what's greatly perverse about our ego is that we obsess around ourselves, our own ego of intelligence, rather than being true intellectuals. It's a foolish world.

Well, we're homo sapiens, defined as wise and we're positively smarter than the rest of the animal kingdom. Yet, our brains have made us the single biggest threat to the planet. We're, bottomline, killing ourselves and that definitely isn't a sign of intelligence is it? Or is it?

Are we so stupid that we're killing ourselves or are we so smart that we can do such a thing?

I find it hard to choose between a dog's answer, that Humans are really smart, and a cat's answer, that humans are uber-dumb. But you cannot count on your own answer or another human's answer, unless the answer is that humans are not stupid, and even then you can't count on it, except to say that such considerations suggest that a human that says humans are stupid is necessarily a stupid human, because either they are right, or they are wrong..

"If human and chimp DNA is 98.8 percent the same,..." (https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent-exhibitions/anne-and-bernard-spitzer-hall-of-human-origins/understanding-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps)

If small differences can yield big differences, than what can big differences yield?

And "stupid" is an unfortunate term - although I appreciate its brevity and suggestiveness. But to the point, if I tried to live in a chimp's world, I reckon that chimp would correctly regard me as stupid - or at least very ignorant!

Intelligence in humans is a relative (relative because we as a species are our own benchmark for how intelligent we can be) and is restrained by our relative inability to perceive the natural world. We can measure it, or at least attempt to, and we can create categories within those measurements. But at the end of the day, because we only have ourselves to compare to as of yet, we don't really have an answer. If there is something smarter than us, it may not conform to the categories that we've invented, it may simply shatter them and inform us that we are wrong in our conception.

But even that answer leaves the possibility that whatever potentially much smarter being or beings that do exist are not smart either, although they bear the appearances of being much more intelligent than us. Perhaps there is something smarter than them, and so on and so forth.

Another way of looking at it would be how many questions have we answered vs. how many have we not. One can only hope that we have only just begun to crack the depths of knowledge, and that there is an endless trove waiting for future generations.

We are not stupid. We are quite bright. But... What we are not is sufficiently forward looking. This is one of our Achilles Heels (when it comes to heels, we have lots of legs). We have never been very good at predicting the the outcome of inventions. This was true when we domesticated cattle. We didn't know that anthrax, brucellosis, cryptosporidiosis, dermatophilosis, Escherichia coli, giardiasis, leptospirosis, listeriosis, pseudocowpox, Q fever, rabies, ringworm, salmonellosis, tuberculosis, and vesicular stomatitis would become some of our worst diseases. OK, so we had the excuse of ignorance 10,000 years ago, but we carry on as oblivious now as we were then.

The environment is falling apart right before our very eyes, but we can not add 2 + 2 together to see that our life styles have to change drastically -- yesterday. Not just yesterday, more like 20 years ago.

In addition to not being forward thinking, we are pretty much concerned with our own lives. We might have some grasp of the environmental catastrophe now in progress, but we really like lovely looking perfect grass, so we fertilize and poison our plot of land, and it looks great. Unfortunately 100 million other people do the same thing and the results are a catastrophe for the water table and for insect populations. But hey, our lawn looks great. It's just this one lawn after all...

We are smart enough to feel intense guilt and regret when the whole thing collapses around us and we lay dying, unable to breathe, knowing that we brought it on ourselves.

Taking note of the replies I would come to the conclusion that humanity is probably stupid based on guilt where environmental issues have been ignored.

I would say that even though there is harsh criticism for a more harmonious Earth it's a, possible, b, a pleasurable experience. All we do is what we would be doing where harmony was enforced, it's a different Government, more like a Holiday crossed with a Job, because of, obviously, the paradise of untouched environment.

And apparently I am the smartest human for saying this because of evidence in this thread.

well 100% if you strip everything away.
After all he human mind is perfectly flawed.
How do we even know if our logic is even logical

nd apparently I am the smartest human for saying this because of evidence in this thread.

