1
1990Domer
Guest
Darryl Hannah is the perfect example. Genius and a bit Aspie…and a looker.
- Status
K
Kelfa28
Guest
Any degree involving Science, Technology, Engineering or Mathematics.
1
1990Domer
Guest
Oh…that’d be me. Duh. Never knew. Chem geek!
E
E_7
Guest
X
Xantippe
Guest
So, what are your grounds for disagreeing with my statement that “If people are too stupid, they can’t follow you”?
I gave an argument based on my experience as a parent and common sense. What do you have?
U
UbiCaritas
Guest
If you disagree, perhaps you could provide an alternate point of view? Why, for example, would less intelligent or competent people be easier to lead?
Let me give you an example: American military service tradition versus pre-Fall-of-the-Iron-Curtain Russian military service tradition.
American service personnel are generally encouraged in the pursuit of knowledge as relates to their career area, and are (generally) rewarded accordingly in the services. Someone who starts off at the very bottom tier of mechanics, for example, isn’t going to be told that his job is to change the oil on a jeep, period. He’ll be encouraged to learn about how engines work, why changing the oil is important, why tires being rotated regularly is important, how an internal-combustion engine works, and so on. If he demonstrates skill, maturity, and a willingness to learn, the Army/Navy/Marines will notice this, and will (again, generally) offer him more opportunities to learn: classes he can take, the promise of promotion for competence, and so on. There’s a strong tradition of self-improvement in the US service, and in the US at large, a sort of “if you’re willing to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, the sky’s your limit, go for it” attitude.
In comparison, Russian submariners were not encouraged to know anything at all about the boats on which they served, or about anything beyond the very narrow scope of knowledge they needed in order to perform the particular task to which they were assigned. As a society, pre-fall Russia frowned on self-education: if the State determined that you were going to be a torpedo-loader, second class, then you’d better not have any ideas about how to load that torpedo better, faster, or more efficiently, much less about how to clear a clogged torpedo tube without blowing the ship up in the process. That wasn’t your job or your area, comrade–are you trying to take away Seaman Petrov’s job? And most Soviet enlisted submariners had a fairly minimal education at best, so even if they wanted to broaden their minds, they couldn’t–they simply hadn’t the background.
As a result, there were a lot of problems in the Russian military. For example, it happened that only their officers had the education or qualification to do even simple repairs on a ship. As a result, you could have only two or three people on board who were capable of, for example, doing anything from basic welding to diagnostic procedures on a nuclear reactor. There are some very nasty stories about the result of that idea.
One more observation. There’s a longstanding tradition at a number of both US and Western European service academies. A young student, a would-be officer, is brought into a room and faces a panel of instructors. The instructors explain to him that he has a nice, big pile of equipment (ropes, pulleys, shovels and the like), a small unit of soldiers, commanded by an NCO sergeant, and the necessity of raising a flagpole. The point is for the would-be officer to solve that problem.
Option A would be for the officer to detail every single order he might give in the process of raising a flagpole: “Sergeant, do this. Corporal, do that. Etc.”
Option B–the correct option–is for the officer to give just one order. “Sergeant, I expect to see that flagpole raised by 1600 hours. Is that understood?”
Option A would be how the pre-Fall Soviet officer would have to handle the situation, and a massive waste of his time it would be, too. Option B presumes that the sergeant is reasonably intelligent and competent and could solve this simple exercise in engineering while his commanding officer sorts out something that requires his attention–be that a very large cup of coffee
, a stack of dispatches, or a battle strategy.In short, having intelligent, well-educated people in your command make your job easier. A Russian officer would be threatened by intelligent, well-educated subordinates, while an American officer (ideally, at least) would welcome such subordinates because you can get a great deal more accomplished if you aren’t the chief cook, bottle-washer, commanding officer, and deck-welder all rolled into one.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Don’t feel bad–it’s a pretty new term.
X
Xantippe
Guest
That’s very good.If you disagree, perhaps you could provide an alternate point of view? Why, for example, would less intelligent or competent people be easier to lead?
Let me give you an example: American military service tradition versus pre-Fall-of-the-Iron-Curtain Russian military service tradition.
