Cobol - Value of being smart was Re: Iraq

Author

Value of being smart was Re: Iraq

Clark F Morris

2007-10-15, 3:55 am

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:23:51 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:

>In article <fg4gf3pdkrr0bmdb14t966037lirhvlpnr@4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>Mostly by those who aren't.
As someone who has a Mensa class IQ, I will agree that smart above a
certain point is overrated and that point is long before my IQ. Good
work habits (which I don't have) and good judgment (mine may be fair
since I am able to afford the Internet) are worth more.

Judson McClendon

2007-10-15, 7:55 am

"Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> As someone who has a Mensa class IQ, I will agree that smart above a
> certain point is overrated and that point is long before my IQ. Good
> work habits (which I don't have) and good judgment (mine may be fair
> since I am able to afford the Internet) are worth more.

The real problem with "smart" is what do you mean by "smart?" Every
individual has a multitude of talents, and who is to say which ones are
better? I'm a logical and analytical person, the type commonly referred
to as "smart." All the way through school I blew the bell curve, and
even as a boy, most adults appeared to me to be mentally slow. But I
never had great people skills, and I have the artistic talent of a potato.
My ex-wife is an artist, and everybody loves her. And while she isn't
dumb, she has the analytical talent of a potato. If someone needed help
understanding a problem, I was the one to see. But if they were really
upset or discouraged and needed encouragement, my wife was the one
to help. I could tell them what the problem was, but she could help them
get through it. I've forgotten more about child discipline than my ex-wife
knows, but she is a much better nurturer than me. I could go on and on,
but who is to say which of those are "smart" and which aren't? More
importantly, who is to say which talents are "better?"

Assigning one number to represent intelligence is nuts. We've all known
of people with a high I.Q. who "couldn't tie their shoes," so to speak.
How can someone be "really smart" yet be inept at simple things? There
is obviously a lot more going on than just "being smart." Traditional I.Q.
is supposed to indicate what psychologists call "general intelligence,"
only one part of the whole picture. Psychologists know this, they just
haven't figured out a good way to define "true intelligence," let alone
measure it.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Doug Miller

2007-10-15, 7:55 am

In article <%KHQi.2546$Ia.1500@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:

>Assigning one number to represent intelligence is nuts. We've all known
>of people with a high I.Q. who "couldn't tie their shoes," so to speak.
>How can someone be "really smart" yet be inept at simple things? There
>is obviously a lot more going on than just "being smart." Traditional I.Q.
>is supposed to indicate what psychologists call "general intelligence,"
>only one part of the whole picture. Psychologists know this, they just
>haven't figured out a good way to define "true intelligence," let alone
>measure it.

Indeed. One of my high school classmates is a master chess player, but he
can barely find his way across the street without a map. During my senior year
[*], he was kicked off the chess team: academically ineligible. Yet the guy
can play chess at the master level.

* his _second_ senior year -- of *three* !!

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphag

at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

LX-i

2007-10-15, 6:55 pm

Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> The real problem with "smart" is what do you mean by "smart?"
[snip]
> I could go on and on,
> but who is to say which of those are "smart" and which aren't? More
> importantly, who is to say which talents are "better?"

It's almost like this variety is intentional, no? :)

It's also a reason that we shouldn't look down on others (or be looked
down upon) just because of the lack of a certain kind of skill. If we
were all the same, all but one of us would be unnecessary.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++

"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

Judson McClendon

2007-10-15, 6:55 pm

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
> [snip]
>
> It's almost like this variety is intentional, no? :)
>
> It's also a reason that we shouldn't look down on others (or be looked down upon) just because of the lack of a certain kind of
> skill. If we were all the same, all but one of us would be unnecessary.

You're right. Being married to my ex-wife, more than other experience in
my life, helped me understand that all people and all talents have value,
in one situation or another.

But one downside of being so diametrically different is the difficulty in
communicating. I sometimes thought to myself "Are we having the same
discussion here?" Our discussions and arguments were full of apparent
non sequiturs. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Howard Brazee

2007-10-16, 6:55 pm

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 00:10:18 -0300, Clark F Morris
<cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:

>As someone who has a Mensa class IQ, I will agree that smart above a
>certain point is overrated and that point is long before my IQ.

Ditto. But I'm not as certain that there's a certain point that
makes a difference. Certainly it is easier to do some things being
smart - but making wrong decisions with more facility can be
di

vantageous.

The better the four-wheel drive vehicle, the farther out in the swamp
it gets stuck.

>Good
>work habits (which I don't have) and good judgment (mine may be fair
>since I am able to afford the Internet) are worth more.

A lower IQ person who thinks is more useful than a higher IQ person
who doesn't think.

(Although thinking easily certainly does not mean thinking wisely).

Howard Brazee

2007-10-16, 6:55 pm

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 06:00:24 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:

>Assigning one number to represent intelligence is nuts. We've all known
>of people with a high I.Q. who "couldn't tie their shoes," so to speak.
>How can someone be "really smart" yet be inept at simple things? There
>is obviously a lot more going on than just "being smart." Traditional I.Q.
>is supposed to indicate what psychologists call "general intelligence,"
>only one part of the whole picture. Psychologists know this, they just
>haven't figured out a good way to define "true intelligence," let alone
>measure it.

And even a genius can make dumb decisions in his field. Hubris
happens easier with people who have succeeded a lot. How else can we
describe politicians who make idiotic political decisions?

"Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking
they can't lose." - Bill Gates

Howard Brazee

2007-10-16, 6:55 pm

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 07:35:04 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

>It's also a reason that we shouldn't look down on others (or be looked
>down upon) just because of the lack of a certain kind of skill. If we
>were all the same, all but one of us would be unnecessary.

Everybody's different - except for one person.

Howard Brazee

2007-10-16, 6:55 pm

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:38:21 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:

>You're right. Being married to my ex-wife, more than other experience in
>my life, helped me understand that all people and all talents have value,
>in one situation or another.

Alternatively, marriage is enlightening to people who assume they are
the only ones with family issues.

Doug Miller

2007-10-16, 6:55 pm

In article <05n9h3pcjia4f8smdr4vln5mdahvuh3hut@4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

>A lower IQ person who thinks is more useful than a higher IQ person
>who doesn't think.

And a lower IQ person who *works* is more useful than either of them.

In my observation, a person with only modest intelligence but diligent hard
work gets much farther in life than does a lazy genius.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphag

at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Judson McClendon

2007-10-16, 6:55 pm

"Doug Miller" <spambait@milmac.com> wrote:
>
> In my observation, a person with only modest intelligence but diligent hard
> work gets much farther in life than does a lazy genius.

I agree. But let's throw something else into the mix. :-) How do you define
"gets farther?" Is it the one who makes the most money, the one who has
the most admirers, the one who has benefited the most people, or
something else entirely? Many of the people whom "the world" most
admires are the most miserable, and vice-versa. I'm reminded of the
character David Levinson, played by Jeff Goldblum, in the 1996 movie
"Independence Day." He was a genius with a PHD from MIT who worked
for a cable TV company. But he was happy there, doing what he wanted
to do. Who is to say that he would have "gotten farther" in a job where he
accomplished Big Things, but was stressed out and unhappy? Life values
are so different among people, there can hardly be a standard for such
things, maybe not even a good definition of the terms. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Howard Brazee

2007-10-16, 6:55 pm

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:16:34 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:

>
>I agree. But let's throw something else into the mix. :-) How do you define
>"gets farther?" Is it the one who makes the most money, the one who has
>the most admirers, the one who has benefited the most people, or
>something else entirely?

Pick a goal. Whatever your goal is, the better your tools, the more
likely you are of achieving that goal.

IQ is a useful tool. Thinking is more useful, and work is even more
useful.

(Good looks are useful, being a good brown-noser is useful, being glib
is useful, being healthy is useful...)

Pete Dashwood

2007-10-16, 6:55 pm

"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:Wd7Ri.7293$s9.6772@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> "Doug Miller" <spambait@milmac.com> wrote:
>
> I agree. But let's throw something else into the mix. :-) How do you
> define
> "gets farther?" Is it the one who makes the most money, the one who has
> the most admirers, the one who has benefited the most people, or
> something else entirely? Many of the people whom "the world" most
> admires are the most miserable, and vice-versa. I'm reminded of the
> character David Levinson, played by Jeff Goldblum, in the 1996 movie
> "Independence Day." He was a genius with a PHD from MIT who worked
> for a cable TV company. But he was happy there, doing what he wanted
> to do. Who is to say that he would have "gotten farther" in a job where he
> accomplished Big Things, but was stressed out and unhappy?

Er...it's a story, Judson... you know... "fiction"... not good basis for a
serious argument :-)

> Life values
> are so different among people, there can hardly be a standard for such
> things, maybe not even a good definition of the terms. :-)

Most of us will define our own goals and aspirations and be "happy" in the
pursuit of them. I agree with you that "gets farther" is a subjective
assessment.

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

Pete Dashwood

2007-10-16, 6:55 pm

"Doug Miller" <spambait@milmac.com> wrote in message
news:OP5Ri.5578$y21.4891@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
> In article <05n9h3pcjia4f8smdr4vln5mdahvuh3hut@4ax.com>, Howard Brazee
> <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>
> And a lower IQ person who *works* is more useful than either of them.
>
> In my observation, a person with only modest intelligence but diligent
> hard
> work gets much farther in life than does a lazy genius.
>

<Springing to the defence of my fellow lazy geniuses :-)> "I've done OK..."

Pete
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

Pete Dashwood

2007-10-16, 6:55 pm

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:961ah3pa0a84thkjrgoj30ssd6ekajk0su@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:16:34 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
> <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>
> Pick a goal. Whatever your goal is, the better your tools, the more
> likely you are of achieving that goal.
>
> IQ is a useful tool. Thinking is more useful, and work is even more
> useful.
>
> (Good looks are useful, being a good brown-noser is useful, being glib
> is useful, being healthy is useful...)

As usual, a wise observation, Howard.

(Being a sometime user of all of the above, I can vouch for their
usefulness... :-))

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

William M. Klein

2007-10-17, 3:55 am

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:5nl161Fiof1sU3@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
> news:961ah3pa0a84thkjrgoj30ssd6ekajk0su@
4ax.com...
>
> As usual, a wise observation, Howard.
>
> (Being a sometime user of all of the above, I can vouch for their
> usefulness... :-))
>
> Pete.
> --
> "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
>

JOKE - Howard and Pete,
Now, here you go .... making generalizations without qualifications!!!

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com

2007-10-17, 7:55 am

In article <961ah3pa0a84thkjrgoj30ssd6ekajk0su@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:16:34 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
><judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>
>Pick a goal. Whatever your goal is, the better your tools, the more
>likely you are of achieving that goal.

Goedel: the goal picked is 'to have goals which require no tools to achieve'.

DD

Sponsored Links