Intelligence: it’s value and it’s risks

I consider intelligence to be uniquely valuable. The further that one’s intelligence is beyond the average, the more valuable it can be.

If someone is seeking to have their intelligence validated from any external authority, isn’t that a sign of an average level of intelligence? The person may begin with a presumption that other people are more intelligent than they are or approximately equal in intelligence. Is there a logical basis for such a presumption?

We know that institutions have been organized for the purpose of governing the attention of the masses, such as through schools and mass-marketed publicity (books, movies, radio, etc). Why are some people interested in governing the attention of the masses?

If the attention of the masses can be focused on a certain limited range of experience, won’t that limit their exposure to new experiences and new learning? Couldn’t it produce boredom and discontent and frustration?

Further, if specific practices were considered to be uniquely conducive to promoting intelligence, wouldn’t it be predictable that an institution might be organized to distract people from those subjects? What better way to distract people than by forbidding that they put their attention on subjects of trivial complexity and irrelevant controversy?

What is the natural response of someone who is forbidden to think of a pink elephant? Reverse psychology involves the worshiping of a subject with attention through a program of repulsion from that subject- or even disgust toward it: “it makes me physically sick to my stomach.”

“The ultimate problem is that everyone should be less selfish.”

It is certainly an unresolvable issue, if no matter how selfish someone is, there is a systematic repression of that level of selfishness.

“However selfish you are, it is way too much and so you should repress anything that might be even close to the realms of self-interest, self-respect, and self-esteem.”

Why is it so important to confuse the masses and then keep their attention within certain bounds? Because they become familiar with certain programmed interpretations (methods of evaluation). Once the masses are programmed with the values that favor the institution which conducts the programming, then the attention of the masses is constrained.

What they observe is thus also contained. How they interpret the small range of things that they observe is also programmed. They make programmed interpretations of approved topics and then perceive their own interpretation of what they are trained to observe.

They are installed with programmed filters of isolated polar contrasts: either good or bad, either right or wrong, either true or false, either what should be or what should not be. They are trained to evaluate any observation based on the pre-programmed biases installed in to them through schooling and church indoctrination and so on.

Further, this general pattern is understandable. It is a basic level of linguistic development to recognize contrasts.

Imagine a toddler who is taught the words “high” and “low.” When they first learn to say these words, then everywhere they go, they will be looking for examples of any things that they can classify as “high” as well as any things that they can classify as “low.” If they sort things in accord with what their elders (older children or adults) verify as being high or low, then soon they master those polar opposites and move on to the next stage of neuro-linguistic development.


Is there a stage of neurolinguistic development beyond the patterns of polarity or duality? For instance, are their intermediate ranges between “tall” and “short?” Or, are all polar opposites totally isolated with no adjacent boundary between the two categories?

Can we imagine not just “left” and “right,” but also “center?” How about intermediate categories like “just left of center?” How about extreme categories like “far left” or “ultra-right?”

Eventually, we may encounter the simple reality that language includes polar opposites as well as spectrums. For any spectrum that exists, we could divide it in to absolutely any number of subcategories that we like.

We can measure something in a scale from 1 to 5 stars or from 1 to 10. We can measure temperature in fahrenheit degrees or celsius degrees.

“Which is more precise: fahrenheit or celsius?”

Such a question implies a lack of comprehension of the subject. Many other questions indicate a lack of comprehension of the subject.
“Which is better: the north pole or the south pole?”

“Which is the better terminal on a car battery: the one with a positive charge or a negative charge?”

“Which is always best: breathing in or breathing out?”
All of these questions can be referenced as reductionism. Reductionism is a contrasting practice from holism.

When I say that it is a practice, I mean that it is a practice in language. Language is a behavior. Reductionism is just a type of linguistic behavior. Further, it may be intensely programmed in some institutions.

Reductionism comes in many forms. Utopianism is the idea that one particular outcome is somehow inherently better than whatever is currently present.

We could say that all forms of reductionism are inherently exclusive, while holism is inherently inclusive (as in comprehensive)… even including the linguistic behavior of exclusion! Reductionism often corresponds to repressing a particular range of phenomenon as “negative” or “improper.”

Holism- and I do not mean something that happens to be labeled with the word holism, but only an actual instance of holism- implies respect for absolutely every portion of every spectrum. Reductionism is respected. However, it is recognized for it’s specific function and it’s specific value, rather than worshiped.
So, ancient teachings state that there is a time for every purpose and for every season, for both night and day, for both peace and war, for both love and hate. That is from the Old Testament of the Judeo-Christian Bible. That is a model of holism.

In the New Testament, a distinct model is presented. Love is favored over hate. Humility is encouraged rather than animosity. That is not a model of holism, but it is presented as a balance to other patterns that favored other kinds of exclusion.