American service personnel are generally encouraged in the pursuit of knowledge as relates to their career area, and are (generally) rewarded accordingly in the services. Someone who starts off at the very bottom tier of mechanics, for example, isn’t going to be told that his job is to change the oil on a jeep, period. He’ll be encouraged to learn about how engines work, why changing the oil is important, why tires being rotated regularly is important, how an internal-combustion engine works, and so on. If he demonstrates skill, maturity, and a willingness to learn, the Army/Navy/Marines will notice this, and will (again, generally) offer him more opportunities to learn: classes he can take, the promise of promotion for competence, and so on. There’s a strong tradition of self-improvement in the US service, and in the US at large, a sort of “if you’re willing to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, the sky’s your limit, go for it” attitude.
In comparison, Russian submariners were not encouraged to know anything at all about the boats on which they served, or about anything beyond the very narrow scope of knowledge they needed in order to perform the particular task to which they were assigned. As a society, pre-fall Russia frowned on self-education: if the State determined that you were going to be a torpedo-loader, second class, then you’d better not have any ideas about how to load that torpedo better, faster, or more efficiently, much less about how to clear a clogged torpedo tube without blowing the ship up in the process. That wasn’t your job or your area, comrade–are you trying to take away Seaman Petrov’s job? And most Soviet enlisted submariners had a fairly minimal education at best, so even if they wanted to broaden their minds, they couldn’t–they simply hadn’t the background.
As a result, there were a lot of problems in the Russian military. For example, it happened that only their officers had the education or qualification to do even simple repairs on a ship. As a result, you could have only two or three people on board who were capable of, for example, doing anything from basic welding to diagnostic procedures on a nuclear reactor. There are some very nasty stories about the result of that idea.
One more observation. There’s a longstanding tradition at a number of both US and Western European service academies. A young student, a would-be officer, is brought into a room and faces a panel of instructors. The instructors explain to him that he has a nice, big pile of equipment (ropes, pulleys, shovels and the like), a small unit of soldiers, commanded by an NCO sergeant, and the necessity of raising a flagpole. The point is for the would-be officer to solve that problem.
Option A would be for the officer to detail every single order he might give in the process of raising a flagpole: “Sergeant, do this. Corporal, do that. Etc.”
Option B–the correct option–is for the officer to give just one order. “Sergeant, I expect to see that flagpole raised by 1600 hours. Is that understood?”
Option A would be how the pre-Fall Soviet officer would have to handle the situation, and a massive waste of his time it would be, too. Option B presumes that the sergeant is reasonably intelligent and competent and could solve this simple exercise in engineering while his commanding officer sorts out something that requires his attention–be that a very large cup of coffee
In short, having intelligent, well-educated people in your command make your job easier. A Russian officer would be threatened by intelligent, well-educated subordinates, while an American officer (ideally, at least) would welcome such subordinates because you can get a great deal more accomplished if you aren’t the chief cook, bottle-washer, commanding officer, and deck-welder all rolled into one.
I’d add that there was a rational basis to the cultural difference, as the Russian enlisted man was typically a 2-year draftee. Furthermore, the reason why he had been drafted was typically that he wasn’t smart enough or well-connected enough to escape the draft. (I taught high school in Russia during the war in Chechnya–I’m actually surprised that the Russian military managed to draft anybody at all–there were a million dodges–get into college, any college, fake a medical complaint, etc.) So, it was rational for Russian officers to assume that the 18-20 year old enlisted men they were dealing with were well-below average in intelligence and very, very low in motivation.
Back from that walk down memory lane–good leaders know that they get more out of the people under their command by being flexible and allowing lots of room for initiative and room for the person under command to grow. That’s how I am trying to approach parenting and a fortiori, a spouse deserves at least as much respect as a child.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Prejudice and insecurity aren’t nearly this logical. Of course a secure and competent leader wants to lead the best people. An insecure leader , OTOH, fears having his own incompetence discovered, and would rather have people under him he thinks he can fool or blame when things inevitably go wrong. He is threatened by and resents anybody who is clearly more competent than he is, whether above or below.If you disagree, perhaps you could provide an alternate point of view? Why, for example, would less intelligent or competent people be easier to lead?
Let me give you an example: American military service tradition versus pre-Fall-of-the-Iron-Curtain Russian military service tradition.
