Political Correctness

[HenrySwanson]

View attachment 797779


It's apparent that you're playing to some kind of standard that allows you to reject others' notions of what constitutes intelligence:

I don't see that as a dodge. I'm arguing that there are differences in what we view as intelligence, but certain traditions hold firm.

For example, who would you say is more intelligent on average, a group of astronauts or a group of talented chefs.

 

[TexRex]

I don't see that as a dodge. I'm arguing that there are differences in what we view as intelligence, but certain traditions hold firm.

For example, who would you say is more intelligent on average, a group of astronauts or a group of talented chefs.

It was a polite request for your a definition to which you subscribe, and you responded by stating that people can't agree on a definition. That's the dodge to which I was referring.

 

[HenrySwanson]

It was a polite request for your a definition to which you subscribe, and you responded by stating that people can't agree on a definition. That's the dodge to which I was referring.

In that case I don't have one that I refer to.

The way people are talking in this thread we could soon be saying the best footballers are more intelligent than average astrophysicists.

 

[TexRex]

In that case I don't have one that I refer to.

The way people are talking in this thread we could soon be saying the best footballers are more intelligent than average astrophysicists.

The way people are talking in this thread, the concept of intelligence is impossibly broad and not easily quantifiable, which isn't in and of itself indicative of a descent into the irrational to which you've just alluded.

 

[HenrySwanson]

The way people are talking in this thread, the concept of intelligence is impossibly broad and not easily quantifiable, which isn't in and of itself indicative of a descent into the irrational to which you've just alluded.

So you think it's irrational. Why would that be?

I believe we can use the word "genius" to describe someone who isn't necessarily intelligent.

For example I'd consider Messi, Einstein and Thomas Keller geniuses in their respective fields. But if I put up a poll asking who people view as the most intelligent who do you think would come top and why.

 

[TexRex]

So you think it's irrational. Why would that be?

Not in the least, because I subscribe to the notion that intelligence is impossibly broad and not easily quantifiable, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least that an athlete capable of thinking and reacting quickly in a manner that leads to victory is more "intelligent" (whatever that means) than a drone implementing established processes.

In the context quoted, however--combined with your previous rejections of comments regarding what constitutes intelligence--I perceived it to be an example of the irrational.

 

[PocketZeven]

So you think it's irrational. Why would that be?

I believe we can use the word "genius" to describe someone who isn't necessarily intelligent.

For example I'd consider Messi, Einstein and Thomas Keller geniuses in their respective fields. But if I put up a poll asking who people view as the most intelligent who do you think would come top and why.

The conversation started about your statement that intelligence varies between "races". To get further insight in this statement I would like to know what your definition is for intelligence. Do you mean straight up IQ test, or are you using a different definition. To make above statement it should be measurable to back up the claim.

Even if that is the case, I'm sure he would:

- Have a higher than average IQ
- Be able to hold intelligent conversations
- Have an advanced knowledge of an intellectual subject

As an example of your perception of intelligence you highlighted the above. To interpet the above, you are stating an intelligent person has to have a high IQ test score, Talk intelligently and have advanced knowledge of an intellectual subject. Which IQ test scores are relevant and objective? I never did one seriously, so I am curious which one I should do.

I definately would argue that being able to converse intelligently is a social skill that is not neccesarily measured through intelligence. In your perception however one can only be intelligent if a person has advanced knowledge about intelectual subjects and converse about it? Having an advanced knowledge of a certain subject is related to your education, experience and social surroundings. Like I stated earlier if a scholar of art started to converse with a physics scientist about renaissance art who has no knowledge about it. The art scholar would subjectively find the physics scientist as not intelligent within your statement. A college jock can explain very complicated tactics, training regimes, the human body etc. about their sport and still underperform academically.

In short how do you come to the conclusion that there intelligence varies between "races"? Your statement for example, I subjectively think is not intelligent.

So you think it's irrational. Why would that be?

I believe we can use the word "genius" to describe someone who isn't necessarily intelligent.