People do not need to be taught animosity. Even two children who have dozens of toys in their midst may end up fighting over a single toy that neither is willing to share with the other. Two people may fight over the attention of a third. Likewise, two bears may compete for the same spot in a stream where fish are jumping right up to easily be caught by the bears.

Competitiveness is a natural pattern of life. So, cooperation may be promoted in order to benefit a particular institution.


For instance, slaves will be taught to be quiet, obedient, and to see each other as equals. Soldiers will be taught to cooperate together in specifics ways so as to benefit the interests that formed the army and that guide it’s military activities.

So, it is natural for humans to experience competitiveness. It is also natural for institutions to promote cooperation and blind obedience.

Intelligence is not the most valued characteristic of any institution. In fact, it is the most threatening quality of all to the leaders of any institution, who must promote a monopolizing of intelligence.

Institutions value obedient technicians. Institutions are threatened by ground-breaking innovators.

Those who show signs of intelligence may be of great interest to any institution. They predictably will target either neutralizing those who are intelligent or recruiting them in to functions in which their intelligence can be reliably controlled and directed to benefit the interests of the institution.

Which is more important in a sporting event: respect for the rules or athletic skill?

Extraordinary levels of athletic skill will certainly be noted in some cases. However, a player who consistently breaks the rules and gets big penalties will promptly be removed from the team, right?

But if two people consistently break the rules and only one shows extraordinary athletic skill, it is predictable which one will get the most attention from coaches, right? An athlete who is deemed “very promising” may even be strategically “groomed” for future involvement. They will be disciplined harder because the coaches will be more interested in them. A less promising athlete will be relateively neglected by the coaches.
How does that principle apply to other qualities? When a female fashion model is very beautiful, but has a drug addiction, she may be sent to a treatment center at no expense to her. When a person with unusual expertise or knowledge is identified, they may be targeted with bribes or blackmail in order to produce compliance, right?

In regard to intelligence, institutional interests are always going to have some degree of interest in intelligence. In some cases, intelligence alone may not be considered very scarce (valuable). Further, an institution that perceives itself to be very stable may become less and less interested in occasional instances of exceptional intelligence- especially if the intelligent ones have very little wealth or social connections.

Maybe an institution is craving the participation of people that show above average intelligence. Maybe instead another institution values marginalizing (crippling) most anyone who is intelligent (unless they also have other attractive qualities like athleticism or beauty or unique expertise).

Some institutions may even go out of their way to promote the intelligence of select candidates. However, the more that an institution invests in to a particular candidate, the more of a threat that individual may be to the institution if the individual does not cooperate with the institution at any point in time. In particular, once an individual is exposed to information that is considered “sensitive” by the institution, they may go so far as to keep an armed guard with the candidate at all times.

I recently heard of a soldier with sensitive information who was constantly accompanied by a guard whose orders were to watch for a possible kidnapping by an oppposing institution. In the event of anything approaching a successful kidnapping, the guard’s orders were to eliminate the risk to the institution by killing the soldier who knew the sensitive information. The institution did not want certain secrets exposed.


Similar practices are known amongst certain gangs, certain mafia organizations, and certain secret societies such as the Free Masons and the Jesuits. Getting in to the organization may be relatively easy. Once someone reaches a certain level within the organization, getting out may be extremely rare (and risky).

So, we began with the issue of whether someone is obsessed with other people’s validation of their intelligence. I later referenced the related issue of “self-respect.”

“What other person besides you is the best one to deliver to you the quality of self-respect?”

I raise that question with a reminder that certain questions demonstrate (sincerely or otherwise) a lack of comprehension of the subject. Self-respect does not come from others. Self-acceptance does not come from others. Self-discipline does not come from others.


What is a sign of a person with extraordinary intelligence? They have the capacity to produce the perception in the masses that they are of average intelligence (more or less). A person of truly average intelligence might not likely even consider such a possibility (that it might be favorable to “blend in”).

“Everyone should be above average.”

“Propaganda should not exist.”

“Extreme idealism is a major key to personal success.”

“Negative emotions like fear are mistakes that God made when creating us and so people should be ashamed of how God has given us the capacity for fear.”

“The presumption that earth is the only planet in the entire universe to have ever produced life is reasonable and easily proven by my personal lack of awareness of any contrary evidence.”

“The presumption that modern humans are the most advanced civilization that has ever existed not only on this planet but in the entire universe is reasonable and easily proven by my personal lack of awareness of any contrary evidence.”

“The presumption that scurvy is an incurable illness resulting from demonic possession by a living entity called a ‘Scurvy’ is reasonable and easily proven by my personal lack of awareness of any contrary evidence.”

Advertisements

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: