tar

Thread, Perhaps I took the question wrong. I thought it was an either or question. As in if you could be happy without being intelligent, or intelligent without being happy, which would you chose. I think the question is basically a no brainer. Regards, TAR2

turionx2, Thanks for finding a route to Tri's links. I looked at the Socrates one and the Chomsky one. Closed my eyes and just listened after about a half hour into Chomsky's and fell into a blissful sleep. Those long videos usually turn me away. Specially now, at 12 o'clock at night when I saw the mind control link was well over an hour. AND then to come back and finish reading the thread and learn Tridimity thought a quack was in it. Intelligence v happiness might suggest that intelligent people only get their happiness from complicated things, and that therefore the simple pleasures are worthless. But this is not true. Intelligent people LIKE beer and doughnuts, for the most part, and are willing to pay for them, which shows they must be worth something. Had an insight myself about endorphins and human enjoyment and happiness about a decade ago, after reading an article that mentioned the chemicals released in the brain of a gambler, when he wins, are similar to the chemicals in some euphoric drugs. Winning gets a reward. Could be as simple as winning a game of solataire or completing a puzzle, or straigtening a crooked picture on the wall. Gamblers lose time after time, just to get the reward of one win. Drug addicts go directly to the reward, and wind up feeling on top of the world, penniless in the gutter. I think people develop strategies to set up false wins, or easy wins, just for the reward. Examinining my own life, at the time, I saw I had some of the real victories already won. Steady job to pay the bills, wife to share my life with, daughters to carry my genes into the future...and looked for the easy wins, that didn't cost too much money or time or hurt anybody elses chances at easy wins. Developed the philosphy that the purpose of life was to live, and to make it possible for others to do the same. I was a philosophy major in college for a few years, so I already knew the unexamined life thing. Learned the lesson way too well, as I am often reprimanded by those around me, for overthinking things. And in the 40 years since my college days, have also learned that others are perfectly capable of examining their own lifes, and making choices as to how they are going to get their wins. My routes are no better than theirs, and together in society WE have developed many ways to allow each other easy wins and happiness. Sure there are many that make the wrong choices and wind up powerless to control their own lives, and get dependent on others. I don't know what to do about that, other than to consider that people make their own beds. It breaks my heart to see people I love homeless at the shelter, but short of taking in the world, there is little I can do, about other people's lack of paying attention to the winning of the real victories first, that will ensure the bottom layers of Maslov's hierarchy of needs are met, before going after the wins at the higher level, or going after wins that leave you in the gutter Perhaps James Joyce cannot be happy until the rest of the world is. Personally I am content with sitting here, with my wife and daughter safe and warm upstairs, typing to you folk, trying to figure out the riddles of the world, smoking my cigarettes, and making my own choices, setting my own goals short and long term, and going after as many winable ones I can arrange. Some of the big ones, we already do together, and I do my part in them, but I think right now, I will go upstairs and get a peice of halloween candy for myself. A peanutbutter cup to be exact. I think victorywise, in terms of human achievement, peanutbutter cups rank third after indoor plumbing and electricity. Regards, TAR I remember how wonderful it felt to see the lights come back on after Sandy. Eight days taking sponge baths and going down to the lake for buckets of water to flush the toilets. Got my dad's generator after his lights came back, and spent my time hunting gas and going out of state to get it for the generator. Thanksgiving is coming up. Time of year when families get together, put out a great spread, and count their blessings. Take stock of the happiness we already have, that we have together put. The wins we rely on each other to constantly have at hand. Our collective intelligence has already achieved much happiness. What's the name of that Virgin Airlines guy? Was watching a peice on him on Bloomberg a few months ago. Struck me that he builds companies for a win. Then moves on and builds another one. I don't work on that level, for my wins. I play Civilization.

