Would you rather be intelligent or happy?

[turionx2]

No, that is not what I am saying. Ordinarily, an intelligent person’s life will involve periods of happiness and unhappiness. The hypothetical that you introduced in the OP was to choose between two mutually exclusive states (at least, that’s how I interpreted it, please correct if necessary): intelligence versus happiness. In this context, an intelligent person’s life would be filled with unhappiness, by definition.

 

Yes, If the intelligent person would know what happiness and unhappiness is before giving up the happiness. What I mean is that we can't feel unhappiness(depressed) for the lack of happiness if we don't miss the sensation of happiness or even know what it is.

 

The reflective capabilities necessary in order to live a considered life are also necessary in order to achieve self-love and self-esteem.

They aren't but since you're so convinced, please explain why I need to self-reflect("think") on my life to achive self-love and self-esteem?

 

Self-reflection is possible under conditions of happiness or unhappiness but it is only possible under conditions of a degree of intelligence that will suffice in order to facilitate self-reflection.

 

Self-reflection isn't possible under the conditions of happiness and neither unhappiness because during happiness we are too busy enjoying the high and during unhappiness we are too depressed to even think clearly.

 

I agree that intelligence is required for self-reflection.

 

As far as I can tell, it is not possible to achieve self-esteem or self-love in the absence of self-reflection. In order to love and to respect ourselves as individuals, we must make a judgment that is predicated on reason. This may involve the acknowledgement of certain traits within the self that we deem worthy of veneration; it may involve recognition of the fact that most of the time the self has positive intentions and takes actions towards fulfilling those intentions – often in the context of the individual’s own moral framework. I suppose it is possible to achieve a kind of ‘self-love’ that is based on the opinions of people external to the self (society) however I do not think that this can really be considered bona fide ‘self-love’ because it is prone to fluctuate with the changing whims and judgment calls of the crowd, and because there is no substantial reasoning behind that self-judgment (other than ‘X approves of me. I must be worth something. Therefore I have a positive estimation of myself, on the condition that X approves of me.’) This kind of self-judgment would more aptly be described as vanity. I will add the caveat that, once a person has come to know themself and to judge themself according to their own standards and reasoning, then it is arguably not inappropriate for them to value the approval of those individuals whom they know deeply and whom they respect and/or love. The point is that they are still allowing themself to be judged according to standards or ideals with which they concur. Hence why it is possible to respect and/or love oneself and also to appreciate the respect and/or love of another.

 

Self-esteem and self-love is a purely INTERNAL automatic praise of respect and love towards oneself without any judgment.

 

Self-love and self-esteem aren't tangible, just like power isn't tangible. We can "think" all we want by self-reflecting however self-love, self-esteem and power will never show up in our minds.

 

You make some good points but we aren't talking about codependency.

 

I will agree in that individuals experiencing self-love and self-esteem are more likely to be happy, all else being equal.

 

Or is it equal to say that individuals experiencing happiness are more likely to feel self-esteem and self-love?

 

It is possible to experience a kind of happiness (in the sense of experiencing the binding of the aforementioned neurotransmitters and hormones to their respective receptors) in the absence of intelligent decision making – drug abusers do it all the time. No intelligence required. Happiness is the evolutionarily programmed motive for engaging in behaviours that favour survival and/or reproduction (think, orgasm) and so existing in a condition of constant (undeserved, in evolutionary terms) happiness would do more to harm propagation of the species than anything else. I maintain that I would choose intelligence over happiness. I am not sure if this is what you were getting at?

 

Drug abusers and addicts in general have a lot less neuroreceptors because of their addiction and its impossible for them to feel the healthy firing of neurochemicals found in an individual that is happy. Didn't I say that people are confusing addiction with happiness?

 

Since you come off as an expert on neuroscience; what regulates the release of neurochemicals other than physical activity?

[tar]

Rit,

 

and TurionX2,

 

 

Can we throw in another consideration, that of one's social status?