American service personnel are generally encouraged in the pursuit of knowledge as relates to their career area, and are (generally) rewarded accordingly in the services. Someone who starts off at the very bottom tier of mechanics, for example, isn’t going to be told that his job is to change the oil on a jeep, period. He’ll be encouraged to learn about how engines work, why changing the oil is important, why tires being rotated regularly is important, how an internal-combustion engine works, and so on. If he demonstrates skill, maturity, and a willingness to learn, the Army/Navy/Marines will notice this, and will (again, generally) offer him more opportunities to learn: classes he can take, the promise of promotion for competence, and so on. There’s a strong tradition of self-improvement in the US service, and in the US at large, a sort of “if you’re willing to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, the sky’s your limit, go for it” attitude.
In comparison, Russian submariners were not encouraged to know anything at all about the boats on which they served, or about anything beyond the very narrow scope of knowledge they needed in order to perform the particular task to which they were assigned. As a society, pre-fall Russia frowned on self-education: if the State determined that you were going to be a torpedo-loader, second class, then you’d better not have any ideas about how to load that torpedo better, faster, or more efficiently, much less about how to clear a clogged torpedo tube without blowing the ship up in the process. That wasn’t your job or your area, comrade–are you trying to take away Seaman Petrov’s job? And most Soviet enlisted submariners had a fairly minimal education at best, so even if they wanted to broaden their minds, they couldn’t–they simply hadn’t the background.
As a result, there were a lot of problems in the Russian military. For example, it happened that only their officers had the education or qualification to do even simple repairs on a ship. As a result, you could have only two or three people on board who were capable of, for example, doing anything from basic welding to diagnostic procedures on a nuclear reactor. There are some very nasty stories about the result of that idea.
One more observation. There’s a longstanding tradition at a number of both US and Western European service academies. A young student, a would-be officer, is brought into a room and faces a panel of instructors. The instructors explain to him that he has a nice, big pile of equipment (ropes, pulleys, shovels and the like), a small unit of soldiers, commanded by an NCO sergeant, and the necessity of raising a flagpole. The point is for the would-be officer to solve that problem.
Option A would be for the officer to detail every single order he might give in the process of raising a flagpole: “Sergeant, do this. Corporal, do that. Etc.”
Option B–the correct option–is for the officer to give just one order. “Sergeant, I expect to see that flagpole raised by 1600 hours. Is that understood?”
Option A would be how the pre-Fall Soviet officer would have to handle the situation, and a massive waste of his time it would be, too. Option B presumes that the sergeant is reasonably intelligent and competent and could solve this simple exercise in engineering while his commanding officer sorts out something that requires his attention–be that a very large cup of coffee
In short, having intelligent, well-educated people in your command make your job easier. A Russian officer would be threatened by intelligent, well-educated subordinates, while an American officer (ideally, at least) would welcome such subordinates because you can get a great deal more accomplished if you aren’t the chief cook, bottle-washer, commanding officer, and deck-welder all rolled into one.
Some people, however, merely avoid those with very different intellectual gifts because they’ve been embarrassed by show-offs who have mastered things they know nothing about. It doesn’t take much of that to make someone gun-shy. Others assume they’ll bore a smarter person or won’t have anything to talk about or any way to communicate.
F
Faxero
Guest
:nope: I wasn’t joking.
I assume you were joking – it is bizarre, though, how many people do actually think leaders are supposed to be male.
Scripture is quite clear that Men are to be leaders. My personal sensibilities incline me to believe that a proper spouse would be less intelligent than I am. She must certainly be intelligent, no doubt, but not more than myself.
I’m not trying to sound misogynistic . If you are offended, than note the key term: ‘personal sensibilities’. I am aware of my feelings not being facts.
:newidea: Have you heard of the theory of multiple intelligences? It adds credibility to your argument.
skyview.vansd.org/lschmidt/Projects/The%20Nine%20Types%20of%20Intelligence.htm
A well-rounded family would possess all 9 intelligences, divided between each family member. For example (post #42 on page 3), E_7’s existential intelligence may be high, while her husband’s existential intelligence may be low. (possible proof in 1st paragraph)
Despite her husband not understanding the intellectual significance of the Church and morals, his academic intelligences (degrees) are apparently higher than his wife’s, who reveals her lowered level of understanding in academic topics, such as behavioral modeling, thus revealing herself to have lower intelligence in such areas.
