Collective Intelligence

I’ve just ordered a book that examines individual characteristics and intelligence, and how they influence behavior.  I’ll let you know if I find it interesting. 
 
According to this study, emotional intelligence trumps intelligence quotient.  Turns out that females do have a G-spot. 

What do you think?

Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups

I think that both kinds of intelligence are important.  Emotional intelligence keeps society smooth and supports the people with high IQs in their efforts to develop new things for the world, and generally provide for it.

I don't know if it's expressive of emotional competency or just a personality classification, but some of the most successful people seem to be more gifted with social prowess than sapience in the conventional sense. By being able to mingle effectively with diverse groups -- establishing acquaintances, friendships and working relationships among them -- they get exposed to a greater number of opportunities (enhance their chances of being in the right place at the right time), as well as becoming a mediating nexus between representatives of enterprising agencies. They don't need exceptional intelligence themselves due to encountering skilled or talented people at those gatherings that offer them a wide array of assistance, or which they can outright hire once they set up their own endeavors.

A "collective intelligence" would want some of the emotionally gifted slash social enablers (whatever they're best conceived as) as members due to that very connectivity they bring: Stimulating more communication between the components, easing tension, etc. Although it's on a much smaller scale, Theodore Sturgeon's classic More Than Human comes to mind, which had assorted eccentrics providing the functions of homo gestalt. Due to the speech limitations of the rest and Gerry's loose ego, I suppose Janie would have been the socio-emotional factor there. Especially since she was key to worming a moral part (Hip) into their final Six-Pack version.

There is a dark side to emotional intelligence, too, especially in the political realm.

You’re a smart one, C C.  Do you think of yourself in that way? Does your intelligence ever cause you any problems in your social life?  Do you think that people may feel threatened by it?  Are there times when you find it difficult to condense and simplify answers to complex questions?  

Tell me, C C, what’s it like to be you?  What are some of things that you find most interesting in life?

(Jul 15, 2016 05:03 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: There is a dark side to emotional intelligence, too, especially in the political realm.

You’re a smart one, C C.  Do you think of yourself in that way?

No, far from it. Truly "smart" people (at least in the directly useful sense) are those carrying around vast amounts of particular knowledge and specific skills stashed away in their memory. I've only got the luggage of broader concepts and strategies for examining relationships and taking apart something and deriving general understandings / "big pictures" of what's going on. Those who work at the nuts and bolts level are the ones who get things done. Admittedly, they might sometimes myopically put together an item or a movement that drives part of the world over a cliff, but they're still the ones who get both familiar and new ideas concretely realized, and implement them.

Quote:Does your intelligence ever cause you any problems in your social life?  Do you think that people may feel threatened by it?

No danger of that. I'm a female version of the Claudius template. No limp, no deafness, no superficial appearance of being an idiot... But if there's ever an uprising, I'm the still the one who's going survive because I don't seem to be a threat to the rebels or the barbarians at the gate.

Quote:Are there times when you find it difficult to condense and simplify answers to complex questions?

Probably that. I very much take relativism and multiple possibilities / perspectives into account, at least as far as the way the natural world hangs together with the inter-dependence of its contents.

Quote:Tell me, C C, what’s it like to be you?

The life of a modified mullet: Boring business or hum-drum everyday life up front; feral machinery and unexpected (even to me) resources in back.

You underestimate yourself, C C, you really do.  That’s one of things that I like about you.  It’s a like a beautiful person, who doubts or is unaware of their beauty.  Quite rare actually. 

See you later, C C.  Have a good one.

(Jul 15, 2016 09:35 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: See you later, C C. Have a good one.

You too, Secular Sanity. Almost slipped my mind that more of us than Ben might be traveling or in some vein of motion.

(Jul 18, 2016 09:33 PM)C C Wrote:

(Jul 15, 2016 09:35 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: See you later, C C. Have a good one.

You too, Secular Sanity. Almost slipped my mind that more of us than Ben might be traveling or in some vein of motion.

Haven't quite left yet, nor is my internet gone - I'm paid up until the 10th of next month (although I'll probably be gone before that) because they won't allow us to cut off on a specific day, only at the end of a whole month. I'm still fairly busy though so won't be around much.
Plans have changed a bit anyway, I'll be travelling a bit more than I first thought. I've a mind to take an extended road trip. Very extended. I might post some photos as I go, if I have time. And, of course, if that wouldn't be about as much fun for you lot as a slideshow you're forced to sit down to at your Grandma's house after they went south in the Winnebago that one time.

Where is CC going anyway? This is news.

Quote:Truly "smart" people (at least in the directly useful sense) are those carrying around vast amounts of particular knowledge and specific skills stashed away in their memory. I've only got the luggage of broader concepts and strategies for examining relationships and taking apart something and deriving general understandings / "big pictures" of what's going on. Those who work at the nuts and bolts level are the ones who get things done. Admittedly, they might sometimes myopically put together an item or a movement that drives part of the world over a cliff, but they're still the ones who get both familiar and new ideas concretely realized, and implement them.

I had a conversation with Gendanken once comparing some types of intelligence to being an idiot savant; as in, while being extremely good at some things and becoming successful (a lot of managers fit into this category) as a result, they still don't know much about stuff, and stuff. You're quite correct in this assessment, though, I have the same feeling - i.e. that the particular type of "intelligence" I have isn't very useful to society as a whole.

