TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- I abstain, therefore I'm smart
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

I abstain, therefore I'm smart

Something I find annoying:

"I don't like or do [y]. Only a stupid person could possibly like or want to do [y]. Therefore I must be smart."

I see this type of reasoning from self-proclaimed "highly intelligent" people all the time. They use their abstinence from popular activities and disdain for popular opinions as "evidence" of their brilliance.

Even if they have little to show for themselves apart from that abstinence and disdain; nothing of positive worth, just a negative attitude toward "the masses."

[Examples of [y]: watching sports, having kids, watching TV, working a certain kind of job, listening to a certain kind of music, watching a certain kind of movie, etc.]

it makes sense to me, I guess i am smrt and you are dumb.

While I would not necessarily claim my abstinence from some of the examples you listed make me 'smart' (whatever the fuck that actually means), I think you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that watching television and having kids isn't stupid as shit.

I do think I get your point though... I do plenty of things that people consider a 'waste of time'. As though things that are considered 'productive' by the masses are in fact all that important? Human sense of duty often confuses me.

Despite this though, the problems that might very well arise with an entire generation of isolated individuals does seem somewhat apparent.

quote:

Originally posted by Boomer187 it makes sense to me, I guess i am smrt and you are dumb.

your avatar is intelligent

Yeah it's very true. People then to define them selfs as what they are not rather than what they are.

Basically to have someone to look down on.

It has to do with our culture of opposition.

if you're not with us, then you're against us blah blah blah

And I do say 'our' tentatively. I mean, there are big differences in "culture" all around the world, so I wouldn't seek to necessarily generalize in that respect, but I think this sort of group exclusion dynamic is prevalent any place you go.

Yeah, it's a way to look down on people. That is life though. Some might say that those who are looked down upon are the ones who allow themselves to be subjugated. I'm not sure if I completely buy that, given it's a typical espousal of people in far more pristine economic brackets, but is the triumph of willpower really something that can be grasped by anyone who, for lack of a less redundant term, has the will to willpower?

Strength is something that needs to be defined. I don't know if any one person can effectively represent it in any essential sense. It would seem that we are all of us weak.

If you willingly abstain from doing an activity you like, but which (according to you) is not necessarily productive, then there is the element of self control.

Most of the times however, a person will abstain from doing an activity simply because he doesn't want to do that.

And then he will try to justify his abstinence by belittling people who indulge in that activity.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M If you willingly abstain from doing an activity you like, but which (according to you) is not necessarily productive, then there is the element of self control.

Is it really self-control though? I would argue that many forms of supposed self-control are really just projections of fear and guilt that are representations of socially-inspired inhibitions. That is to say, you are not controlling yourself, rather, you are merely forfeiting your willpower and allowing your activities to be swayed by social expectations of conduct. Of course, this entirely depends on how you would define "an activity you like" but when left to their own devices, do individuals truly have an intrinsic sense of productivity or is productivity as we know it merely another social projection? There are few things humans really need and feel truly compelled to do - eat, sleep, fuck, etc - so perhaps society and its expectations are merely a macrocosm of these innate desires... or - perhaps people live to serve society? Like Government, it has become a machine far larger than any one person could ever control, and we are all subjects to it?

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Is it really self-control though? I would argue that many forms of supposed self-control are really just projections of fear and guilt that are representations of socially-inspired inhibitions. That is to say, you are not controlling yourself, rather, you are merely forfeiting your willpower and allowing your activities to be swayed by social expectations of conduct.

That would not be self control at all, but rather social inhibition as you just said. Social inhibitions are compulsions and in these cases, the abstinence is not willing. Willing abstinence is something that would require "self control". It is where your long term goals and your character will prevent you from indulging in impulse (or any other) activities that give short term joy, but cost you in the long run. This requires a lot more efforts and is different from social inhibition. In that case, you face social consequences for indulging in the activity. In this case, you have to face no one but yourself.

quote:

Of course, this entirely depends on how you would define "an activity you like" but when left to their own devices, do individuals truly have an intrinsic sense of productivity or is productivity as we know it merely another social projection? There are few things humans really need and feel truly compelled to do - eat, sleep, fuck, etc - so perhaps society and its expectations are merely a macrocosm of these innate desires... or - perhaps people live to serve society? Like Government, it has become a machine far larger than any one person could ever control, and we are all subjects to it?

Whether productivity is a social projection or not would depend on the individual's goals and desires. Monks who meditate in the high Himalayas, disconnected from the society will also have a sense of productivity if they move towards their spiritual goals. Their innate desires transcend your so called innate desires. These concepts are pretty much subjective. I don't see any generalization in this.

abstention /= intelligence
intelligence --> abstention

quote:

Originally posted by leph555 your avatar is intelligent

yeah, exactly, its so not boomer

quote:

Originally posted by leph555 your avatar is intelligent

welcome to my group of friends. You have just replaced stren

only a moron would start a thread like this

quote:

Originally posted by Boomer187 welcome to my group of friends. You have just replaced stren

I was your friend ?

