High-IQ Men Less Violent

Your favorite books and links
Riggerjack
Posts: 3184
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: High-IQ Men Less Violent

Post by Riggerjack »

.But are people who are poor more likely to have low IQ as well. I remember reading quite a bit about research regarding behaviours of poor people and behaviours of rich people and lots of the poverty behaviours caused poverty to get worse and lacked any strategic thinking. Many of us on here live well beneath the poverty line and flourish while doing so, riding around on a bicycle and eating food we grew and prepared ourselves, whereas poor people will do things like buy lotto tickets, smoke cigarettes, buyjunk food and take out finance they cant afford for a low end sports car and chromes to stick on it.
I agree with Jacob, in other threads, saying that poverty is more about insufficient skill, than insufficient income. It is hard to explain the deficit of skill to anyone who hasn't experienced it.

At the low end of the income scale, there are those who do well, and those that flounder about. I've known a few who did well, and many who flounder.

Someone with minimal training in financial matters can make much better choices than a very intelligent person who has learned self defeating financial patterns.

It's not intelligence, it is skills, you are describing. Real poverty in America is a skill problem. That's why so many lottery winners go broke.

Among those that flounder, there are axioms not accepted by middle class and above. "The Man is keeping me down" is primary among them. The knowledge that whatever you try will fail or be torn down almost eliminates long term planning. This isn't unintelligent, this is simply learning from direct experience. Those at the bottom will fight their peers rising with cunning and desperation. Failure within a community of failure is still a community. Failure becomes personal when a peer succeeds.

enigmaT120
Posts: 1240
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:14 pm
Location: Falls City, OR

Re: High-IQ Men Less Violent

Post by enigmaT120 »

That's some depressing shit, Riggerjack. No need for the dictator to lop off the heads of the taller stalks of grain, as the rest of the stalks will do it for him.

Tyler9000
Posts: 1758
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:45 pm

Re: High-IQ Men Less Violent

Post by Tyler9000 »

Riggerjack wrote: It's not intelligence, it is skills, you are describing. Real poverty in America is a skill problem. That's why so many lottery winners go broke.

Among those that flounder, there are axioms not accepted by middle class and above. "The Man is keeping me down" is primary among them. The knowledge that whatever you try will fail or be torn down almost eliminates long term planning. This isn't unintelligent, this is simply learning from direct experience. Those at the bottom will fight their peers rising with cunning and desperation. Failure within a community of failure is still a community. Failure becomes personal when a peer succeeds.
I think you're dead on with the diagnosis, although I disagree with your claim this does not extend to the middle class and above. It just takes a different form.

True -- the middle class accepts that skill can help you climb the ladder and does not blame "the man" for keeping them down. But when it comes to seeing beyond that ladder to a life independent of a day job, their mindset is just as trapped. Thus the visceral reaction to a lot of ERE talk among the general population. It's still a skill problem, but it's a different type of skill.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15908
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: High-IQ Men Less Violent

Post by jacob »

The other issue is that the money-poor can't afford to be skill-poor. Being money-rich does substitute somewhat for skill-poverty. However, as lottery fails show, skills can be so deficient that no amount of money in the world will substitute sufficiently.

User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 6851
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm

Re: High-IQ Men Less Violent

Post by jennypenny »

I think the money/skill dichotomy is part of the appeal of post-apoc fantasies. In every SHTF scenario I've read about, money becomes worthless so the skill-rich rise to the top. I like the genre, but it can feel a little like blue collar revenge porn.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3184
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: High-IQ Men Less Violent

Post by Riggerjack »

. I think the money/skill dichotomy is part of the appeal of post-apoc fantasies. In every SHTF scenario I've read about, money becomes worthless so the skill-rich rise to the top. I like the genre, but it can feel a little like blue collar revenge porn.
Yeah, when you are on the bottom, any kind of upheaval is potentially good.
I think you're dead on with the diagnosis, although I disagree with your claim this does not extend to the middle class and above. It just takes a different form.
Well, the middle class may not encourage upward mobility, but those at the bottom will actively sabotage attempts at improvement. This is justified by thoughts along the lines of, " he was going to fail anyway, so kicking the ladder out from under him before he had far to fall was a favor. " once failure is embraced as inevitable, any counter example is a direct attack.
If I try and fail and give up, then you try and fail and try again, you are stupid, that's OK. But when you start to succeed, you are trying to show you are better than me. "That will not stand. And neither will you when I'm done with you."

I'm not making this up, these are direct quotes.