Tri, I forgot to tell you that I couldn't reach your links in my area. Perhaps I am not on the right continent. Could be a nice analogy for the current vote. I was looking at the intelligence bell curve after our recent drifts. My concern was whether I was applying myself to reality in an appropriate manner. Was my higher than normal intelligence a gift that I have squandered, or a blessing that I have used appropriately. My dad is a psychologist, so he administered intellegence tests, and three times he did so, with his own child, me. I scored 142 early on (IQ being measured agaist others of your age), scored low 130s the second time and don't recall the exact numbers, or the results of the third because I think it showed a "falling back into the pack" and a move toward normal, rather than exceptional. Happiness wise, I was unhappy to realize I was not amazing, but just smarter than normal. It was not till yesterday I began to consider that i was inappropriately looking at the situation backward. I really do have higher intelligence than most and should look at the situation more as being of higher than average intelligencee, than as being unhappy that I can never reach 160 and look over IOTAs wall, or view Tri's link. I am assuming here, that everybody reading this is above average, or of high or very high and even perhaps some of exceptional intelligence. Though we might be happy or sad to be a little closer to or farther away from 160, we unfortunately are also happy or sad to be separated our deviation from the norm. Happy that we can see certain things more clearly, and sad we cannot be content with the beer and dougnuts. So I have some advice, that I am giving myself this morning. "SLOW DOWN". Everybody else can not keep up, and its not their fault. There is NOTHING they can do to get as intelligent as you. And at the same time "keep moving" because you are smart and we need our leaters to pull us all along. Thing is we can learn a lot from geese. The leader pulls the others along in their slip stream, and when he/she tires, he falls back into a position in someone elses slip stream, and the flight continues. And when a goose can no longer fly for some reason, another goose goes down and stays with the fallen, 'til they both can continue. Saw a cover of a book at my Dad's house with James Joyce on the cover. He looked profoundly sad. Perhaps he flew to far ahead and was sad he had left the flight behind. Or maybe he was sad that he did not go down and stay with the fallen goose. Either way its important to remember you are not the only goose that can fly. Regards, TAR PS I voted happy just to tie it up.

Tri, Well thankyou very much. You deserve another one of my best. Best regards, TAR

Tri, Well perhaps you can tell me, from your friend's stories, what a Mensa convention is like. I always wondered if it was like a mutual admiration society, or whether they actually got some good stuff done, and made some useful aliances in the hallways and brought some valuable initiatives home to the pond. Regards, TAR2 P.S. I would like to add to your list of circumstances, a possibility I was thinking about earlier in the thread about myself and my upbringing that might "hold back" someone like myself, from realizing they have more to give, than they give themselves credit for. That might have developed in me a sort of inappropriate humbleness. My family was smart. My Dad a PhD and college professor, my sister a straight A student at a private school, my Mom a science and math teacher at the same private prep school, and all my Dad's friends, amazingly brilliant folk, that I grew up amongst. I always felt sort of the dummy amoungst them. Sort of like I grew up in the lake, and when I found myself in a pond, I would handicap myself and be careful I did not take improper advantage with my size. And constantly gave the other guy the benefit of the doubt, figuring they must have a sensible reason for doing what they were doing...perhaps I have handicapped myself, inappropriately, for too long and it wouldn't be a bad thing if I applied myself a wee bit more to the real world. But then again, I hate rejection, I hate taking advantage of people, I hate taking responsibility for other people's private affairs, and I like letting people make up their own minds about stuff, and finding their own balance and happiness, and sort of enjoy supporting the enterprise from behind. In short, I don't like imposing myself on anybody, and gave up having friends. There is too much maintainence required, and too much heartbreak. Especially when two of my friends, don't get along with each other. Maybe the connection between genius and arrogance is the wake that a boat (person) creates as they travel through the water (life). The genius has a big fast boat which creates quite a wake when it runs the engine full out. An arrogant person does not concern themselves with who and what their wake upsets.

From an outside perspective, as someone that has never been to a Mensa convention(is there such a thing?), I can take, and have to take the perspective that being most likely a borderline case on the membership requirements front, should I attend, I would be humbled by the assembly, and quite a deviation or two to the left of the norm there. I would not go if my goal was to show anybody there how smart I was, because I would most likely be disappointed at my standing. So I might take a dual approach toward the folk that do attend. One that says they are likely swimming into a lake, where their pond status will not hold, and two, that their status in the pond is reinforced and verified, should they swim back, uneaten.

