Power lies with the vacuous not the intelligent?

Affable

Professions have been created to give the thoughtful, serious, substantial some respect. But really the real power lies with the unstoppable tide of human vacuity that is willing to live off others efforts. eg-Some guy works so hard to create ingenious invention of for the internet, makes a ton of money, but then does he have power? He can just be married for his money, by someone controlling, manipulative, taking. Crap example but you get my jist.
Personal high estimation, meanness, obsfucation etc can all be used consciously or subconsciously for power in the vacuous. Another eg-the guy in the playgroud who tries to get his rival back by deception, cleverness, guy is so dumb and insousciant and cocksure he doesn't care and leaves the guy frustrated and maddened his deception isn't working. There are people of seriousness who have created institutions that mean people like them can get respect, but they are regarded as very dull by a large portion of people out there who walk to a different tune. People of seriousness or conscience also can be the ones that work extra hard for validation, some of the most cocksure people just stay in the shadows and don't care, not nedding the validation and being impactful enough in their lack of concern.

So, does power lie with the vacuous?

Does it make sense what I'm getting at?

Dean Moriarty

I live here in my little corner acutely aware that a man of intelligence
cannot be anything. Not really. In our society, the culmination of 2000 years of western
civilization, only fools become something! Yes, in our times, to be someone, somebody,
you’ve got to be essentially a characterless creature. You don’t believe me?
Just look at our politicians and celebrities!
Anyone of real character, of real, active intelligence, has been reduced to
being a mere bystander, helpless to do or achieve anything.

Affable wrote: »

Professions have been created to give the thoughtful, serious, substantial some respect. But really the real power lies with the unstoppable tide of human vacuity that is willing to live off others efforts. eg-Some guy works so hard to create ingenious invention of for the internet, makes a ton of money, but then does he have power? He can just be married for his money, by someone controlling, manipulative, taking. Crap example but you get my jist.
Personal high estimation, meanness, obsfucation etc can all be used consciously or subconsciously for power in the vacuous. Another eg-the guy in the playgroud who tries to get his rival back by deception, cleverness, guy is so dumb and insousciant and cocksure he doesn't care and leaves the guy frustrated and maddened his deception isn't working. There are people of seriousness who have created institutions that mean people like them can get respect, but they are regarded as very dull by a large portion of people out there who walk to a different tune. People of seriousness or conscience also can be the ones that work extra hard for validation, some of the most cocksure people just stay in the shadows and don't care, not nedding the validation and being impactful enough in their lack of concern.

So, does power lie with the vacuous?

Does it make sense what I'm getting at?

Joycey

Dean Moriarty wrote: »

Yes, in our times, to be someone, somebody,
you’ve got to be essentially a characterless creature. You don’t believe me?
Just look at our politicians and celebrities!

Why would I waste my time? If you look only in places where vacuity is an essential precursor to success then you cant be suprised when you find it there.

Anyone of real character, of real, active intelligence, has been reduced to
being a mere bystander, helpless to do or achieve anything.

Not really, just dont expect to find people doing/saying/being interesting things if your only going to look at what is shown to you. Go out and read stuff by contemporary people who interest you in whatever field that may be, go watch a film by Abbas Kiarostami, etc etc etc. Clearly the people in charge of the big corporations who make it their interest to promote stupidity and shallowness are not themselves without intelligence (at least in whatever field they are talented at).


We live in a society where vacuity is represented more (obviously) then depth/intelligence or whatever. That doesn't mean that everybody you meet is a shallow idiot. I'd recommend addressing the arrogance which is implicit in your question and look in different places if you want to be challenged/interested.

Joe1919

Why do you need to know about this intelligence trap? Well, you may be a highly intelligent person and you may already be caught in the trap. As I mentioned earlier you may consider yourself so intelligent that you feel you do not need to learn anything about thinking. Once you learn about the intelligence trap you will see that intelligence and thinking are not the same thing. ...........



http://www.edwarddebono.com/PassageDetail.php?passage_id=890&

Affable

Joycey wrote: »

Why would I waste my time? If you look only in places where vacuity is an essential precursor to success then you cant be suprised when you find it there.



