Intelligence and happiness

[Lusankya]

It's an argument that people always seem to come up with: I mention that people are more intelligent than animals and they say something along the lines of, "Well, I'm not so sure about that. I mean, we have all this stuff, but look at how unhappy we are. Animals are much happier, so they must be more intelligent because of that!"

Then I go and mention rape, war and infanticide amongst animals, to which they reply, "Well, animals don't understand what they're doing." Which leaves them right open to my counter of, "Well, if animals lack the capacity to understand that and humans, then by your own admission, we have the capacity to understand more than animals and to think more complex thoughts than them, thus making us more intelligent."

Anyway, why do so many people bring up happiness in a debate about intelligence? Is there some way in which these words mean the same thing, or is it just some kind of PC bullshit that people bring up because I seem to be one of the few people in the world who doesn't see anything wrong with calling stupid stupid?

(These conversations tend to lead off of me saying, "Well, that person probably has difficulty learning how to do that task because they're stupid." - Naturally the 'Stupid's Advocate' brings animals up because they're an obvious example of creatures that "Well,we think they're less intelligent than us, but they're happier, so they must be smarter!")


ROAR!!!!! says GOJIRA!!!!!

[Winston Blake]

My take is that it's simple irrationality. 'Intelligent' doesn't just mean intelligent, it means 'good'. To say humans are smarter than animals is to say that animals are 'worse', and by extension The Wild is 'bad'. People who have images of Bambi playing with Thumper in a rainforest wonderland, and hippies chaining themselves to trees in the face of big nasty bulldozers (etc) already have the idea that The Wild is 'good'.

So the immediate reaction is 'YOU WRONG!' (i.e. the irrationality 'humans are not smarter than animals'). The cognitive dissonance of this response is then rationalised away by backing into well-traveled thought-paths surrounded by 'nature = good = happy'.

[Stark]

Yeah, I'd argue that people simply have no contact with animals in their natural state. Sure, your dog Spot is happy, because he's a freeloader - but some possum, living on the edge of starvation, constantly in fear of the terrifying humans but forced to live in their sheds and feed on their waste, competing with pets, other animals... I don't think that's really such a great life.

[R. U. Serious]

Anyway, why do so many people bring up happiness in a debate about intelligence? Is there some way in which these words mean the same thing, or is it just some kind of PC bullshit that people bring up because I seem to be one of the few people in the world who doesn't see anything wrong with calling stupid stupid?

I have not observed this behaviour myself, so I can't say for sure why those people say that. My guess is, that they see intelligence only as instrumental to achieving "happiness" (which they seem to equate with some debility and a smiling face). Once they have reduced (or redefined) intelligence to only that, they apparently measure the level of intelligence by the adequacy of goal-achievement - shifting the discussion about intelligence to a discussion about happiness (which is a lot more ambigious than the concep of intelligence)

If you want to have a proper discussion with these people, you should first agree on a definition of which idea you are really debating. Suggest that you understand intelligence to mean "the mental capacity to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend ideas and language, and learn" - if they agree on that upfront, I am pretty sure they won't say animals have superior intelligence or that happiness plays any role...

[Darth Wong]

There is a widespread assumption that nature exists in some sort of "state of grace" of innocence which precludes evil or unhappiness. You see it from believers in all different worldviews; Christians think that nature exists in harmony because God created it. I ran into a Randroid once who said that animals were "philosophically perfect" because they all existed in a state of pure self-interest and were not bothered by man-made rules of ethics. You see this mentality with regards to food too; people assume that anything "natural" must be good for you. I think it's really just an extension of the "natural = good" brainbug.

[The Guid]

I would ask them when was the last time people checked in with animals about how happy they were. Were there polls or smileyomiters? And did they ask a hunted wilderbeast, or a bird that can't find food or a a cheetah that just asaw a wilderbeast get away (if they hunt wilderbeast, I don't know my natural biology too well).

[kc8tbe]

There was this episode of Wild Discovery once that talked about a drought in Africa. Some highlights include a baboon trying to pry its own head out of an crocodile's mouth, a baboon picking the eyeballs out of a baby antelope while the latter was still alive, a hippopotamus dying of dehydration, a bunch of baby birds trying to escape an enclosed area as they were picked off one by one by a group of snakes, a wildebeest being eaten alive by a pack of emaciated lions over a period of twelve hours...

I'd like to show a video of the episode to someone who thinks animals are "happy" and see what they think afterwards. It's clear that wild animals neither live happy, carefree lives nor are they ignorant of the fact that they are not leading happy lives.

[SWPIGWANG]

I don't think the human concept of happiness could even be applied to most animals......

Intelligence and happiness is independent.