For example I'd consider Messi, Einstein and Thomas Keller geniuses in their respective fields. But if I put up a poll asking who people view as the most intelligent who do you think would come top and why.

Depends on which definition you use and what you use to measure the definition. The way Messi solves difficult problems with logic, creativity and awareness in a split second on the field, with millions of people watching under immense pressure is a clear sign of intelligence. So could Einstein achieve the same proficiency if he studied football when he was young instead of physics?

 

[Danoff]

I think the traditional view of intelligence still holds so that while a fantastic chef may be creative he is not necessarily intelligent, whereas all neurosurgeons are intelligent.

Neurosurgeons, and especially rocket scientists, are not always very smart when it comes to personal interactions, social cues, reading body language, empathy, cooking, etc.

To put a slightly finer point on it, I have an advanced degree in engineering, specifically in the area of spacecraft trajectory design and optimization. I struggled really hard in chemistry. Damned near didn't get a good enough grade in it to qualify as a pre-req for other engineering courses. Am I smart? Not in the field of chemistry I'm not. I know of at least one person who is quite brilliant with electronics and has a degree in electrical engineering who can, at times, be quite difficult to even hold a basic conversation with. I know of an engineer who fell for a pyramid scheme. I know a brilliant astrodynamics expert who is a Young Earth creationist, and I know a very sharp legal mind, who shaped part of the US legal code, who believes in the healing power of crystals.

So what I'm saying is that people can be smart and stupid at the same time in different areas of intelligence. So is someone who is smart and stupid at the same time... smart? I've seen too many types of intelligence to subscribe to the "traditional" narrow view of intelligence.

 

[Biggles]

Neurosurgeons, and especially rocket scientists, are not always very smart when it comes to personal interactions, social cues, reading body language, empathy, cooking, etc.

To put a slightly finer point on it, I have an advanced degree in engineering, specifically in the area of spacecraft trajectory design and optimization. I struggled really hard in chemistry. Damned near didn't get a good enough grade in it to qualify as a pre-req for other engineering courses. Am I smart? Not in the field of chemistry I'm not. I know of at least one person who is quite brilliant with electronics and has a degree in electrical engineering who can, at times, be quite difficult to even hold a basic conversation with. I know of an engineer who fell for a pyramid scheme. I know a brilliant astrodynamics expert who is a Young Earth creationist, and I know a very sharp legal mind, who shaped part of the US legal code, who believes in the healing power of crystals.

So what I'm saying is that people can be smart and stupid at the same time in different areas of intelligence. So is someone who is smart and stupid at the same time... smart? I've seen too many types of intelligence to subscribe to the "traditional" narrow view of intelligence.

For instance ... isn't Ben Carson a neurosurgeon?

 

[Mr Tree]

I think the traditional view of intelligence still holds so that while a fantastic chef may be creative he is not necessarily intelligent, whereas all neurosurgeons are intelligent. That's not to diminish the skills of the chef - I would call my dad one of the best mechanics in the world because of his resourcefulness and ingenuity but he would be the first to admit he's not that intelligent. In a lot of ways I would prefer to have my dad's brain rather than an intelligent one because I would be highly valued in my field (he's been flown to different continents to fix rally prepared cars) but I believe there is still a distinction between intelligence and being gifted in a craft.

Which is imo a purely subjective defenition of intelligence that you would like to be objective. Don't take this the offensive way I hope it makes sense by the end of this post.

Even if that is the case, I'm sure he would:

- Have a higher than average IQ
- Be able to hold intelligent conversations
- Have an advanced knowledge of an intellectual subject

EDIT: I'm not saying those in non-intellectual jobs are not intelligent. My smartest uncle used to work in the garbage tip and one of my memories of him was his ability to solve the countdown maths puzzles

In yout last paragraph you almost show yourself the light. I'm an engineer, often when I run into a extremely practical issue I just walk into the shop and ask a welder or mechanic if they know a solution from the top of their head. They often have a very simple solution consisting of elements I don't often see but they use on a daily basis. Are they smarter then me? Am I smarter then them? Starts to become a harder question to answer.

Isn't intelligence kinda subjective? Like TenEightyOne said about the physics teacher who can't wire a kettle. I've worked with some electrical engineers who could design a Hydro Dam but need a 10 minute explanation how to get to a certain webpage and need things repeated to them 3 times before they seem to understand it, even then I'm not sure.

I think intelligence would be more about how quickly someone can adapt to new and retain old information. Sure most people can study a subject for 15 years and know everything there is to know about it, but struggle to check themselves out at the grocery store or be completely lost trying to operate any sort of machinery or equipment.

Just because someone has no prior knowledge or training in a particular subject doesn't make them unintelligent.

I like to subscribe to this idea of intelligence a lot because in my job and hobbies this is what is most helpfull/productive.

Yet I still don't see this as THE defenition of intelligence.

Yeah - but you're really talking about different kinds of intelligence. I'm saying how do you even go about devising a way of testing for "intelligence" that is not culturally dependent? The isolated tribesman is an extreme example - he's likely to have no reference for math, reading or other similar skills that are commonly used as the basis for intelligence tests in the developed world ... but individuals actually in the the developed world have such a wide range of exposure to cultural norms that I don't understand how any test can comprehensively measure relative intelligence in any meaningfully absolute way.

Imo you're getting to the solution. (See my opinion below.

Intelligent people are very often the successful people. Successful in school tests, yes, but more importantly in the greater test of life, particularly tests of adversity and misfortune. The successful person has the qualities of patience, persistence and resourcefulness.

I don't fully agree but you do point out what I believe should be considered intelligence. (See below)

School tests are but a minor indication of successes to come. The real test is the test of life, the test of meeting reality.

This is why I don't fully agree. I don't accept that unsuccesfull people are not intelligent.
Why is at the bottom of this post.

I don't see that as a dodge. I'm arguing that there are differences in what we view as intelligence, but certain traditions hold firm.

For example, who would you say is more intelligent on average, a group of astronauts or a group of talented chefs.

Your traditions hold firm but not because they are a good defenition for the world. It's because what you consider intelligence, in your life, still are good qualities to achieve succes.

And this gets me to my opinion. Intelligence is a word used to point to the qualities one posseses to succesfully achieve a goal.

It's a word to make concersation easier but shouldn't be defined as intelligence isn't a certain set of qualities. It's more like 'best' nothing is best because it is best, it's best for something.

So someone can be the most intelligent for a certain job/task but someone else can be more intelligent for an other.

 

[Dotini]

So someone can be the most intelligent for a certain job/task but someone else can be more intelligent for an other.

Bobby Fischer was possibly the greatest chess player who ever lived. Yet he had an ugly and paranoid personality, living the life of a hermit and criminal. He thought Russians were listening to his thoughts, so he had his dental fillings drilled out.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Bobby Fischer was possibly the greatest chess player who ever lived. Yet he had an ugly and paranoid personality, living the life of a hermit and criminal. He thought Russians were listening to his thoughts, so he had his dental fillings drilled out.

Did he use anesthesia at least? Drilling out fillings au natural would be crazy.

 

[Dotini]

Did he use anesthesia at least? Drilling out fillings au natural would be crazy.

As far as I know the work was done by a dentist. Fischer had some money, but chose a weird lifestyle. I don't believe he used drugs or smoked.

 

[TenEightyOne]

As far as I know the work was done by a dentist. Fischer had some money, but chose a weird lifestyle. I don't believe he used drugs or smoked.

Several of his biographers (particularly Brady) say that the supposed motivation for having his fillings removed is an urban legend - there's no documentary evidence that it was the reason and no primary sources. He had poor dental health and eventually lost almost all of his teeth, in later life he had a lot of dental work done.

With that said he was quite mad.

