Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

No. Computation theory + complexity, is what stymies intelligence.

  One could argue this is a fancy way to say 'ignorance', but that does not properly capture the problems of information overload (unable to learn from hitting cognition limits) and Dunning Kruger (unaware that you don't actually know something, because you think you do) simultaneously, like my answer does.

[EuchreJack]

I'll also throw in Faith as an answer to what counters Intelligence.

For if you Believe something to be true, you can Ignore whatever facts might dissuade you, irregardless* of how well those facts are formatted or argued.

*I know Irregardless is an invalid word, as regardless is the proper word that become a non-word by adding "Ir".  Sort of making a point there, as I can still use it.  And if I believed Irregardless to be a good and proper word, I'd keep using it irregardless of the intelligent facts used regarding its invalidity.

[McTraveller]

I would say that emotion is what counters intelligence more than anything else.

[Rolan7]

Emotion can disrupt abstract thinking for sure, but it's also vitally important for solving most real-world problems.  It's all about communication.  Communication with other humans and also communicating with the more specialized, subconscious parts of our minds.

Emotional thinking has some serious flaws and is vulnerable to being manipulated but it's also extremely efficient in most cases.  Having struggled with it as a child, I know it's hard to understand and be understood by others if I try to break everything down rationally.  It's also very slow and redundant in most cases.  It's like having a GPU and several other specialized processors but only using a single CPU thread - sure it's simpler and you avoid race conditions, but it's wasteful.

Anyway that's my rational argument for why art has material value to society, brilliant minds need assistants, and learning emotions was (for me) easier than trying to simulate them.  Also dreams are, like, wild

[None]

Given we have a class of intelligence generally called 'emotional intelligence,' I'd also disagree that emotion is the inverse of intelligence. No man is an island, as Rolan explains. We're also sorely lacking in education on emotional intelligence and management, particularly among men. The products of 'intelligence' may suffer as a result, but the fault isn't in intrinsically who we are and how we feel, but how we choose to grapple with that. It's like- pain may interrupt fruitful intelligence, because thinking when you hurt is hard, but that doesn't make it the antithesis of intelligence, right?

My answer is bugs. Bugs are super-effective against psychics, so bugs counter intelligence.

[Egan_BW]

Intelligence requires data, a goal, and control over the world. Missing any of those three things, it does nothing at all.

Emotion is the goal. Without any emotion, thought would not occur. Thought requires categorization and simplification of the universe, and this would not happen without the motivation to do so. Intelligence and emotion cannot exist without one another.

[EuchreJack]

Love may make the World Go Round, but Hate pays the bills. - Anonymous

[King Zultan]

What about money, I've heard about some stupid stuff people have done because money.

[EuchreJack]

What about money, I've heard about some stupid stuff people have done because money.

Ooooh, I got a quote for that too!
"You can't eat money"

[McTraveller]

Emotional Intelligence is gaining understanding and control over emotions - I think that supports the idea that emotions can be subject to intelligence, just as emotions can override intelligent behavior; in this sense, they "counter" each other.

I'm using, of course, "intelligence" here to mean the capacity for understanding the world and making decisions.  Emotion does help make decisions, but they aren't based on understanding, they are based mostly on reflex responses.  This is my argument why emotion counters intelligence: one is based on understanding, one is based on something other than understanding.

I'm curious about the idea that intelligence arises from emotion; I'm fairly certain that at least one type of intelligence doesn't require any emotion at all: the intelligence used for memory recall, optimization problems, sorting, proofs, computation, and the like.

[dragdeler]

a

[Iduno]

Okay, I have an ethics question.

What if we reanimated Ronald Reagan, just so we could give John Hinckley Jr. another crack at it?

Edit: It wouldn't be murder, as he's already dead, and Hinckley has already served time for attempted murder, so he can't go through that again.

[dragdeler]

a

[TamerVirus]

What if we reanimated Ronald Reagan, just so we could give John Hinckley Jr. another crack at it?

Why don't you just ask John Hinckley on his YouTube channel?

[EuchreJack]

Okay, I have an ethics question.

What if we reanimated Ronald Reagan, just so we could give John Hinckley Jr. another crack at it?

Ah, but what if John missed Ronald?  Personally, I could live with that, but could you?

Note: President Reagan served two terms, so unfortunately Zombie Reagan might not be eligible to save us from hyperinflation and crippling foreign debt.
Hm, but what if we treat Zombie Reagan as a new entity, with President Reagan's death date as Zombie Reagan's birthdate? I approve of this plan!