When do you consider a person smart ?

Kek that's reddit

By what they do and not what they say. Thats the only real measure

Go to Afghanistan, enter a tribal village, and look around if you can. Tell them the universe is not geocentric. Enjoy your stoning. That's people being shaped by traditional culture alone. When they sent OLPC devices to some south-easian villages, the village elders confiscated them some weeks later because the kids started to ask unusual questions, which was considered detrimental to the social order.

Kek, that's not an argument

When they can teach me.

when they abuse me and call me a retard for having a different opinion on something

>this shit "opinion"

fuck off retard

Teach me

>which was considered detrimental to the social order
Might have been so. In any case societies can be willfully ignorant without traditionalism, just look at the west today.
You can't transcend traditionalism, only build upon it.

...

When they're "sharp". That's pretty much the only requirement for being smart, everything else usually follows. "Sharp" people typically have insightful, smart opinions on most things, they grasp things very quickly, and have a broad range of knowledge.

I think the western ignorance we have just now is a transitional state. It would be too lethal as a long-term solution, at will break down in the near future. Real traditional societies are in an Apollonic hell, we are on a Dionysian battlefield.

>Real traditional societies are in an Apollonic hell
What about Japan or China? Saudi Arabia? (sure it has economic problems but it is far from facing a disaster)

China and Japan are changing with high speed (and in the case of Japan the transition was actually completed 50 years ago) because their traditional foundation is not broadly inhibiting change, though they have probably removed some parts of the foundation. But let the Saudi oil run out and they will probably be a desert again.

I have an IQ of 160+, so I'm technically smart, for what technicalities are worth, and I'll say which of these things relate to me. A disclaimer - I'm only 19, and currently majoring in Chemical and Materials Engineering with Minors in English and Philosophy, so I can't say I know much about anything. I'm kind of a pussy in that I majored in something I know I can be (relatively) successful in and minored in areas where I don't believe I'll achieve succes.

100% yes, although believing you don't require guidance is a fool's belief.

Mostly accurate, except for 1, 2, and a bit of 7. Recently, I've tried to get more into what could be considered "serious" or "relevant" music and cinema, because I'm interested in becoming as cultured in those areas as I am in others. Also, regarding 7- I was always very moderate because of my mixed opinions on different issues that don't conform well to the left-right spectrum, but now I'm starting to rethink all of my positions and avoid any certainty because I've come to recognize my lack of understanding in political science.

Definitely agree with your stance on 2 and 3.

In my opinion, intelligence is having a mind that can respond - a brain that will act independently.

>let the Saudi oil run out and they will probably be a desert again.
They're taking steps to be less dependent on oil.
>because their traditional foundation is not broadly inhibiting change
This is an interesting point. I used to wonder why certain highly traditional cultures can succeed while others fail but I guess it's due to reasons other than traditionalism.

It's also genetic. Asians are statistically smarter, though that's not something you should say these days and you only will read it in books from the 50s.

Asians are also less-likely to be extremely intelligent and have a harder time utilizing critical-thinking skills.

>you only will read it in books from the 50s.
There's a reason for that and it's not "muh jewish politically correct propaganda." And I doubt its genetic considering that Qataris and Saudi Arabians managed to achieve success beyond drilling oik.

That's an interesting question, is it better to have a mean IQ of 100 with 4 or 5 people reaching 180 or is it better to have 105 with a bunch of people on 160 ? It's assumed Newton may have been around 200, and look what this single person did.

you guys should check out Taoism if you didn't already

>There's a reason for that and it's not "muh jewish politically correct propaganda."

Let's hear it, pal.

>inb4 "We are all equal! How can you possibly believe that Humans would have meaningful genetic differences with various races/ethnicities having spent millennia entirely apart from one another?! Oh, and by the way, genetics determine who we are attracted to; but nothing else, I swear...

