Via Instapundit’s Ed Driscoll:
SEVEN SURPRISING DOWNSIDES OF BEING EXTREMELY INTELLIGENT.
The last one on the list isn’t a “downside” at all. So it’s Six, really, to which we might add two very critical downsides missed:
7) Extremely intelligent people very rarely mature psychologically or socially. The ability to perform mental gymnastics and to achieve extraordinary success typically leads to a brutal, adolescent condescension towards “lesser” creatures. Life becomes a permanent state of suspended adolescence. Maturity first requires the inner strength to recognize and admit failure, and then it requires self-correction. It’s a stimulus-response system of human growth. Alas, very intelligent and successful people most often deny themselves that necessary stimulus for growth. (Count for yourself the number of people you’ve met who are brilliant and truly humble.)
This leads to …
8) The Flipside of the Dunning–Kruger Effect: Intelligent people typically fail to recognize the limits of their abilities. One often finds these people assuming omnipotence much removed from their core metier. Arrogance. This is an extension of [Seven], above, though it takes on a life of it’s own. Sure, the Dunning–Kruger effect is real, but it’s rare enough that brilliant individuals are forced to spend the time and effort to come to grips with their weaknesses.
Sometimes this stimulus occurs in the scientific – where doubts about the veracity of one’s findings and analysis are necessary strengths. Too, one sometimes finds it amongst the truly religious where, again, doubt and truth are daily struggles. Outside of these disciplines, chaos reigns. (Count for yourself the number of people you’ve met who are brilliant and truly wise.)
. . .
In your humble scribe’s experience it has been found that humility, wisdom and intelligence hardly ever coexist in the one man. They seem rather at odds.
The Blogfather Strikes…
May 8, 2015
AUSTIN BAY: Remembering Okinawa. “All told, Okinawa killed 12,500 Americans and wounded approximately 50,000. It was the U.S. Navy’s biggest killer, with 4,907 sailor deaths and 4,874 wounded. Japan lost an estimated 75,000 military dead. As for civilians? Estimates run from 50,000 to 110,000.” Today, America is afraid of offending a few savages with cartoons.
Posted at 10:00 am by Glenn Reynolds
Oh, I dunno about that. All Americans, or just a select few? Giving offense is neither a goal nor something to avoid at all cost; It is rather a symptom of another’s insecurity. Hell, given what some of these pagan savages believe, I’d recommend a few heavy insults. By that, I mean a dose of reality and truthfulness – tender feewings notwithstanding.
If you seek peace…
From Jim Quinn, via email, radio host and social critic extraordinaire:
ON APRIL 1ST: Quinn in the Morning will begin broadcasting from 6 am until 9 am. Live streaming, podcasts, and archives will be available in the members section of http://www.warroom.com
Also coming soon: the “Warroom with Quinn” iPhone and Android APP. NO FOOLING!
QUINN: I’m looking forward to broadcasting using this cutting edge technology. There is no way I’ll fade out when you are driving under bridges or through tunnels
I am doing this because I love radio. And the nice thing about being my own boss is that the next time I get fired — I’ll be firing myself. My studio location is so secret that sometimes I don’t know where I am. But then again – at my age I frequently don’t know where I am!
Rose has been extremely supportive and instrumental in getting the show up and running and will be contributing periodically to the programming.
. . .
QUINN’s FIRST LAW: Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.
. . .
Streaming will cost five bucks a month. Yours truly considers Jim to be the finest host on radio, worth every penny! He’s the informed, intellignet, witty Classical Liberal radio’s “Doctor” Bill Bennett only wishes he could be. Please visit Jim Quinn’s site and give him a listen.
It’s RINO season again. In response to Jeb’s address at CPAC, and to Dick “I’m a conservative now, really! I am!” Morris’ assertion that Ted Cruz is “divisive”, an old buddy of ours emailed this:
It’s not enough to haverich moderates in your corner; Jeb needs a lot more than that to win the primary.