In addition, some persons seem willing to disregard some types of intelligences in order to focus on others. Kelfa28, for example (post #38).
Here, Kelfa28 seems to emphasis the importance of intra-personal intelligence, while downgrading the importance of intelligences required for doing well in tests. If her husband also downgraded the importance of academic intelligence, then the family would have burdened by a certain weakness. Yet, they each focus on different strengths, covering each other and expanding their range of possibilities.My story was just for a laugh. It happened but in no way did my husband marry me because he thought he has a higher intelligence level or whatever.
He should have know better anyway…we’ve both taken the ASVAB test…which is the military’s equivalent of the IQ test.
I scored higher then he did. Not that much higher, we both qualify for every job the Air Force can offer, but my score is about 5 points above his.
He knew this before we got married and married me anyway…
In truth…responsibility and maturity are far more important. Lightyears more important in my opinion.
Once again, a well-rounded family would possess all 9 intelligences, divided between each family member. The father may be particularly proficient at mathematical calculations, yet sorely lacking in common sense. If the wife has a high level of practical intelligence, yet lacking mathematical ability, than her strength compensates her husband’s weakness, and her husband’s strength compensates her weaknesses.
This is significant, as it helps maintain harmony within the family, as well as the balance of power. As long as the husband and wife help compensate each other’s weaknesses, they remain bonded together. In addition, they may become theoretically invincible, in the sense where they may be reasonable prepared for any possible situation.
By the same note, children can also help compensate for their parent’s weaknesses, simply by enhancing their own intelligences and focusing on the branches of intelligences which are in close alignment with their own strengths.
The family unit will only become stronger, should all of its weaknesses be compensated for.
Hence why it’s important for the husband and wife to be equally intelligent, or on similar levels of intelligence, with their strengths and weaknesses covering different areas.
Although 87’s reasoning seems simple, it may reveal deep possibilities.
K
Kelfa28
Guest
I never said I had a weakness in any area of intelligence or that my husband has a higher level of intra-personality then I do.
Actually, I don’t know…as far as I am a aware, there is no objective way to measure intra-personality.
But I do believe the success of a marriage is completely dependent on each spouse’s level of intra-personality.
The maturity level to handle finances, hold down a job and raise children should be reasonably high.
As far as I’m aware…this level of intelligence comes from life experience. One develops it over time.
Objectively speaking…I happen to be more intelligent then my husband. We know this because it’s been measured objectively more then once.
However…outward appearances are deceiving. You’d never be able to truly tell this fact by looking at us.
If one were to look at our stats…and have a brief conversation with us…one would reasonably assume that he is more intelligent.
He finished his degree first, he has progressed to a much higher pay-grade in the military then I have (though he is the bread-winner and has had the opportunity to progress), he is eloquent and well-read…while I’m a little more scatter-brained and rough around the edges.
We married each other because we are about as close to equal as we could see in a subjective manner…based on every level of intelligence that we could perceive.
We dated and discerned and got married. We are truly equals and he isn’t my teacher, parent or leader.
He is just my husband and we submit to each other. I don’t blindly submit to him in every aspect of our lives or marriage.
I’m not entirely sure how you would go about verifying your belief that a women you choose to marry is less intelligent…besides your own personal opinion.
Would you require her to take an intelligence test?
What happens if she was actually smarter then you?
Would you dump her to find a wife who was dumber?
Why is it so important that you need to be the undisputed leader within your marriage besides your interpretation of scripture…is it an ego thing?
The Church emphasizes that husband and wife must mutually submit to each other.
What is your take on this statement?
S
Sarcelle
Guest
S
Sarcelle
Guest
X
Xantippe
Guest
Come to think of it, there was a sarcastic saying back when I worked in Russia: Ya nachal’nik, ty durak (I’m the boss, you’re an idiot). The meaning of that was, since I’m the boss, I know everything and can’t possibly learn anything from you, the employee, who happens to be doing the job and knows all the particular details of the situation.