I think it would realistically be better to have fewer incredibly smart people, but that is based on the structure of our modern society. I believe that below a certain level (IQ) there isn't enough unique thought to view that intelligence as useful, because a majority of the people will use their intellect in an identical manner to those of an average intellect.

Now, if there were no societal confines - I have no idea what would be better.

Also, is there any decent studies or descriptions of why Asians have a harder time applying what they've learned or generating unique thought?

There may be more recent results, but they won't be made public outside closed scientific groups. People can't deal with statistics and the results would harm social cohesion in multi-ethnic societies. That's probably the only reason.

When they are humble, kind, and yet have an imposing air of knowingness about them. They might not have read anything , or maybe they have read it all.

>Let's hear it, pal.
Unless I see a bunch of research papers published in respectable journals that support theories about racial inferiority based purely on genetics then I will continue to believe in racial equality based on anecdotal evidence.
>inb4 scientists are prevented from saying the truth by the liberal media.
That's your word against mine.

So they are smart if they subscribe to Judeo-Christian slave-morality ?

>Muh exotic oriental philosophy
Why are westners so stupid lah?

>respectable journals

>based purely on genetics

Who's talking about purely genetics? Partially isn't unreasonable.

>I will continue to believe in racial equality based on anecdotal evidence.

Hey, it's your funeral chump.

When they're wearing well fitting, properly washed and ironed clothes with shiny shoes.

>Partially isn't unreasonable.
Ok fine. Partially too.
>>respectable journals
What's wrong with this? Just as long as it's peer-reviewed.

>Hey, it's your funeral chump.
Hey, I'm not saying we should push for diversity or anything like that. I prefer relative homogeneity and believe that the only immigrants that should be allowed into a country are the very very best of immigrants who can pass a very rigorous test for cultural fit and who are very skilled workers who can contribute to the country's economy/academic world.

>inb4 scientists are prevented from saying the truth by the liberal media.
I'm not the guy you just talked to, but I remember a bunch of cases. They even were on BBC news. One is James Watson, the guy who decoded the structure of the DNA. Don't remember the other names, but they were usually competent scientists losing their jobs because they talked about politically incorrect scientific results.

Beyond simply the Protestant morality, I feel like it might have something to do with the understanding of true intellectual thought vs pseudo intellectual insight. As I got to understand more, I definitely came to recognize the error in believing or discussing certain things without knowing enough to make a truly informed decision.

>Unless I see a bunch of research papers published in respectable journals
You mean that unless it becomes politically correct to examine racial differences. That's like not believing smoking to be unhealthy unless the payola confirms it.

No, and I don't know how you arrived there

Ok, then humility. Not necessarily kindness. Joseph Priestley comes to mind.

You'd know that
>4) Detachment from traditional culture - most but not all are (old) atheists or agnostics
is a meme if you knew:
>3) Deep knowledge of history

Genuine curiosity is an important aspect

Based village elders

Tech is clearly of the devil

How is being a product of a single culture a positive trait ? Detachment does not mean you don't know anything about it or that you don't take anything from it. But you don't depend on it solely either.

>he swallowed the Newton meme
Leibniz was the guy Anglos ripped off (because Anglos are on average psychopaths as Americans are narcisstic)

They developed differential mathematics independently.

>Leibniz was the guy Anglos ripped off
It is widely acknowledged that they each developed it independently.

when they smash that mf like button

Tuesdays around 3

Pardon I was particularly referring to the atheist/agnostic part, which is very recent meme if you look at history any further back than the Renessaince.

Whatever your current stance is on religion, and whether you like it or not, there's no doubt that religion got us out of mud and off the trees. To claim otherwise is idiotic

>How is being a product of a single culture a positive trait ?
How is it not?

There IS a positive correlation between atheism and intelligence though.

>there's a positive correlation between illogical belief and positive logical performance
k, i think i see why we missed mars

>According to the Anglo historians
All of Leibniz ideas are more inherently cohesive and tied to each other, much easier to pin him as the originator

Newtown left more pages of insane "Alchemist" babble than any math afaik

...