 

[Dotini]

Several of his biographers (particularly Brady) say that the supposed motivation for having his fillings removed is an urban legend - there's no documentary evidence that it was the reason and no primary sources. He had poor dental health and eventually lost almost all of his teeth, in later life he had a lot of dental work done.

With that said he was quite mad.

Back in the day when I was captain of my high school chess team, Fischer was lionized as a national hero fighting against the Soviet overdogs then dominating world chess. We studied his famous victories and Brilliancy Prize games like they were revelations from a deity. It was only later we all learned how truly strange he was. I once read a book about the history of all the world chess champions. About half of them were accomplished and dignified scientists, mathematicians, musicians, diplomats and doctors. And the other half were stark raving bonkers.

 

[Danoff]

So someone can be the most intelligent for a certain job/task but someone else can be more intelligent for an other.

It's such a tough thing to nail down.

- Is it intelligence to flip a burger? I mean, yes some level of brain power is required to tell your arm to move a spatula, but is it what we're thinking of when we think of the word intelligence?
- What if you carry out a series of steps carefully when you flip the burger? "Cook it 2 min per side, then move it to the plate, scrape off the residue, next patty".
- What if there are more steps? "Put the steak in the grinder and grind out a half pound. Shape it into a patty. Add 3 kinds of seasoning. Add proper amount of oil. For a medium rare burger, sear both sides at 800 degrees, followed by cooking at 350 degrees on each side. Make sure that this utensil doesn't touch that one, wash these 3 things when you're done, put these items back. When you wash the grinder you need to remove such-and-such covering, make sure you get this element clear of any ground beef... etc. etc."

What if you invented the steps?

"Hmmm... this burger is excellent, but I think we could achieve a better outer texture if we adjusted the timing slightly. The lettuce on this burger doesn't compliment the spices, I think we could switch to arugula."

What if you invented the steps and nobody likes it?
What if you invented the steps and EVERYBODY likes it, and you're renowned for your burgers?
What if you invented the steps, and you also refined a secret listing of sources for ingredients from farmers who use exactly the techniques that bring out the best flavor?
What if you didn't just invent the steps for the burger, but invented the steps for an entire menu of dishes, each of which is separately renowned by critics and connoisseurs?

I can do this for math too. Start with the inability to make change and work your way all the way up through measuring, unit conversions, basic engineering, and particle physics.

Somewhere in there is enough brain power that we consider it "intelligent". We don't consider to be intelligent to fire neurons to tell your arm to move a tool. But somewhere along the line the neuron firing gets complex enough that we start to call it "intelligence". It's a fuzzy word, but it definitely represents something real.

I'm not sure I'm of the opinion that it simply cannot be measured, but I'm definitely of the opinion that we're not good at measuring it. And what's more, I think that if we could measure it it would look more like measuring a weight lifting competition. Nobody looks at those competitions and thinks "wow that person is innately stronger than I am". They recognize that the person worked that muscle really hard in that particular way to achieve that result. Kinda like watching jeopardy. I hope nobody watches that and thinks "those people are so smart". But you wouldn't say that because someone can do the most pull-ups of anyone in the world that the same person would win a deadlifting competition or win a marathon, and that's the kind of mistake we make when we try to assess intelligence. We seem to think that the person who can deadlift the most is the smartest, meanwhile someone is out there running the world's fastest marathon and we call them weak because they can barely deadlift anything.

 

[MatskiMonk]

It's such a tough thing to nail down.

- Is it intelligence to flip a burger? I mean, yes some level of brain power is required to tell your arm to move a spatula, but is it what we're thinking of when we think of the word intelligence?
- What if you carry out a series of steps carefully when you flip the burger? "Cook it 2 min per side, then move it to the plate, scrape off the residue, next patty".
- What if there are more steps? "Put the steak in the grinder and grind out a half pound. Shape it into a patty. Add 3 kinds of seasoning. Add proper amount of oil. For a medium rare burger, sear both sides at 800 degrees, followed by cooking at 350 degrees on each side. Make sure that this utensil doesn't touch that one, wash these 3 things when you're done, put these items back. When you wash the grinder you need to remove such-and-such covering, make sure you get this element clear of any ground beef... etc. etc."

