RE: Smarts?

RE: Smarts? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master

Message

NocturnalStalker -> RE: Smarts? (3/31/2011 2:30:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ranja with a dictionairy at hand and an awful lot of concentration i can... if i take the time... just about understand whatever porcelaine is posting on the boards.... i must be mad i really prefer sex to thinking I guess "having your brains screwed out" is more literal for you.

NihilusZero -> RE: Smarts? (3/31/2011 2:37:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 Or, a different viewpoint (and one I suspect would be well received among cognitive scientists) is that we are learning a lot more about what "intelligence" actually is and the ways it manifests. This makes much more sense to me. Admittedly, this is perhaps because I'd tend to think that cognitive scientists are approaching the issue clinically and, from there, would determine what parameters are genuinely involved in "intelligence" as it is to be defined. As in...they are describing capabilities. Whether those get put into "intelligence" or not is irrelevant (and just an issue of semantics). quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 In both your scenario and mine the definition is changing. The question is "why" and is that change useful. For myself, what I know is that Carol would not score in the genius or above categories on an IQ test but I still find it extremely useful to listen to her thoughts, viewpoints, and insights into a situation. Whatever the IQ test is missing about her "intelligence", my brain is not. nod I'd also guess that, for you, this would parallel how you view the "slave" topic: you're not nearly as concerned with her abilities being incorporated into the term "intelligence" for the sake of her being able to self-appropriate the term as much as you are concerned that her empathic/insightful/interpretative skill happens to be incredible useful to you (the pragmatic) and also complementary and appealing to your own views (the emotive). I get the feeling that there's a much easier way to word what i'm getting at ("Be who you are instead of trying to bend reality to include you in the categories you'd want it to, but don't currently qualify for."?). I seem to recall my New Year's resolution was to be more pithy. sigh

NihilusZero -> RE: Smarts? (3/31/2011 2:41:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: porcelaine It's the cool kid complex. [;)] Which...is incredibly interesting to think of, from that angle. It immediately reminded me of this article, which was linked in a discussion I was a part of a while back.

porcelaine -> RE: Smarts? (3/31/2011 3:04:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero Which...is incredibly interesting to think of, from that angle. It immediately reminded me of this article, which was linked in a discussion I was a part of a while back. That's an interesting read and i'd have to agree. i think we've seen that in action over yonder. For me, the difference rests in whether one 'wants' to be x and if the individual 'needs' to be x. Therein lies part of the problem. At the end of the day what percentage is genuine and which part is hype? In many instances the spin doctor starts believing his propaganda. Namaste, ~porcelaine

Arturas -> RE: Smarts? (3/31/2011 3:06:36 PM)
I don't look for nor am I attracted to the less smart or playing dumb submissive. They are not very interesting. I like to have dinner and vanilla dates with my submissive and converse and share my victories as well as my failures and not just use her for her "submissiveness". Smarter the submissive the better for me.

Arturas -> RE: Smarts? (3/31/2011 3:43:33 PM)
quote: i remember a thread somewhere, either here or on FL, where a girl's friend told her something to the effect of "if you want to find someone, you have to dumb yourself down." while i don't believe that's universally true, i think in a lot of cases, it is. is it an ego thing? I thought I'd get around finally to actually answering the question you asked rather than one I wanted to answer! Is is an ego thing? No. It is a weakness thing. For it to be an ego thing a man would want to accomplish something worth doing and talking down to someone who is not smart is not something that strokes an ego more than it strokes a weakness.

kdsusa7894 -> RE: Smarts? (3/31/2011 3:53:54 PM)
I understand why you would ask Lilly- I have watched women "dummy down" and it is ridiculous. If I had to do that to be with anyone then I don't belong with them. And if I have to do it to be with him does that mean he is dumber than I? I don't think it's an ego thing and if it is it's not an ego I wanna stroke to start with. I don't mind men being smarter than me as long as they are prepared to answer all my questions until I learn it for myself :) because odds are there are things I know about that he won't know about. Two way street. To me there is also a difference with the attitude that comes with the knowledge, I wouldn't like someone telling me "You should do ______ because I know more about it and I said to" nah, that wouldn't work for me, I would want someone willing to share the knowledge.