Not an argument and you know that. Why don't you just say the statistics are faked ?

why don't you recognise his quads or respond to the poster who outlined the obviously argument against you before him oh right, because you argue like a girl with emotional problems.

This reads like an earnest attempt to delineate pop-culture depictions of 'smartness'. Or like a Martian tried to reverse-engineer a concept of intelligence based on marathoning House and Sherlock.

The question is oddly phrased. If you want me to define 'intelligence' that's a famously tough cookie, but I quite like 'the ability to learn how to learn'.

If you're asking me what criteria I apply when forming my opinion of a person's intelligence, I consider manner, affect, behaviour in various contexts etc. Deep or broad knowledge correlates well but is obviously neither fully predicted nor predictive. In my experience, one of the more reliable predictors is the ability to be funny. Not that I haven't known any funny people who weren't that smart, or any smart people who weren't that funny, but it's a trend I've noticed.

Not at all, but correlation is not the same as causation. Secularism and fedoraism are the ways of conformity today. If you would examine the ages when the faith was dominant you would find that the reverse was true back then. The intelligentsia are not inherently religious nor atheistic, they're simply a product of the current system.

Correlation is not causation. Atheism correlates with intelligence positively. That does not necessarily mean one causes the other. Also, why should atheism be "illogical belief" ?

>Atheism correlates with intelligence
uh, no, it doesn't.
>atheism is a logical belief
m8, you can't even logical notation
>correlation does not causation
babby, that you think the correlation is there at all is hilarious and means you've been reading some really dumb shit when your mum's not there to give you buttrubs

>there's no doubt that religion got us out of mud and off the trees

This is a too-strong formulation of a very plausible premise. You can't just point to the fact that religiosity was formerly ubiquitous and claim that demonstrates religiosity was the major cause, or a significant part of a complex of causes, that led to human development.

There are anthropological hypotheses supporting the idea that religion played a role in making 'civilisation' possible, but 'religion dragged us off the trees' is just silly.

>Secularism and fedoraism are the ways of conformity today.

Where do you live that you think this is even remotely true? France? Scandinavia?

>those cave paintings are just about hybrid human animals, not religious experience

I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that cave paintings are the direct, sine-qua-non cause of 'civilisation'? That seems a bit silly, so you probably don't mean that. But then I don't know what you might mean.

no, i'm suggesting the religious experiences which caused us to make cave paintings are the causal factor in not just the paintings but in basic human tribal formation.

...

That's why I did not use the world causation, dummy. Also, atheists could be non-conformists, especially those you will meet on /lit, please keep that in mind. As for the conformity, we are currently moving back to faith, believe it or not. Kids are more conservative these days, because their parents were an extreme product of 70s secularity. Their kids will be fedora again, this will probably happen a bunch of times. There is nevertheless a constant rise of atheism for the last 200 years, and that can not be described as vogue, it's based on the underlying scientific revolution we entered with the Renaissance and the decay of Metaphysics. The result is that people who are aware of these developments tend to go for atheism, maybe with exception of Platonist Mathematicians.

I love you

>uh, no, it doesn't.

Not him, but it definitely does. I mean, to 'correlate' means only to share a statistical distribution trend. Deaths by drowning correlate with ice-cream sales is the classic example. The fact that ice-cream doesn't make people drown, and that drowning doesn't make people thirsty, doesn't mean that the two things don't correlate - they definitely do, by simple virtue of the fact that when ice-cream sales increase, one can reliably predict an increase in the rate of deaths by drowning.

When we survey the population, we find that atheism correlates with a number of other features, such as wealth and education. That these themselves correlate with IQ indicates that atheism will indeed correlate with IQ, albeit weakly and perhaps even indirectly.

Right, but what's your evidence for that? How does that even form a coherent hypothesis? As I said, there are hypotheses that suppose a role played by religion in the formation of civilisation. But you seem to be asserting, with no apparent basis, that religion didn't simply play a role, but played THE role, so to speak. Why do you think that?

