Survival of the Smartest in Postmodern Society

1. 85

   gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago

   
   In the last 20th & early 21st century, it is becoming a survival of the fittest society & culture.   Those who are the smartest/most intelligent are the ones who will become the most socioeconomically successful.  They know how to play the game & thrive in our postmodern society.   Those who aren't so smart will remain poor.   Yes, the rich are that way because they ARE SMART while those who are poor aren't.  Your thoughts?

   replyreport
   1. 77

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I would say the opposite, at least when it comes to the Darwinian concept of "survival of the fittest". 
      
      It is the poor, not the rich that have the most kids, and it is the poor, not the rich, that are passing the information on how to do that to their children.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         What you have presented is an atavistic synopsis of the Darwinian principle.   I didn't say survival of the fittest but survival of the SMARTEST.   It will be mental, not physical prowess that rules postmodern society.  Primitive notions of physicality is moot in this era.
         Let's use inductive & deductive logic here Wilderness.   Let me elucidate further- even though the poor have the most children, they have no money yet no access to success & power.  The rich have the money hence the opportunities.  The rich will teach their children how to be successful & powerful.  The poor will only breed incessantly but have no power.   It is the survival of the smartest.  Brute, animal primitivism no longer suffice in the postmodern world.  It is BRAINS that will suffice.
         
         Poor people are brutish & primitive in their stance.  They aren't smart which will explain why they will be at the bottom tiers & periphery of society.  They will be the slave class & the rich will be the ruling class.  The poor have NO POWER, man.  When will you realize this?  The poor are drudges of society.  The poor aren't smart in the least.  It is the wealthy who are smart which explains why they are wealthy.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Deleted
            1. 70

               Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               I THINK I have never found reading two posts more interesting than these two you have made.
               
               While I could find countless examples of idiots that were the beneficiaries of parents that made millions or billions and therefore are part of the "elite" rich class...in general your posts hold a considerable amount of merit.
               
               In fact it is the idiots that are beneficiaries of brilliant parent(s) that made themselves wealthy that are the biggest problems to humanity's advancement, as they develop some of the most ignorant and priviledged beliefs about how to "correct" the "injustice" that the "poor" have suffered.
               
               As the Chinese say about Western Liberalism... "ignorant and arrogant westerners” who “pity the rest of the world and think they are saviours”. It is the rich elites, the second and third generation children of those whose brilliant and ruthless efforts made them wealthy, that they call "baizuo"  in the Chinese context liberals that are termed as regressive or left-leaning who are determined to undermine their own society and status.
               
               Those who are smart could come from anywhere in the social stratosphere, but it is their intelligence that makes them successful, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Oprah Winfrey, Elon Musk are billionaires because they are brilliant... not because they were born into it.

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  I differ with Killer Gates. Elon Musk states he think 20 or 30 years from now there will a population collapse problem.
                  
                  For the like of covid, many Wealthy elitist are selecting world leadership and who lives and who dies.

                  replyreport
               2. 81

                  peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Completely agree Ken.

                  replyreport
         2. 85

            tsmogposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            What is poor?

            replyreport
      2. 85

         Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         "  Those who are the smartest/most intelligent are the ones who will become the most socioeconomically successful.'
         
         
         If we are talking strictly economics I think you are correct. In my view, those that are more intelligent are able to achieve their goals. They have a better ability to problem solve and removing stumbling blocks.
         
         The more intelligent human being can more easily see pitfalls, and stay away from them. 
         
         I think decision making plays a huge part in  socioeconomically
         success.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            I got more business than I can handle of tiny houses and organic vegetables. Planned it 10 years ago and slowly into full action today.
            
            The herd is in for their survival stampede with suffering.

            replyreport
   2. 60

      CHRIS57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Again very provocative.
      
      What does being smart have to do with being rich? What has being rich to do with your intellect?
      
      Isn´t most wealth simply inherited?
      
