228. The Intelligence Trap & Evidence-Based Wisdom 

"Hi there, I'll be your surgeon today. I don't have any credentials or training in surgery, but my average bowling game is 260 - you're in good hands."

@@THUNKShow GENUINE WISDOM: Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside of ancient Indian philosophical traditions, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and/or pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous! In “The Republic” the ancient Greek philosopher Aristocles (commonly known as Plato) quotes his mentor Socrates as asserting that the “best” philosophers are, in actual fact, naught but useless, utter rogues, in stark contrast to “true” philosophers, who are lovers of wisdom and truth. An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. See Chapter 12 regarding morality. THE REPOSITORY OF WISDOM: One of the greatest misunderstandings of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has arisen in the popular mind, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an unschooled buffoon, compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained collegiate doctorates in philosophy, psychology, psychiatry, et cetera. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only a miniscule percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! Anyone who doubts this averment need do nothing more than read the remaining chapters of this Holy Scripture in order to learn this blatantly-obvious fact. POPULAR PHILOSOPHERS: At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and Theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case! The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), and the British author, Mr. Clive Staples “C.S.” Lewis, almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or they have managed to promulgate their ideas via the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web. ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHERS: To proffer merely one example of literally tens of thousands, of the assertion made in the previous paragraph, the 1905 essay paper by the famed British mathematician, philosopher and logician, Bertrand Russell, entitled “On Denoting” was described by one of his most notable contemporaneous colleagues, Frank P. Ramsey, as “that paradigm of philosophy”. Notwithstanding the fact that less than one percent of the populace would be able to even comprehend the essay, it is littered with spelling, grammar, punctuation, and syntactic errors, and contains at least a couple of flawed propositions. Even if the average person was able to grasp the principles presented in that paper, it would not make any tangible impact on the human condition. Currently, this planet of ours is doomed to devastation, due to moral decay and environmental degradation, and such overintellectualizing essay papers can do nothing to help improve our deeply harrowing, frightful, and lamentable predicament, especially those papers that deal with exceedingly-trivial subject matters, as does Russell’s paper (an argument for an acutely-abstruse concept in semantics). The fact that Russell’s aforementioned essay paper falls under the category of Philosophy of Language, and the fact that he was a highly-cultured peer of the House of Lords, in the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, yet his own writings being composed using far-from-perfect English, serves only to prove my assertion that philosophy ought to be restricted to genuine members of the Holy Priesthood. Furthermore, that Bertrand was fully intoxicated with adharmic (leftist) ideologies and practices, including sexual licentiousness and socialism (even supporting Herr Adolf Hitler’s Nazism, to some extent) indicates that he was no lover of ACTUAL wisdom. The fact that, after THOUSANDS of years following the publication of Plato’s “Republic”, not a single nation or a single country on this planet has thought it wise to accept Plato’s advice to promote a philosopher-king (“rāja-ṛṣi”, in Sanskrit) as the head of its social structure, more than adequately proves my previous assertions. Unfortunately, however, both Plato and his student, Aristotle, were themselves hardly paragons of virtue, since the former was an advocate of infanticide, whilst the latter favoured carnism (even stating that animal slaughter was mandatory). To my knowledge, the only philosopher in the Western academic tradition who was truly wise, was the German, Arthur Schopenhauer, since he espoused a reasonably accurate metaphysical position, as well as adhering to the law (that is, the one and only law, known as “dharma” in Bhārata) to a larger degree than most other Westerners. Hopefully, someday, I will discover another philosopher without India, to join Arthur! Cont...

I've been wanting to tell that one for a while. 😜

Looking for absolution are you?

No no you see I have *inferred* what archeology *should be* from first principles, using my giant wrinkly brain. 🙃

Did you find enough anomalies or nonsensical evidence that you would question and receive little information. Or given nonsensical answers or just totally deflected? Dinosaurs for example. Discovered bones, real or plaster fakes that only top clearance people in museums have to analyze and hide? Anything that made you question the narrative? Thank you.

Reason being Albert Pike, atheist, evolution, illuminati, hidden agendas, secret societies, first discovery.

> There's nothing wrong with extreme views, if they are right. The trick is in the knowing! 😋 Wish I could have talked to Mitch Hedberg. That dude seemed to have some stuff figured out.

Except that drugs are harmful!

​@@THUNKShow i personally regard extraordinaries like hitch, macdonald, or hicks as some of the wisest men i know of.

@@Concentrum Just be careful of framing. Hitchens was a greater biblical literalist than anyone else about, not to mention being an avowed Trotskyist.

Totally! Science writers & communicators play an important role in giving the public a rough sense of the work being done & what it might mean! But people also ask NDGT questions about theology & philosophy, which I'm not sure his public speaking talent equips him to answer meaningfully. 😋

@@THUNKShow I agree. But what I meant was not that their communication skills make them right for the job, just that it's why people prefer to ask them. Sort of of like how some people prefer the simple answers of demagogues rather than dealing with all the actual complexities of a situation. It's not the right choice, it's just what some people would rather do. Or to use your example from the video,because of their communication skills people view them as the streetlight as they're searching for their keys .

