Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: OT: Farewell Windows Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 06:30:26 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 93 Message-ID: References: <4b288676-8710-4eab-9962-b72fd8efa804@googlegroups.com> <8d106b9a-cb7a-4f89-a913-1dde4f129217@googlegroups.com> <2b6c8713-36cd-438b-a9d3-c18dde789f08@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: n4wpt9zq8xR26Ttf9mo2BA.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.16 (Linux) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:41257 On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 21:50:20 -0400, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 8/8/15 10:52 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 05:32:27 -0400, Bernd Paysan >> wrote: >>> Of course, intelligence amplifies your capabilities, and allows you >>> to work around limitations. >> >> Of course, it can also be argued that intelligence dulls your ambition >> and chances at success. This is because smart people can rationalize >> anything and will reject potentially invalid solutions as a waste of >> time. Stupid people are too dumb to realize that the same solution >> shouldn't work in the first place. So, they'll try it. In many >> instances, the stupid succeed where smart people fail. This is why >> there is no proven correlation between intelligence and wealth. > > Wow. My experience contradicts virtually everthing in the above > paragraph. ... > To start at the end, a great many extremely intelligent > people I've known (a class that includes several Nobel > prize winners) do not have "wealth" as a primary objective > (although they've all lived fairly comfortable lives). Maybe, you shouldn't start at the end, because you seemed to have comprehended what was said in reverse too. > So, to say that their lack of "wealth" (however you may define > it) is due to inappropriate "rationalizing" because they're too > smart to be rich just doesn't make sense. That isn't what I said. The paragraph had nothing to do with wealth per se. It had to do with choices smart people fail to make because they're smart. I.e., formally, this is the lost opportunity cost of a decision which eliminated the chance to succeed. Wealth was just one example were stupid people can outperform smart people, because stupid people can't eliminate potentially bad decisions via thought and intellect. They have no choice but to test it to determine the truth. > Some stupid people inherit wealth; Then, they go broke, or their stupid offspring do, some of the time. Of course, they can afford to hire smart people to prevent them from going broke. > others luck into it. How do you explain stupid people who earned it? Luck? How do you explain people who are "lucky," repeatedly? ... Do you just proclaim that they're a statistical aberration? Do you attribute their luck to divine intervention? I.e., you're cursed, but they're blessed. If so, why does God hate you? > But I see zero evidence that "intelligence dulls your > ambition and chances at success." s/zero/no I'm not sure you can argue that evidence from personal experience is quantifiable as a number. So, "no" is correct here. I admit that I, as a programmer too, use "zero" in the same way. The point was smart people don't try things. Why? Because they're smart. They eliminate possibilities based on their intellect without always having proof. They don't spend time to test situations likely to be failures. That's great if you're running through 40 geometry problems in two minutes, or 60 physics problems in an hour. However, it's not good if you dealing with situations where the outcome is unknown: life, business, relationships, product design, marketing. Dumb people don't know what's going to succeed or fail. They have to attempt everything to find out. So, dumb people sometimes succeed where smart people fail simply because they tried. > Intelligence increases your odds of success as *you* define it > (which may be an interesting career, professional recognition, > ability to pursue your dreams as you wish, etc.) which may or > may not involve exceptional wealth. My statements weren't purely in regards to income. That was just one instance of proof of the issue. You chose to apply that to the entire paragraph. Rod Pemberton -- Scientists now say we'll experience a mini-ice in 2030. So, I guess we need more global warming today ...