Norden, he's the guy that developed a more accurate bomb site just prior to WW2.
Both guys were geniuses, yet their work led to unimaginable violence and destruction.
lovin the stuff your throwing out that i have to look up just to comment on.
I don't think this means he was violent so much himself. Likely a passive man in life, seems he read alot of hindu and prob buddhist culture. But surely he need to the violence he would indirectly cause. There an amount of violence to that...but you could also say a smart man would not attach himself to such a thing....
I think this man is likely highly academically intelligent but also had a great mind otherwise. It would be nice to define and separate the two.
But we could go further and suggest Hitler was both intelligent and violent....which can be argued but i think we could argue easily that he wasn't very smart at all.....
its that circle again...but i think that knowledge is not intelligence, meaning if you knew every fact from every book by heart, you may not be intelligent....and if you know no facts, you still may be intelligent....
How about Adolf Hitler and Ghengis Khan? I believe were both considered very intelligent... lol at intelligence precluding violence or being mutually exclusive.
our concept of intelligence is likely not the same...
again with ghengis khan, we can say his success was from leadership skills, charisma, or even an unbalanced desire to conquer....these are closer to academics, than intelligence in my view. I suspect he largely fell victim to his own insecurities like hitler views on jews.....
a highly intelligent person cannot be insecure can they?
our concept of intelligence is likely not the same...
Most definitely not, however much more intelligent writers/historians than I have deemed both intelligent... Now, who determines whether your concept of intelligence is correct or mine, or perhaps neither?
Now, do you consider yourself intelligent and why?
I think this is a pretty good definition of intelligence, at least in the context we are using it.
"the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience "
Academically speaking, Hitler was a substandard student, and barely made the grade as a soldier in WW1. Cunning, perhaps, but no intellectual giant.
And Albert Einstein failed highschool math.
Intelligence cannot be defined as one thing or another. It applies differently to different facets of the human experience. One can be intelligent about a particular subject but be clueless about another.
One can reason the mysteries of the universe but cannot figure out how to change the oil in his car. But someone else knows how to take that car apart and put it back together. Is one more intelligent than the other ? or is their intelligence just different.
Most definitely not, however much more intelligent writers/historians than I have deemed both intelligent... "
i think they we alluding to there intellegence to lead and strategize war etc. Gifted in those aspects but for example in respect for his hatred towards jews. i think many would agree hilter was not intelligent as he fell victim to his own circumstances....unless someone could argue he had a valid point. An intellegent person i think would be expected to be able to rise above that. It is of course my own opinion, but i think hatred shows lack of intelligence, i think we could arrive at that with logic, but i haven't planned that line out...
Now, do you consider yourself intelligent and why?
"
I don't think a person can know if they are smart. There's an illogical implication there. Academically i can crush most without trying, although some people use this as a gauge..i don't.....many consider me obviously stupid, some think the complete opposite
I think this is a pretty good definition of intelligence, at least in the context we are using it.
"the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience "
im not against that definition but would like to add the ability to profit without experience.
Intelligence cannot be defined as one thing or another. It applies differently to different facets of the human experience. One can be intelligent about a particular subject but be clueless about another.
One can reason the mysteries of the universe but cannot figure out how to change the oil in his car. But someone else knows how to take that car apart and put it back together. Is one more intelligent than the other ? or is their intelligence just different.
a valid opinion, but it may not be true. maybe there's a common denominator between these different kind of intelligences for example. maybe changing your oil means nothing for intelligence but understanding the universe means everything. Maybe understanding your car is further from whats important and therefore detrimental....
That brings up another good question. The examples I provided seem to be more about knowledge than intelligence. Are they mutually exclusive ? Can you be intelligent without knowledge and can the reverse be true, knowledgeable but not intelligent ?
A memory chip contains knowledge, but it is not intelligent. Intelligence is the ability to put that knowledge into practice.
Example: I have read many many poker books, and absorbed much knowledge from them. But I suck at poker, so am not that intelligent, poker-wise.
A memory chip contains knowledge, but it is not intelligent. Intelligence is the ability to put that knowledge into practice.
Example: I have read many many poker books, and absorbed much knowledge from them. But I suck at poker, so am not that intelligent, poker-wise.
we get quite abstract here but we generally see knowledge (or facts) as a means to the end or to support the means to an end. but if knowledge blocked you from a certain end then you would be less intelligent the more you knew.
I think an example would be when you are trying to learn something when you already have your own preconceived notions, in this way having knowledge might lead to lower intelligence because it gets in the way....
so i think knowledge and intelligence are not connected in this context in any way...having knowledge or not having knowledge does not correlate with intelligence....
funny story, I was at the bakery a few months back with my six year old daughter and she was counting the gingerbread man cookies in the window. This old man asks her, "are you good at math?". Being a proud father, I say to her,"what is the square root of 25 times the square root of 16?". She thinks for a few seconds and then with a hint of confidence proudly says, "20". The old man looks at me with this puzzled look and says, "what is a square root?".
But we could go further and suggest Hitler was both intelligent and violent....which can be argued but i think we could argue easily that he wasn't very smart at all.....
Hitler was also insane. I believe his violence was more likely caused by his insanity than by his intelligence. I would assume they are independent.
P.S. While Oppenheimer and Norden may have developed technologies that included weapons of mass destruction, I wouldn't consider either of them to be "violent". I don't know much about Norden, but I'm sure Oppenheimer would have preferred that the H-bomb had been a deterrent and should never have been dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki... but that's another story.
