I wasn’t being rude. I offered you critique and some helpful reading.

Acting offended is your “adrenaline” not mine. I actually find this quite painful. I’m not enjoying it, but I realise you may have something to say in repsonse to my questions.

At the moment you seem to be pushing the question I’m asking slowly but surely towards an answer. The next, if you cannot guess it, is how do you measure “willpower”? Which if answered would logically lead to how g relates to willpower (meaning how much, if any, overlap there is.)

Epinephrine (aka adrenaline) is not necessarily damaging long term. Think about tolerance for one thing and lower levels that help cognitive ability (mentioned above.)

Anyway, I’ll give you time to read the link. It goes over “intelligence” and recent developments regarding measurement and such well enough.

Enjoy

Willpower can be measured by pain tolerance. A traditional way is walking on hot coal. Exercise can be used as well.

Epinephrine (aka adrenaline) is not necessarily damaging long term — I like sushi

Are you saying stress is not a killer? It leads to high blood pressure and heart disease.

Would you be willing to say that handling “pain” is like handling “stress”? If so avoidance of such would show a lack of “willpower” right?

Would pain sensitivity make someone more or less “effectively intelligence”? Do those who refuse to walk on hot coals possess “ineffective intelligence”? Is cowardice part fo this dynamic? Have you heard of the psychological use of the term “grit” (prior to me mentioning it already)?

My general point here being that if you have the idea that you have then you should look at these things. I by no means have an encyclopedic knowledge of the psychometrics of “intelligence.” I’ve looked enough to suggest you take on board what I’ve suggested and then tell me what you find.

I’m just as interested as you in this subject.

Note: in the other thread you’re arguing for “pain” yet here it is “bad”? I don’t believe you hold either of these views and that you’re just bouncing ideas around. Good for you.

IQ tests exist. There are various ways of measuring willpower (walking on hot coal for example). So its possible to separate the two. — Devans99

Of course it's possible. But is it useful?

I'm not saying that you can't distinguish (for example) IQ and willpower, but I am saying it's a fruitless endeavour. They belong together. The sense they convey does so as part of a greater whole. — Pattern-chaser

So you seem to be replying to a question that wasn't asked. :chin: My question, in case it isn't clear, is this: what value/use do you obtain from separating IQ, willpower, and all the other aspects of human mental acuity?

Curiosity doesn’t need a reason. Sometimes such investigations reveal faults with previously held views on how the world operates.

Would pain sensitivity make someone more or less “effectively intelligence”? — I like sushi

I think over-sensitivity to pain is likely indicative of low willpower (excepting the Hyperalgesia condition). Abstinence might be another way to test for willpower.

Is cowardice part fo this dynamic? — I like sushi

Cowardice is low willpower.

Of course it's possible. But is it useful? — Pattern-chaser

If you can measure willpower, you can assess what improves it. High willpower is key to getting the most from life.

Have you heard of “conscientiousness”? There are aspects of this that basically cover what you’re saying. Such things as “industriousness” and “orderlinesss” (also “grit” as mentioned earlier.) These combined with other personality traits can easily add up to make “will power.” Conscientiousness does predict political alignment quite well. It doesn’t correlate to IQ though.

Stress tolerance would fall under “neuroticism.”

I would advise articulating what you mean by “willpower” more carefully. We know what it means generally speaking, and generally speaking it would equate to what is known as “industriousness” - which means precisely what it sounds like; the inclination to apply oneself to some given task/s (hardwork.) In this repsect it seems reasonable to equate “willlpower” with high industriousness and low neuroticism.

High willpower is key to getting the most from life. — Devans99

How about if we said that willpower (determination) is necessary, but not sufficient (on its own) to get "the most from life"? :chin:

Abstinence might be another way to test for willpower. — Devans99

So willpower is an ability we use to deny ourselves things we (think we) want or need? :chin:

So willpower is an ability we use to deny ourselves things we (think we) want or need? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

Doing the right thing often hurts in the short term (exercise, study, helping people) and pays off in the long term. Willpower is needed to get over that initial pain.

Doing the wrong thing is often pleasurable in the short term (laziness, sweets), but leads to long term pain. Again willpower is needed to avoid the short term temptations.

Doing the right thing — Devans99

Perhaps you might use the intelligence the topic title mentions to explain to me what the "right thing" is, and how to recognise it? Will your answer be different from someone else's? Why do you think that might be?

Normal, well-adjusted humans are different in small ways but similar on all the important issues. So it's possible to define right and wrong in mathematical terms and apply it to all humans.

Discussed further on this thread:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4395/defining-good-and-evil/p1

Normal, well-adjusted humans are different in small ways but similar on all the important issues. So it's possible to define right and wrong in mathematical terms and apply it to all humans. — Devans99

No, I don't think it is. ... Which seems to be the case in the discussion you linked-to too....

But perhaps you might be more convincing if you offer here, as an example, the mathematics behind the reason(s) why we should accept your thesis, as presented in this topic?

Right is pleasure>pain. Wrong is pleasure<pain. We all feel pleasure and pain in similar ways. Thus any decision is optimised using the following rule:

net pleasure = pleasure - pain

So eating sweets for example, short term pleasure but long term pain (tooth decay, overweight), so net pleasure comes out negative (its the wrong thing to do).

Or exercise, short-term pain, but long term pleasure from being fit. Long>short so net pleasure comes out positive (its the right thing to do).

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Right, wrong not defined. The OP is thus an exercise in nonsense, with a nonsense conclusion — tim wood

Right, wrong are defined here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4395/defining-good-and-evil/p1

Oh, right - so you're a Buddhist. I find it quite difficult to relate to Buddhists, because they suppress their emotions, wants and other natural impulses. How can you not see that as disabling? — karl stone

You write seemingly with confidence, yet you understand little about Buddhism. And it is no wonder that you find it difficult to relate to something of which you are ignorant.

Buddhism doesn't tell its followers to suppress any emotion. It tells to cultivate positive emotions, while trying to understand the negative ones. When negative emotions are understood, they can be overcome and turned into a positive force.

If/when you read the essay I linked get back to me. If not don’t.

Good luck