Thread, So if we have agreed that arrogance is an attitude or percieved attitude, and genius is more an aptitude or percieved aptitude, then the two words are indeed of different natures. And the discussion is sort of over. Except there is this inferiority/superiority element as mentioned by Kowalski, who seems to have an elevated vantage point, evidenced by his/her ability to read and write from the top of the screen. I am thinking there is the big fish in a small pond thing going on with arrogance in general, where it is possible that the biggest fish in the pond truely does have the title won, aptitudewise, yet neglects to consider the fact that the title is not a fixed thing that continues to hold when the pond drains into the lake. There is something for instance that I have noticed that would seem to indicate that Audi and Mercedes owners, also feel they own the road. Perhaps they actually do, in some cases, but in general, I get the feeling that they carry their pond status into the lake, where it no longer applies. The words snob and elite come to mind, in this drift, and there really is an actual capability differential that truely exists in the world that causes there to be different communities of people that gravitate toward each other. We really do have universities where you will find inordinate concentrations of genius, and we really do have gated communities where you will find inordinate concentrations of rich, capable folk. And "Prima" Dona ballerinas really are number one in the class. So, as genius goes, we have two realities. One is that the genius is way out on the thin right rim of the bell curve, several standard deviations from the norm...but the other reality comes into focus at the Mensa convention, where everbody just turns into your average, run of the mill genius and but samples in a new bell curve and you have a good chance of being within one standard deviation of the norm, at the convention. Regards, TAR

Tridimity, OK then, let's go after the capability angle, and drop the trust for the moment (mostly). I was thinking today of ammending my 90/10 good people/questionable people, to include the fact that each individual in either group is not perfectly good or without thoughts and behaviors that even they themselves would question. And concurrently realized that capability, as in the strength and intelligence of even a crime boss or a leader of the cripts or the bloods, is evident. There does seem to be such thing as an evil genius, not limited to the movie characters of that persuasion. Which made me wonder about how our society as a whole might be a reflection of the individual's own 90/10 split. So, rather circuitous (which probably explains the correlation between this thread going off course, and my presence on it,) but I am reaching this hypothesis. A genius might be more likely to be considered arrogant by virtue of his/her capability in the brain department that places him/her in rarified air, where he/she has not enough living peers, or role models, or judges or examples to know how to properly act. Regards, TAR

Thread, Another aspect is the result that anybody of a certain type causes, when they, as a member of the type fail in the trustworthiness department. Everybody of that type takes a hit. Concurrently trustworthiness tends to likewise be granted to other members of the same type when trustworthy behavior is noted. Case in point, with the commercial where the teenager is hanging out of a moving car reaching for the errantly open beverage truck's cargo...only to grab the pull strap and close down the door to prevent the driver from losing any of his/her cargo. In this, the TED talker's suggestion that we should strive as a goal, to increase our own trustworthiness in other peoples minds, is doubly valuable. Increasing one's own capability and trustworthiness, not only serves as an example...wait...triple that, no, quadruple that. Not only does being capable and trustworthy get the job done for you, and the people around you, but serves as an example to others of your type(s), and as evidence to people not of your type(s), that your type(s) can be trusted. Concurrent with that goes a certain responsibilty to shun those of your type(s) who act in an untrustworthy fashion. Bad behavior brings shame upon the groups of which you are a member. And who better than a Genius, to scold a Genius? Regards, TAR2 (in a socially appropriate, person to person, manner, of course)

Kristalris, OK, I get your drift, but perhaps I am avoiding the link between arrogance and intelligence because it poses some unsavory problems, that I am at a loss to have yet solved. And troubleshooting was my trade for many years so I am embarrased to have not yet solved the dilema. If the 10 percent are the most capable, then they are the ones both making ideas manifest, and guiding the use of the knowledge and technology gained. Then, a certain power aspect comes into play, and the 10 percent are the creators of, and the wielders of, power, in every aspect of human life. They are central to the functioning of every group, and establishment. All good stuff can be traced back to the 10% as well as all bad stuff. Thus with exceptional capability comes a concurrent responsibility, to be exceptionally trustworthy, and the unfortunate condition of being extraorinarily capable of fooling and thusly being capable of being the master of, 90 percent of the population. Making the 90 percent, the 10%'s unwitting slaves or followers. Thus power struggles in the world, are not really the pervue of the average man, cause we don't have the capability to be appropriate advisaries of those that can fool us. Yet we have to trust some very many, that are more capable than we are, in every area of human endeavor. Case in point. I saw the current tag line for the Keurig Coffee Brewing system. "Brew the love". Really? What sense does that make? Who is that fooling? Regards, TAR2 Anybody can be arrogant, if there is but one of us that they can fool, and but one of us that they cannot. The more capable a person is, the more responsible they are for the state of the place they inhabit. With great power, comes great responsibility. Its unfortunate that power currupts. A dilema we have been trying to address in thousands of ways, for thousands of years. Perhaps better to trust that we would not be anywhere close to where we are, if people at every level of capability are not cogniscent of the requirement to be trustworthy, and accountable to the rest of us. For the most part. Which leads me to the belief that 90 percent of us are trying to be good, and 10 percent mess it up, for the rest of us, because they can't be trusted. The 90/10 split though, can not be along the same lines as the capability split, rather even amoungst the 10 percent that is the most capable, there is a distinction between those that can be trusted and those that cannot. If this split was not overwhelmingly in the favor of trustworthy folk, we would all be naked and vulnerable, and living as prey in the wilderness. Since we are not in such a state, I think that good must have won out, all the way along the line of human development, and for this to have happened, the 10 percent that are the most capable, must have also been made up of a majority of trustworthy folk. Let's say a 90/10 split in favor of trust.