Not really, just dont expect to find people doing/saying/being interesting things if your only going to look at what is shown to you. Go out and read stuff by contemporary people who interest you in whatever field that may be, go watch a film by Abbas Kiarostami, etc etc etc. Clearly the people in charge of the big corporations who make it their interest to promote stupidity and shallowness are not themselves without intelligence (at least in whatever field they are talented at).


We live in a society where vacuity is represented more (obviously) then depth/intelligence or whatever. That doesn't mean that everybody you meet is a shallow idiot. I'd recommend addressing the arrogance which is implicit in your question and look in different places if you want to be challenged/interested.

That wasn't really my question though. My question is does it actually have more power on a personal level? It always seems to be the people who are most arrogant about others being boring and irrelevant are some of the shallowest. If someone's depth is unheard, it does become an irrelevance.

nyarlothothep

the way I see it the non vacuous win out in the long run, well not always and not everywhere but I think that people who campaigned for civil rights, those who didn't just limit themselves to practicality and instead came up with interesting theories, those who produced works of fiction which envisioned a better world or critiqued the existing one, their efforts have been validated in the West, not completely but significantly. We have more rights, we have freedom of speech, without nerds we wouldn't have the technology which virtually defines our lives. Yes those people may be laughed at and ignored now, but lets see who their efforts influence the flow of history. I get what your saying. It may be something to do with extroversion/introversion. .

Affable

nyarlothothep wrote: »

the way I see it the non vacuous win out in the long run, well not always and not everywhere but I think that people who campaigned for civil rights, those who didn't just limit themselves to practicality and instead came up with interesting theories, those who produced works of fiction which envisioned a better world or critiqued the existing one, their efforts have been validated in the West, not completely but significantly. We have more rights, we have freedom of speech, without nerds we wouldn't have the technology which virtually defines our lives. Yes those people may be laughed at and ignored now, but lets see who their efforts influence the flow of history. I get what your saying. It may be something to do with extroversion/introversion. .

Yes but a lot of those kind of people had less power. Alan Turing pioneered ideas behind the computer but other guys self promoted more and had more clout academically, for example. People worry about Iraq and then politicians select either pro/for arguments to benifit themselves.
Many great thinking people got credit stolen from them etc

Joycey

Affable wrote: »

Yes but a lot of those kind of people had less power. Alan Turing pioneered ideas behind the computer but other guys self promoted more and had more clout academically, for example. People worry about Iraq and then politicians select either pro/for arguments to benifit themselves.
Many great thinking people got credit stolen from them etc

OK maybe it is the case that trully revolutionary thinkers dont get recognised, but that should make you realise that you need to choose between doing the revolutionary thinking, or pandering to the masses. Im not interested in doing something which will gain me popularity or the respect of the lowest common denominator, I would feel much more fulfilled were I to create something which I know is worthwhile, than something which cashes in on some fashion or on public opinion.

Dont concern yourself with what others think of your work, at the end of the day who really gives a **** if it gets recognised or not so long as you have not compromised yourself or your creation

Affable

Joycey wrote: »

OK maybe it is the case that trully revolutionary thinkers dont get recognised, but that should make you realise that you need to choose between doing the revolutionary thinking, or pandering to the masses. Im not interested in doing something which will gain me popularity or the respect of the lowest common denominator, I would feel much more fulfilled were I to create something which I know is worthwhile, than something which cashes in on some fashion or on public opinion.

Dont concern yourself with what others think of your work, at the end of the day who really gives a **** if it gets recognised or not so long as you have not compromised yourself or your creation

Yeah I guess. But I suppose the point is that those who are not adept power players sink because of their idealism sometimes. And also that teh vacuous are sometimes more happy and have higher opinions of themsleves than the deep.

Joycey

Affable wrote: »

Yeah I guess. But I suppose the point is that those who are not adept power players sink because of their idealism sometimes. And also that teh vacuous are sometimes more happy and have higher opinions of themsleves than the deep.

Well (although I dont believe thats true) then you need to decide: do you want to be happy and vacuous or "deep" and suicidal

And FYI, wallowing in self pity doesnt make you "deep"

Affable

Joycey wrote: »

Well (although I dont believe thats true) then you need to decide: do you want to be happy and vacuous or "deep" and suicidal

And FYI, wallowing in self pity doesnt make you "deep"

I wasn't talking about me, I don't know wy anytime I talk about an abstraction I have theorised about the world it's assumed to be me personally.