leadership527 -> RE: Smarts? (3/31/2011 4:02:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero would determine what parameters are genuinely involved in "intelligence" as it is to be defined. nods but there appears to be a lot of confusion in that area. In my opinion this is largely because the scientific community still hasn't quite gotten out of the dark ages yet regards the belief that homosapiens is special. So we insist on saying the only intelligence to be studied is human intelligence which pretty much gives us a crappy, objective viewpoint to study it with. All that being said, my current working definition is that IQ is the equivalent of CPU speed on a computer. The more IQ points, the more operations per second get performed. IQ as it is currently measured is really measuring a very limited and specific type of processing that some are better at than others. Carol's brother would score pretty poorly on an IQ test but the man built a successful business from the ground up retaining 10 employees and if you show him one of those cursed puzzles with the strings and rings and blocks he looks at it for about 10 seconds then poof it's solved. Clearly in the area of geometric topology he's got A LOT of cpu cycles to burn although he wouldn't know the phrase "geometric topology" and he wouldn't understand the mathematics of how a complex shape construction of ropes and hoops and blocks could be expressed as a geometric system. It'd be tempting to call him stupid all except for the fact that he can solve that damned puzzle about 5000 times faster than me. It's also worth noting the similarities. A fast CPU can get you to a really wrong answer really quickly... as can a high IQ. You're right about appropriation of terms. If I thought Carol was actually stupid by my best understand of what IQ means then I'd just say that... something like, "Well, she's not super-bright but she's ....." But that's not the case. Not only are her insights coming out of different corners than mine (so inherently useful) but I am also routinely impressed by her ability to size something up in complex ways. Just not math and the normal "IQ things". Honestly, the whole "IQ" thing is a joke. That and a buck will get you a cup of coffee... unless you're at Starbucks. I'll take wisdom which actually has real utility. IQ is good for impressing friends (if you have that sort of friend) and that's about it.

porcelaine -> RE: Smarts? (3/31/2011 4:03:26 PM)
i wish we had some natural order supporters weighing in on this subject. In that instance i can understand how her intellect might be minimized in deference to an ideology or fetish (depending on his approach). If her perceives her as inferior she probably wouldn't go out of her way to prove him wrong. But that usually involves a certain degree of subjugation and an omission of self promotion or vaulting over the other party. Namaste, ~porcelaine

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Smarts? (3/31/2011 4:27:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness FR. In response to the thread topic - generally speaking women require a guy they can look up to. If it's not in the arena of intelligence then he'd better be a damned sight more accomplished than she is. And no, there is not more than one type of "intelligence". Threads about intelligence generally turn into ego-massaging exercises in which total thickheads attempt to convince us of the virtue of "street smarts" and "emotional intelligence", then demonstrate a lack of both by attempting to disparage "book learnin'" in a vain effort to compensate for the fact that they're generally fucking morons. I know bright when I see it. I also know a total boofhead when I see one. For myself, I prefer a woman who can keep up with me, but not one who's smarter. That would irritate me. At a guess, as long as she's within 5 or 10 IQ points, we're probably going to be all good - although I don't have any scientific rationale for this, merely anecdotal evidence. I beg to differ on that statement. About 25 years ago, Dr Howard Gardner formulated a model of eight different intelligence types, which correspond to specific regions of the brain. A person can be intelligent in more than one region, but no one is intelligent in all regions. This is not new science; it's 25 years old and has been expanded on a great deal since then. Its now used for brain training exercises, understanding learning styles, and creating different teaching methods so all students can be holistic learners. A simple net search will provide more information on this subject.

ResidentSadist -> RE: Smarts? (3/31/2011 8:19:37 PM)
[img]http://www.weeville.com/Wish%20These%20Were%20Brains.jpg[/img] Me too!

0ldhen -> RE: Smarts? (3/31/2011 9:43:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FukinTroll What does plunder mean to you porcelaine? It has a powerful meaning to me. Slurp~ Ah....FT, you are a Troll after my own heart, Here is my definition of plunder. Plunder; something so valuable, so precious to you that you MUST take it for your own Something you hold and keep in such a regard that you touch it. polish it, protect it from the elements or any other damaging factor, something you keep close to you while perhaps occasionally putting it on display for others to admire whilst standing guard glaring MINE with every glance. Once I was plunder, and I for one would rather be plunder than be out there offering my "gift" to someone not D enough to see me, take me for plunder now. But then again I am a crotchety old biker chick with an attitude.......