And we all know that if we make a super-intelligent sentient AI the first thing it would do is kill itself. (or failing that, kill all humans out of pure hatred)

[Darth Wong]

It's the Forrest Gump mythology at work. People believe that retards are happier and perhaps nicer people because they're so fucking stupid that they don't know what's wrong with them or their lives.

Anyone who's been around real retards knows that this is not the case; they can be just as miserable as the rest of us, and they are actually more likely to be assholes, not less (because they don't understand rules of social etiquette or ethics).

[defanatic]

People like this are good reasons that people are not as intelligent as we think they are. I have two autistic cousins, and they are as miserable as hell. Fuck, they go into tantrums all the time, cry a lot and so on. If I were in that situation (not living with my anal father), I would be very happy.

[Sofia]

Anyone who's been around real retards knows that this is not the case; they can be just as miserable as the rest of us, and they are actually more likely to be assholes, not less (because they don't understand rules of social etiquette or ethics).

Children (up to a certain age) don't understand rules of social etiquette or ethics, either. I have no trouble believing that some retards are assholes, just like some children are brats, but I wouldn't say that they're more likely to be assholes than intelligent people.

Retarded customers are much nicer, on average, than customers of normal intelligence. I've never met a retarded customer who's snappish or condescending. I'm thinking of one man in particular, who is always very happy when I find him what he's looking for and thanks me sincerely. I saw him on the street the other day and he smiled and gave me a big hello. Lack of inhibitions can make a person act unpleasantly, it's true, but sometimes it works the other way (retarded people feel less self-conscious about liking people and being friendly, because they don't think as much about whether they'll be liked back).

[Lusankya]

I actually believe that the stupider you are, the easier it is to be happy (in general), because you're less aware of the problems in the world.

I think it may be because people can't come to terms with being discontent with their own lives, and try to blame it on society. And of course, technology is what defines our society at the moment, and since they're not happy, what we're doing can't be that smart, because this technology is what's making them unhappy. Because airconditioning and plumbing and mechanised industry all serve to make our lives so bad, of course. We'd be much happier if we were living in mud huts and farming our own food in the middle of Siberia. If we were intelligent, we'd be doing that, because it makes us happy!


ROAR!!!!! says GOJIRA!!!!!

[Darth Wong]

Anyone who's been around real retards knows that this is not the case; they can be just as miserable as the rest of us, and they are actually more likely to be assholes, not less (because they don't understand rules of social etiquette or ethics).

Children (up to a certain age) don't understand rules of social etiquette or ethics, either.

Which is why we tend to give them special allowances. If an adult did half the things a typical toddler does, you'd punch him in the face.

Retarded customers are much nicer, on average, than customers of normal intelligence. I've never met a retarded customer who's snappish or condescending.

Smiling and following the ritual of saying "please" and "thank you" is well within the intellectual capacity of a retard. The problem is understanding more complex concepts of consideration for others, such as how to drive without being a complete asshole or how to differentiate between helping people and sticking your nose in other peoples' business. For that matter, the idea of a retarded person trying to come up with a system of ethics is a joke; he's almost certain to be incapable of understanding anything more complex than legalism.

[wolveraptor]

I actually believe that the stupider you are, the easier it is to be happy (in general), because you're less aware of the problems in the world.

On the other hand, mental retardation and maturity are deeply intertwined, so with a childlike maturity level, you may be prone to become angry over sillier, more trivial things. You are also faced with the fact that, as an adult, people aren't as nice to you as they were when you were young. Adults of subnormal maturity might not have a mother or father to turn to when they're angry over some frivolity

[R. U. Serious]

I actually believe that the stupider you are, the easier it is to be happy (in general), because you're less aware of the problems in the world.

Why do you think happiness is dependent on the "problems in the world"? I've met plent of problems, that were not only unaware of the problems n the world, but that didn't really have any problems of their own. They will usually go on to create them themselves, like "xyz is missing from my life, so I can't be happy" etc. Being inventive and fabricating reasons why you're unhappy does not what I would define as intelligence (see my above post). Especially since you can pick up any magazin/book for a dollar or switch on TV and watch it for 5 minutes to be told plenty of reasons of what is missing in your life to be happy... A fairly intelligent person would actually be more likely able to "see through" such obviously profit-driven blahblah more easily than a stupid person.


I think what some people in this thread actually mean is that if you lack the ability for (self-)reflection (which is independent of intelligence), you're more likely to be happy. Then, of course I would argue that thre is two different kinds of happiness that is being talked about: "A string of excited, fugitive, miscellaneous pleasures is not happiness; happiness resides in imaginative reflection and judgment, when the picture of one's life, or of human life, as it truly has been or is, satisfies the will, and is gladly accepted."

