|
Depression and intelligence (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
Well that would be contradictory, if that were the only book or author I read or found to be in the least bit compelling. Also I discovered his works through my own unfolding interest in the subject, and not because I had to jump through hoops to make the grade. |
I don't see how the number of books you draw understanding from makes any difference at all. And are you somehow suggesting that you can only gain understanding, acceptance and knowledge of self from books if you discover them yourself? Or that education simply precludes any such books? Again, it's either contradiction or a strawman view of education; either one you (and presumably Krishnamurti) adopt for ease of argument or one drawn from your own experiences and dissatisfaction. |
|
|
| FuzzQi |
My friend and I were having a philosophical discussion on the way to the airport and I brought up this topic. We reckon depression would be about as prevalent in highly and lowly intelligent people, but each would become depressed via different routes, and probably resolve through different routes as well.
Anyway I plan to test this theory tomorrow as I have access to the Dunedin Longitudinal Study data at uni. |
|
|
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
in the end if you are only regurgitating facts or techniques, you have missed the point, so there really is no irony in what K has said. In his talks you find that he is often reluctant to talk to certain people who ask questions because he can tell that they are only looking for the newest plumber to fix their spiritual leak. |
I gave you a perfectly good example of this not being the case, and you chose to ignore it.
And the irony was not on what he said, but on you going against getting knowledge from books and going ahead and quoting from a book to support your point. |
|
|
| Fledz |
I can't believe you guys are discussing the merits of education when every country and sometimes every state within a country has it's own methods and curriculum.
For what it's worth, I think education is a complete necessity at a younger age but as you get older the whole point is for you to develope a way to teach yourself and understand the world.
I also don't put a huge focus on grades because I don't believe that "booksmarts" are enough for most things in life, unless you want to be a teacher and pass on the booksmarts to others.
I had some of the lowest grades in uni amongst my peers, not because I'm stupid but because I'm quite lazy and never studied enough for exams, yet I'm by far the most successful in terms of career straight out of uni than many of them. It's because I have far better understanding of the world, social interaction and what employers want than most if not all of them.
I think this also touches intelligence in terms of depression too. I would dare say that those intelligent people who are linked with depression (if they even are) are more the "booksmarts" side, rather than the balanced side of intelligent. Ask any modern employer in a large corporation and they will almost always prefer to take someone with slightly lower grades but more life experience and ability to socialise, than someone who averages 99% in every exam. Those people probably get depressed because they realise that all those countless hours with their head down in the books amounts to virtually nothing if you don't balance it out with fun and social activities. It's also why those type of people are almost never leaders in society because they just don't have the social conditioning to be leaders in any sense of the word. |
|
|
| wing |
| quote: | Originally posted by GoSpeedGo!
Daydreaming alone isn't going to get you anywhere. Obviously, you're encouraged to have ideas, but at the end of the day you have to get up and do something so you could make it real. The less time you spend thinking about how awesome it's going to be when it's done the better, because otherwise you're robbing yourself of time you could spend actually working on it.
I'm not saying that thinking about past and future is bad per se, but too often it is unconstructive and serves as pure escapism, allowing people to become oblivious to the only thing that is actually real: the present moment. We forget that we live right here, right now. |
And I agree with your post wholeheartdly. Again, it depends on the individual and whether he/she takes the necessary steps to actually bring his/her ideas into existence, and knowing when to put aside the daydreaming and act upon it.
Whether Daydreaming is a fruitful or fruitless practice depends entirely on the individual, their life experiences and external sources..Just like the way LSD affects everyone differently depending on their current state of mind prior to the trip...
Some daydream about horses jumping over the moon while others daydream about the possibility of an elevator leading to space...wait that seems unrealistic, but that hasn't stopped scientists and people from coming up with concepts and studies for a space elevator(earliest is 1895 by Soviet rocket scientist and pioneer of the astronautic theory, Konstantin Eduardovich Tsiolkovsky). link to:http://www.spaceelevatorgames.org/
I'll just leave this here...
| quote: | Every revolutionary idea seems to evoke three stages of reaction. They may be summed up by the phrases:
1- It's completely impossible.
2- It's possible, but it's not worth doing.
3- I said it was a good idea all along. |
Yayyy Google----
| quote: | Daydream achiever
A wandering mind can do important work, scientists are learning - and may even be essential
Einstein, for instance, was notorious for his wandering mind - daydreaming itself is usually cast in a negative light. Children in school are encouraged to stop daydreaming and "focus," and wandering minds are often cited as a leading cause of traffic accidents. In a culture obsessed with efficiency, daydreaming is derided as a lazy habit or a lack of discipline, the kind of thinking we rely on when we don't really want to think. It's a sign of procrastination, not productivity, something to be put away with your flip-flops and hammock as summer draws to a close. |
Wowzers, a lengthy read: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/08/31/daydream_achiever/
| quote: | Recent research conducted at the University of British Columbia in Canada reveals that not only is daydreaming extremely common (experts say we spend one-third of our lives doing it), but it's actually healthy. It turns out that when we let our minds wander, numerous areas of the brain are activated, more than were previously thought. And we're not even aware we're doing it.
|
http://www.qualityhealth.com/mental...reaming-healthy
BUT we have to take into account the environment one is daydreaming in don't we? If one in sitting in a class and the professor is lecturing about the importance of whatever, it's probably important to tune in to what he/she's saying opposed to daydreaming but all because some "geniuses" did/do poorly in formal education so I don't know, but take these into consideration:
What if the original inventors of the Airplane initially daydreamed about flying a big ass fire blowing dragon in the sky?