He’s alienating everyone, he’s alientating social cons with his pro-gay advisers, he’s alienating fiscla conservatives with his support ofr amnesty, he’s alineating both parents and teachers with his support for Common Core, and he certainly doesn’t have the ear of libertarians.
who does he have left/
Please forgive our friend’s typing. His point is clear and brutally sharp: That Jeb is the divisive candidate, and by implication, every statist-leaning candidate sharing his pro-centralized government, anti-libertarian views.
Our response is that the Demos are not going to field a “moderate”; it would be folly for Republicans to alienate that huge bloc of Republicans, Independents and Democrats who are looking for a real choice.
“Republican ED is a condition indicated by sagging numbers, “moderate” performance and ideological befuddlement. The condition is known colloquially as “Squishy.” The cause is a condition known as Dyslexia Politica. Put bluntly, many Republicans and “Conservatives” can’t tell Left from Right.”
Have Republicans learned nothing given the devastating losses they have suffered running liberal candidates? From Jeb Bush’ candidacy, apparently so.
Jeb Bush: Man For The Statist-Quo™
David Frum: Obama Won’t Identify Terrorist Killers as “Islamic” Because He Believes the More Authentic and Attractive Version of Islam Is Deeply Anti-Liberal and Hostile to the West
We have no real need to read Frum’s screed because, well, Frum. Please feel free to follow Ace’ link to the Atlantic (but don’t claim later that you were not warned.) In this matter, Ace too, doesn’t get it. (Rare that.)
What’s the Obvious? Glad you asked. Here’s a hint: Start the analysis with Weggie Wuv. [Nudge, nudge! Know what I mean? Eh!? Eh!?]
Let’s suppose… One observes a Black, homosexual effete who is nominally mohammedan in a position of extraordinary power.
Let us suppose further that this individual can see into the near future; a future so clear that even he can see it. The one god he actually believes in – karl marx – is about to lose his precious bearded European head in an existential battle between the forces of “social justice” on the one hand, and on the other, orthodox traditional barbaric mohammedanism.
Let us suppose that mohammedanism’s tolerance for homosexuals is deadly, and that its word for “Black” is the Arab word for “slave.” Hardly wax for the ego.
Now if one were a preening idiot primarily concerned about one’s legacy of contributions to the rise of global socialism – screw this cr@p about “allies in the struggle against violence” – it follows that the ascendancy of mohammedanism of any sort isn’t permissible. Pathetically, the Left and all that it has become is weak and decadent. Every culture and nation that has succumbed to the disease is quite literally dying. On the other hand, there is a “strong horse” emergent in the deserts. It is attracting a lot of disaffected Lefties.
What to do?
Perhaps, if yours truly were such a man, a plan would evolve to allow one’s enemies to do the heavy lifting; to encourage mohammedanism’s divide against itself; to see to it that the various factions were as powerful and as armed as possible – even to the point of nuclear power – and to then step aside as they slaughter and rape and burn it out on their own turf and destroy each other – and their long term mission – in the process.
Enter mahdist Shi’a, Iran; Enter salafist Sunni, ISIL. Each boasts of themselves as the rightful future global caliph. Like any two-bit mafiosi warriors, they are not likely to agree to settle differences and ally peacefully. Before the Iraqi dust settles it will get truly ugly.
Little Israel would surely suffer during such a conflict, but that is mere interest on the principal. The real goal would be to so vastly make mohammedanism insufferable and unpopular amongst “the masses” that even the faithful would turn to other ideological cynosures. With mohammedanism (and Israel) out of the way, and with America in decrepitude, socialism would be free to, well, prosper. (How any parasitic ideology, having defeated it’s hosts, could “prosper” is yours, dear reader, to imagine.)
Then one could head back the links with the boys and dream of that inevitable hole-in-one on the 19th.
Abbreviated Glenn Reynolds:
The problem with [a libertarian] approach is that it offers insufficient opportunities for graft.
Not always, but less often than all the others.