 

Let's say for instance that everybody, whether they like to admit it or not, is not self sufficient, and requires some form of acknowledgement from outside their body/brain/heart group. Even the complete loner, probably has some sort of agreement with an imaginary friend, or a dead relative, or some unseen other or another to make judgement calls, as to whether goals and purposes are being met or not. While this might be considered by another, to be happening solely in the mind of the imaginer, the imaginer has imagined a connection or responsibility to others, even if it is just the ball with the face on it that Tom Hanks had to talk to on the island.

 

Part of happiness is the acceptance or positive feelings that others might have of you, or have toward you.

This might be more important to some than others, or one might have a select group or individual whose praise they crave, or one might just imagine that other people are pleased by them, but I think it an important consideration.

 

In this light, there might be a conditon where other people's happiness, caused by the individual's words or deeds, bring happiness to the individual. Here intelligence might be required to figure out how to bring the other to have such an opinion of you, but even sacrifice on your part of your own immediate happiness to gain this opinion, would STILL be an effort on your part to be happy with the other's opinion of you. Maybe.

 

Heard about a study the other day, where they found that dogs wag their tails to the rightish when happy to see their masters and such, or are feeling positive and safe in a situation, and wag their tails leftish, when they are apprehensive or scared and such. They also studied the behavior and heartrate of nearby dogs whose heartrate and behavior was influenced by which way the first studied dog was wagging its tail. They picked up on the message. They knew how the other dog was feeling about the situation.

 

I have little doubt that we as human's don't pick up on how others are feeling. And I find it hard to believe that anyone could be happy, when all around them are sad.

 

Otherwise, we would never hear someone say "Don't cry, you are making me sad." or "thank you, you made my day".

 

I think part of our happiness account is held in others.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited November 7, 2013 by tar

[Tridimity]

Self-esteem and self-love is a purely INTERNAL automatic praise of respect and love towards oneself without any judgment.

 

 

Hm. I am interested to know how you would reach the decision (conscious or otherwise) to love oneself? Are you saying that self-love and self-esteem are possible merely on the basis that a person exists, and that they are experiencing that existence in the subjective, and so automatically feel self-love and self-esteem?

 

 

I can see this from a self-preservation perspective: put a person on the edge of a cliff and - assuming that they are not suffering from depression and that they are physically capable – then the person will generally do their darnedest to clamber back to safety. However I think that this innate reaction has nothing to do with self-love or self-esteem and everything to do with an evolutionarily programmed desire to survive.

 

 

Merely existing is not sufficient reason for self-love or self-esteem: if it were, we would all love and esteem the rocks which we pass each day on our travels, just by virtue of their existing.

 

 

To progress above and beyond the self-preservation reflex and to a conscious self-love and self-esteem requires the capacity for self-reflection and to judge oneself against one’s own values and moral framework.

Self-love and self-esteem aren't tangible, just like power isn't tangible. We can "think" all we want by self-reflecting however self-love, self-esteem and power will never show up in our minds.

 

 

The self-esteem and self-love are based on positive thoughts about the self. I do not understand how it is possible to love or esteem oneself in the absence of self-reflective thoughts. It’s kind of like when you fall in love with another person: you may initially be physically attracted to them, or attracted to them for some other superficial reason, but in order to love them you must think positively about their thoughts. Does that make any sense?

 

You make some good points but we aren't talking about codependency.

 

 

I never mentioned co-dependency – so why did you introduce the concept into the discussion?

Or is it equal to say that individuals experiencing happiness are more likely to feel self-esteem and self-love?

 

 

I don’t think so: otherwise drug addicts, after their daily hit, would feel a sustained self-esteem and self-love, which is not the case.

 

Drug abusers and addicts in general have a lot less neuroreceptors because of their addiction and its impossible for them to feel the healthy firing of neurochemicals found in an individual that is happy. Didn't I say that people are confusing addiction with happiness?