Ed Earl, Thanks for the responses. I thought others might chime in, but perhaps the topic is fatally flawed. Its too serious to be taken lightly, and embodies too many incongruities, to be honestly considered, without having to laugh at ourselves on levels none of us wish to be laughed at about. In public anyway. So perhaps we could let it go, as a question asked, that we will just have to trust each other, to answer for ourselves. Thanks anyway Ed Earl. Regards, TAR Ed Earl, Since it's a thread I opened, let me close it with a joke. We find Sherlock and Watson laying in an English field in their sleeping bags in the early morning hours Sherlock awakens and wakens Watson. Sherlock: "Watson, Watson, wake up." Watson: "What it is Holmes?" Sherlock: "Look up and tell me what you see." Watson: "Stars Holmes, I see stars, and a beautiful English night." Sherlock: "Yes, yes, Watson, but what does it tell you, what does it mean?" Watson: "Well...it means we are but tiny and mortal souls in a vast and endless universe." Sherlock: "No, no, you dolt. Somebody has stolen the tent." Regards, TAR2

Ed Earl, So is there a personality orchestrating the Arab Spring? How can we assess from here, if we are not on the ground, there. When millions are displaced and death and destruction is rampant, what business is it of ours to choose the winners and the losers between country and king? What exactly is the nature of the change we wish to cause, by inciting people to action? Is launching a cruise missile into a building in a foreign country, not an act of war against the people of that country? Should we not always consider the capability and trustworthiness of our targets, before we strike in a manner that strips them of capability and breaks trust between them and us? I reread my OP and recognized an ommission in my sentence about school and workplace and market and the streets between, that use to be our pervue. Church. Do we still go to church on the weekends and regain our sense of community, and responsibilities to each other, here on the internet? Maybe. Maybe not. Do we hold ourselves responsible for our personal transgressions against the world, as we used to? Maybe. Maybe not. Regards, TAR2 Current broadcast religion in the U.S. is too inane to take seriously. Makes people like me and iNow and others sick to our stomachs, to understand that so many are taken in by such baseless irrationality. However, we still need to trust each other, and in my opinion be careful of launching any cruise missiles into our own heart.

As John Dos Passos said in his U.S.A. trilogy. "The only defense we have against the ravages of the 20th century, is personal integrity." In the 21st century, we still have no better defense than this.

I don't know where to put this topic. Its personal, its political, its psychological and philosophical and social. It has to do with the real world and it has to do with our dreams. It has to do with the new world of work and the plethora of information we are bombarded with, and the shift from trusting human judgement, to trusting the systems that human judgment creates. I am thinking it may be important to understand what is going on, so we can address it together, and understand where everybody stands. It is current events, and perhaps we are addressing the issues as they arise, but perhaps we are letting some things go, that we really don't want to see get away. I am old. Will be 60 this year. Baby boomer. Now we have X and Y raising millenials. Don't see many people tipping their hats and opening doors for ladies anymore. Courtesty and friendships and agreements have a different nature. The real world is no longer limited to ones house, and jobsite, school, grocery store and the streets between. We are all connected. News can spread by cell and twitter in a matter of minutes. When Timmy got stuck in the well, Lassie ran for help and the family and neighbors came to the rescue. Now its a national event. 6 men get trapped in a mine and we are all there, wondering why the rescue can not be immediate, why people are so inept, or why this or that safety measure was not in place, etc. etc. So thats is our situation, we know too much, to fast, without realizing the people on the scene are already capable and trustworthy, and can handle and will handle the situation as well as is humanly possible, and will employ whatever resources arrive on the scene. So who or what is in power in today's world of work? The bosses, or the systems some third party has put in place? And although the extrovert has sold the system, the introvert has written the code. One group makes the promises, and another group makes it work, and tries to keep even the unrealistic promises. It used to be different. Maybe not better, or worse, but different. And I am concerned that the real world and the world of ideas are changing places and intermingling at a pace too fast for all to keep up with, in a realistic fashion. Here I am, in my basement, with my wife and daughter upstairs. Am I in my right mind trying to solve the problems of the world...and in some crazy way think I might actually be making any difference? What kind of silly power is this? That someone, somewhere, that I don't even know, is reading my words? Regards, TAR2