What if the original inventors of the submarine daydreamed about being a fish and what could possibly be at the bottom of the deepest
ocean?
What if the flaws of a Space Elevator is fixed by someone who once daydreamed about horses jumping over the moon? highly unlikely? well you never know.
Oh and---
| quote: | Originally posted by FuzzQi
We reckon depression would be about as prevalent in highly and lowly intelligent people, but each would become depressed via different routes, and probably resolve through different routes as well.
|
This |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
I gave you a perfectly good example of this not being the case, and you chose to ignore it.
|
I didn't ignore it - I just don't have time to reply to every single person who takes issue with something I say. And there were quite a few when you posted. If you'd really like me to respond, then I'll give it another read.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I don't see how the number of books you draw understanding from makes any difference at all. And are you somehow suggesting that you can only gain understanding, acceptance and knowledge of self from books if you discover them yourself? |
No. Why do insist on always taking one example I give and reducing it into some kind of binary you can argue with?
It's more likely that taking initiative to investigate something by asking questions yourself will result in understanding and self knowledge than taking for granted that the question a school board is asking is the right question for you or even more likely, just taking what is given to you because you need to in order to be 'successful'.
I believe what one derives from books whether he seeks them out or they are given to him by the tooth fairy is ultimately up to that person.
That is to say, my 6th grade teacher might have assigned a book for class and 75% of the class just did the assignments to get through the class, and maybe 25% actually learned something about the world and themselves in the process. My point is simply that the standardized education system teaches students to perceive reading and learning only as another hurdle to get over to get ahead in life, and does not inspire this kind of earnest pursuit of truth. (which is a very innocent pursuit, at once completely gullible and skeptical) |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
No. Why do insist on always taking one example I give and reducing it into some kind of binary you can argue with? |
I'm not, I'm tying it in with those very firm statements you made earlier with words like "only" in them. When you make repeated statements about how education just involves absorption of unenlightening facts and how the only useful part is the relationships you have with others, it reduces itself to a binary all by itself. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I'm not, I'm tying it in with those very firm statements you made earlier with words like "only" in them. When you make repeated statements about how education just involves absorption of unenlightening facts and how the only useful part is the relationships you have with others, it reduces itself to a binary all by itself. |
All I've said was that 1.) facts aren't useful in themselves. 2.) Basically the value of educational is what comes between the rote memorization of such facts and techniques. 3.) Educational systems put an undue importance on success and achievement in order to prepare people to be standard members of society rather than to empower us as individuals to remedy societial ills one person at a time by placing emphasis on reflection, self discovery, self initiative, and creative thinking. and im sticking to it |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| Yeah, like I said: the simplification of education to a strawman for the purposes of an argument. And you wonder why people think you're anti-education. |
|
|
| Kismet7 |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Yeah, like I said: the simplification of education to a strawman for the purposes of an argument. And you wonder why people think you're anti-education. |
I don't think he is anti-education, he is anti current function of education. He is saying education is useful if it is done in a way that asks people to search for self knowledge, self realization, introspect. People should be taught or asked to figure out the world outside of the box of the current education system. A system that conditions individuals for the efficient functioning of a heavily controlled modern society.
I think Nef's belief would be best realized if the world were to go back to a farming based civilization and a nature preserving civilization. The intelligence (self knowledge) of man would be good enough for a meaningful life if they can have sufficient food and nature around them. Without changing modern society, what he is saying would create people who are outcasts/glitches in modern society, and self realization would be not be practically valuable to survive. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Yeah, like I said: the simplification of education to a strawman for the purposes of an argument. And you wonder why people think you're anti-education. |
how do you figure? |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kismet7
I don't think he is anti-education, he is anti current function of education. He is saying education is useful if it is done in a way that asks people to search for self knowledge, self realization, introspect. People should be taught or asked to figure out the world outside of the box of the current education system. A system that conditions individuals for the efficient functioning of a heavily controlled modern society.
|
Not even that extreme. It's a matter of degree or emphasis.
| quote: | Originally posted by Kismet7
I think Nef's belief would be best realized if the world were to go back to a farming based civilization and a nature preserving civilization. The intelligence (self knowledge) of man would be good enough for a meaningful life if they can have sufficient food and nature around them. Without changing modern society, what he is saying would create people who are outcasts/glitches in modern society, and self realization would be not be practically valuable to survive. |
Don't put words in my mouth, that's not what I'm saying at all.
Also you can't go back to a primitive civilization. Hippies tried it in the 60s and then they started getting pissed when their wives were ing other men and they were hungry all the time. But certainly primitive civilizations have things to teach us as far as the practical, ecological, and spiritual value of tradition, myth, and conservation. |
|
|
|
|