This is why my hackles raise when Ego starts talking about how we all have advantages and it is luck that separates us from the less fortunate. It's not that he is wrong ( he's not), it's that the excuse that luck and circumstances of birth are what keep the bottom at the bottom, is the justification of those at the bottom staying there.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: High-IQ Men Less Violent

Post by Ego »

Riggerjack wrote: This is why my hackles raise when Ego starts talking about how we all have advantages and it is luck that separates us from the less fortunate. It's not that he is wrong ( he's not), it's that the excuse that luck and circumstances of birth are what keep the bottom at the bottom, is the justification of those at the bottom staying there.
I agree. I can't figure out how parse the truth of it from the bottomless alibis it creates. For eons philosophers have discussed it in code so as to camouflage the excuses. What should we call it?

User avatar
GandK
Posts: 2059
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: High-IQ Men Less Violent

Post by GandK »

Ego wrote:I can't figure out how parse the truth of it from the bottomless alibis it creates. For eons philosophers have discussed it in code so as to camouflage the excuses. What should we call it?
Gumption.

Or lack thereof.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15908
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: High-IQ Men Less Violent

Post by jacob »

Ego wrote:For eons philosophers have discussed it in code so as to camouflage the excuses. What should we call it?
Maybe that depends on what the purpose of naming it is? We could call it stupid which is what it is but stupid doesn't really come close to describing the finer sentiments behind it. Also, most feel that stupid is an insulting word and so using it would only reinforce the behaviour. A bunch of French imports come close to describing various forms of inactivity as they derive from being stupid or unmotivated such as indocility. Perhaps the reason for speaking in code is part trying to avoid upsetting the people but perhaps also to avoid upsetting a social structure that keeps part of the people permanently at the bottom. By not having a word for the problem in the newspeak that we call English maybe we maintain class stability?

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: High-IQ Men Less Violent

Post by Ego »

The other day I heard an interview with David Dunning of Dunning-Kruger fame on This American Life.

Act Two:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-a ... -ignorance

In it he talked about his fear of being caught publicly displaying Dunning-Kruger himself. They mentioned that there are some scientist-critics of Dunning-Kruger who are convinced that D-K is wrong. Dunning responded in writing and convinced some, but others are persistent in their absolute disbelief in the theory and Dunning is equally persistent in his belief in it.... which, if you think about it, kind of proves it.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: High-IQ Men Less Violent

Post by Ego »

jacob wrote:
Ego wrote:For eons philosophers have discussed it in code so as to camouflage the excuses. What should we call it?
Maybe that depends on what the purpose of naming it is? ........

Perhaps the reason for speaking in code is part trying to avoid upsetting the people but perhaps also to avoid upsetting a social structure that keeps part of the people permanently at the bottom. By not having a word for the problem in the newspeak that we call English maybe we maintain class stability?
From the Dunning interview:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-a ... act=2#play
The real sadness, for me, is that often, people are going to suffer for their mistakes. But they're never going to know it because if a person is a jerk in the office, what happens is all the parties they aren't invited to, all the wonderful social interactions, they just don't get to experience. And it's likely that they don't notice the absence of this.

So you don't know you're incompetent. You can't figure it out on your own. And the world is treating you by being silent. Well, how do you improve yourself under those conditions?

Riggerjack
Posts: 3184
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: High-IQ Men Less Violent

Post by Riggerjack »

Perhaps the reason for speaking in code is part trying to avoid upsetting the people but perhaps also to avoid upsetting a social structure that keeps part of the people permanently at the bottom. By not having a word for the problem in the newspeak that we call English maybe we maintain class stability?
But that's just it, stability at the bottom is the last thing a stable society would want. The urge to compete, to show dominance doesn't die when you think there is no economic ladder. If there is no legitimate path, then the criminal path is natural. If you can't display dominance with an upwardly mobile career, you can demonstrate physical dominance.

As I was surprised by communication etiquette in the office, I was surprised by the lack of violence in the upwardly mobile middle class.
I agree. I can't figure out how parse the truth of it from the bottomless alibis it creates. For eons philosophers have discussed it in code so as to camouflage the excuses. What should we call it?
Honestly, I look at this differently.

People who fail to acknowledge the role luck has played in their success do far less damage to the underclass than the excuses they are given.

So I'm not as offended by the self important ass, (sometimes being one myself) as I am by the guy who tries to point out that he was "born on 3rd base", and in the process reinforces the beliefs of the bottom being static.