What if you invented the steps?

"Hmmm... this burger is excellent, but I think we could achieve a better outer texture if we adjusted the timing slightly. The lettuce on this burger doesn't compliment the spices, I think we could switch to arugula."

What if you invented the steps and nobody likes it?
What if you invented the steps and EVERYBODY likes it, and you're renowned for your burgers?
What if you invented the steps, and you also refined a secret listing of sources for ingredients from farmers who use exactly the techniques that bring out the best flavor?
What if you didn't just invent the steps for the burger, but invented the steps for an entire menu of dishes, each of which is separately renowned by critics and connoisseurs?

I can do this for math too. Start with the inability to make change and work your way all the way up through measuring, unit conversions, basic engineering, and particle physics.

Somewhere in there is enough brain power that we consider it "intelligent". We don't consider to be intelligent to fire neurons to tell your arm to move a tool. But somewhere along the line the neuron firing gets complex enough that we start to call it "intelligence". It's a fuzzy word, but it definitely represents something real.

I'm not sure I'm of the opinion that it simply cannot be measured, but I'm definitely of the opinion that we're not good at measuring it. And what's more, I think that if we could measure it it would look more like measuring a weight lifting competition. Nobody looks at those competitions and thinks "wow that person is innately stronger than I am". They recognize that the person worked that muscle really hard in that particular way to achieve that result. Kinda like watching jeopardy. I hope nobody watches that and thinks "those people are so smart". But you wouldn't say that because someone can do the most pull-ups of anyone in the world that the same person would win a deadlifting competition or win a marathon, and that's the kind of mistake we make when we try to assess intelligence. We seem to think that the person who can deadlift the most is the smartest, meanwhile someone is out there running the world's fastest marathon and we call them weak because they can barely deadlift anything.

I've always felt the capacity to adapt processes, systems or situations you're unfamiliar with, and interpret the things you don't know about, is the useful element of intelligence - effectively problem solving. Observation, interpretation, appropriate action, repeat. Along with this, an ability to store and recall all the information you pick up along the way features as well... and finally an ability to extrapolate from stored knowledge and observation. Whether or not this represents intelligence, I don't know, but it's the quality I find important.

I did an IQ test once... did quite well, I have a job title that includes words like "Technical" and "Director", however, the first time I was left alone to flip burgers on the pub BBQ I nearly set fire to a canopy. I never assume burger flippers lack intelligence.

 

[Danoff]

I've always felt the capacity to adapt processes, systems or situations you're unfamiliar with, and interpret the things you don't know about, is the useful element of intelligence - effectively problem solving.

So that kinda leaves out art. For example, George RR Martin starts from a blank sheet of paper every time he writes. It's the same starting point, and just expression throughout.

Along with this, an ability to store and recall all the information you pick up along the way features as well...

You mean in your mind? What if you're forgetful but take good notes?

and finally an ability to extrapolate from stored knowledge and observation.

Pattern recognition. Ironically I find myself drawn more toward intelligence focused around creativity and innovation rather than extrapolation and interpolation. I'm more interested in breaking the pattern than filling it out.

 

[TenEightyOne]

So that kinda leaves out art.

I disagree, creating art from words, paint, sound, metal, clay, cloth and so on requires a high number of problem-solving skills that can require any mixture of mathematical conservation, physical dexterity, chemical understanding to get from tabula rasa to a finished product. The artist might not understand the full extent of every process but nonetheless the mental capacity of artists is significantly greater in certain ways to those who cannot create similar art.

 

[Danoff]

I disagree, creating art from words, paint, sound, metal, clay, cloth and so on requires a high number of problem-solving skills that can require any mixture of mathematical conservation, physical dexterity, chemical understanding to get from tabula rasa to a finished product. The artist might not understand the full extent of every process but nonetheless the mental capacity of artists is significantly greater in certain ways to those who cannot create similar art.