No this idea your having is of the lesser branch of the septic class of thought, and is far from original.
You thought comes from the lesser branch of the two septic brances, the doubting for doubting sake.

The other branch doesn't have this problem, as it's founder René Descartes said Pairafaesed

there are 2 type of skeptics thought how doubting for doubting sake than thouse that what to get to know what is actually true or can we even know that.

people do have misunderstanding of good/people have misunderstanding of intelligence — kill jepetto

No correlation among 'good' and 'intelligent' has ever been demonstrated as far as I know. Why make this assumption?

another inaccurate judgement could be that this person's IQ is intelligent, which there are no grounds for. — kill jepetto

The only way to approximate a person's intelligence is by using an representable IQ test, if you mean anything else by intelligence, please do state the definition you are applying.

genetics can be abused, some do not deserve who they are in person, but maybe in spirit. I don't think a genetical arguement suffices — kill jepetto

Which genetical argument are you referring to? How do you determine which person deserves anything?

it must be based on understanding, or mind of good. — kill jepetto

Any conversation that makes sense requires common ground to start from and refer to. Without sufficient common ground a conversation can't make any sense and will only lead to misunderstandings.

the good you know conditions your mind to make intellectual decisions, or to teach others to make intellectual decisions. Evil is technically minimalized. You are intelligent if you make more intelligent decisions than unintelligent decisions - if you get lucky you get lucky.

intelligence is partly genetics (supporting) and cognitively experience related.

it's your diffusion of good, not mine, I understand good.

growth is a sign of good; it's one example, there are lots.

you're evil if you kill 1000 pigs for no reason because some of them may have been high quality pigs, or you're playing too much with the status quo; the reason it's evil is because it 'damages' the working system of life. Technically you are a child of the world, so in killing her you are rising against the parents, and that's evil nature, because this is your life.

Good is what's beneficent to life/experience; if you deem that to be pleasure you're wrong because some pain is involved. If your eyes deem it worthy to be lazy, that's up to them, but it's true that you're abusing the ground that made this life possible; so what i'm saying is there is evil when mind fully assesses the universe.

the good you know conditions your mind to make intellectual decisions, or to teach others to make intellectual decisions. — kill jepetto

All I know is that I know nothing, possibly with the exception of 'I think therefor I am' .

Evil is technically minimalized. — kill jepetto

by whom or what? how do you define evil?

You are intelligent if you make more intelligent decisions than unintelligent decisions — kill jepetto

That's a tautology not explaining what intelligence is other than stating that it is intelligence. If you stated "intelligence is just intelligence" that would have been equally useful/useless.

it's your diffusion of good, not mine — kill jepetto

Nope, I didn't make any statement about what I perceive to be good or evil. I asked for yours since you make claims about it without providing the definition you are applying which is required to properly understand what you are talking about. Sure you can claim you understand good, but if you can't elaborate on what you came to understand about what good actually is, I have no means to understand what you are talking about.

again, Any conversation that makes sense requires common ground to start from and refer to. Without sufficient common ground a conversation can't make any sense and will only lead to misunderstandings.

What is the common ground you can refer to so we can have a sensible conversation? Why not start with answering the questions I posed? Please no more tautologies.

I don't need to teach you good and evil and have done in a prior post.

What's your misunderstanding, you can't just throw general questions at me, make some conversation by questioning directly.

You seem out of place if you are evil, like your previous comment to a good eye.

Your momentum is more war like rather than life like, you're suggesting that things occur over some linear time when truthfully they're occuring moment by moment.

You are refusing to answer any of my questions designed to find common ground to start a conversation from and instead you accuse me of having a war like momentum. Hence by lack of common ground and your refusal to look for it you made a sensible conversation about the topic impossible. Your loss.

Ants are just intelligent enough to survive, meaning they have just enough cognition to do the things they do. When you compare us to the intelligence of ants its obvious that the human species' over-all intelligence is much higher. Neurologically speaking, we have trillions more connections than insects, yet insects are the most prevalent species on the planet. We might be considered the most intelligent species on the planet.