There are real problems people need to deal with, things that make day to day life a struggle, legitimately holding people back. Being born poor shouldn't be in that category in America.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: High-IQ Men Less Violent

Post by Ego »

Riggerjack wrote: So I'm not as offended by the self important ass, (sometimes being one myself) as I am by the guy who tries to point out that he was "born on 3rd base", and in the process reinforces the beliefs of the bottom being static.

There are real problems people need to deal with, things that make day to day life a struggle, legitimately holding people back. Being born poor shouldn't be in that category in America.
I agree. I just don't know what to do with the fact that some people are born on third base. Lie? You make your own luck?

Truth is, I tell myself I make my own luck all the time and have said similar things here a thousand times. I lie to myself because it is a useful lie. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say that I act as if I make my own luck because it is a useful delusion.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3184
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: High-IQ Men Less Violent

Post by Riggerjack »

You do make your own luck. You just didn't make all of it.

I believe that for 90% of us, life really is fair. Some of us get fcuked. No arguments.

I'm dating myself here, but life is much like a points based RPG character generation system. The more advantages you have, the more disadvantages you have to balance that out. Then, as you gain experience, you can either shore up weaknesses, or concentrate on refining a skill or trait. We all start out with a similar number of points, and then we live our lives.

But the "born lucky"?

Someone was born with good looks, with loving, rich parents, living a happy childhood, in a stable supportive community. Skating thru the best schools, making and maintaining connections with the rich and powerful So what? Have you talked to these people? They are fcuking BORING, and usually not very happy.

There is no need to be offended by those born on 3rd base. You can admire the sacrifice of those who came before, to give them the advantage, or you can watch with amusement as they squander their lead. Envy is just the result of poor observation.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15908
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: High-IQ Men Less Violent

Post by jacob »

Ego wrote:
The real sadness, for me, is that often, people are going to suffer for their mistakes. But they're never going to know it because if a person is a jerk in the office, what happens is all the parties they aren't invited to, all the wonderful social interactions, they just don't get to experience. And it's likely that they don't notice the absence of this.

So you don't know you're incompetent. You can't figure it out on your own. And the world is treating you by being silent. Well, how do you improve yourself under those conditions?
This has bearing on the ridicule-strategy controversy. This here is an example where the individual/minority losses so that the majority may remain polite. However, there's also the reverse situation, the Cassandra complex, in which the group/majority losses because the individual remains polite.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9374
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: High-IQ Men Less Violent

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Do you think the lower tendency towards violence is why poly-amorous men are more likely to have high IQs? My two friends who are taking me out to dinner together are extremely intelligent and polite. One studied at Cambridge and the other grew up in a household frequently visited by Sir Edmund Hillary. It is kind of amazing to me that this is possible. Like maybe there could be an end to war.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3184
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: High-IQ Men Less Violent

Post by Riggerjack »

. Do you think the lower tendency towards violence is why poly-amorous men are more likely to have high IQs?
7w5, I don't know your group, and poly Amory is one of those things that I at one time thought could be a good thing, then observation showed me I was wrong. In the cases I've known, the circles were all aggressive, highly social women, and very passive men. I'm not saying that the men weren't masculine, but that they weren't aggressive. There wasn't a strong urge to be top dog among any of them.

In my experience, violence is most strongly tied to desire to display dominance, or as a extreme stress reaction. The poly's I've known would only be violent in the second circumstance.

I'm not saying they aren't smart, I'm saying, as I have in several posts now, that smart and violence are not opposite ends of the same scale, they are 2 entirely different scales.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9374
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: High-IQ Men Less Violent

