There was an article posted to Cracked.com yesterday, that I think is important reading. Naturally, I would think that, because it recalls a post I made to this blog in February. The Cracked author, Mark Hill, however, puts me to shame in that his piece, in that site's fashion, makes a very systematic presentation of his points, drawing on extensive research.
But regardless of exactly how the topic is presented, it is good just to see anyone questioning the asinine media narrative about the socially transformative power of new media. It is good to see anyone making an effort to take Twitter, Facebook, and Western egos down a notch or two. It is disheartening when I can go many weeks without seeing anyone take a rational view on subjects like this, and so it is downright inspiring when someone finally does. There is a conflict present here between a logical assessment of surrounding circumstances and self-aggrandizing, delusional optimism about our own effectiveness in global developments. And of course, eschewing reason in favor of the comforting belief that our mundane activities are inspiring populations and toppling governments only serves to retard our motivation to do more, to put activity behind our activism, and to do a bit of self-sacrifice for the good of others. Why bother if your conspicuous consumption of technology is doing the work for you? Well it isn't, as I pointed out in February, and as The New Yorker pointed out before that, and as Mark Hill very astutely pointed out yesterday.
Will more rational people contribute to this discussion in time? I am earnestly hopeful that prominent writers and commentators will work to tear down this foolhardy conviction that our impersonal, overly casual social activities are good enough to start revolutions. Raising questions about that assumption in the minds of the broader population could constitute a crucial breaking point. We need desperately to break in favor of a clearer understanding of what gives real value to human activity. As it is, this absurd, poorly thought out narrative is making us lazy and self-righteous, and that is a truly poisonous combination.
Showing posts with label Cracked. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cracked. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Monday, May 9, 2011
The Best of Traits
I've mentioned Cracked.com on this blog once before. I've been reading it regularly in recent months, because I like to have some of the information I acquire couched in humor. The funny thing is that if I cut all entertainment out of my life, I would still seek out information in equal measure, but I would find the act of gratifying my curiosity to be something of a tedious slog to try to keep up with the demands of my brain for an undefined purpose.
And that strange observation ties directly into the topic of a recent Cracked article: 5 Unexpected Downsides of High Intelligence. Now, I don't know how intelligent I am. I often feel that my intellect has been diminishing steadily since adolescence. But at the same time, I know that I have demonstrated a tendency to underestimate my competence at learning new tasks and succeeding at carrying them out. So I like to think that the Dunning-Kruger effect influences my own assessment of my intelligence, as well. But then, even allowing myself to entertain the idea that I might be smart throws me into an entirely different series of personal guilt trips about the threat of arrogance. I'd like to believe that there's an upside to all of this neurotic over-analysis.
I think, however, that virtually everyone with intelligence enough to read an information-based humor website tends to take observations about negative traits associated with intelligence as comforting suggestions that they might be able to allot themselves a small measure of praise for above average cognitive ability as a way of alleviating their worries about bad habits and unhappiness.
Regardless of the particulars, and regardless of who gets to include themselves in that category, it does seem to clearly be the case that intelligent people have a lot of problems. The above article makes mention of a greater degree of emotional instability, dishonesty, self-destructive behavior, a higher incidence of depression, and, significantly, a lesser likelihood of reproducing. It makes me sad to think of these various correlations, but it's not because of the effects on individuals, and not because I think the observations may apply to me.
What upsets me is the sense that these tendencies make intelligence seem unappealing and evolutionarily disadvantageous. It upsets me to think that there is a definite gulf between intelligence, which I believe is an objectively good feature in any given human being, and a multitude of other features that are desirable and useful. But - and again, I may be privileging one side of the topic - I think intelligence is perhaps the single most worthwhile attribute a person could hope to have. It's not fair that it should require such a terrific sacrifice in the way of happiness and health. And it doesn't have to. It seems to me that intelligence, by its very nature, should allow its possessors to learn how to overcome its negative side-effects.
So I'm looking for that as a breaking point - a time when the most intellectually astute among us stop letting our best characteristics impact us in markedly negative ways. And this goes equally for anyone whose courage leads them to reckless bravado, or whose strength leads them to over-exertion and the early breakdown of their bodies. But again, intelligence is unique in that it should contain its own safeguards against its ill-effects. And if a person cannot use his intelligence to compensate for what might destroy him or keep him at the outer edge of the gene pool, he is not using it to its full effect.
And that strange observation ties directly into the topic of a recent Cracked article: 5 Unexpected Downsides of High Intelligence. Now, I don't know how intelligent I am. I often feel that my intellect has been diminishing steadily since adolescence. But at the same time, I know that I have demonstrated a tendency to underestimate my competence at learning new tasks and succeeding at carrying them out. So I like to think that the Dunning-Kruger effect influences my own assessment of my intelligence, as well. But then, even allowing myself to entertain the idea that I might be smart throws me into an entirely different series of personal guilt trips about the threat of arrogance. I'd like to believe that there's an upside to all of this neurotic over-analysis.
I think, however, that virtually everyone with intelligence enough to read an information-based humor website tends to take observations about negative traits associated with intelligence as comforting suggestions that they might be able to allot themselves a small measure of praise for above average cognitive ability as a way of alleviating their worries about bad habits and unhappiness.
Regardless of the particulars, and regardless of who gets to include themselves in that category, it does seem to clearly be the case that intelligent people have a lot of problems. The above article makes mention of a greater degree of emotional instability, dishonesty, self-destructive behavior, a higher incidence of depression, and, significantly, a lesser likelihood of reproducing. It makes me sad to think of these various correlations, but it's not because of the effects on individuals, and not because I think the observations may apply to me.
What upsets me is the sense that these tendencies make intelligence seem unappealing and evolutionarily disadvantageous. It upsets me to think that there is a definite gulf between intelligence, which I believe is an objectively good feature in any given human being, and a multitude of other features that are desirable and useful. But - and again, I may be privileging one side of the topic - I think intelligence is perhaps the single most worthwhile attribute a person could hope to have. It's not fair that it should require such a terrific sacrifice in the way of happiness and health. And it doesn't have to. It seems to me that intelligence, by its very nature, should allow its possessors to learn how to overcome its negative side-effects.
So I'm looking for that as a breaking point - a time when the most intellectually astute among us stop letting our best characteristics impact us in markedly negative ways. And this goes equally for anyone whose courage leads them to reckless bravado, or whose strength leads them to over-exertion and the early breakdown of their bodies. But again, intelligence is unique in that it should contain its own safeguards against its ill-effects. And if a person cannot use his intelligence to compensate for what might destroy him or keep him at the outer edge of the gene pool, he is not using it to its full effect.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Recommended Reading
I think we may actually be reaching a breaking point in our views about higher education. I've been seeing more and more people actually acknowledging the fact that there is something profoundly wrong with the current system. So tonight I am going to let someone else do the talking for me. Robert Brockway wrote a terrific column at Cracked.com today, and while I have one or two minor points of contention with his focus, it is extremely heartening to see other people who, in my estimation, "get it." I'll be writing more on this topic in the near future. I think it is genuinely important, but I've been demoralized in the past by the sense that I was the only one expressing any outrage. Though I may have failed to strike up the chorus in the past, I'm more than happy to join it now. But just to get started, please, read this:
The Question You're Not Asking: Should You Go To College?
The Question You're Not Asking: Should You Go To College?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
