Big Tom

CharonY, Thanks very much. That was part (not the whole) of the reason for my taking Developmental Genetics. Genetic manipulation and an understanding of the difference between gene expression and activity - things like that - would be fairly transferable in molecular biology. As well as that, I felt it would provide practical experience with model organisms. Does this seem 'legit'? Arete, It seems you're agreeing that techincal knowledge and experience with MOs is more important than a theoretical knowledge on a specific area, which, I suppose, could be picked up via the literature? Thanks guys!

Michel - Obvious inferiority complex aside, I'm sure you have plenty to contribute, rather than misinterpretting the whole thread and wrongfully trying to turn it around. I've enjoyed reading all the points made. However, as it is my thread, the burden falls on me to try and point out the intended topic. I.e. frustration with perceived poor judgement in others from an evolutionary perspective. I do not mean this as an insult, but rather to help. If you honestly believe the things you say, and aren't just saying them for effect, then I would recommend talking to someone about possible problems with paranoia. p.s. You caught me! I have been seeking out those with a PhD to start my super secret "we're the kings of the world" society, in which we'll do intermediate GCSE mathematics, and taste varying concentrations of PTC and ''phworrr" at the people beneath us. I thought i'd disguised it well with a general thread about the innate frustration reaction when others show 'poor judgement', which claimed not to be placing myself of anyone else at any specific point on the intelligence ladder between Turnip and futuristic high AI computer. But I was wrong. You saw through it! But now it is too late! My campaign of world domination that will throw all the people without tertiary education into slavery has begun! Very soon I will settle upon the thrown of my new Empire! - Sarcasm.

Tar: A wonderful post along the lines of what I was looking for. Thank you. I had considered that it boiled down to a trade off between altruism and selfishness. So, it could be that what we perceive as poor judgement (a far better definition that 'perceived inferior intelligence') discourages us from association and angers us because poor judgement endangers the community as a whole and the individual? I find it interesting and difficult to reduce social conventions in the modern world to their function (or lack thereof if its rise is neutral) in the wild. But yours seems a fairly sound assumption. The rest of you made very interesting points that I enjoyed reading. We seem to come back to willful ignorance and that ties in very nicely with this 'poor judgement' idea. I hope that my post wasn't misinterpretted. It was a difficult premise to explain without insulting anyone and making it perfectly clear that actual relative judgement is somewhat arbitrary in the question.

Thank you very much, friends. It's just nice to know that my MSc will not fully restrict my career's focal point.

A very thorough and agreeable answer. Not particularly in the context I was looking for, but you are right about the wobbly definition of intelligence and it being highly dependent on circumstance. I guess I should have posed this question in the evolutionary/behavioural biology section. But as it's purely hypothetical, I thought it would be better off in the speculation thread. The title was meant to be a jokey over the top title for 'laughs', but seems to have pulled attention from the specific question I had in mind. Namely, not to discuss the nature of intelligence, but the reason behind the irritation that accompanies hearing people preach on things they do not know enough about to provide an adequate point of view, relative to the collective knowledge at the time. An example that I see in my life every day is the correction of grammar and spelling. Amongst friends I am constantly corrected (much to my anger), by people who seem genuinely grated by my (effectively) "inferior grasp of the English language". While there is obviously no large benefit to conforming to the strict rules of a specific language beyond the level of effective communication, it seems to irritate people. I, myself, (someone who could never be accused of any level of mastery where language is concerned) also get irritated when I hear a Don't where a Doesn't should be. Or an irregardless etc. etc. Perceived inferior knowledge (WHETHER-ACTUALLY-INFERIOR-OR-NOT) seems to irritate people. P.S. I cannot drive home "Whether actually inferior or not" strongly enough. It doesn't matter. It's perceived. That is all.

Thank you for your highly informative response! So, perhaps more specifically, a hypothetical example: If you have two MSc students from the same university, one of which got a merit (applicant B) and one got a distinction (applicant A), but B did a dissertation into HIV protease inactivation, while A's was in spinal development, would A still have the edge over B in a funded immunology PhD (assuming a universal interview quality between them?) I suppose here the question is quality or speciality?

Well, I won't just ignore the post. He/she could have something interesting to contribute when they understand the threat properly. I really just wanted to know of any opinions on potential selection pressure either way regarding frustration when talking to people that don't understand --- HOWEVER, I know agree that this is only really an issue when somebody is refusing to follow reason or acknowledge key points such as was pointed out by the other posters. I suppose, when posed that way, the answer becomes a little more to do with indignation (how are they ignoring reasonable evidence).