Evilsbane

This strikes me as 'Nice guy' syndrome. Description:

X likes a girl, Y. Y starts going out with other guy, Z. Z treats Y like dirt. X complains that girls always go for jerks while 'nice guys' like himself are ignored. What X doesn't realise is that girls don't like jerks, they just like certain characteristics that jerks usually possess, like good looks, self-reliance etc. X also doesn't realise that if he put a bit more effort in, he could exhibit those characteristics too. For example, a 'nice guy' usually gets too clingy and calls a girl too often. Girls find this unattractive because they have lives and don't want to have to interrupt what they're doing all the time to the point of nuisance. A jerk, not caring how a girl feels, rarely calls first. If the girl loses interest, the jerk doesn't care because he can go to a club and find a new one - one is the same as another to him. Sometimes this happens but sometimes the girl keeps interest since he hasn't forced his company on her. Thus, X assumes that Y is attracted to apathy when actually she's attracted to independence. A nice guy can be independent without needing to be apathetic - if he realises that he has other aspects to his life (job, friends, family, hobbies), he can work on these and then he'll only call her when he has free time, reducing how annoyed she is while increasing how impressed she is with how 'together' he is - the man has a good career, his friends love him, his family rely on him, he has interests that he achieves in (sports, DIY, cooking, etc). A man who calls incessantly sends the message that he has no interest in what the world has to offer (other than one: in this case, her) and has few interests to maintain a healthy conversation - basically he's boring and, what's worse, has no interest in improving himself in any area - he feels he's already good enough and that people owe him love.



Okay, so that doesn't SEEM related to the OP, but think: an intellectual who feels cheated by the vacuous is the same: he can only blame himself. If he felt that someone was being unfair, better to confront the vacuous person who is taking advantage of them. However, people who class themselves as intellectuals also tend to be shy of such confrontations and thus make no headway, allowing the 'vacuous' to make all the gains. In which case, which one of them is actually smarter?

As a matter of fact, there are actually several different kinds of intelligence and someone who classes only a few as intelligent is mistaken. Intelligence can only be measured in a few areas, such as mathematics; however physical intelligence (such as instantaneously making physical calculations for how to put a football in exactly the corner of the net and then carry those actions out - that's not easy and one could say David Beckham is a genius in his field), interpersonal intelligence (the ability to read tiny indicators from a person's face, voice and body language to tell how they're feeling), aesthetic intelligence (the ability to put something together that is pleasing to the senses not just to yourself but to others too - could be painting but could just as easily be a hairstylist) are less praised but just as impressive.

The key to success is learning from your opponent - if someone is doing better than you, then they've figured out something you haven't. You don't have to copy everything they do (being a prick is not recommended) but it's important to realise that everyone on this planet has something to teach you. As the old saying goes: "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em".

Another applicable proverb is: "Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."-Douglas Adams

af_thefragile

Dean Moriarty wrote: »

I live here in my little corner acutely aware that a man of intelligence
cannot be anything. Not really. In our society, the culmination of 2000 years of western
civilization, only fools become something! Yes, in our times, to be someone, somebody,
you’ve got to be essentially a characterless creature. You don’t believe me?
Just look at our politicians and celebrities!
Anyone of real character, of real, active intelligence, has been reduced to
being a mere bystander, helpless to do or achieve anything.

I don't buy that.
Many achievers have gotten there because of their intelligence and hard work.
Look at Bill Gates for example or Bob Dylan or Malcolm X, there are tons of people who have achieved a lot on the basis of their intelligence, talent and hardwork.
The ones who don't are the one's who're lacking in one of those fields.
To become a proper achiever you've gotta have intelligence, talent and hardwork. All 3 of them in the right proportions. You could usually compensate the lack of one of those aspect with another. You could be very intelligent and so won't have to work as hard or you could be talentless but you could still make it by working very hard.

The one's who're the "helpless bystanders" are the unintelligent and lazy ones who couldn't take the effort to step out of their helpless obscurity!