It’s not a very functional style of management.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
Are you married? If you are will you tell your wife that one of the reasons you chose her was that she was less intelligent than you?:nope: I wasn’t joking.
Scripture is quite clear that Men are to be leaders. My personal sensibilities incline me to believe that a proper spouse would be less intelligent than I am. She must certainly be intelligent, no doubt, but not more than myself.
I’m not trying to sound misogynistic . If you are offended, than note the key term: ‘personal sensibilities’. I am aware of my feelings not being facts.
:newidea: Have you heard of the theory of multiple intelligences? It adds credibility to your argument.
skyview.vansd.org/lschmidt/Projects/The%20Nine%20Types%20of%20Intelligence.htm
A well-rounded family would possess all 9 intelligences, divided between each family member. For example (post #42 on page 3), E_7’s existential intelligence may be high, while her husband’s existential intelligence may be low. (possible proof in 1st paragraph)
Despite her husband not understanding the intellectual significance of the Church and morals, his academic intelligences (degrees) are apparently higher than his wife’s, who reveals her lowered level of understanding in academic topics, such as behavioral modeling, thus revealing herself to have lower intelligence in such areas.
In addition, some persons seem willing to disregard some types of intelligences in order to focus on others. Kelfa28, for example (post #38).
Here, Kelfa28 seems to emphasis the importance of intra-personal intelligence, while downgrading the importance of intelligences required for doing well in tests. If her husband also downgraded the importance of academic intelligence, then the family would have burdened by a certain weakness. Yet, they each focus on different strengths, covering each other and expanding their range of possibilities.
Once again, a well-rounded family would possess all 9 intelligences, divided between each family member. The father may be particularly proficient at mathematical calculations, yet sorely lacking in common sense. If the wife has a high level of practical intelligence, yet lacking mathematical ability, than her strength compensates her husband’s weakness, and her husband’s strength compensates her weaknesses.
This is significant, as it helps maintain harmony within the family, as well as the balance of power. As long as the husband and wife help compensate each other’s weaknesses, they remain bonded together. In addition, they may become theoretically invincible, in the sense where they may be reasonable prepared for any possible situation.
By the same note, children can also help compensate for their parent’s weaknesses, simply by enhancing their own intelligences and focusing on the branches of intelligences which are in close alignment with their own strengths.
The family unit will only become stronger, should all of its weaknesses be compensated for.
Hence why it’s important for the husband and wife to be equally intelligent, or on similar levels of intelligence, with their strengths and weaknesses covering different areas.
Although 87’s reasoning seems simple, it may reveal deep possibilities.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Yes. In practice, one of the marks of better intra-personal intelligence is NOT attempting to boss people around.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Yes.
Bear in mind that traditionally, women have been told to dumb themselves down in order to snag a guy.
(I think it does probably work, but what a booby prize for her!)
So, especially if you’re dealing with a woman from a culture or sub-culture where that advice about dumbing down is still operational, you may not be able to figure out that she is actually way, way smarter than you.
Also, come to think of it, there’s the Dunning-Kruger effect–the incompetent don’t realize that they are incompetent.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
P
pensmama87
Guest
I was once advised by my principal (for a temp teaching job) that I might need to be dumber in interviews. He said, “I love it when the teachers who report to me are smarter than me, and you’re definitely smarter than me, but lots of other principals are intimidated by it, especially when you’re young.” It was probably the strangest compliment I ever received. “Playing dumb” is not the thing I’d associate with an interview.
Re: the Dunning-Kruger effect, it’s kind of reassuring to know that even if I feel hopelessly incompetent, it might mean there’s some smidgen of hope for me after all.
K
Kelfa28
Guest
I don’t think he is married but I do hope he tells his girlfriend or future Fiancé this when she asks why he wants to marry her.
I’ve asked my husband why he wanted to Marry me and he said it’s not just because he loves me but he finally found his true equal, someone who compliments him and the only person he knows whom he can drive across the country with and not get bored or ready to kill.
It’s all opinion based. You can’t objectively measure every way a person is intelligent.
He wants to find a girl who is intelligent but not as intelligent as he is.
I’m wondering what criteria needs to be met for him to find success and what methods he’ll use to determine it.
What is the criteria, threshold and method to determine intelligence.
- Status