"Human stupidity"

[Snakez]

We are stupid for questioning if we are stupid.

[Lily Crowley]

Humans are stupid, period.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Fair enough, but I was only using it as a throwaway example to illustrate how the processes of natural selection and evolution can affect humanity in ways not related to intelligence. For my purposes, the example didn't need to be watertight.

My point remains simply that intelligence is not necessarily a positive trait from an evolutionary perspective. Forget all the "intelligence got us where we are today" statements, thats not my point. My point is simply that I personally have not yet found an argument that intelligence is undeniably a trait which is conducive to further evolution.

Well, even so, would your argument even prove a point other than that traits other than intelligent can be positive traits?

As for intelligence being a positive evolutionary trait, how this: Intelligence allowed us to utilize fire to cook our food, allowing our bodies to spend less energy on digestion, which helped to conserve energy for use on heating our body in winter and also allowed our brains to evolve. Don't forget using fire to keep us warm.

I agree with the argument that it makes us more likely to survive longer and thus evolve by continuing to breed. However, I believe this is what marks intelligence as an emergent evolutionary trait, rather than a positive trait in the long term. There is no denying that intelligence got us to where we are today, my assertion is that it may well result in the ultimate end of our evolutionary process and extinction. Think of it as a honey trap - evolution entices us into developing intelligence by offering longevity and procreation, then we develop enough intelligence to end natural selection, destroy our balanced natural environment, and just maybe blow ourselves up.

I would say that is not intelligence causing our end but other traits, like greed.

[sephrael]

I agree with the argument that it makes us more likely to survive longer and thus evolve by continuing to breed. However, I believe this is what marks intelligence as an emergent evolutionary trait, rather than a positive trait in the long term. There is no denying that intelligence got us to where we are today, my assertion is that it may well result in the ultimate end of our evolutionary process and extinction. Think of it as a honey trap - evolution entices us into developing intelligence by offering longevity and procreation, then we develop enough intelligence to end natural selection, destroy our balanced natural environment, and just maybe blow ourselves up.

That's a pretty compelling argument. I don't really have anything else of particular use to add to this discussion, pretty tired as it is - but it's definitely worth considering. I didn't catch that you were citing intellect as an emergent trait earlier, but I was scanning the posts looking for the OP's errors.

---------- Post added 2011-07-01 at 01:05 PM ----------

I would say that is not intelligence causing our end but other traits, like greed.

I'm not so sure that greed is anything but a construct of intelligence, though. I mean.. it's certainly not the absolute definition to say that no other animal possesses it, but I don't really see other animals being particularly greedy (as in, taking resources away from others of its species for no reason outside of hoarding). I'm not really awake enough to back up anything I'm saying outside of an open-ended question, but doesn't it stand to reason that critical parts of our psyche are derived from intelligence in the first place? I suppose you could argue just the same that greed is just a type of alpha behaviour, though.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

That's a pretty compelling argument. I don't really have anything else of particular use to add to this discussion, pretty tired as it is - but it's definitely worth considering. I didn't catch that you were citing intellect as an emergent trait earlier, but I was scanning the posts looking for the OP's errors.

---------- Post added 2011-07-01 at 01:05 PM ----------



I'm not so sure that greed is anything but a construct of intelligence, though. I mean.. it's certainly not the absolute definition to say that no other animal possesses it, but I don't really see other animals being particularly greedy (as in, taking resources away from others of its species for no reason outside of hoarding). I'm not really awake enough to back up anything I'm saying outside of an open-ended question, but doesn't it stand to reason that critical parts of our psyche are derived from intelligence in the first place? I suppose you could argue just the same that greed is just a type of alpha behaviour, though.

Maybe not greed as much as desire, though they're basically the same. Give a monkey an orgasm machine and he'll press the button until he dies. Furthermore, I would argue that any trait that extends the life of a species is a positive one, regardless of whether that trait also causes the end as well.