Hitler was also insane. I believe his violence was more likely caused by his insanity than by his intelligence. I would assume they are independent.
its more likely his violence causes you to believe he was insane. And you gotta be careful with that statement because you can't justify it without defining insane. For instance others would say he was quite sane and strategic.
its more likely his violence causes you to believe he was insane. And you gotta be careful with that statement because you can't justify it without defining insane. For instance others would say he was quite sane and strategic.
See we're defining a concept here. If a group of people...or the world gets together to define who is 'smart'. Can they be correct or know they are correct.....if we all think einsten is smart and therefor we are dumb....how can we have confidence in our decision. If Einstein looks back and says 'yes i am smart' does that confirm our belief, just because the 'smart person' the dumb people picked says 'yes i am smart'. Then someone says 'Darb, your an idiot he proved time travel is possible' thats great but if we're dumb we have no idea if that validates that he is intelligent or not
Comments
lovin the stuff your throwing out that i have to look up just to comment on.
I don't think this means he was violent so much himself. Likely a passive man in life, seems he read alot of hindu and prob buddhist culture. But surely he need to the violence he would indirectly cause. There an amount of violence to that...but you could also say a smart man would not attach himself to such a thing....
I think this man is likely highly academically intelligent but also had a great mind otherwise. It would be nice to define and separate the two.
But we could go further and suggest Hitler was both intelligent and violent....which can be argued but i think we could argue easily that he wasn't very smart at all.....
its that circle again...but i think that knowledge is not intelligence, meaning if you knew every fact from every book by heart, you may not be intelligent....and if you know no facts, you still may be intelligent....
our concept of intelligence is likely not the same...
again with ghengis khan, we can say his success was from leadership skills, charisma, or even an unbalanced desire to conquer....these are closer to academics, than intelligence in my view. I suspect he largely fell victim to his own insecurities like hitler views on jews.....
a highly intelligent person cannot be insecure can they?
Most definitely not, however much more intelligent writers/historians than I have deemed both intelligent... Now, who determines whether your concept of intelligence is correct or mine, or perhaps neither?
Now, do you consider yourself intelligent and why?
I think this is a pretty good definition of intelligence, at least in the context we are using it.
"the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience "
And Albert Einstein failed highschool math.
Intelligence cannot be defined as one thing or another. It applies differently to different facets of the human experience. One can be intelligent about a particular subject but be clueless about another.
One can reason the mysteries of the universe but cannot figure out how to change the oil in his car. But someone else knows how to take that car apart and put it back together. Is one more intelligent than the other ? or is their intelligence just different.
i think they we alluding to there intellegence to lead and strategize war etc. Gifted in those aspects but for example in respect for his hatred towards jews. i think many would agree hilter was not intelligent as he fell victim to his own circumstances....unless someone could argue he had a valid point. An intellegent person i think would be expected to be able to rise above that. It is of course my own opinion, but i think hatred shows lack of intelligence, i think we could arrive at that with logic, but i haven't planned that line out...
I don't think a person can know if they are smart. There's an illogical implication there. Academically i can crush most without trying, although some people use this as a gauge..i don't.....many consider me obviously stupid, some think the complete opposite
im not against that definition but would like to add the ability to profit without experience.
Might not have been Hilter but i think he was believe to be dyslexic as well.
a valid opinion, but it may not be true. maybe there's a common denominator between these different kind of intelligences for example. maybe changing your oil means nothing for intelligence but understanding the universe means everything. Maybe understanding your car is further from whats important and therefore detrimental....
maybe not....
Example: I have read many many poker books, and absorbed much knowledge from them. But I suck at poker, so am not that intelligent, poker-wise.
yes i think weve shown that you can here:
we get quite abstract here but we generally see knowledge (or facts) as a means to the end or to support the means to an end. but if knowledge blocked you from a certain end then you would be less intelligent the more you knew.
I think an example would be when you are trying to learn something when you already have your own preconceived notions, in this way having knowledge might lead to lower intelligence because it gets in the way....
so i think knowledge and intelligence are not connected in this context in any way...having knowledge or not having knowledge does not correlate with intelligence....
Hitler was also insane. I believe his violence was more likely caused by his insanity than by his intelligence. I would assume they are independent.
P.S. While Oppenheimer and Norden may have developed technologies that included weapons of mass destruction, I wouldn't consider either of them to be "violent". I don't know much about Norden, but I'm sure Oppenheimer would have preferred that the H-bomb had been a deterrent and should never have been dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki... but that's another story.
Urban myth.
20 Things You Need to Know About Einstein - Did Einstein flunk math? - TIME
its more likely his violence causes you to believe he was insane. And you gotta be careful with that statement because you can't justify it without defining insane. For instance others would say he was quite sane and strategic.
P.S. You might be a nit at life and not just at poker.
Insane or Just Evil? A Psychiatrist Takes a New Look at Hitler - NYTimes.com
See we're defining a concept here. If a group of people...or the world gets together to define who is 'smart'. Can they be correct or know they are correct.....if we all think einsten is smart and therefor we are dumb....how can we have confidence in our decision. If Einstein looks back and says 'yes i am smart' does that confirm our belief, just because the 'smart person' the dumb people picked says 'yes i am smart'. Then someone says 'Darb, your an idiot he proved time travel is possible' thats great but if we're dumb we have no idea if that validates that he is intelligent or not
Yeah, that whole attack Russia heading into winter was BRILLIANT !!!
ya i totally used the wrong word there. i meant something like....a gifted leader