I was waiting for this. You clearly didn't read my initial post thoroughly. The use of 'idiot' in the title was clearly a tongue in cheek nod to misleading and simplistic tabloid titles. And I stated over and over that idiot is subjective and one man's idiot is another man's genius, and that I consider myself nowhere near the higher end, either compared to the national 'average' or in general. Thank you. An example of the frustration I speak of is the way I feel right now - I have been challenged based on a blatant misunderstanding of a clearly worded topic I had hoped to debate, that is in no way suggesting of a 'higher order of intelligence' on any part. So, why do we feel this way?

But, still - you even acknowledge that you don't mind because 'any frustration you feel ...' Implying a frustration. It is an innate response, even if most of us overcome it with patience, a good attitude, and reason. Whether it's this frustration ^, or, as you say, the youtube-graduates, "Why do you think this is". Everyone's just repeating that they get frustrated. What possible evolutionary or otherwise behavioural purpose could there be to this? It could very well be neutral, but I doubt it as it strongly effects social interaction. Edit: CharonY. I suspect that has something to do with it, also. It could boil down to the same reason that we get annoyed when someone cuts in line: Hard work by us, and the same perceived rewards to those that did nothing. The evolutionary pressure of such a trait could be inferred as discouraging unequal resource/work assignment?

The problem is hard to address. Like any social issue, the attitude of the parent and general population is likely to overthrow most attempts to encourage children. Like Mathematics, practical relevance is little understood, or soon forgotten upon graduation. I saw a speech by Brian Cox a few days ago in which he expressed my opinion quite well: the general population, including the most influential (politicians, monarchs) are science illiterate and view science as just ONE OF MANY industries, failing to the scientific method goes beyond academic Biology, physics etc. and has applications in any aspects of progress. My honest view, and it isn't a popular one, nor is without ethical implications or its own issues, is to make compulsory science education more demanding and perhaps longer. The method should be drilled home. While english and analysis are important, the fact that science often takes a similar if not lower position beside a language class in secondary education is non-sensical. Then again, there is a tremendous issue with lack of education everywhere that is simply not acceptible in the western world in this day and age.

Hi all! Pretty much what the question says ^. I'm studying for a MSc in a genetic subject, primarily with model organisms like in developmental biology. I was wondering whether I would still be considered competitively for a PhD in, say, an immunology type PhD? Or whether I am sure to be brushed aside by applicants with an Immunology MSc? Thanks, Big Tom

Really? I feel constant frustration when clearly and slowly explaining things to people who shrug it off as 'my opinion' and continue to do so after I explain the scientific method. There are also likely the same number of people who feel frustrated talking to me about things that I understand so little about. If you can honestly say you've never had such an experience then you are a wonderful case of social convention overcoming instinct. But as scientists so often admit to requiring 'patience' when explaining things, that would suggest a pre-existing frustration. Back the question of the thread - Why do you think this is? Edit: I see that you actually DID say that willful ignorance annoys you, which I somehow missed. A fine example of the point.

I mean this in the politest way possible. It is a fact of the world that, while people excel in their perspective areas, whether that be a science, a humanity, an understanding of street drug prices, fighting technique, fishing, tax avoidance - whatever, the underlying mechanism to allow for learning is critical thinking. Having said that, some people are more critical than others, from the sharpest man to the dullest bottom. Many people, no matter where their own PERSONAL level of intelligence stands on the 'national average', find people with inferior intelligence frustrating to talk to. Their lack of mental ability seems to arouse an innate irritation in most people. It is this irritation that fuels the correction of grammer, the sneering of specialists, the frustration of trying to explain evolution to a creationist that simply will-not-listen! I would like to question what people think this is due to, from an evolutionary prospective (or a broader psychological/biological prospective, if someone has one). I'll start the ball rolling with a little A-level psychology: The frustration-aggression hypothesis argues that aggression is fueled by a frustration. This can be extended to account for the aggression in the illiterate who cannot explain themselves with words, or the aggression of someone who tries and fails a task a thousand times. I would speculate that perhaps the negativity that someone feels towards somebody they deem to be intellectually inferior is due to a similar frustration - not due to the inability to express oneself, but from the listeners inability to comprehend (lending the same effect). Take it away! Disclaimer: This thread in no way emplies an elitism. A turnip that can turn left is annoyed when its turnip companions refuse to follow it. But it is, to all intents and purposes, still a turnip. This question applies anywhere on the varying levels of intelligence present in the human species. Edited: I changed 'some people are better than others' to 'some people are more critical'. The original implication was that 'better' related to the previous sentence on critical thinking, but that was unclear, and sounded horrible.