I'm not sure if you misunderstood me or are disagreeing (perhaps I was confusing).

What I was saying was that problem solving and adapting to changing circumstances does not account for the particular kind of intelligence required to create something new and unique from the same starting point - a blank slate.

Certainly the implementation might require problem solving. Like, for example, if you're trying to create a particular look for a sculpture and have trouble figuring out how to make it hang together structurally.

But that's a combination of pure creativity and problem solving for how to implement it. I'm sure that traditionalists when it comes to intelligence would have no trouble calling it intelligent to figure out how to get that sculpture to hang in that way. What I'm arguing is that it is also separately intelligent to come up with the idea, even if implementation is cake... or straightforward. Even if it's not hard to figure out how to put the words on paper, and the ideas conveyed do not represent problem solving or adaption, but merely expression, it is still, imo, a potentially high form of intelligence. Just one that problem solving and adaptation doesn't account for.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm not sure if you misunderstood me or are disagreeing (perhaps I was confusing)...that's a combination of pure creativity and problem solving for how to implement it. I'm sure that traditionalists when it comes to intelligence would have no trouble calling it intelligent to figure out how to get that sculpture to hang in that way. What I'm arguing is that it is also separately intelligent to come up with the idea, even if implementation is cake... or straightforward. Even if it's not hard to figure out how to put the words on paper, and the ideas conveyed do not represent problem solving or adaption, but merely expression, it is still, imo, a potentially high form of intelligence. Just one that problem solving and adaptation doesn't account for.

Originally I was disagreeing but in retrospect I'm agreeing

 

[MatskiMonk]

@Danoff

I don't want to abandon this discussion but I'm pushed for time. Generally speaking I don't think creating art is necessarily a sign of high intelligence, mostly because of the hugely broad interpretation of what art is, the techniques and mediums involved, and the fact that in some disciplines physical skills are required. Having said that, the interpretation of Art to me is somewhat of a problem solving activity - in that respect, being an artist may be a problem-setting activity, which could well demonstrate the same mental ability to mentally test and work through thousands of creative actions 'on the fly' when creating an artwork.

I won't pretend I know the answer to the question "what is an idea", or "where does an idea come from", but I'd guess it starts with a "what if...", and therefore whatever the medium is, to a point, the decisions the mind is making a long the way may be being made using the elements I made in earlier post.

Also, that could be gibberish... I'm very tired.

 

[TomBrady]

 

[TenEightyOne]

Except "political correctness" doesn't exist. In addition to that mistake the quote seems to confuse freedom of speech with freedom of consequence.

 

[Danoff]

Generally speaking I don't think creating art is necessarily a sign of high intelligence, mostly because of the hugely broad interpretation of what art is, the techniques and mediums involved, and the fact that in some disciplines physical skills are required.

Obviously physical skills being involved has nothing to do with it. It's a physical skill to be able to type, to draw a blueprint. Football is a physical sport, and yet I don't think anyone would question whether it's intelligent to read a defense and adjust a play call. Perhaps carpentry is a good combination of all of the above, physical skill, art, and intellect. Carpentry requires an understanding of materials, measurements, structural analysis, and perhaps most of all, spatial awareness. The fact that something is involves physical skill in no way precludes it from being intelligent. It's simply an added component. In fact, people can intellectually think through physical skills, why they work, why particular techniques work, and theorize about changes to physical techniques that will bring better results.