Tridimity, I like your drift the most. We, you and me, were on a thread about the shutdown and politics where many incrongruities where pointed out, many funny things where the dems think the repubs don't get it, and the repubs think the dems don't get it. How do we tell each other "we got it covered" and recognize the danger, recognize the incongruity, but are safe from it, together, if not with a smile, and a laugh, and an occasionally required hug. I like your drift, it works evolutionarilywise. The turn away from the harmful, the embracing of the helpful. What is dangerous and what is safe, and how do we let each other know when we are in agreement. I am a rather literal fellow. I am not so good at banter. I enjoy sarcasm and self depricating humor though, anytime I know I am amoungst friends. Where together knowing the danger, makes it safe to laugh (or cry). Somehow comes back to trust, and this I think is a powerful evolutionary advantage. Regards, TAR How many times is a laugh associated with the words "I get it now" or a crying embrace with "I know, I know"

thanks, I really appreciate that Hug back. and I am a rather good hugger, and you deserve my best.

kristalris, You have some good points. I am not so sure though about personality being a strongly nature thing, I think it might lean more nurture. My dad, one of the PhDs I referred to earlier (bottom left in profile pic) is a psychologist and has told me that one's personality is pretty much developed, by the age of two. This would lead me to believe two things, one, that one's personality develops and two, that it developes early. Thus very early events and interactions in one's life, events that one might not consciously remember, could have great influence on choices of outward or inward sonance, for the remainder of ones life. The last statement is mine, and I pretend no particular expertise in psychology, just because my dad told me one fact. It's just a guess, based on my muses about myself and others. So different people, based on this guess, would hold different value to knowing they are smart, and having other people know they are smart. And in the case of this thread we could replace smart with genius, or near genius, or at least smarter than average, and still be talking about arrogance vs. genius. By this metric, I think I am sort of an inward sonance guy, who assumes that the outward world must make sense, by definition, because its already working and manifest, and it was doing so for a long time, before my personal sonace came into play. I sort of trust the place to be correct, and any inconsistencies are probably internally correctable. So personally I am not so concerned with other people thinking I am smart, cause I already know I am smarter than average, and less than a genius, and know my place, so to speak in the spectrum, but constantly have the internal battle of determining whether or not I am over or under estimating myself, when it comes to my importance and concurrent responsibilies, to the outward order of the world. In this regard humble or arrogant, either way, is a differencial, between ones own assessment of oneself, and an outside opinion. Still has little to do with genius. Current or backward looking. Unless backward looking allows an objective assessment to be made of objective assessments and one could assess the importance of a person to the world, from the fact that he had great positive impact on the actual real order of the outside world. We have little way of knowing such things, while we are engaged in the doing. Hey, did you know I was at the dinner table where the word Cascade was decided upon for a new dishwashing detergent, and it was my idea, to come up with a water related word, that was clean, and powerful, and poetic? That was pretty smart in retrospect. But I have taken IQ tests, and don't play speed chess, and think more slowly than many that I know, so I know there is genius out there, and its not me, so a glimmer, does not a genius make. And we are back to personality and human assessment being the decider of arrogance, with little link to genes. Regards, TAR2

