rustymaker5 said:If that painter is actually making decent money, I have to wonder if he’s—well, maybe—not all that bright. And if a gardener can't make a living from their hand-crafted work, created with such care...
I suppose intelligence doesn't really have much to do with love. Love is a feeling, whereas being smart is something else entirely.
Intelligence might be separate from love, sure, but does money actually correlate with happiness? And honestly, what good is all the money in the world to that painter if he isn't happy? Besides, I'm not quite sure what would need to change for a gardener to finally be able to live off of the things they create with so much heart.
That seems like the logical sequence of events, yet we find ourselves witnessing the exact opposite.
If you take a closer look at the world around us, I think you could argue that many skilled tradespeople are actually far more resourceful than your typical computer nerd.
p.s. For truly intelligent people, physical labor and mental exertion aren't mutually exclusive—they actually complement one another. People who focus solely on the mental aspect, or purely on the physical, don't really strike me as whole or even healthy individuals. We often hear the phrase "a sound mind in a sound body," but I suppose people repeat it so frequently they've forgotten what it’s actually supposed to mean.
So, those who neglect their bodies while pushing their minds to the limit will likely end up unhealthy. The same goes for those who ignore their intellect and only focus on physical training. The ideal, in my view, is Arnold Schwarzenegger in that movie where he plays the twin brother to that little Italian guy. A true Renaissance man.
Lisa Rodriguez84 said:You have a point there. If everyone were actually smart, nobody would want to do any manual labor—everyone would just be chasing those "mental" roles... and then everything would just fall apart.
That is an interesting way you framed that. The idea that if everyone were smart, no one would want to work, and we’d all just be aiming for intellectual careers.
So, by that logic, mental—or rather, intellectual—jobs aren't really considered "work."
But, I suppose I have to ask: what makes you conclude that people in intellectual fields are inherently smarter than those doing physical labor?
The metric I tend to use is whether someone truly understands their own abilities and acts in alignment with them. To me, an incompetent painter—someone who isn't actually putting emotion onto the canvas but is just churning out products designed to sell—is much less intelligent than a skilled carpenter or a gardener who performs their craft with genuine insight and passion.
wanderingdrifter46 said:Are these roles just things imposed on us by the passage of time—or maybe something else entirely? And I wonder, what does any of that actually have to do with intelligence? You’re essentially sharing this role with millions of others—just following the established norms and playing by the rules that have already been set...
And where is the actual sense of self-fulfillment in all this—that kind of bohemian audacity required to just step forward, simply because you’ve decided to shed the camouflage? Artificial. It feels like we’re constantly hitting the ceiling of our own cognitive limits—sort of like being trapped by the inherent boundaries of our own intellect. I guess there's just a certain threshold to how much any one person can truly grasp or process at once. It's a bit of a humbling thought, really—that we're all essentially working within the constraints of our own mental capacity.
That is exactly the point I’m trying to make—it really comes down to that.
The constraints I'm talking about—they aren't some arbitrary set of rules, nor were they just forced upon us by the passage of time.
Those limitations are really just the reality of things—they exist because, at the end of the day, we're only human. We are inherently limited by our own bodies, and I guess you could even say by ourselves.
I suppose there are ways to step outside the boundaries we're given—to push against those predefined limits—but I feel like we always have to keep our own personal constraints in mind while doing it. I mean, if you think about it—we can technically breathe underwater, provided we bring an oxygen tank along with us. Well, it looks like we’re facing yet another round of those restrictions—which, if we’re being honest, are really just an extension of the old ones—the kind of stuff we could have actually learned about back during Baywatch. I suppose we can only stay underwater for as long as there’s oxygen left in our tanks. One shouldn't just rush in headfirst—it’s probably better to avoid making any sudden moves. You really have to stay mindful of those underwater hazards—the kind that can trap you and just... prevent you from surfacing. It’s easy to overlook, I guess, but being careful about what's lurking beneath the surface is everything if you want to make it back up for air. So, I suppose those restrictions are still hanging over us—which, honestly, probably makes sense to follow. Of course—that kind of logic only really works for people whose primary goal is simple survival. I suppose if someone prioritizes something else entirely, then their definition of what is "smart" shifts to match that new objective. It’s all relative, I guess.
rustymaker5 said:I suppose any intelligent person feels a need to have their intellect recognized and validated by others. After all, external recognition serves as a sort of final seal on the achievements of someone striving to build themselves up in the best way possible. Anyone claiming otherwise—well, they're probably just kidding themselves.
rustymaker5, Annie 😘 👋 👋 😘 👏 👏 👏 She really is quite wise, isn't she?
So, let's see what my great (though perhaps overly dramatic) mentor has to say about this:
Damir Barbarić said:A certain amount of recognition is necessary for anyone. A total lack of it can easily breed resentment or resignation—much like how excessive "fame" can quickly lead one toward shallow vanity and a rather superficial disposition.
Quinn:
But then again, all the intelligence in the world isn't necessarily the key to happiness. Though, that's a whole different conversation, isn't it?
I certainly hope you aren't expecting me to start an entirely new thread... regarding what actually makes a person happy. hmmmmmm Then again, maybe we could dive into that too.
What is the actual cost of being unaware of your own limitations?
Do boundaries even exist if you aren't conscious of them?
p.s. That whole thing about not being able to hold your breath underwater—that’s just one example of a boundary you might be oblivious to, yet it remains very much real. If you ignore that limitation, you're essentially putting your life at risk. The same logic applies to driving, too. For instance, if you overestimate your skills behind the wheel, you might end up in a ditch. It’s the same story when it comes to drinking. If you overdo it, you’ll likely end up in a ditch as well. And honestly, this goes for a million other things—situations where I would go so far as to say it is both useful and wise to know your limits and act accordingly.