Creativity, in my opinion, is perhaps the most quintessential human intellectual endeavor. It's almost certainly the most valuable, but it is also the hardest thing to replace that the human mind does. I've sat in a room full of 30 engineers, with various advanced degrees and decades upon decades of experience. They're all bringing their considerable analytical prowess to bear on a particular engineering topic, in the case I'm thinking of, the topic was spacecraft navigation. And then one person says "what if it we did it this way", and that moment is the moment that breaks the problem. Any individual person in the room could reduce that idea to practice, crunch the numbers, hone a perfect product, adapt the engineering to the new idea etc. etc. Nobody in the room even needs to be explicitly told how to adapt to the new way of thinking. They're all brilliant people, and they were all stuck, their brilliance impotent to the problem until one person says "what if", in a spark of creativity. That's where the value is. That's where humanity gets shoved ahead. Not in taking that idea and reducing it to practice, thousands of people can do that job. But if that idea doesn't come from that person at that moment, maybe it never comes.

I've seen it. Firsthand. I've seen how much the work of huge teams of brilliant people hinges on creativity. It's a beautiful thing.

 

[mustafur]

Except "political correctness" doesn't exist. In addition to that mistake the quote seems to confuse freedom of speech with freedom of consequence.

But that is a clear political argument not based on fact.

You don't even need a majority of the populace to go against you for you to feel consequences, that argument basically limits the Media and Twitter your judges.

 

[UKMikey]

But that is a clear political argument not based on fact.

Welcome to the O&CE forum...

You don't even need a majority of the populace to go against you for you to feel consequences, that argument basically limits the Media and Twitter your judges.

So it's silencing for a given value of silence? People really don't have a right to stop other people from commenting on their opinions. They are however free to voice their opinions on other platforms.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You don't even need a majority of the populace to go against you for you to feel consequences, that argument basically limits the Media and Twitter your judges.

Say it for me just once: "The left-wing of society is correct in everything it says and does". Go on, just once, write that in a post. Please.

 

[Mr Tree]

Except "political correctness" doesn't exist. In addition to that mistake the quote seems to confuse freedom of speech with freedom of consequence.

I agree the wording is a bit ruff, don't forget this is a comedian. But I think dismissing the point he's making is unhelpfull.
He's got a point, the groups fighting against discrimination have branding problem as the world believes we want to achieve that through limiting speech.

But that is a clear political argument not based on fact.

You don't even need a majority of the populace to go against you for you to feel consequences, that argument basically limits the Media and Twitter your judges.

What's not based on fact? Political correctness as a law a strict code we are obliged to follow does not exist.

I live in a society where I hear everyone complaining aabout political correctness and when one starts it's a circle jerk of yeah we're so oppressed. No one is judging them, yet when I open my mouth in an average group of people I'm a leftist rat, I should be dead instead of red, I'm a traitor to my country,... my speech isn't limited due to this as the rightwings speech isn't by political correctness.
If you have unconventional/unsavery opinions and you want to evangelise those opinions you have to be prepared to face opposition from people with disscenting opinions.

Why does 'the right' act like snowflakes in.this regard and act as if they're entitled to a political bubble when out on the streets. Was this not a free marketplace of ideas?

Remark: I'm not saying you feel that way, it just could be and others do.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Neurosurgeons, and especially rocket scientists, are not always very smart when it comes to personal interactions, social cues, reading body language, empathy, cooking, etc.

To put a slightly finer point on it, I have an advanced degree in engineering, specifically in the area of spacecraft trajectory design and optimization. I struggled really hard in chemistry. Damned near didn't get a good enough grade in it to qualify as a pre-req for other engineering courses. Am I smart? Not in the field of chemistry I'm not. I know of at least one person who is quite brilliant with electronics and has a degree in electrical engineering who can, at times, be quite difficult to even hold a basic conversation with. I know of an engineer who fell for a pyramid scheme. I know a brilliant astrodynamics expert who is a Young Earth creationist, and I know a very sharp legal mind, who shaped part of the US legal code, who believes in the healing power of crystals.

So what I'm saying is that people can be smart and stupid at the same time in different areas of intelligence. So is someone who is smart and stupid at the same time... smart? I've seen too many types of intelligence to subscribe to the "traditional" narrow view of intelligence.

But the bottom line is....you are intelligent.

From your degree
From your job
From your interactions on these forums.

Sure you have weaknesses, as do geniuses, but you would be classed as intelligent.