Ishtarr -> RE: Smarts? (4/1/2011 12:24:24 AM)
I'm sitting here wondering if this is a cultural thing or not. Growing up in Europe, I've never come across a female who thought she'd be better at attracting males if she would dumb herself down, nor did I even come across a male who had an issue with females being intelligent. It seemed more common for both sexes to highly value intelligence and seek it out in a partner. Of course, it could be that it's just the social groups that I found myself in that looked at intelligence that way, but considering the diversity of the groups I hung out with, I somehow doubt that. On of the things that's continuously fascinated me as far as differences between the US and my own home country is how different the dating rules here are. Dating rituals seem so much more formalized in the US than what I'm used to, with all kinds of unspoken rules and conclusions being attached to behavior that isn't even taken into account in Belgium (like American women neurosis when it comes to figuring out when it's appropriate to first sleep with a guy). It really makes me curious is this idea that some women seem to have that one will better attract a man if one plays dumb is another example of the USA's complex and often bizarre dating ritual. quote: ORIGINAL: porcelaine i wish we had some natural order supporters weighing in on this subject. In that instance i can understand how her intellect might be minimized in deference to an ideology or fetish (depending on his approach). If her perceives her as inferior she probably wouldn't go out of her way to prove him wrong. But that usually involves a certain degree of subjugation and an omission of self promotion or vaulting over the other party. If you're referring to Goreans... First of all, Goreans don't consider women or slaves to be inferior in the sense that they consider men to be "better" and women to be "worse". They do consider themselves to be superior to slaves, and slaves to be inferior, but that doesn't imply better/worse, but hierarchy superiority/inferiority like an employer/employee or a general/soldier relationship. Because of this, Gorean men also don't consider themselves superior to Free Women, because they don't have a power dynamic with them. Goreans fully acknowledge that women are different than men, and that therefor Free Men are suited at certain tasks than Free Woman, but that doesn't imply a value judgment as a whole. As for the intelligence factors goes, Norman goes on at nausea about how much Goreans value intelligence in women. In fact, intelligence is the number two factor -after beauty- that will determine how high or a price a slave girl can fetch. It's one of the most important selection criteria slavers have when considering which slaves to acquire, even to the point that when crossbreeding slaves, intelligence is one of the factors that is selected for. Goreans view intelligence in a slave much like speed in a sports car: more is always better, because you're at the steering wheel anyways and you can slow the car down, or shut it off when you don't want it to go fast, but when you do want to take it out to it max, you need to have the engine to take you there. Ishtar

Awareness -> RE: Smarts? (4/1/2011 12:58:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Selectivelight First, I am inclined to disagree with your evaluation of what intelligence is. There's a lot more to a functional brain than sitting in front of a stack of books until it all sinks in. I've known more than a few brilliant scholars who time and time again proved their own inadequacies. Stories of not realizing that police officer didn't have a badge, or being in a hurry and couldn't figure why walking through a dark alley at night was a bad idea. Educated idiots. This is the usual line which people trot out to make themselves feel better. Intelligence and wisdom are two different attributes. Intelligence refers to the raw capacity, wisdom refers to judgment. A savant who is socially inept is still significantly more intelligent than average. Their ineptitude does not change this fact. quote: I've also known a few people who didn't have a mind for numbers, or perhaps spoke very plainly, but were craftsmen, tradesmen who knew more about their field of expertise than just about anyone else you'll ever meet. That means they've mastered a skill-set. This doesn't say a thing about their intelligence, merely about their mastery of their craft. quote: The world is full of examples of people who seem deficient at a glance, but would prove you quite wrong, given half of an opportunity. I would certainly hope you do not presume to judge a person's mind based on one aspect of their existence. Look, this is ego you're speaking with. Intelligence is roughly measurable and it exists. All of the arguments you've put forward are simply variations on arguments that the average person puts forward as an emotional response to the realisation that people smarter than they actually do exist. quote: Furthermore, it has been my experience (and results may vary) that women are less concerned with what a man is, or what he does, when compared with how he treats her. No. Absolutely false.