One of the major inventions of this century has been virtual reality. We can create worlds with in our own to interact with and to manage and design intelligently. I think this is a peak of intelligent life, creating simulations.

The purposes of the computer is so wide that it requires super intelligence to run, an intelligence of many individuals working together as a collective intelligence.

When we get down to individuals however, some of us can be plum dumb. It is human to err, some of us just do it more often than others. Avoiding the sufferings and problems in life isn't always granted even if you have the intelligence of a human. However, being able to escape the perils of life has become much more feasible within in the last hundred or so years. This shows us that even the not-so-intelligent can survive, and that the over all intelligence of the human race is hardly staggered (CURRENTLY) by our lack of intelligence. We have science to thank for that.

One of the major inventions of this century has been virtual reality. We can create worlds with in our own to interact with and to manage and design intelligently. I think this is a peak of intelligent life, creating simulations. — Josh Alfred

We've been creating simulations in our minds since the dawn of man. Thought operates by breaking reality up in to conceptual objects, and our creativity operates by rearranging the conceptual objects in our minds. These mental simulations form the essence of human brilliance.

However, the very same process of conceptual division which makes us brilliant also makes us insane, which seems a more accurate description than "stupid". As example, we all intellectually understand the threat that nuclear weapons pose, so we aren't really stupid. But we ignore the threat because we are living in a wishful thinking dream world that seems best described as a form of mental illness.

It doesn't really matter how intelligent someone potentially is if they don't apply that intelligence to things...I sort of feel most people are pretty smart about understanding the people around them, and being able to interact with them, but often don't feel the need to apply much thinking to build a philosophy about how the greater world around them works.
Partly this may be because they fear reaching conclusions that would make them unpopular with the people around them.....so it is much easier to pick up perspectives and narratives from the people around them and the stuff in the media, and not question it too much.

Most people probably learn this approach at a young age, and it mostly works for them, and allows them to function in a society which generally does the same....great for them, but this attitude may just lead society onto paths which are ultimately dangerous....still never mind...

It doesn't really matter how intelligent someone potentially is if they don't apply that intelligence to things...I sort of feel most people are pretty smart about understanding the people around them, and being able to interact with them, but often don't feel the need to apply much thinking to build a philosophy about how the greater world around them works — wax

Yes, most people aren't philosophical by nature, most aren't drawn to the big picture view but are content to be distracted by details.

Intelligence comes in many different flavors, and most people are intelligent at some things while being stupid at others, this writer being no exception.

As example, I've met fellows who can take a truck engine all apart and put it all back together in six minutes. But they aren't' articulate, so to hear them talk they may sound stupid. And writing, they know nothing at all about that. The same is true is reverse for many famous intellectuals, they can grasp the secrets of the atom, but are confused by daylight savings time.

Before we discuss intelligence we should probably first identify some specific context.

Stupid has its own life.
Think of it as something that wants to be free in the face of attempts to control it.
It is highly probable that our attempts to corral it are related to how it came to be and act. But that is not a simple thing to track down.
For the time being, distinguishing between how events are described is germane. Is stupid only a result or a player?

The problablary that humidity is stoopid is 45°C.

I read somewhere that people are stupid.

I thought it was 'people are strange'...specifically when 'you're a stranger'...

Story of my life. But people are stupid, too. Seems like, anyway.

I’m human, I’m stupid. Everyone I’ve also seems pretty stupid too.

Good enough? ;)

'stupidity' is a relative term, I would say....it must be a term that compares one person or set of people to some kind of 'non-stupid' level of intelligence.

Humans can be both rational and irrational. The term stupid perhaps is attempting to get at irrationality. Perhaps. Whenever I hear the term stupid, it sounds very inflammatory and accusatory for not seeing the world as I do. But I do find humans extremely irrational given both our emotions and our stern commitments to our beliefs. Rationality involving the discovery and consideration of alternatives demands much from us, so that irrationality, or accepting what is readily at hand, is the default position for most of us.

It takes a genius to say something utterly and infintely stupid.