I’m not really talking about exceptions here—I’m talking about the rules.
So, I'm not interested in discussing people with autism, or eccentric scientists, or even mass shooters. What I actually care about is what being intelligent means for those of us who are just average—and whether being smart, or even just appearing and sounding smart, actually matters as much as I seem to think it does.
That said, I don't think having an awareness of your own limitations is such a foolish thing to do. The reality is—whether you want to admit it or not—you have boundaries. You have certain capacities that you simply cannot exceed. And even if you aren't aware of those limits, they still exist. For instance, you still can't breathe underwater, regardless of what you believe. Being unaware of your own constraints might only help you in the sense that it gives you the courage to try more things. If that brings you any satisfaction, then by all means, go ahead.
So, if we’re going by your logic, what would you say is a better way to define intelligence? I mean, who actually qualifies as being smart? And how exactly does having an awareness of one's own limitations preclude someone from being intelligent?
wanderingdrifter46 said:Knowing your limits and acting accordingly—that's basically just self-sabotage, which I don't think is particularly smart.
I honestly can't think of anything closer to wisdom than understanding who you are and acting in alignment with what you're actually capable of. For instance, if you know you wouldn't survive a jump from a five-hundred-foot cliff, you don't jump off the cliff. Is there anything foolish about that?
Or is it just "self-limiting"?
I think you might be overlooking one key thing—the fact that a human being is never really a "finished product" (at least not until they die), and our capabilities are constantly shifting. Because of that, I believe we should be perpetually working on self-discovery—testing our boundaries and upgrading our skills—which naturally pushes those boundaries further out. But, at the same time, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we aren't infinite beings. Being aware of your own limitations isn't necessarily self-sabotage; maybe it's just true self-awareness.
Let’s set aside the nonsense for a moment. This thread wasn't really intended to be a platform for everyone to air their personal opinions about themselves—it was meant to help us actually dig into the concept of intelligence.
So, here we are, discussing intelligence. It’s supposedly one of those crucial traits, isn't it? I suppose when someone is described as intelligent, most people instinctively start nodding in approval—up and down, obviously, since we tend to associate upward motion with positive things—and offering compliments. And conversely, if someone is labeled as unintelligent, you see the head-shaking—left to right, naturally, as we link that motion to negative things—and the scowling.
But why is that the case?
Furthermore, why is being smart considered so vital, especially if we consider that true intelligence might just mean understanding your own limitations and acting accordingly? Do you all even agree with that definition of intelligence?
I really should have just voted for the second option right from the start.
It turns out you can't go back and add another selection, even though this poll was set up for multiple choices.
Well, shoot.
I suppose this is a lesson for all of us, I guess. Now I’ll probably be stuck being known as the guy who made a silly mistake for the rest of my life. I think I'll head down to the local pub—I definitely need a drink after such a blunder.
Would you be so kind as to actually click 'no' once in a while?
It really matters to me—mostly because I've noticed a surge of people who just reflexively hit 'yes.' It seems like those who actually think for themselves feel pressured to go along with the crowd, fearing they'll look foolish if they don't follow the pack. But honestly, our group's average is pretty incredible. We’re basically a collection of geniuses here.
p.s. Have you noticed how women suddenly start acting so incredibly brilliant? Everyone becomes an expert all of a sudden. I truly feel for their husbands...
Constantine said:I wouldn't call myself unintelligent in other areas—it's just that I'm not exactly an expert in everything. When it comes to movies, for instance, you really need a memory for reciting quotes, specific scenes, titles, actors, their biographies, soundtracks, and all that sort of thing.
But, I suppose, memory isn't quite the same thing as intelligence.
I know people who have perfect memories, yet most people would probably still describe them as lacking intelligence.
In my view, true intelligence regarding film would be more about being able to properly interpret the underlying messages of a movie. Can you actually do that?
And besides, why do we assume that someone who is intelligent in one area is automatically an expert in it?
For example, a professor of mine once mentioned that his smartest move in life was deciding not to attend art school—he realized later on that he simply didn't have the talent for painting, even though he loves doing it. So, being smart doesn't necessarily mean being an expert at something. Rather, maybe it’s more about understanding your own abilities and acting accordingly.
but you also come across as a bit dim when it comes to other things—so, I suppose it might be a good idea to click 'no' just for that reason alone.
p.s. (and I’m not asking this to be dismissive or anything, I just genuinely have to ask) what exactly does intelligence even have to do with watching movies?
On one thread recently, the conversation drifted toward how my own cognitive settings might be somewhat... lacking.
Having been shaken out of my usual comfort zone—and my misplaced confidence in my own absolute intellect (I managed a solid 62 on an IQ test, after all)—I’ve started questioning things.
And I mean the worst kind of questions.
Why?
What is the point of intelligence, anyway?
Why does being smart even matter?
Does any value hold up when faced with mistakes? Or rather, can someone who never makes a mistake truly be considered intelligent?
What does it actually mean to "be smart"?
And there's one last question, which feels a bit more personal: who is the one who possesses this intelligence? (Feel free to share whether you consider yourself intelligent, or if you think someone else is—though please, let's stick to public figures, like an unnamed politician or a former President, rather than calling each other names here.)
Arthur Ruiz2 said:Among Americans, it's common knowledge, that circumcisions are done in the shape of an H.
👍 Of course people know. I honestly didn't think you were such a die-hard supporter of the Republican Party. And—more importantly—I really didn't expect someone to openly campaign for a specific political party right here on a forum. I suppose I might have to start doing the same.
Anyway, this whole idea about us being circumcised in the shape of an H is just nonsense.
Everyone knows that Americans are actually circumcised in the shape of a U. At least we Americans with a capital A do.