porcelaine -> RE: Smarts? (4/1/2011 5:19:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tammystarm quote: i wish we had some natural order supporters weighing in on this subject. You have. Please see master Arturas's post. i find it interesting that you elected to edit your post and remove what you'd originally written. Of course it's of no consequence because i read it before that occurred. And since my question was posed after the reference you've provided and he's given no indication that his comments are from that perspective, the question remains. i'm uncertain of your experiences in the subject, but i've conversed with more than one individual that shares that philosophy and i'm well aware that it manifests itself in a myriad of ways. However, one thing is pretty consistent in those that take this stance. If the male is the natural superior to the woman, that would make her his inferior complement. Less doesn't imply meaningless, but it does mean they aren't equal in the sense most would readily expect. Her inferiority has nothing to do with a little slap and tickle. It is something far more involved. The woman would have to be in possession of a similar line of thought. Supremacists are pretty direct in illustrating the differences between the two. And that isn't a suggestion of the negative, but a noted entitlement that is rather obvious. Namaste, ~porcelaine

porcelaine -> RE: Smarts? (4/1/2011 5:21:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr If you're referring to Goreans... No, i was referencing individuals that adhere to natural order and male supremacy. But i'm really glad i asked because you've brought another perspective into the mix that is often misunderstood. Thank you for sharing. :) Namaste, ~porcelaine

porcelaine -> RE: Smarts? (4/1/2011 8:20:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr But considering that porcelaine asked about natural order supporters, which Norman defines Goreans as being, and that they have a very clear cut way of looking at intelligence in women, I assumed she was after that perspective. But apparently, she's mostly interested in the perspective of male supremacists which, by Norman's definition, Goreans are not. While i have read some of Norman's materials, i wouldn't consider myself well versed in the subject. There's also the issue of how it's put into practice, but i didn't discount it from the discussion and felt you added a valuable perspective that had gone unrecognized. i'm certain those that adhere to Gorean philosophies are appreciative that they weren't left out. To be honest, i mentioned natural order because it's my belief that there's an undercurrent of the theology in many dominant persons. While it may never extend to the point of supremacy, the tell tale signs are there if you know what to look for. It is far less controversial to say i own a slave, than to suggest i own a piece a property that is inferior to my person. i may need to direct the question elsewhere for greater insight. Namaste, ~porcelaine

Ishtarr -> RE: Smarts? (4/1/2011 8:21:23 AM)
I prefer that you focus on the war and sex part when referring to me... [;)]

sexyred1 -> RE: Smarts? (4/1/2011 9:10:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Selectivelight quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness FR. In response to the thread topic - generally speaking women require a guy they can look up to. If it's not in the arena of intelligence then he'd better be a damned sight more accomplished than she is. And no, there is not more than one type of "intelligence". Threads about intelligence generally turn into ego-massaging exercises in which total thickheads attempt to convince us of the virtue of "street smarts" and "emotional intelligence", then demonstrate a lack of both by attempting to disparage "book learnin'" in a vain effort to compensate for the fact that they're generally fucking morons. I know bright when I see it. I also know a total boofhead when I see one. For myself, I prefer a woman who can keep up with me, but not one who's smarter. That would irritate me. At a guess, as long as she's within 5 or 10 IQ points, we're probably going to be all good - although I don't have any scientific rationale for this, merely anecdotal evidence. First, I am inclined to disagree with your evaluation of what intelligence is. There's a lot more to a functional brain than sitting in front of a stack of books until it all sinks in. I've known more than a few brilliant scholars who time and time again proved their own inadequacies. Stories of not realizing that police officer didn't have a badge, or being in a hurry and couldn't figure why walking through a dark alley at night was a bad idea. Educated idiots. I've also known a few people who didn't have a mind for numbers, or perhaps spoke very plainly, but were craftsmen, tradesmen who knew more about their field of expertise than just about anyone else you'll ever meet. The world is full of examples of people who seem deficient at a glance, but would prove you quite wrong, given half of an opportunity. I would certainly hope you do not presume to judge a person's mind based on one aspect of their existence. Furthermore, it has been my experience (and results may vary) that women are less concerned with what a man is, or what he does, when compared with how he treats her. [Now, can anyone please tell me why, by all that is unholy and wrong, I graced -this- with a response? It's two AM. I'm going to bed.] I really do believe that. I feel those who think that women need a man to look up to, be smarter than or more accomplished than, are deluding themselves. It really does boil down to how a man treats me, listens to me, and shares my interests and allows me to learn about his. Oh, as for womend dumbing themselves down to impress a guy? How long would that last, really?

ModTwentyOne -> RE: Smarts? (4/1/2011 9:13:55 AM)
There's a topic here somewhere...

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625