And let me just put this out there: I think (and have already said) that it's quite plausible religiosity played some part in developing human civilisation. I've been disputing the simplistic and exaggerated version of that claim you (appear to be) defending.

>Kids are more conservative these days

What do you mean?

America, some trends in Europe as well, they are more likely to be religious in puberty. In traditionally conservative western societies it's the other way round. What matters is that kids during puberty re-assert their individuality from their parents and tend to go the other way. It's typical homo Sapiens YA psychology. If their parents specifically forbade them to stick a soldering iron in their sphincter they would do this as well.

Fedoraism is the rule among the aristocrats and the intelligentsia, secularism is the rule for the middle class. Just take a look at the education systems or the political landscape.

>America, some trends in Europe as well, they are more likely to be religious in puberty.

Really?

I mean, I understand the theory you're referring to, I'm just not sure the data supports the conclusion you've reached from it.

Or I could take a look at the demographics and see that atheism remains the minority position it's always been. But really, you're making such absurdly broad claims about poorly-defined cohorts that you're in danger of not even meaning anything.

>it's quite plausible religiosity played some part in developing human civilisation
Civilization is not possible without religion, for many reasons. Social cohesion, unity, faith, stability and so forth all require religion. It's not necessarily THE thing which is behind civilization but it is an integral part of it.

At least when you look at the mentality of 70s-80s compared with 90s and millenials, there seems to be a trend. It's about peer pressure and being different from what the parent are. Not clear whether it's really cyclic. Below that there seems to be a very slow increase in "real/old" atheism for 200 years, the one Nietzsche and others became aware of.

>Social cohesion, unity, faith, stability and so forth all require religion.

I doubt this, except maybe for 'faith', which I'm not sure what it means if not 'religious faith'. It may be true, for instance, that religion facilitated the development of these features, but that doesn't mean it's required to maintain them.

So you're really just spitballing. OK.

>I can just deny the opinion of most historians because it doesn't fit with my opinion

>All of Leibniz ideas are more inherently cohesive and tied to each other, much easier to pin him as the originator
>Newtown left more pages of insane "Alchemist" babble than any math afaik
Why don't you provide us with some examples rather than some unsubstantiated bs?

60s: edgy hippies move away from their parent's christianity into some esoteric drug-fuelled bullshit
80s: hippies have kids, those turn out to be edgy wannabe atheist punkrockers
90s: said edgy punkrockers have kids, and they turn out to be "spiritual" again
2000s: spirituals, agnostics and some religious kids, voting for Trump
It's not spitballing, during their 20s they are mostly just products of their era

>it definitely does
No, it does not correlate. There are many things which do correlate, such as height, wealth, or even race, to IQ measurements of "intelligence" but atheism is not one of them.
Of course, if we take IQ to define intelligence in that quandry, we've already answered OP's question, and probably in ways that are uncomfortable to anyone with a SD to look up to. The problem is that even if we did accept that as the definition of intelligence, it in no way correlates with atheism; the only way to make it correlate with atheism is if you ignore the even greater number of people with equal scores who are theists. You need to data torture to produce that result, because the correlation between a 125+ IQ in and of itself is not with atheism. Essentially what's produced this meme is that atheists don't know the difference between the population of atheists and the population of smart people in terms of stats. It doesn't have the correlation socio-economic or even physiological signs do, it has a negative correlation with idiocy at best, which is definitely not the same thing as a positive correlation with intelligence. It's as right as saying epilepsy is correlated with high IQs, because there's a small population of them, who, unlike the majority of epileptics who are functionally retarded by the disorder, achieve better results on the test than normals.
It's such bad math anyone who spouts it probably bought the MMR-Autism study as a good population to study correlation in too.