      What you could probably mean is how people are socialized. Has to do with family for primary socializing and with peer groups for secondary socializing.
      
      Is someone smart because he was thrown into the right peer group? Is someone stupid, because he/she just survived the bombing of their homestead in the middle east, losing everything and seeking refuge?
      
      What does having many children have to do with intellect? Absolutely nothing. Don´t let anecdotal experience in your neighbourhood produce prejudice. Just saying...

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, Peter, I believe that most wealth is inherited and to think that they are the sharpest knives in the drawer because they have wealth is a fallacy extraordinaire.
         
         This "Social Darwinism" stuff that Grace is peddling has gotten old already..
         
         it is just an excuse for one group of people to justify stepping upon another, and it is as old as the pharaohs
         
         "Manifest Destiny" or Aryan Supremacy (The Third Reich)
         
         Social economic advantage is not always derived through merit. and merit does not always result in social economic advantage.
         
         Eddie Murphy had a social/economic message in his comedy film "Trading Places" as to how advantage and privileges are disseminated within society in reality, as opposed to what people may tell you.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            CHRIS57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Did a little reseach on wealth inheritance. Result is quite interesting.
            
            Requires a look at the wealth pyramid.
            On top are the billionars: most are selfmade, few are like Trump
            Then the UHNWI (ultra high net worth individuals, heavier than 30 mill. USD): almost 50% inherited or heritage supported
            Next are the VHNWI (very high net worth individuals, heavier than 5 mill. USD): again more than 50% inherited.
            last but not least the next door millionares (HNWI, from 1 to 5 mill. USD): most are selfmade, but with lower percentage than the billionare club.
            
            Someone belonging to one of above categories and who is honest with himself and humble enough will probably say: 20% is heritage, 30% is connections/network, 30% is sheer luck and the last 20% of success are individual skills. Feel free to make the "connections/network" part to be a mixture of heritage and skill.
            
            There is not much left over for "survival of the smartest".

            replyreport
            1. 85

               gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Ahhmmm, well it is the survival of the smartest.   If one is stupid & rich, h/she wouldn't be rich long.   Although there may be network, a stupid, rich person would be tolerated for so long.   There are wealthy/affluent parents who disinherit their children because they aren't apt/smart(irresponsible).   People today aren't going to let you ride their coat-tails because you have connections.  You have to prove your worth.
               
               Conversely, a smart poor people with effort can become affluent or even rich.  H/she has the smarts to strategize & organize to get what h/she wants.  H/she knows how to assess the situation & chose the best options for his/her success.  It is the survival of smartest which determines whether or not one will become successful.  Dumb people don't become successful even with connections-h/she will be discovered sooner or later.

               replyreport
   3. 81

      peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Being smart does not mean being rich.
      Being rich does not mean being smart. These things are two completely different concepts.
      The majority of smart people arn't rich. They have an ordinary life. Are a docter, a teacher, a car mechanic, a journalist, an author or a musician.
      
      In every time you need different skills. 50 years ago you didn't need the skill to use a smartphone. Now you do.
      
      You need to learn those skills. And that's why education is so important. To learn a language or two. To learn abstract thinking with math and music. To learn history to see the bigger picture. And to have the posibility to study what your passion is.

      replyreport
   4. 80

      Kyler J Falkposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I like to think that it is mostly luck, whether inherent or created, that determines your place in society. I'm super intelligent according to any test I could take (IQ 136, high clearance position in military formerly, always get jobs despite no qualifications for them, etc.), where I'm often placed as far as responsibility goes, and I constantly read the books that study tactics of prominent figures throughout history as a science and implement what I learn into my own life. All of this has afforded me upward growth, but nothing has moved me beyond my superiors who always tell me, "It's luck," that got them to where they are today.
      