 

 

 

I will agree that happiness, according to your intended definition of happiness (one that I would broadly agree with), is different to drug addiction. However some of the same neurophysiological events occur when a person is experiencing a drug hit versus a modicum of regular happiness – the main difference is that the former does not last very long because it has no solid foundation, whereas the latter is usually grounded in (as you mention) self-esteem, self-love and various long-term reward mechanisms that result from obeying the evolutionarily programmed ‘approved codes of behaviour’ for gene propagation.

 

Since you come off as an expert on neuroscience; what regulates the release of neurochemicals other than physical activity?

 

 

 

I don’t claim to be an expert in any field – I like to move between fields and see how they fit together.

 

 

Edited November 7, 2013 by Tridimity

[tar]

Tri,

 

"I will agree that happiness, according to your intended definition of happiness (one that I would broadly agree with), is different to drug addiction. However some of the same neurophysiological events occur when a person is experiencing a drug hit versus a modicum of regular happiness – the main difference is that the former does not last very long because it has no solid foundation, whereas the latter is usually grounded in (as you mention) self-esteem, self-love and various long-term reward mechanisms that result from obeying the evolutionarily programmed ‘approved codes of behaviour’ for gene propagation."

 

 

Well, you bring up the considerations of contentment, or longer range happiness, or happiness in the bank, so to speak. Here intelligence is required, to make the plan, to set things up in a sustainable fashion. To excercise consciously, some delayed gratification. Here seeking momentary joy or pleasure, might hurt the long range prospects. If you were just happy, with no intelligence, tomorrow might find you hungry, cold and lonely, in which case happiness would no longer be the state you were in. And if you did plan with consideration of your future happiness, and the happiness of others, this would take some intelligence, which would indicate yet another way that intelligence is required for happiness, and you can't really have one, without the other.

 

A beaver or a squirrel might struggle and work to make a pond or a store of accorns. An ant or a bee might endeavor to feed the brood with crumbs and honey, with some indication that they are preparing for future happiness, for future life, for the continuance of their own survival and concurrent happiness, as well as for the happiness and survival of others of their kind.

 

So happiness, is not just the chemical present at a particular synapse. And intelligence is not just what happens in a human brain.

 

Humans I think are similar to other mammals in the awareness of other's of their species, and a caring for them. That their own happiness, and the happiness of their mates and children and extended family are one in the same. And the collective intelligence of the group is as important as the cleverness of an individual.

 

My boss came back from a photo safari in Somalia with several stories, but one particularly suited for this drift.

Elephants return to the site of the death of one of their own, and cry in rememberance of the loss.

 

Regards, TAR2

Can't you, even as a human, identify with that? Make you a little sad. Make you incensed when the next story is of the poisioning of a water hole that killed a herd of elephants, and the scavengers that ate their carcasses...just for the ivory. Makes you look at ivory ornaments with a little disdain, and makes you very unhappy with the men that carried out the act? Intellgent men. Happy men with wealth...but dispised men, in the eyes of everybody else.

[Tridimity]

So happiness, is not just the chemical present at a particular synapse.

 

 

No, it is the experience of the release and binding of those chemicals at multiple synapses simultaneously. Happiness is a state of being and, although there may be short term versions (pleasure-induced gratification) or long term versions (wholesome feelings based on achievement of a hard-earned goal), it is ultimately transitory.

 

 

Can't you, even as a human, identify with that?

 

Oh, you’re appealing to my humanity. That’s sweet.

 

Yes, I can relate to it, and join you in despising the perpetrators. But I don’t see what relevance this has for the thread?

 

P.S. You started writing in verdana 10, like me.

[tar]

Tri,

 

Ultimately transitory, indeed.

 

But my point was, that happiness is not a lonely momentary event. It is a thing taken in context. And the context of any human on Earth is much much greater than a particular synapse in a particular brain.

 

You now know about the water hole in Somallia. Try explaining that with only actual synapse firings, without an actual watering hole in Somalia.