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Riggerjack said: 7w5, I don't know your group, and poly Amory is one of those things that I at one time thought could be a good thing, then observation showed me I was wrong. In the cases I've known, the circles were all aggressive, highly social women, and very passive men. I'm not saying that the men weren't masculine, but that they weren't aggressive. There wasn't a strong urge to be top dog among any of them.
Now I am wondering if I am an aggressive, highly social woman? (little bit, little bit)-lol. I think the word "passive", or at least the connotations associated with it, isn't quite right. The theoretically most highly-developed type on the Enneagram is the Type 9 ,also known as "the peace-maker." This type of person is not passive in the like-a-still-pond sense, but actually rather assertive about "making peace." Every other type on the Enneagram is supposed to become more like the Type 9 as individual functioning improves. I think there is some inborn temperament, some early familial influences, and some cultural influences that come to bear. I basically agree with what you are saying, but another way I might describe it is that some men are absolutely devoted to "rule of law" while others are more or less still practicing "rule of the jungle." This is a critical divide in my mind because my father was "rule of law" (Fred MacMurray) and my mother (Elizabeth Taylor) was "rule of the jungle." It has also been my observation that the son of a very powerful man will often become this Peacemaker/Rule-of-Law type. My grandfather was an old-school autocrat who argued two cases in the Supreme Court and my lover's father was a commander during WWII and the CEO of a major corporation (OTOH, the dominant male on my mother's side of the family was my Polish-heritage great-uncle who was a big, burly, booming-voiced retired City of Detroit police office, frequently found drinking a beer in my grandmother's kitchen, engaged in yelling match because he was trying to run her life since she had divorced her second husband because he wouldn't let her play the ponies with her own money.) So, my affluent, peace-maker lover reminds me of Dear Old Dad who banned his 4 daughters from watching "The Three Stooges" because he did not want us hitting each other over the head, but otherwise was very progressive in terms of allowing us a great deal of independence. I had no clue that maybe I could not do whatever I wanted to do as a child, and I still rather doubt it. My lover raised 7 children, only two biologically his, who were very challenging. It was touch-and-go for a while, but I would say that it was largely due to his influence that his 30-something year old adopted son now chooses to jump off of cliffs in a wing-suit as outlet for aggressive tendencies rather than engage in criminal activities. My lover also assertively heads a charity involved with issues of social justice. I believe he is the sort of person who would insist on rule of law and mercy even in relationship to the murderer of one of his children. I am likely more aggressive than that.
I'm not saying they aren't smart, I'm saying, as I have in several posts now, that smart and violence are not opposite ends of the same scale, they are 2 entirely different scales.
I have also dated quite a few intelligent men who grew up in rough circumstances and made their own way out. I think it would be nearly impossible to grow up in a totally "Law of the Jungle" environment, such as the Detroit Projects in the 60s/70s, and not retain some of that into adulthood. However, it has also been my observation that these men usually regard themselves as being not very aggressive because of their experiences with extremely aggressive individuals. For instance, I once had a man tell me "I would never hit a woman.",with no inkling that even the fact that he felt the need to assure me of this was something that would never even cross the mind of a man raised in different circumstances. So, I agree with you that they are two different scales, but not completely. I think the most intelligent boy in a rough neighborhood will likely be relatively one of the least aggressive, and consequent to both these factors, the most likely to hoist himself up into a less rough environment. For instance, I dated a man who made his way up and out by "being treated like a piece of meat" by the University of Alabama football program of the 1970s, and he told me that beyond his physique and physical intelligence, he was particularly valued for being "coach-able" (with roll of eyes), which is obviously the same sort of back-handed compliment as "articulate." One of the men I am currently dating is more of this type, but half-a-generation and half-a-step out into the middle-class suburbs removed (like I borrowed a boyfriend from Gabrielle Union), and he purposefully, for "f*ck you" reasons, retains an Ebonics accent,although he has dual degrees in 16th Century literature and Finance earned with his 1980s football scholarship,and his own mother speaks with a soft, sophisticated, sort of debutante Southern drawl. I am very fond of him, and I appreciate the fact that he is only amused by my aggressive tendencies, but he is far too bossy for me to consider as possible domestic partner.

Anyways, I think the most in your face/space dangerous men are those who have aggressive tendencies because they are less intelligent and they were raised in "Law of the Jungle" environments, and they are currently thwarted or stressed or suffering from some low-self-esteem, like Mike Tyson. OTOH, the men I dislike the most and judge to be most capable of harm are those I judge to be of relatively low intelligence/high privilege, like Donald Trump or George Bush. However, I am not reflexively anti-Republican. If Henry Kissinger was even 10 years younger, I would let him buy me dinner, and I used to have a bit of a thing for George Will (that bow-tie is just screaming "set me free, monkey-girl") before he became so thick-headed-recalcitrant on climate change.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3184
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: High-IQ Men Less Violent

Post by Riggerjack »

Anyways, I think the most in your face/space dangerous men are those who have aggressive tendencies because they are less intelligent and they were raised in "Law of the Jungle" environments, and they are currently thwarted or stressed or suffering from some low-self-esteem,
In a "law of the jungle " environment, being in your face/space is not unintelligent. It is simply another form of communication. We rarely change the traits that have success. Although, by our age, an intelligent man should rarely find himself "thwarted or stressed or suffering from some low-self-esteem,".

Perhaps at this point, we are simply arguing around each other's views...

Post Reply