Acting out ones impulses without limitations is not happiness. Or would you deem a junkie that is contantly (trying to be) flashed and who acts on impulses without reflection to be happy? You, too, can be easily become a slave to your impulses if that's what you really want... I doubt it'll make you happier.

[Lusankya]

I was thinking more of the difference in intellligence between animals and humans. Animals are content with enough food and water, a warm place to sit and cuddles. Our dogs' days are made when they go on a walk, and I'm pretty sure that this is because they don't have the mental capacity to think about much more than that. The fish are content with even less - they seem happy enough with a clean tank and food. The lack of complexity of thought means they need a lot less to be mentally stimulated, which would make it easier for them to be happy.

The difference in intelligence between different humans is small enough that other factors would have much more to do with happiness.

I guess I should have made that more clear in my post, eh?


ROAR!!!!! says GOJIRA!!!!!

[Sofia]

For that matter, the idea of a retarded person trying to come up with a system of ethics is a joke; he's almost certain to be incapable of understanding anything more complex than legalism.

Isn't legalism a lot more complex than the most simple ethical system, which is "if it hurts other people, it's bad?" As in: "If you hit Bobby, it hurts him. Don't you feel bad when someone hurts you?" I don't think a retard would have any trouble understanding that.

[Darth Wong]

For that matter, the idea of a retarded person trying to come up with a system of ethics is a joke; he's almost certain to be incapable of understanding anything more complex than legalism.

Isn't legalism a lot more complex than the most simple ethical system, which is "if it hurts other people, it's bad?" As in: "If you hit Bobby, it hurts him. Don't you feel bad when someone hurts you?" I don't think a retard would have any trouble understanding that.

Yes he would, because there are plenty of ways to hurt someone which a retard would not understand because they're more complex than punching him in the face.

[Sofia]

Yes he would, because there are plenty of ways to hurt someone which a retard would not understand because they're more complex than punching him in the face.

Well, that's true. I don't know what you're thinking of specifically here, but a retard might not know how to hurt someone in a complex way. It takes a certain amount of intelligence to manipulate or insult. I can see how a retard could hurt someone due to lack of tact, sort of like how a child could hurt a fat lady by saying "Why are you so big?"

[Ariphaos]

Well, that's true. I don't know what you're thinking of specifically here, but a retard might not know how to hurt someone in a complex way. It takes a certain amount of intelligence to manipulate or insult. I can see how a retard could hurt someone due to lack of tact, sort of like how a child could hurt a fat lady by saying "Why are you so big?"

It's not intention hurting on his part, remember. It's adding steps -

Retard leaves his toys out.

"Johnny, please put your toys away."

"Why? I want play with them again later."

"Because someone might trip on them."

"So?"

"Then they will hurt themselves. You don't like it when you trip don't you?"

"Oh... okay."

...combine this into the several thousand situations we consider to be examples of common sense, and you can see where the retard's line of thought is going to break down, forgetting the older or more complicated rules.

[Darth Wong]

Another problem with the ethics of stupid people (in addition to their aforementioned inability to see all the consequences of their actions) is that higher morality often requires you to override instinct with rational thought. A good example is homosexuality; most men are instinctively repulsed by homosexuals simply because it is deviant behaviour, and we as a social species are conditioned to prefer social conformity. It takes rational thought to overcome that instinctive reaction and realize that the gay man has just as much right to call himself a good and decent person as the straight man.

Mentally handicapped people have inferior reasoning abilities. It only stands to reason that their scheme of morality will be based largely on a more instinctive level, where social conformism and mindless obedience to arbitrary rules enforced by parental violence is the guiding light.

[Sofia]

Good points, all, but ...

... where social conformism and mindless obedience to arbitrary rules enforced by parental violence is the guiding light.

Huh?

[Darth Wong]

Good points, all, but ...

... where social conformism and mindless obedience to arbitrary rules enforced by parental violence is the guiding light.

Huh?

A lot of people were raised with the "do what I say because I'm your father and I'll beat your ass if you defy me again" technique. I find that these people tend to have a very simplistic ethical philosophy themselves when they grow up, where they just "know" that certain things are right and wrong without being able to explain why (basically, it's because they know their parents wouldn't have approved of it).

[Sofia]

A lot of people were raised with the "do what I say because I'm your father and I'll beat your ass if you defy me again" technique. I find that these people tend to have a very simplistic ethical philosophy themselves when they grow up, where they just "know" that certain things are right and wrong without being able to explain why (basically, it's because they know their parents wouldn't have approved of it).

Okay, but what does that have to do with mentally handicapped people? Are you saying they have a similarly simple ethical system?