Although I'm quite handy with a spreadsheet myself, so fortunately I've been able to get along regardless. I am in absolute awe of the skills of some, and at the same time absolutely frustrated and flabbergasted at their lack of ability when it comes to actual conversation regarding anything other than who is screwing who in the office.

As for "I very much take relativism and multiple possibilities / perspectives into account, at least as far as the way the natural world hangs together with the inter-dependence of its contents." I'm much the same... to the point where in social situations, I don't bother saying anything at all. It's most often a complete waste of effort.
In fact, it's been so long I've actively engaged in any DMC's IRL that I've quite forgotten how. I can type out a well-researched post on the internet in about half an hour, but I can't translate it to real time conversation.
It's the lack of... background. A conversation on some levels requires a certain amount of background knowledge (history, politics, philsophy etc) that most simple don't have. For me, I feel as though I'm trying to teach quantum mechanics to first graders.

So I learned to talk about the footy, or say nothing at all. Usually the latter.

There is also the problem where knowing a little too much can cause a near paralysis when it comes to forming any actual opinions, when it comes to political conversation, or social mores. I can argue both sides of a discussion with equal ease, most of the time, but it does detract from the ability to form any firm opinion of one's own. eventually, you just kind of... stop.

(Jul 20, 2016 06:55 PM)Ben the Donkey Wrote: There is also the problem where knowing a little too much can cause a near paralysis when it comes to forming any actual opinions, when it comes to political conversation, or social mores. I can argue both sides of a discussion with equal ease, most of the time, but it does detract from the ability to form any firm opinion of one's own. eventually, you just kind of... stop.

Yep, been frozen there before on one type multi-perspective field or another. Thank goodness (when applicable) there was eventually a cavewoman collapse to a particular choice revolving around personal or local (family, community, etc) interests.

What seems common to the spectrum of intelligence itself (from animals to humans) is a selective preference for direction and order over pattern-less / uniform "noise", arbitrary actions, etc. With the accompanying experiences of awareness being an escape from the "absence of everything" in non-consciousness / non-living.

There's nothing inherently bad about bias. To identify something is to distinguish _X_ from amidst the overall blur, to produce an object, to become temporarily aware of and passionate about its presence to the exclusion of the rest. Intelligence then supplies systematic agendas and determinations to the former blankness of non-consciousness that has now been broken up into things and situations and their relationships.

(Jul 20, 2016 06:55 PM)Ben the Donkey Wrote: It's the lack of... background. A conversation on some levels requires a certain amount of background knowledge (history, politics, philsophy etc) that most simply don't have. For me, I feel as though I'm trying to teach quantum mechanics to first graders.

I’m trying to overcome that through art.  Let me see if I can explain.  Who am I?  I am form and content both subject to interpretation.  I am art!

We’re not defined by our properties.  What we like about the people that we like, and what we love about the people that we love are not they’re properties.  It’s their manner.  Conveying who you are, not by issues of content, but issues of form.—Brian Christian.

I have a lot religious friends and family members.  In order to maintain those relationships, I try to convey my feelings through art.  I try to take facts and mix them with emotions to make them more palatable.  An average Joe doesn’t spend much time contemplating social conventions, physics, theology, philosophy, etc.  So, I try to get in little bite size plugs.  Arrogance is always an issue, though, especially when face to face.  I used to back off in those situations, but not anymore.  Surprisingly, a few have been inspired to either do a little more research or apologize.

Online communication is altogether different, though.  This video below describes it well.  It's pretty good.  You should watch it. 

The Most Human Human—Artificial Intelligence

Quote:Ad-libbed excerpt:  The opposite of identity is anonymity, and if the only way out of online anonymity is by verbal difference and unique verbal style then bless babble.

Animals have sensitivity and computers have rationality, but art is one of those things that situates itself at the nexus of those two things. We’re using tools, information, and technology and thinking very deliberately about how to create these sensory perceptions, and convey some sort of feeling to another person.

Curiosity, wonder, and awe are the types of quintessential emotions that occur when the sensitive soul butts up against the rational soul.

I’ll admit that there’s been a few times where C C has made me think, "OMG! Is she a bot?", an intelligent one, of course. Although, I’ve contemplated whether or not other posters were bots or possibly schizophrenics.  On science forums you have your run of the mill cranks and wannabe crank busters.  It’s hard to determine if someone is actually an expert or not.  Honesty is sparse with online anonymity. On occasion, I’ve managed to come up with questions where the answer is not easily accessible.  Some have offered up their personal information, e.g., curriculum vitae, faculty profile, lecture notes, etc.  While transparency is nice, Ben is right, predictability is number one, and a huge part of this is retaining your personal identity, while exchanging ideas, but  zigzagging through numerous online topics makes this difficult. This is something that I struggle with.    

Another issue I have is trying to control and tame my curiosity.  I’ll just be forthright here and give you an example.  I’ve taken several online sociology classes that have covered suicide.  It’s fascinating.  Ben said that he has a lot to say on the subject but wants to hold off for now.  I can try to interrogate him covertly or overtly, or respect his wishes.  The first two don’t seem to work well with him.  So, I’m stuck with the latter.  

BTW, I’ve tried Cleverbot and MitSuku, but I’ve yet to try nexting with Omegle.  Have any of you tried it?