>what's your evidence for that
The people who kept up the practices, like the Saan,
>how does that even form a coherent hypothesis
ikr, it's like it's all these archaeologists and anthropologist and neuroscientists jobs to actually do something like test it piece by piece against evidence, who even does that? next they'll be testing the Saan to see if their DNA really does go back that far into civilization's history, and their rock paintings to make sure they're millennia older than prehistory, and running tests to see if those hallucinations are inevitable under the same circumstance for everyone. Bastard scientists and their hypotheses, I don't know how they live with themselves.

What you doubt is of very little importance

Man is essentially a religious animal. It twists the atheist jimmies but this really is the case

Praying/meditation works, it enlightens and improves people's lives. Atheism on the other hand leads to nihilism and anti-natalism and suicide

>no hard data
>no terms defined
>"this is just what makes sense to me based on what i assume is true"

OK yeah definitely not spitballing and you've actually completely convinced me, well done.

There's a nice quote from Socrates about this, "The mark of an educated mind, is that it is able to entertain a thought without accepting it ", an intelligent person is able to recognize and become familiar with a wide array of topics, always ready to change and adapt on new information.

>Anglo detected
Newtown publishes after Lebnitz
Royal Society's campaign to destroy Leibniz almost works except nobody can make progress with Newtown's maths
Leibniz calculus is improved and developed
Britfags finally accept defeat not before doing a massive disservice to the world
>Brits on par for sheer evil they're capable of

You can check on these things yourself buuuud

Look into what Gödel thought about it while you're at it

wew lad

i do this all the time, does that make me smurt

>No, it does not correlate. There are many things which do correlate, such as height, wealth, or even race, to IQ measurements of "intelligence" but atheism is not one of them.

Yes, yes it does correlate. All anyone's ever seriously disputed about that is whether the correlation is at all interesting.

>The people who kept up the practices, like the Saan

Your evidence for the role of those practices in forming civilisation is that a culture that remains based on hunter-gatherer models to this day still maintains them? That seems questionable at best, and I'm being polite here.

Beyond that, while your sarcasm is charming af, it hasn't actually answered my question. What evidence do you have to support the notion that religious impulses led to 'tribe formation'?

>i have no evidence for any of the claims i've just made

Cool beans.

so smart people are in countries that are 10-20% atheist, but not completely atheist?

There are no 'completely atheist' countries.

Indeed.
>but that doesn't mean it's required to maintain them
No but that is the case, once you abandon God for relativism you no longer have a civilization.

It doesn't correlate with intelligence, unless you mean it has a negative correlation with idiocy, which is again, not the same as a positive correlation with intelligence. That's what that little chart is trying to tell you- not that atheists fall into the smart category more often than theists, but that they fall into the dumb category less often than theists. When you look for a positive correlation, theists womp atheists on numbers in the intelligence stakes, just like they do in the dumb stakes. A negative correlation with idiocy is not the same thing as a positive correlation with intelligence.

What you're doing is this
>Sam does not get Bus 1, the loser bus
>Sam does get Bus 2
>Therefore Sam is the only person, or the majority of people, on Bus 2, since he is definitely not on the loser Bus 1
If you can't see how retarded that logic is, please get Bus 1.

>Your evidence for the role of those practices in forming civilisation is that a culture that remains based on hunter-gatherer models to this day still maintains them? That seems questionable at best, and I'm being polite here.
>he thinks I'm a whole anthro/archaeological/neuro cross disciplinary team
How sweet. It must be easy to be sweet when you never have to understand what the difference between a positive and negative correlation are because nobody expects shit from you.

When they are either no longer content with their lives in stasis or supremely enthralled by the facet of living.

>A negative correlation with idiocy is not the same thing as a positive correlation with intelligence.

This is like saying that a negative correlation with darkness is not the same thing as a positive correlation with light. 'Idiocy' is not an actual property, it's descriptive of a level of intelligence below some arbitrary point.

Past that point, I can only conclude that your hostility stems from an inability to defend the claims you've been making, and an attendant resentment at the prospect of your word not being treated as law. Dunno what you can do about that m8, but it's a problem. Get it sorted.