      Being in the right place at the right time, running into the right people, being born with the right genetics, making that one proper statement at just the right moment... all of this can be generated luck, but still luck nonetheless. Just look at Donald Trump's behavior as POTUS, for example, Biden, or even Lil Wayne/Nicki Minaj; something tells me those dorks aren't maintaining their fame and fortunes on much more than their luck, and the luck of those who got them there. Luck should never discredit their hard work, but hard work should never discredit the unlikelihood of success in this world.
      
      You're always so unfair, gm, but I see where you are trying to come from.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         What is worst virtue, envy or greed?

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Kyler J Falkposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Envy.
            
            Greed can exist without hatred, or even better with an outward sense of honest admission to hatred leading to the forgiveness of it. Envy breeds secret hatred, it rots from the inside and spreads in the most insidious of ways. Where greed can move you upwards in a sort of transcendence, envy will tear you and everyone around you apart from the inside.
            
            At least that is my take on those two when compared to one another. Perhaps greed is worse when we consider that generosity is one of the most crucial traits to display publicly, while you can effectively hide the products of envy like most-everyone does. There are many different takes and examples of both traits being the downfall of others, and that question has made me think deeply.
            
            All that being said, I still say envy.

            replyreport
            1. 75

               Misbah786posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Smart answer, Kyler

               replyreport
            2. 77

               Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Comparing envy and greed is like comparing racism and child molesters for what is worst.
               
               I would envy as far as being  wide spread like racism in suppresstion and UNjustice.
               
               Then greed is like a child molesters because not being great in numbers, yet more of a greater horrific suppression of human rights and health.

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  Kyler J Falkposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  I suppose it all depends in what context we put the two, yes.
                  
                  Perhaps it is up to the individual to ask themselves this question: Is my envy born of greed, or is my greed born of envy?
                  
                  You can suppress, ignore, or even conquer envy born of greed. Greed born of envy is sinister, though, and it always seems to create the worst types of people throughout history.
                  
                  When you get greed born from envy you have kings who behead their subjects for throwing a more lavish party with greater taste than the king could ever hope to match, it breeds insecurity in everyone around them as well, and quickly they fall by the hands of those they trust most. People who take the converse route, they seem more aware and tend to last longer, move higher, and even sometimes live full successful lives.
                  
                  A very deep topic, man, too deep for any one conversation to ever cover in its entirety. Greed isn't always a bad thing, though, and that is why it is lesser than envy. Envy is never good, by its very definition it cannot be.

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Both envy and greedy would be a very ugly person to be around. Either one of extreme negatives, makes me run for the hill.

                     replyreport
   5. 77

      Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I always say, work smarter rather than longer and harder. Results would be thriving beyond survival in life. A few hours a day working health of sleep, eat and exercise. That prepares me higher energy for the rest of the day.

      replyreport
   6. 84

      peoplepower73posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      In my opinion, smart and intelligent are relative terms.  However, survival in any system or construct is based on how well a person or thing adapts to change.  Since change is one of the only constants, if you are not able to adapt to change, sooner or later the system will reject you.
      
      In politics, whether something is right or wrong is based on the judgement placed on it by the highest authority.  If the highest authority is corrupt, it doesn't matter, they have the final say for that particular judgement.  The Supreme Court is the highest authority in the land.  The president is the next highest authority.  If they are corrupt, their judgement will be as corrupt as well. 
      
      Trump was and still is corrupt, but he still serves as the highest authority for his tribe. His base still follows him and so does does his supporters in congress, even though he is no longer in office.  To them he is still their highest authority...Again, this is all my opinion, but it is food for thought.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Politicians do have one of the highest IQ of groups of people. Yet one of the lowest standards of ethics for me to be involved in. People are far better off to think and feel for themselves.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Trust a politician at your peril, for the truth is not in them.  Even when they are careful to speak nothing but the absolute truth it is couched in such language, and presented as the whole story when it is not, that you are being encouraged to believe a lie.
            
            Which means, as far as I am concerned, that even though it might be truth it is a lie, for the intent is not honest.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Well put.

               replyreport
2. 85

   hglickposted 3 years ago

   Absolutely 100% True!

   replyreport