 

The thread question is whether you would rather be intelligent or happy, as if you could pick between them.

 

I don't think you can. They are intertwined on so many levels, reliant on the other in so many ways, that the question is mute.

 

Regards, TAR2

there are over 8 billion human brains currently operating on this planet, and many more that operated passed away in a transitory manner and we STILL care about the paticular thoughts of Socrates, that become our own thoughts

 

Evolution, in the gene development sense is no doubt still occuring in the human race, but its a might slow process, in relationship to the conscious human development that has gone on in the last 4000 years. Human ability to tell stories, and write them down, and share their experiences and studies and works with all alive while they are, and all that will live later, has placed human evolution on a different kind of track, then say Oak tree evolution. In fact we might even be able to meddle a bit in Oak tree evolution, with selective grafting and bioengineering of an Oak tree's genes.

 

Years ago, back in the 7th decade of the last century, I wrote a letter to the editor of the Star Ledger, voicing my concern about recombinant DNA experiments. That the results of such experimentation should be handled with care, and destoyed lest some "unnaturally evolved" life form get loose.

 

I would be "happier" if people respected the complex, evolved, working, "fitting" nature of the life forms already on this planet. We already fit the place, exactly. Messing around with such complexity, without a complete understanding of not only its internal makeup, but its place and part in the biomass that is our birthplace and home, here on Earth, carries with it a certain danger of unintended consequences. We, are not yet as smart as the genes that replicate us. Not nearly. We don't even know what junk DNA is there for. We even have the audacity to call it junk.

 

If it took the universe 13.6 billion years, to come up with us. What possible chance is there that we could improve upon the situation, and make a "better" human that fits more securely with the Earth, than the model we currently are?

If we could pick happiness or intelligence, what possible chance does that have, of working out, in the long run?

[Tridimity]

But my point was, that happiness is not a lonely momentary event. It is a thing taken in context. And the context of any human on Earth is much much greater than a particular synapse in a particular brain.

 

 

I agree with your premises not your conclusion. Happiness is taken in context and that context is greater than a particular synapse in a particular brain. However, in order for our working definition of ‘happiness’ to encapsulate all possible instances of that emotion, of that state of being, I think it is more appropriate to define the emotion in terms of the subjective experience of the particular combinations of neurones firing simultaneously. The neuronal networks themselves, as objects, do not define happiness – if it were hypothetically possible to remove them intact and to stimulate them in vitro then this would not be an instance of happiness. Happiness is a state of being that occurs within a whole intact organism. But, likewise, your elephant scenario would not allude to happiness if it were not for the presence of the observers and the subjective experiences that they are feeling that are manifest as a certain pattern of neuronal firing. So, I do not think that it is helpful to try to include every possible permutation or scenario that may or may not be a stimulus for happiness or unhappiness in the definition – the list is infinite.

 

Even if you consider a wider context and time span, say, a man has worked every day of the past 20 years of his life to achieve X. On the day that the man achieves X, he will probably feel a measure of happiness, as it is satisfying to complete a life objective. However, this does not mean to say that, during those 20 years, the man was constantly happy. He may have faced setbacks related to his work, or he may have experienced hardship in other areas of his life, or he may feel a sense of deflation or unhappiness once his objective is achieved - because now he does not have the unfulfilled objective to work towards, and his life may lose a measure of its former meaning. To equate the context with the state of being is therefore, I think, erroneous.

 

I don't think you can. They are intertwined on so many levels, reliant on the other in so many ways, that the question is mute.

 

 

 

Of course, in reality, we cannot. Hypothetical questions such as that in the OP do, though, require that we rationalise our priorities and our reasons for choosing to live in the way that we do – which personally I find interesting and useful.

[arknd]

"Ignorance is bliss"

[DevilSolution]

Sell it to the masses, my commercial will be hitting your screen soon "Burn your cells out today and replace them with receptors that make dirt look clean"

[tar]

DevilSolution,

 

Good point. The old frontal lobatomy used to be used to make people "happier".

