Right and Wrong Subjective?

[Renoard]

Einstein was no idiot savant.  He had none of the signs of autism and was quite a ladies man.

[mtlhddoc2]

The more "intelligent" a person is, the more likely they are to fail at the "simpler" tasks. I work with many brilliant people, I see this all the time.

[The Jade Knight]

I'd like to see statistical evidence of that.  I think we just notice it more when brilliant people do something inept... I'm not convinced that they are any more inept on average.

[Renoard]

It's something that some people use to comfort themselves.  The absent-minded professor stereotype, allows people to glory in a lack of interest in learning.  They cite the stereotype to suggest that if they learn too much then they would really be stupid.  It's the stuff of sitcoms.

It's possible that some people over extend themselves, and after achieving a large body of learning, they have too little mental resource left to retain common sense or social skills.  But it's hardly normative.

[mtlhddoc2]

Reonard...  I beg to differ on that. I work, and have worked, with people who could, and would, be called "brilliant". The large percentage of them cannot do simple things that an average person can do, they often are so brilliant they cannot fully grasp the concept of these "normal" things. The TV show "Bing Bang Theory" touches on this to the extreme sometimes, but in my experiences, it is not that far fetched. I have met several "Sheldon" type charachters in my time. I know several people that can perform complex algorithms in their head, yet cannot figure out how to use email. And even one or two who do not drive because they simply cannot grasp the more simplistic elements. They are not "absent-minded" usually, just lacking the capacity of mundane thought.

[Patriotic Kaz]

Ok my family has i think 3 classified geniouses if you allow me to count second cousins...and while they make errors in mundane thought its gennerally due to them being, guess what, absent minded!!! They function much the same as a normal person with their head in the sky...they can just do much more complex thought patterns...

[Reaves]

I know its a stereotype we all have in our heads but I, like Jade, would like a bit more concrete evidence than personal experience.

[mtlhddoc2]

there is no more concrete evidence than personal visible experience. Studies and the like are always controlled and manipulated and are almost never truly factual. Remember the study which determined that eggs cause cancer? Or the ones which said smoking is not hazardous? Or the ones who claim global warming as a "fact" even though the mean temperature of the earth has cooled over the past 10 years? I work with these people day in and day out, they are all MUCH more intelligent than I am, yet I have to constantly help them with these mundane tasks, such as sending email or burning a CD. Even though they have been shown how to do these things countless times, they just dont get it.

[The Jade Knight]

So, you're doing an informal study without controlled variables, with a sample size of what, 10?

Yeah, that's so much more reliable than a formal study with controlled variables and all...

[mtlhddoc2]

you miss the point. Collectively, personal experience is more relative than "controlled variables" because it is NOT controlled. We can do a study to prove that guinea pigs are smarter than humans with the right variable. "Science" has proven that over and over again. (See Global Warming studies, all of them, which all leave out several important factors, such as one of the thermometers they use is on top of a building in NYC right next to an air conditioning unit, and there are only 5 indicators). My personal experiences, combined with others personal experiences, trumps "controlled studies".

[The Jade Knight]

Everything you claim there flies in the face of Psychological studies, Mtlhddoc2.

Guess what?  You are biased.  AND your experience accounts for a profoundly small sample of people, which tend to share a great many demographic trends in common, AND they're all being filtered by your own predispositions.

To claim that your personal opinion is superior to controlled research and study makes very little logical sense to me.

(And it goes against my personal experience.)

[Patriotic Kaz]

Its seems like he is arguing the fact that the phrase "figures don't lie" is false. Well it is have you ever heard of liar's figure...it applies to various things such as the unemployment rating which leaves out teh chronically unemployed...

[The Jade Knight]

Certainly, statistics can be misleading, no question.  However, statistics can also be fairly accurate.  Methodology makes a HUGE difference in that regard.  But even a study with poor methodology can frequently provide a more accurate picture than simply guessing based on experience.

[Reaves]

There will always be poorly conducted studies which give not only misleading but just wrong conclusions. Global warming is an incredibly loaded topic these days and its hard to find anyone that is not simply trying to push their own agenda. My grandfather used to study the ozone layer, in fact he helped invent the TOMS device which is used to map the ozone. However, once the politicians began to move into the subject he started studying volcanoes He simply wanted to do science and not be forced to play politics in an increasingly charged arena of study. That is why it is so important to not just accept a statistic "because its a study" but actually look at how they got those numbers.

[SarahG]

But it's hardly normative.

You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.