[Deleted]

Well, even so, would your argument even prove a point other than that traits other than intelligent can be positive traits?

I'm not trying to prove a point tbh, just bringing up something I find interesting. I'm not convinced of my own argument yet, I just haven't found a compelling argument against it. If intelligence is (ultimately) a self-destructive trait, it could certainly explain why we haven't found any traces of superior intellects roaming around the galaxy as of yet.

As for intelligence being a positive evolutionary trait, how this: Intelligence allowed us to utilize fire to cook our food, allowing our bodies to spend less energy on digestion, which helped to conserve energy for use on heating our body in winter and also allowed our brains to evolve. Don't forget using fire to keep us warm.

I think this is my fault for not explaining myself correctly. I consider all these things to be what makes intelligence an evolutionary trait. It was successful as an idea, so it advanced. That makes perfect sense. When I refer to a positive evolutionary trait, I mean in terms of something which is conducive to evolution over a long term - ie not a dead end. If you examined a (theoretical) family tree going back millions of years, you would come across many large trunk-like branches which have no continuation into modern times. These are the evolutionary dead ends - the species that developed an evolutionary trait which started out promisingly but ultimately couldn't make it big (or in the case of the dinosaurs, possibly made it too big, har har). The question is, is intelligence a long term winner or a soon-to-be has-been?

I would say that is not intelligence causing our end but other traits, like greed.

I don't know about that. Behaviourally, greed is a strong evolutionary trait. I can see how it can be considered to affect society negatively, but I don't see it as an evolutionary dead-end... I am always open to be convinced though.

[Knight Gil]

I hear this a lot, that humans in general are stupid. Albert Einstein even has a famous quote about it.

Did you stop and think to yourself before this came out of your mouth? First of all, you are a human yourself. Second, humans are the most intelligent animal on the planet.

Are humans stupid? Definitely not. Can they be extremely ignorant sometimes? Yes, this type of thinking illustrates that.

Humans are stupid. The men is indeed the most intelligent animal on the planet. The problem is, most people don't use the species' abilities to the fullest. No, most people are ignorant, and don't care about being ignorant.

[Beeflord]

most people are ignorant, and don't care about being ignorant.

I think we have a winner

[Snakez]

You think that we are stupid for being ignorant? Woah, you guys really don't understand the thing.



Einstein: /facepalm

[Hraklea]

There are different types of intelligence, and you're failing because you're talking like "inteligent" and "stupid" are a dicotomy, when it is not. Newton was a genious for what he did in math, physics, etc., but he was a retarded for believing in alchemy.

When we talk about human stupidity, we are not talking in general, but in some particular aspect of intelligence, like blind selfishness (not to realize that it would be better for everybody, including the selfish, not to be selfish).

[Elim Garak]

Humans as a species are smart, but there are a lot of human individuals who are stupid.

[Desminn]

does anyone else find it ironic that the only people making valid arguments and points are the ones saying the there are indeed variations of stupid people....

while the people who say that people cannot be stupid are spouting off one liner rebuttals and simply just asking everyone else to prove themselves rather than providing acctual informed arguments....

food for thought.

[grothezk]

What do you mean, taking it literally? Stupidity means having low intelligence. I wasn't aware it meant something else.

You are making it sound like it was a disease or a mental problem, when it actually isn't. If you go with such generalizations such as human (and by that you are referring to ALL HUMANS ON EARTH), how did you measured their inteligence?. Just because the people around you -or even those you see on tv or mess up with you over the internet- act different than you doesn't make them stupid. just different.

How would you measure how imbecile a person is?. Answer: you can't. And so stupidity. One either does smart or 'normal' stuff or don't. According to our society and mental structures someone that doesn't act like the collective is simply a wack-o, a moron, a fool...you name it, someone not normal because he's not like the rest.

[Myrrar]

Well, this thread did well...

"Stupid is as stupid does"