 

Ignorance is Bliss, and Knowledge is Power. So what's a fellow (or gal) to do?

 

Accept one and you loose the other.

 

The middle way, seems the only recourse. Don't trade either in, for the other. Go for both in the workable ways you and the people around you, can arrange and manage.

 

And I suppose living in a way that maximizes everybody's chances of achieving their own desired balance, would be the intelligent choice, that would make everybody happy.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited November 9, 2013 by tar

[Amanbir Singh Grewal]

blood sweat and tears, ya. ya. *gaze*

ability yes we must.

[Tridimity]

DevilSolution,

 

Good point. The old frontal lobatomy used to be used to make people "happier".

 

Ignorance is Bliss, and Knowledge is Power. So what's a fellow (or gal) to do?

 

Accept one and you loose the other.

 

The middle way, seems the only recourse. Don't trade either in, for the other. Go for both in the workable ways you and the people around you, can arrange and manage.

 

And I suppose living in a way that maximizes everybody's chances of achieving their own desired balance, would be the intelligent choice, that would make everybody happy.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

If it was a choice between the two, I still would choose intelligence over happiness or - if you prefer - knowledge and power over ignorance and bliss. The reason is that, suffering exists in the world independently of our perceptions of it. To choose ignorance and bliss is to choose to allow suffering to continue; to choose knowledge and power is to choose to contribute towards the efforts to eradicate suffering. The latter is preferable in my opinion.

 

Also, the positive changes that we make in the world do not have to be disproportionate to our own individual capabilities for change - if we each exert as much positive change as we are able - then collectively we can help to substantially reduce suffering.

 

While walking along a beach, an elderly gentleman saw someone in the distance leaning down, picking something up and throwing it into the ocean.

As he got closer, he noticed that the figure was that of a young man, picking up starfish one by one and tossing each one gently back into the water.

He came closer still and called out, “Good morning! May I ask what it is that you are doing?”

The young man paused, looked up, and replied “Throwing starfish into the ocean.”

The old man smiled, and said, “I must ask, then, why are you throwing starfish into the ocean?”

To this, the young man replied, “The sun is up and the tide is going out. If I don’t throw them in, they’ll die.”

Upon hearing this, the elderly observer commented, “But, young man, do you not realise that there are miles and miles of beach and there are starfish all along every mile? You can’t possibly make a difference!”

The young man listened politely. Then he bent down, picked up another starfish, threw it back into the ocean past the breaking waves and said, “It made a difference for that one.”

 

Edited November 9, 2013 by Tridimity

[Amanbir Singh Grewal]

suffering lol, nothing.

[Tridimity]

You must be incapable of writing in full sentences. No matter.

 

Or shall I clarify: Sentences. No. Worry. Don't.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Tridimity

[Iota]

You must be incapable of writing in full sentences. No matter.

 

Or shall I clarify: Sentences. No. Worry. Don't.

 

I lol'd

[GiantEvil]

According to this study; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22998852

It would appear that nature has not declared an exclusivity between intelligence and happiness.

I seem to remember that some previous studies had implied an inverse correlation between intelligence and happiness.

 

As for the context of this thread, a senseless happiness is currently a tempting thing to me. A situation I should probably attempt to remedy.

[turionx2]

Tri,

 

I've been busy painting and you misunderstood my comments.

 

Can an overweight person self-reflect and eventually feel self-love, self-esteem and joy without self-deluding oneself in a fake external version of happiness?

 

I don't see how anyone that doesn't live their life independently can truly be happy other than give the illusion of their happiness with an addiction; such as food, music, porn, internet, movies, drugs, overtraining, oversocializing, etc...

[Tridimity]

Can an overweight person self-reflect and eventually feel self-love, self-esteem and joy without self-deluding oneself in a fake external version of happiness?

