Originally posted by sonhouseHigh IQ and frequent low marks for judgement regarding practical matters
One thing high IQ gets you is the ability to distinguish subtle differences in language, in general terms of course. Out of curiosity, what is the HIQ person's relationship to you?
You can lose virtue in any number of ways. Drug addiction, life threatening illness, depression, suicidal tendencies, political oppression come to me off the top of my head.
seems to reflect and reinforce the 'head in the clouds' syndrome. 🙂 🙁
.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyHmm, well as I say the mentioning of the high IQ of the person making the statement does
"Ok, but you should note that the way it was presented it looked like the reference to the
high IQ of the person who presented the teaser was meant to add weight to it."
In your own mind only, gf. Point being made was quite capable of standing, like the farmer's milking stools, on its own three feet.
"Arrogance on the other hand is 's go for clarity. Any other flaws you rank as tragic and destructive as arrogance?
.
sound like its there to make people pay more attention. However.
Well now that depends on how arrogant the person in question is, its not a binary on off thing
it's a scale.
Given your definition of virtue as:
"(impeccable integrity, honor, bravery, grace under fire, poise, good manners, respect for the privacy and rights of others; steadfast in resolve, noble in adversity, courageous in war; trustworthy and dependable in friendship, patient and longsuffering in romance; one accustomed to giving others a fair shake and the benefit of doubt; merciful and quick to pour out forgiveness as a wine; practiced in treating others far better than they deserve; an individual whose thought and action and leadership qualities become an example for those in his periphery; a person free of bitterness and rancor, pettiness and narcissism and all other negative traits and values, selfish behaviors and criminal tendencies which the human race collectively abhors)"
Then counter attributes would be things like;
Dishonour, cowardice, Panic, clumsiness, bad/no manners, No respect for others, wavering, ect ect.
I would hold that some or many of the list of unvirtuous attributes (as you define it) are at least equal to if not worse than arrogance.
Specifically as all can be graded on a scale.
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeDifficult to reason with disputatious individuals. Ideally both conversationalists
Hmm, well as I say the mentioning of the high IQ of the person making the statement does
sound like its there to make people pay more attention. However.
Well now that depends on how arrogant the person in question is, its not a binary on off thing
it's a scale.
Given your definition of virtue as:
"(impeccable integrity, honor, bravery, g at least equal to if not worse than arrogance.
Specifically as all can be graded on a scale.
check their agendas at the entrance, to remain both objective and teachable.
.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI am quite prepared to admit a good argument.
Difficult to reason with disputatious individuals. Ideally both conversationalists
check their agendas at the entrance, to remain both objective and teachable.
.
But I test arguments by trying to pick them apart.
I accept them only if I can't.
And only until I or someone else does pick them apart.
I am in no hurry, If you think I am wrong about something, convince me otherwise.
I like being right, so If I am wrong I want to know, so I can fix it.
I don't know what agenda you think I have on this issue, but I am not concious of having one.
I still don't think there is more than linguistic wordplay to the OP, but if you think differently.
By all means explain and reason away.
9 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeSixteen (16) first person pronouns within eight (8) short sentences shed considerable light on your going-in agenda, of which you're obviously totally unaware. It's all about you and your long held, overly precious, bulldogmatic points of view.
I am quite prepared to admit a good argument.
But I test arguments by trying to pick them apart.
I accept them only if I can't.
And only until Isomeone else does pick them apart.
I am in no hurry, If you think I am wrong about something, convince me otherwise.
I like being right
By all means explain and reason away.
Seems you are not now, and perhaps never have been, in any way seriously focused or even concerned with engaging in the polite/robust conversational process. Neither the possibility of discovering the essence of multi-faceted issues through joint probing and adroit questioning nor apprehending new levels of insight pertaining to absolute truth appear to hold the least interest. Highly unlikely you will ever change your rigid posture toward RHP Member Posters on the Spirituality Forum or toward those within your close circle of family and trusted friends. They've apparently already forgiven you (assuming you're not a hermit) this inimitable reality in your mindset. Continual blindspot impairment to human sight is a legitimate fear in life. For whatever the subjective or compensatory reasons, you simply cannot abide the prospect of being wrong. Please press these words to your forehead: "I like being right."
Note: Multiple edits to correct total bolding of the post due to the presence of 'text shortened'. Sorry.
.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyWow, ok I did not see that coming. (personal pronoun cos it's me I am talking about)
Sixteen (16) first person pronouns within eight (8) short sentences shed considerable light on your going-in agenda, of which you're obviously totally unaware. [b]It's all about you and your long held, overly precious, bulldogmatic points of view.
Seems you are not now, and perhaps never have been, in any way seriously focused or even con ...[text shortened]... wrong. Please press these words to your forehead: "I like being right."
.[/b]
ok lets go over my post again with footnotes.
I am quite prepared to admit a good argument.
