History disagrees. No im not going through two days worth of articles before keeping the same opinion.
The people currently at the very top of the food chain and through all history rarely got there through pure intelligence. It was money, family, and social status that put them there. One could argue intelligence can get those things but the difference between the extreme examples of those who were born with and those who earned it during ones life without a lucky chance are hardly comparable.
If you want to talk about world revolutionary intelligence then thats another story. Wait for AI to advance for that one though.
It has its value.
I have life experience
Checkmate, you can put your copypasta where it belongs; on a dusty library shelf
Your life experience is anecdotal which makes it a logical fallacy. I could spend my whole life in Japan and not know anything about California. Doesn’t mean that I know more than a person who grew up in California who is younger than me
Ok you to play kid?
Let's play.
Let's put you in a cage fight against a 6ft tall 254 lbs dumb ass nigger, and let's see how long you'll survive with your superior intelligence.
I give you 30 secs, given that you can run that long to begin with
You want another example? It's may 7 1954, you're part of the french expeditionary corps dropped over dien bien phu, and you're the smartest kid around
Now what? You think just because you're the smartest kid you have the highest odds of survival?
Laughable
Is this a real reply. Like do you think youve made a point that is anything other than a proof that you understand nothing?
You both fail to consider the context
Your superior intelligence is only useful in a setting where intelligence is key
You fucking pseudo intellectuals are jokes, life isn't academia nor a controlled environment
Does a scientist use life experience or trials when coming to a conclusion ? Yes one might be wise in a lot of areas but that doesn’t mean they know everything
(post is archived)