GREAT SUCCESS !

Going against the grain is a common method used by people who want to seem more intelligent. See: hypercorrection, conspiracy theorists, teenagers.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Despite this though, the problems that might very well arise with an entire generation of isolated individuals does seem somewhat apparent.

Yeah, there was a study or article stating that people are less able to deal with other people that they don't particularly like these days. This is because our social circles are becoming much more exclusive, consisting almost entirely of people that are similar to us or have a high compatibility with us.

I remember it stating something like: If you choose to never interact with people who aren't like you, then you'll never learn how to properly deal with them when you are forced to. The internet is slowly making people socially retarded, in a nutshell.

Edit: It's not just the internet. Parents are mollycoddling their children, and our society is more suspicious and paranoid than before.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M That would not be self control at all, but rather social inhibition as you just said. Social inhibitions are compulsions and in these cases, the abstinence is not willing. Willing abstinence is something that would require "self control". It is where your long term goals and your character will prevent you from indulging in impulse (or any other) activities that give short term joy, but cost you in the long run. This requires a lot more efforts and is different from social inhibition. In that case, you face social consequences for indulging in the activity. In this case, you have to face no one but yourself.

Yes, but I am questioning whether or not intentional abstinence, a practice of self-control, completely independent of social influence, is even possible. I am well aware that many people draw a distinction between the two, but I very much doubt the genuineness in some people, especially when there is, in fact, motive (deterrence or encouragement) on a social sense to be something - even if it is merely a projection of overdeveloped spiritual productivity. I am not saying it is impossible. I am merely saying that it is extremely rare, at most.

quote:

Whether productivity is a social projection or not would depend on the individual's goals and desires. Monks who meditate in the high Himalayas, disconnected from the society will also have a sense of productivity if they move towards their spiritual goals. Their innate desires transcend your so called innate desires. These concepts are pretty much subjective. I don't see any generalization in this.

Monks are not disconnected from society. Perhaps society outside of their own order, but they still uphold traditions as a result of social programming. The movement towards spiritual goals within their society IS encouraged on a social level - are monks really who you think of when you imagine ideal individual goals? I assure you, they are very much a social organism: dressing alike, chanting alike, working alike and praying alike, they are quite possibly the quintessential like-mind and say very little about self-control and intentional abstinence for the sake of higher intelligence or enlightenment. I am well aware of Buddha's tenets of self-deprivation; it's an institution that is the unfortunate antithesis towards overindulgent western aims, admittedly, but an opposition nevertheless.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Yeah it's very true. People then to define them selfs as what they are not rather than what they are. Basically to have someone to look down on.

I don't know whether I should despise or pity this kind of people

edit: fixed... hopefully

Re: I abstain, therefore I'm smart

i basically think everything i do just oozes intelligence doesnt make me right, and i know i couldn't possibly be as smart as i think i am.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira These are the people I don't know whether I should despise or pity

Those are the statements that I read four times and decide that there had to have been some sort of grammatical error or I'm a wet lymph node because I have no idea what he was trying to say.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira These are the people I don't know whether I should despise or pity

Why? Surely what someone is not is every bit as important to their identity as what they are?

Damn, I know my English is getting rusty, but was my sentence really that bad?

I'ma fix it

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Why? Surely what someone is not is every bit as important to their identity as what they are?

I guess my last post was kinda bad... I meant to keep Dervish's idea that they those people had to look down on someone else, and that's the thing I find deplorable.

But I failed at that

It's far more fun though to join in and absolutely wreck things you don't like. Admittedly it's a lot more effort, but far more effective (and amusing) than simply not playing at all. Not playing because 'aw I don't like it', then having a blubbery pout is just avoidance more than any concerted effort to actually change yourself or your surroundings to something you're more comfortable with.

i used to think of shit like mr jingles does and think i was smart, but i then realised it was all nonsense.

Alan Greenspan is well-known to speak in empty rhetoric: the process of saying something that appears intelligible, but actually says nothing.

It just so happens that the hobbies you mentioned are just likely to be counter-productive to fostering intelligence, with the exception of classical as a genre of music to listen to.

If someone can make a solid argument that those hobbies are lack there-of is making them more intelligent, I will probably tip my hat to them.

"Intelligence" is merely another projection of socialization. Participating in activities that might make oneself more sociable in a cultural knowledge sense might very well give the appearance of intelligence. Since intelligence, itself, is a paltry human scale of comparative, the retention of expressed socialization might very well be a form of intelligence.

Also, listening to classical music doesn't make you any smarter. I'm sorry. You can harbour whatever self-delusions of intelligence and corresponding archetypes that you like, but just because it was composed by diligent, intelligent people doesn't necessarily mean that it's suddenly not just a series of organized vibrations.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.