Tridimity, I think that about sums it up. Makes sense to me. Sort of a mirror neuron thing. We would not turn away from a picture of anyone guiding a tasty morsel of sweet or savory food, toward their mouth (in fact we might salivate a bit)...but a hot poker, or a spider, or a rattle snake or anything exceeding smelly or bitter or sour or hot, that we would not try to get a taste of ourselves, might indeed cause one to turn away, or close their eyes, or shield their eyes to prevent those particular mirror neurons from firing. At least our face would contort a little and our eyes squint up and an appropiate utterance (ewh or ugh or ouch or whatever) might begin forming in our throats, and our tounge and cheeks and lips and jaw would begin to prepare for the event. It would probably be an interesting study to turn around and look at a crowd at a game or a play or a speech, and watch the grimaces and nods and twitches and neck and facial and mouth and eye movements. You probably would not miss much of the action, you could read it in their faces. So this question of mine, might not belong in this section...but maybe it might be related to sociopathology, or at least how we get our social cues from one another. How we sort of know what other people are focusing on, and thinking about, without any magic telepathy going on. This mirror neuron thing, might work on some deeper levels as well, when it comes to complex emotions and thoughts? Hum. Regards, TAR2 Do we have a social psychology speculation section? I think I might have a topic. Is there an economy of sonance, a virtual marketplace of sonance where one person's cognitive dissonace is lessened at the expense of another's sonance? Could explain a lot about politics, and the camps that form around ideas, as one mind puckers up and gets ready for a kiss (or tasty bit of food), and another mind turns away (or gets ready for bitterness and pain). Might belong in philosophy and religion as we befriend those who bolster our sonance, and turn the sonance stealers away. Perhaps we should all operate on a level aware of the expense of our own sonance to others. And give up a little of our own sonance to lessen the dissonance of those around us. Perhaps we already do this. When we call that sick relative dispite our reluctance to experience their pain. And the currency might be trust. That we gain or lose, or hoard or spend, or create or squander. iNow, Perhaps my attempt at being market maker in the sonance market, between Overtone and jduff last week, left me bankrupt, as neither would take a bid or make an offer and the spread got too wide for me to bear. Partially explains a breakdown I had at work on Friday, where I actually cried at work, infront of my co-workers. First time I ever did that. Regards, Basket case

Well, This should settle it. My extended family has only 3 PhDs and 1 in the making. Two by my count are decidedly not arrogant, and the other sometimes perceived as such due to personality traits that lead her to be rather direct and open, but since she actually is capable and trustworthy, the incapable and untrustworthy are quickly undressed in her presence, and some of the naked might at that point consider her arrogant in defense of their clothing. Then on the other hand, there are a couple arrogant members of my extended family that are not fully clothed to begin with. The rest of us have managed to be capable and trustworthy in our fields with neither arrogance nor genius playing a role. And several have drug/alchohol/mental type issues, which are out of the discussion entirely, being that they are not capable and trustworthy at the moment, and therefore don't warrant any followers right now. The distinction we might be going for here is the distinction we make between arrogance and boldness, the first being action percieved to be against us and boldness action percieved to be for us. Or arrogance being unwarranted and without basis, and boldness being risky unbased behavior that actually works. Genius does not seem to come into play as a correlate, or a cause or an effect, or an opposite or a synonym of arrogant. Genius stands on its own as an actual capability that has little to do with arrogance. We might as well be comparing arrogance to super speed, or super strength, or super agility, or super musical ability, or super any human ability. Regards, TAR2

Just lost a post. Thanks anyway for the counseling session you just gave me, that you will never know about.

Tridimity and iNow and EdEarl, I did watch the ceremony, without sound, and with iNow's approval,and EdEarl's acceptance, and with Tridimity's suggestion that I really don't have any reason to look away. Perhaps morally I have no issue. I have no reason to deny two people a private relationship. But publically, I at first shunned the two, and have been advised that "its alright" by people I respect, so I looked at it the second time with that reinforcement. I do not think our reactions to such things are a completely private affair. We sort of tell each other what is OK and what we should shun. A natural reaction that the people around us support us to learn to avoid. Morally my feelings about gays are mixed. I accept it, have relatives who I love, that are, and have had good friends that were, but I do not seek the company of gays or cheer their "victory", or think anal sex between any individuals is advisable (or not disgusting) and generally retain a feeling that there must be something wrong with individuals who on purpose go against societal rules. Some cognitive dissonance produced in my own head, as I struggle to find the right way to feel about it, that satisfies my sensibilities. I will have to watch again with sound, and see if the oaths they took include me as a participant, before I comment further. Regards, TAR2 Gathered there in the presence of friends and family. The mayor said there were no objections, but did not ask the assembled if there were. My consent was never sought, nor promised to the couple. If anyone HAD objected, would the ceremony have been halted and made to listen to the objection?

