Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

How is lacking in original thought stupid's the question basically. 

 intelligence is unrelated to utility

TPG said: 

Turncoat said: 

How is lacking in original thought stupid's the question basically. 

 intelligence is unrelated to utility

That doesn't really answer the question. 

I could see a willingness to conform being more intelligent than an insistence towards original thinking in the face of superior solutions, as is blatantly shown by the Flat Earth phenomenon. 

Reinventing the wheel has always been the means to progress. 

Science and mathematics, in so far as breakthroughs are concerned, has been characterized by periods of what Popper called normal science during which a paradigm is actualized followed by an ephemeral period of substantial progress via a paradigm shift. 

Research programs, which is what is being discussed as that is the point of an institution such as a University, can be progressive or degenerative. When a program has been normalized and and its paradigm has been thoroughly actualized there is no new insight that can be had from it and as such it can be said to be degenerative by the mere fact that it no longer yields anything. 

I assume what is to be considered stupidity is a reflection of static research program that has become normalized to the point where the institution is no longer progressive but purely degenerative as it not only yields nothing but actively works against the manifestation of paradigm shift that would yield a new progressive research program. 

Turncoat said: 

TPG said: 

Turncoat said: 

How is lacking in original thought stupid's the question basically. 

 intelligence is unrelated to utility

That doesn't really answer the question. 

I could see a willingness to conform being more intelligent than an insistence towards original thinking in the face of superior solutions, as is blatantly shown by the Flat Earth phenomenon. 

 it did answer the original question

of course a willingness to conform because it appears to be a more logical opinion displays intelligence, but this is different from conforming to something just because the spirit of the times demand it

AliceInWonderland said: 

Reinventing the wheel has always been the means to progress. 

They have to learn how wheels work in the first place in order to see if it even needs to be reinvented, if it's to have higher odds of being an improvement. Doing it for it's own sake without conforming to a prior understanding tends to lead to easily dismissed theories and products, especially if their own base of perceptions are kept to themselves without a comparative basis in reality. It's like how a dude I looked up a few years back thought that emotions could change the reality around him with no basis in comparative reality, it left him laughable even if he turns out later to be right. 

We've had Luna's approach to forum building against her own former models as a blatant example of how reinvention for reinvention's sake can be degenerative. 

I assume what is to be considered stupidity is a reflection of static research program that has become normalized to the point where the institution is no longer progressive but purely degenerative as it not only yields nothing but actively works against the notion of paradigm shift that would yield a new progressive research program. 

Is progress inherently smart though, or merely adaptive? 

Is it intelligent to be able to change the world through understanding it, or to see the world shouldn't be changed through the very same understanding? 

Is it smarter to allow the self-driving car, or delay it so that truck drivers and the like can still work, or is intelligence only as far as one's capacity to invent? 

TPG said: 

Turncoat said: 

TPG said: 

Turncoat said: 

How is lacking in original thought stupid's the question basically. 

 intelligence is unrelated to utility

That doesn't really answer the question. 

I could see a willingness to conform being more intelligent than an insistence towards original thinking in the face of superior solutions, as is blatantly shown by the Flat Earth phenomenon. 

 it did answer the original question

of course a willingness to conform because it appears to be a more logical opinion displays intelligence, but this is different from conforming to something just because the spirit of the times demand it

Would someone resisting conformity purely for the sake of it be more intelligent than someone accepting it purely for the sake of it? 

Turncoat said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

Reinventing the wheel has always been the means to progress. 

They have to learn how wheels work in the first place in order to see if it even needs to be reinvented, if it's to have higher odds of being an improvement. Doing it for it's own sake without conforming to a prior understanding tends to lead to easily dismissed theories and products, especially if their own base of perceptions are kept to themselves without a comparative basis in reality. It's like how a dude I looked up a few years back thought that emotions could change the reality around him with no basis in comparative reality, it left him laughable even if he turns out later to be right. 

We've had Luna's approach to forum building against her own former models as a blatant example of how reinvention for reinvention's sake can be degenerative. 

There is an established criteria for what constitutes a progressive research program. 

A progressive research program would be one that establishes a period of growth, is predictive, and more precise in its approximations than the previous program. 

I assume what is to be considered stupidity is a reflection of static research program that has become normalized to the point where the institution is no longer progressive but purely degenerative as it not only yields nothing but actively works against the notion of paradigm shift that would yield a new progressive research program. 

Is progress inherently smart though, or merely adaptive? 

Is it intelligent to be able to change the world through understanding it, or to see the world shouldn't be changed through the very same understanding? 

Is it smarter to allow the self-driving car, or delay it so that truck drivers and the like can still work, or is intelligence only as far as one's capacity to invent? 

We are talking about Universities which are research institutions and as such what is being discussed is Theory of Research, not social or economic progress and how to optimally implement it. 

As it relates to Scientific research and progress, in so far as it meets the stated criteria, yes adaptation and change is not only progressive but positively progressive.  

Turncoat said: 

TPG said: 

Turncoat said: 

TPG said: 

Turncoat said: 

How is lacking in original thought stupid's the question basically. 

 intelligence is unrelated to utility

That doesn't really answer the question. 

I could see a willingness to conform being more intelligent than an insistence towards original thinking in the face of superior solutions, as is blatantly shown by the Flat Earth phenomenon. 

 it did answer the original question

of course a willingness to conform because it appears to be a more logical opinion displays intelligence, but this is different from conforming to something just because the spirit of the times demand it

Would someone resisting conformity purely for the sake of it be more intelligent than someone accepting it purely for the sake of it? 

 no they would not

Your thoughts are here, but are they really your thoughts, or someone else's?

user33313 said: 

Your thoughts are here, but are they really your thoughts, or someone else's?

 most of them are influenced by what i've read, particularly paul ree, schopenhauer and neitzsche

edit: infact, paul ree has had the most out of all of them if i could put a percentage, 75% as the minimum