Thanks! 😁

Aw, muchos gracias! 😁

Good thought! I think I saw some citations of Bruin's papers that were trying to find some crosstalk with Big Five stuff, but I'm having trouble finding them RN. If anything pops up on Google Scholar, I'll let you know. :)

A “real” IQ test does indeed include long-term memory, and is referred to as Gc (crystallized intelligence). It’s seen on subsections of test, such as numerical reasoning, general knowledge, and vocabulary. In fact, of all the subtests, vocabulary correlates highest with an FSIQ score.

Absolutely! Robson details how "intelligence" has been partitioned & used to describe all sorts of different cognitive proficiencies, including stuff like "EQ," noting that this isn't particularly helpful for understanding the mind ("Why not have a stuffing-beans-up-your-nose Q?") The evidence-based wisdom findings seem to indicate that one can acquire superior "wisdom" faculties with a below-average IQ - if one wanted to describe this as "wisdom intelligence," I guess that'd be fine, but I think it's helpful to crowbar the two notions apart, especially with the prevailing cultural attitude that they're one & the same!

I remember when I was maybe 5 years old, seeing the moon one evening in south sky. And I ran from (east) backyard to (west) front yard and saw the moon was still there, like it had followed me! I asked my dad about it and he said the moon was at a "special distance" to allow this which wasn't quite clear, but "very far away" is a special distance, and you can experiment with parallax on a highway in a car, seeing things close by moving quickly and things on a horizon slower.

Never apologize for a long comment! I make these things so that I can talk about them with people! 😋 I think that it would be a stretch to suggest that the attention paid to what celebrities like Einstein and Gates say about e.g. happiness is due primarily to their exceptional insight into those ideas, as opposed to being a famous person who says stuff that sounds like it's supposed to be profound? (e.g. that Tesla quote is clearly deranged, yet that image macro has found its way into existence! Someone read that & thought: "Wow this is solid gold! I need to turn this into an image & share it with everyone!" 🤣) Einstein's profundities resonate with me, but as Robson notes, he *did* blow his later years doubling down on a pet theory that turned out to be a dead end. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Is that wisdom?

When someone says they have such and such an IQ that’s super high, I usually respond with, “And I know computer programmers with IQ’s of about 100, and they’re making 500k a year. So what’s your excuse?” 😂

There's a fair amount of skepticism about IQ in the book, even about the legit batteries run by psychologists. From what I've read, I think it's probably useful as a measure of cognitive health (e.g. for diagnosing problems), but I'm suspicious of the purported advantages of MENSA-level IQ scores.

@@THUNKShow I remember scoring high but still suspicious. I am smarter than average without needing an IQ test. it isn't important to me. I love having an inquisitive mind full of ideas and creativity. I think people who want to be smart, they like these IQ tests.

> DNA teleportation is a claim that DNA produces electromagnetic signals (EMS), measurable when highly diluted in water. This signal can allegedly be recorded, transmitted electronically, and re-emitted on another distant pure water sample, where DNA can replicate through polymerase chain reaction despite the absence of the original DNA in the new water sample. The idea was introduced by the Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier in 2009. It is similar in principle to water memory, a concept popularised by Jacques Benveniste in 1988. > No independent research has supported the claim, and there is no plausible scientific mechanism by which it might work. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_teleportation

Ayyyyy I have been tweaking audio stuff - I have inadvertently murdered one of the Discord regulars (😢) but I'm wondering how it sounds on your end?

@@THUNKShow Heh, I'm that audio guy now, huh. 😄Well, I went back and compared this video to 226 and 227 and to be honest they sounded good but this video sounds kind of muffled. Not as bad as 225 though.

Thanks for the feedback - I'll keep pluggin' away at it! 🙏

"That Three Thrushes cat knows what's up." -Albert Einstein, almost certainly

@@THUNKShow "bruh" - Isaac Newton

😔 Truly you have profound insight.

Newton says hi. 😄

😅 IDK why the porn spam bots thought this one was the video to go ham on....but it should be fixed now!

Dunno but it's nice that this channel is getting some more comments than usual.

🦞We'll see who cancels whom!🦞

I think I see why you would say this, but I disagree for the following reasons. First, the video was geared at attributing wisdom to personalities that are known for their intelligence, and assuming a-priori that said personalities are most likely correct in what they say. From what I’ve seen, Peterson rarely goes in that direction; in fact, he has criticized intellectuals for not being practical enough. Second, Peterson’s assertions of IQ correlating with life outcomes, are not without merit. Statistically speaking, he is correct, and he has years of collected data to support his statements. Now it might be that the book quoted in this video is correct, but my critique would be: how can we be certain that research in this book is widely sampled and free of any skewing effects? I think those are questions worth asking. As a caveat to all that I’ve blabbed about thus far, I will say that I wish Peterson would shut the Hell up about IQ. 😂

@@Gnosticman00 I'm referring to the fact that he dives deep into politics and philosophy even though he is a professor of Psychology. Making a bunch of normative statements on topics that he is not an expert in.