Early this morning I was watching local news and they had footage of the first gay marriages in NJ, performed by the Mayor of Newark, soon to be NJ's senator. The first couple, two women, gave each other a loving gentle kiss on the mouth. The second couple, two women, gave a quite lewd passionate tounge kiss, that the camera cut short. The third couple two men, went to kiss, and as I saw their mouths headed for each other...I looked away. I can't report the nature of the kiss. Why did I look away? TAR

Tridimity, You are right, I just guessed at smart people thinking they should be leaders. But on the actual boss thing, I was allowing that bad bosses are not actually followed. Not in the way I meant followed. I meant natually followed, like the gal at the office who always does the right thing, inspite of what the boss says, or the rules say (when he/she/they is/are goofy} or when the best thing to do, is to use your best judgement. Here, consistent with the capable and trustworthiness conditions a leader, in my guess, would probably exhibit, it is probably the one with the quicker, more agile mind, working on several levels at once, that finds that "right" solution so consistently and in such a timely manner. This kind of real leadership, I am guessing, would correlate with intelligence, to some degree. Perhaps in this regard, we could guess that genius is what natural leaders follow. The rare few who eclipse the best, and operate at a level impressive, even to the impressive. Which would put arrogance or the impression of arrogance up to the personality of the genius (or pretender) in question, and up to the personality of the beholder of that genius (or pretender). So I suppose arrogance and genius really are not contrasting or comparable things, as has aready been noticed. The first is more of a person to person judgement(which can happen at any level of capability.) Genius stands on its own as an actual condition. Something that can shine continually, or sporatically, or glimmer here and there. Regards, TAR2

Ophiolite, The propensity we have to view the exact same thing, when viewed in the first person as a good thing, the second person as a neutral thing and the third person as a bad thing, as you gave a perfect example of, is probably the best factor to consider when contrasting arrogance and genius. Throw in capability and trustworthiness as additional factors, allow for personality differences (type A,B,C), and circumstances, and things get understandable. Really capable people that consistently exhibit such, that also exhibit compassion and integrity, naturally fall into leadership positions, because these are the things we automatically follow and wish to associate with. It gets things done, and gets them done in the way we wish to see them get done. All geniuses perhaps wish to be leaders, or have people follow their example, because they have things figured out pretty well, have a consistent, realistic worldview, and when they see things going in ways that are not sensible, or cause cognitive dissonance in conflicting with their worldview, they feel rather sure, that things would be better, if only people would follow their suggestions. However, the litmus test of a leader, is not whether they think they are capable and trustworthy, but whether they are followed. This perhaps is the difference between arrogance and genius. Regards, TAR2 Whether or not one allows genius to exist in the second and third person.

Gees, "This is wonderful. So first there was the human brain which created consciousness, then the brain created God, then God created the world and the lower animals, then God created us, so we could create God. I knew it. We are the beginning and end and the center of everything! It is cyclic! A kind of new twist on solipsism. Where do I join up?" If you have not noticed, you are already a member. You have already joined. Your post was going along fine, until you said "first there was a human brain". That is incorrect, we had to evolve this thing from less complex brains. The "lower forms" of it, were required predecesors. You have to be a baby something, with the potential to grow in stages, into an adult, or fully formed something. The components of air and water and energy from the Sun, along with the rotation of the Earth form a hurricane. A very small little baby circulation is required, prior the fully formed hurricane. So your contradictions dipicted in the latter part of your joke, are only contradictions because you did not include lower kinds of brains as precursors to current human brains, as you should have. Regards, TAR2 Besides, it will take no supernatural force to have our human brains evolve even further. We have already extended our individual consciousness into the reality that exists outside the reach of our fingertips, through technology and agreement we have built cities and countries, artwork and monuments and working, "living" systems of all kinds. These are all real things, and evidence of human consciousness. An ant hill, requires ant consciousness to build. We have consciousness that might be similar in nature, to an ant's consciousness, but we have extended our reach into our history, our capabilities in the present, and our ability to predict and guide future events, quite a bit further than an ant's consciousness can reach. I would say that human consciousness still stands as different than ant consciousness. Even if we would destroy ourselves tomorrow, and the only life forms remaining on the planet were ants, it would not bestow those ants with human consciousness. Regards, TAR2