 

I don't see how anyone that doesn't live their life independently can truly be happy other than give the illusion of their happiness with an addiction; such as food, music, porn, internet, movies, drugs, overtraining, oversocializing, etc...

 

 

So long as the person has some positive characteristic(s) on which to self-reflect, then yes, I suspect that self-esteem and self-love would be possible without self-delusion.

 

I agree with you in that an individual may only reach a state of bona fide self-esteem and self-love by independent self-reflection. Any other short-term substitute (e.g. the reward mechanisms induced by consumption of food, alcohol, drugs, sexual gratification, vanity, etc) is just that - a substitute. The former has solid foundations and so will tend to be lasting unless the person's character or moral framework against which they judge themself changes. The latter is prone to extreme volatility, dependent on the availability of external stimuli.

[turionx2]

So long as the person has some positive characteristic(s) on which to self-reflect, then yes, I suspect that self-esteem and self-love would be possible without self-delusion.

Can you give us some examples of these positive characteristic(s)?

 

I agree with you in that an individual may only reach a state of bona fide self-esteem and self-love by independent self-reflection.

When did I say this? Edited November 10, 2013 by turionx2

[Tridimity]

Can you give us some examples of these positive characteristic(s)?

 

When did I say this?

 

Positive characteristics, in my book, would include for example: generosity and kindness towards others that is balanced with a recognition and heeding of one's own needs. I.e. being neither selfish nor self-sacrificing to the point of detriment to oneself or others.

 

I don't see how anyone that doesn't live their life independently can truly be happy other than give the illusion of their happiness with an addiction

 

 

I may have misinterpreted your meaning here - what did you mean exactly?

Edited November 10, 2013 by Tridimity

[turionx2]

Positive characteristics, in my book, would include for example: generosity and kindness towards others that is balanced with a recognition and heeding of one's own needs. I.e. being neither selfish nor self-sacrificing to the point of detriment to oneself or others.

 

How are these self-reflectable characteristics since they are about others?

 

I may have misinterpreted your meaning here - what did you mean exactly?

I don't see how anyone that doesn't live their life independently of others can truly be happy other than give the illusion of their happiness with an addiction.

[Tridimity]

How are these self-reflectable characteristics since they are about others?

 

I don't see how anyone that doesn't live their life independently of others can truly be happy other than give the illusion of their happiness with an addiction.

 

They are self-reflective because they relate to the relative generosity or selfishness of the individual - not of others.

 

It is possible to be happy and to be (at least, partly) dependent on others - but this statement would need to be nuanced to reflect the fact that individuals are not happy 100% of the time or unhappy 100% of the time. In reality, nobody is entirely independent of everybody else in society. I will agree with you though, in that people are more likely to develop a sustainable happiness if they learn to judge themself according to their own standards - i.e. not being at the mercy of the jurisdiction of others.

[Viviator]

I chose happy for these reasons:

Intelligence, is in my opinion a culmination of various things, working together to give the impression of that what we call intelligence, and to try and 'be intelligent' therefore becomes a statement of less meaning. In the way that describing when something is a house is less accurate when it's the culmination of bricks and wood forming together to become a house. You could perfectly map out the exact locations of each brick and tile, but another configuration could just as well be a house. This is also my view of intelligence. It is possible to describe it, but not possible to define it.

Not only that, but it's also relative. Untill there is such a thing as an objective measure of truth or wisdom, any measure of intelligence can only be done by expressing it in another. This for me adds to the loss of meaning of 'being intelligent'.

You could argue, that this would also apply for happiness. And you would be right. However, there is one major difference in my opnion. Happiness, is much more a choice, over intelligence. A personal choice, which does not need outside meaning to matter for this personal question.

And that's why I choose happiness.

[brockw69]

Intelligence and happiness are not end points, there are varying degrees of both in any given situation.

For the most part, I choose those activities that cause a feeling or emotional state of happiness.

<->

Warren.