Personal statement because I am talking about myself and not others, there are people who are not prepared
to admit that they are wrong or that their arguments or beliefs are wrong or could even be challenged.
I was stating that I am willing to change my mind if given a good reason for doing so.
And that I am prepared to challenge/have challenged my beliefs and/or knowledge.
But I test arguments by trying to pick them apart.
I accept them only if I can't.
And only until I or someone else does pick them apart.
This is in it's simple form, the scientific method or scientific skepticism, I was describing how I go about
determining if an argument is valid.
Which is of relevance to the discussion at hand.
Not everyone uses scientific skepticism and I was informing you that I do and that it was the basis by
which I would engage in any debate.
I am in no hurry, If you think I am wrong about something, convince me otherwise.
I like being right, so If I am wrong I want to know, so I can fix it.
This was my trying to state that I am perfectly prepared for a long and possibly detailed discussion,
I don't just give up after a few posts, and that I genuinely am interested in testing my beliefs and
finding out if they are right or not.
I could perhaps have put it better by saying I dislike being wrong because I believe that what you believe matters
as it informs all your other decisions and choices and that it is thus best to believe as many true things as possible
and as few false things as possible.
Scientists as a general rule dislike being wrong and like being right. Which is why they spend so much time testing
things and typically caveat almost everything, which causes problems when dealing with people who want certainties, not
probabilities or caveats.
I didn't think this to be particularly controversial.
Also there is nothing outside of mathematics and pure logic (and perhaps not even then) that can be considered absolute truth.
It is possible and desirable to try to get as close to truth as possible, but it is not possible to actually get there.
I am more than willing to back this up with reason if needed.
And I am far from being the only or most intellectual/smart/adroit/qualified person who holds this view.
I do however understand and agree with the arguments for it, I don't hold it because people told me to.
It is not all about me, I was just in that instance talking about where I was coming from.
I prefer discussions to be all about the issue, rather than the person making the argument,
but you brought my alleged agenda up hence my post.
My posture towards RHP forum posters is not rigid, and you know nothing of how I am around people in day to day life.
Much communication is restricted by lack of tone of voice or body language available on a forum.
And these forums are generally used, if not set up for, debate, which is a different form of communication from regular
conversation one might have over drinks or a meal.
I appreciate that my OP in this thread was a bit abrupt, as my response to what looked like a trivial attempt to start a
debate over semantics.
Particularly given your brief, almost cryptic post, which gave no context to the proposition or fleshed it out in any way.
I apologise if my tone offended you, and I will endeavour to avoid being quite so brusk in the future.
However I have not yet been convinced that there is any substance to your proposition.
I am willing to discuss it, cordially, at whatever length, on the possibility that I am wrong.
Originally posted by googlefudge[WORD TOO LONG] 44[/hidden][/b]
Wow, ok I did not see that coming. (personal pronoun cos it's me I am talking about)
ok lets go over my post again with footnotes.
[b]I am quite prepared to admit a good argument.
Personal statement because I am talking about myself and not others, there are people who are not prepared
to admit that they are wrong or that their arguments o ...[text shortened]... willing to discuss it, cordially, at whatever length, on the possibility that I am wrong.[/b]
.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyVery witty, and predictable.
[WORD TOO LONG] 44[/hidden][/b]
.[/b]
See I had a bet on you would post something like that.
You made the discussion about me, which linguistically meant using personal pronouns or contorting myself into a linguistic mess.
I would much rather not talk about myself, but about the argument/issue/proposition at hand.
You on the other hand seem determined to discuss me rather than the issue.
Perhaps I am not the one with an agenda?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by sumydidHeh, I would have no problem with that...
I think Gramps should take that as a compliment. You said he is predictably witty.
Perhaps you can both build upon that and establish the foundation for friendship. 😉
And O'bummer is a great president! Kumbaya! 😵
By the way you do know that Obama is actually secretly Irish don't you..... ;-p
I don't know if he's great, but he looks better than the alternatives.
4 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeTook your measure early by reading your profile. Feeling the need to assert that "I am an Agnostic Atheist...." suggested fixed labels were probably quite important to you. Wondered the extent to which a free wheeling chat would be possible with a doctrinaire gent. Note: Sending over an unrated 1/3 chess game with you as white to provide us a venue for relaxed conversation. If your settings block the invite, please send an invite to me if your level of interest warrants. Kind regards, Bobby
Very witty, and predictable.
See I had a bet on you would post something like that.
You made the discussion about me, which linguistically meant using personal pronouns or contorting myself into a linguistic mess.
I would much rather not talk about myself, but about the argument/issue/proposition at hand.
You on the other hand seem determined to discuss me rather than the issue.
Perhaps I am not the one with an agenda?
..............................................
Edit: Invite was blocked. Your call, GF.
"This player is only accepting challenges from players with a rating below 1500.This player is only accepting challenges
with timeouts of 2 days or above.This player is already playing their self imposed maximum concurrent games (1)."