection -- if a sessile organism grows toward a food source, it lives to produce the next generation of its species. If it do not grow toward its food source, it dies, and the next generation is never produced.

Figure out how the food-attraction sense works in green plants, and you'll likely be well on your way to discovering how the the food-attraction sense in slime molds works.
 
"Those who attack the questioner reveal their lack of credible answers." -- my Philosophy professor from uni
Well, seeing as my initial comment was a question, and you were the one to attack it on a personal basis, are you saying your professors quote referred to you and not I? 🤔
And if you insist that you are the questioner - well, you didn't question me, you just demanded proof of something undefined (or at least you were unwilling to openly define) and declared I was wrong without saying what it was I was wrong about - unless you feel that I in myself am completely wrong about anything and everything?
Which is your choice, but I have no respect for that.

Everything I have read about slime molds leads me to the conclusion that their food-attraction sense has a similar mechanism as the food-attraction sense among green plants.
Well, thank you for some actual content worth reading instead of just abuse without reason (although your oblique comment about your professors quote did have a little taste of not being able to let go of the personal criticisms).

But as I've intimated a few times, my rhetorical question was not to do with microbiology, not was it to do with Slime moulds specifically, but to ask what the nature of intelligence actually is. Slime moulds were just a simple example with which to frame the question, hence not something worthy of wasting time and being side tracked on by burrowing into Microbiology, plus as your demand for 'proof' was undefined and frankly a little rude not to mention I had made no claims, I felt no obligation or motivation "to be bothered" to pander to someone else's demands.
A polite (i.e. not overtly rude) enquiry would have elicited a reasonable response in return from me though.

Just explaining it as 'food attraction' without going into the mechanisms, and how they could relate to the mechanisms that result in what is called intelligence doesn't, to my mind, provide much answer (not that you need to provide an answer, but if you want your 'attacks' to be of worth, then that would help provide substance, imho).
You're dismissing 'food attraction' as being unrelated to intelligence without explaining why that's so.

To my mind, food acquisition is one of the most important survival traits, and that's a very powerful element of evolution. Surely human's ability to use tools and cooperation to increase their food acquisition shows possible intelligence (we've not yet come close to defining what we are even discussed here though - intelligence itself, hence my use of the term 'possible intelligence' just now).
How can the fact some behaviour is related to food acquisition mean it's not related to intelligence? Without a decent argument against, I would be inclined to say it absolutely is the very essence of intelligence (but again, terms are not agreed as to what intelligence actual is, so we can't easily progress a rational argument on that basis).

We respond to external and internally generated stimuli (as do Slime Moulds and most other cellular-based organisms) and have a pre-programmed mechanism to respond to those stimuli.

Maybe you could make an argument that it's complexity that creates intelligence through emergent attribute(s).
Or alternatively argue the effect shown in 'feeding mechanisms' could be not be called intelligence - which seems to be your point, no? But why is that?

But then what about our feeding mechanisms? They may be more complex, but does that mean we show no intelligence when it comes to feeding, or are we different in our feeding algorithms due to our complexity?
Are you saying that our mechanisms of learned and pre-programmed response is intelligence, but in lower orders (lower from an anthropic p.o.v) of life it isn't intelligence even if it uses the same underlying methods (nervous system, neural networks, etc)?

Or are you saying that intelligence can only come about through the use of a neuron-based nervous system? (which is getting nearer the nub of what I was questioning in my original comment). Is it not arrogant for humans to believe only their type of intelligence counts as intelligence?

These are the sort of things I'm more interested in asking about and discussing, and hearing other peoples thoughts on the matter, rather than declarations in black and white terms about what is and isn't intelligence (or more accurately, what does or doesn't exhibit intelligence?) without saying why?

Remember, I didn't actually make any claims about intelligence (or Slime moulds for that matter, despite their being unimportant to the question), rather it was you who did so.
 
Welcome to the new grave world, Neo. :cool:
It is weird because behavior is something under people's control, intelligence is something you are born with, and you did not make an effort to earn it. Bc of this being proud of natural born talent or intelligence does not make sense to me.
 
I went to school with a lot of people who were very immodest and contemptuous. I was treated like I was stupid. Well, I am in some ways. But I can study if I knuckle down.
 
You could probably level a good case at me if over-compensation for Small T traumatic bullying at school. But honestly I just enjoy debate and it's not about winning or dominating for me, it's the learning process.
 
Elitist? No . . . I'm just one of those weird people who believe that the burden of proof rests solely on the person stating a claim. Otherwise, any claim stated without supporting proof can be dismissed without supporting proof.
From my superficial appraisal of the situation:
In a nutshell:

Boogs made a lighter-hearted comment.
You changed the context to a more serious one.

This situation, if accurate, is totally pertinent to the thread subject matter. :cool:
 

Blog entry information

Author
AprilR
Read time
2 min read
Views
784
Comments
30
Last update

More entries in Personal

  • Some sort of rambling
    The world was empty for her. No matter where she looked, there was nothing for the things inside...
  • First day volunteering
    Yesterday was an extremely bizarre, spontaneous and unorganized day. These days I am looking a...
  • I've Been Trying to be A Person Lately.
    This week I'm pet sitting for the daughter of my mom's friend. She's about 10 years older than...
  • Lost
    I am without many words lately. Confused once more about how to continue. I have answers to my...
  • Self hatred
    Good things come to those who wait. I hope this is true. I hope when my life ends i dont feel...

More entries from AprilR

Share this entry

Top Bottom