Intelligent Life is scary

[JTEM is my hero]

Okay, so picture this:

A very intelligent man. He's not a bigot,
not in the least. Nope. And he runs an
office. It just so happens that every last
person working in that office is white. No,
he's not a bigot. It's the way it worked
out. He hired people whom he believed were
the best candidates for their job and they
all turned out to be white. Until one day...

So our extremely intelligent man now hires
a black man. Again, he has no interest in
race, this black man is honestly the best
candidate he can find. And then problems
arise. There's some "Racial" issues in the
office where a couple of people make a few
insensitive remarks. Now lines are beginning
to form. There's tensions. Anger. Our very
intelligent man has to start worrying about
law suits. So...

He fires the black guy.

Think about it. It's actually the intelligent
choice. There was no problems before you
hired him. Getting rid of him guarantees no
more racial issues in the future. You don't
have to discipline anyone. And, because he
was new anyway, training his replacement
hardly constitutes any kind of a loss.

...he was just beginning his training
period. Right?

So the purely intelligent solution is to
punish the victim here. It's not the more
solution. It's not even the legal solution.
But, assuming our very intelligent manager
believes that he can avoid any legal
consequences, or that retaining the black
man would result in equally bad or worse
legal consequences, it's not a factor.

"Intelligence" is not a synonym for "Moral"
or even "Ethical."

Okay, now for the search for "Intelligent life."

Ouch.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/174863780573

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 10:50:34 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is my hero
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Okay, so picture this:
>
>A very intelligent man. He's not a bigot,
>not in the least. Nope. And he runs an
>office. It just so happens that every last
>person working in that office is white. No,
>he's not a bigot. It's the way it worked
>out. He hired people whom he believed were
>the best candidates for their job and they
>all turned out to be white.

Do you seriously think it would be possible that *all* jobs in an
office would coincidently turn out to be best filled by white people?
If you forgive the biblical allusion, the house you are constructing
is built on sand.

The fact that you think it is possible, also suggests some aspects of
your own racial attitude.

> Until one day...
>
>So our extremely intelligent man now hires
>a black man. Again, he has no interest in
>race, this black man is honestly the best
>candidate he can find. And then problems
>arise. There's some "Racial" issues in the
>office where a couple of people make a few
>insensitive remarks. Now lines are beginning
>to form. There's tensions. Anger. Our very
>intelligent man has to start worrying about
>law suits. So...
>
>He fires the black guy.
>
>Think about it. It's actually the intelligent
>choice.

No, it is not the intelligent choice, it is actually a very
unintelligent one. The guy, at best, is addressing the symptoms of the
problem rather than the cause of the problem; whilst that may
alleviate some short-term effects, it is simply storing up worse
problems for the longer term.

> There was no problems before you .

>hired him. Getting rid of him guarantees no
>more racial issues in the future. You don't
>have to discipline anyone. And, because he
>was new anyway, training his replacement
>hardly constitutes any kind of a loss.
>
> ...he was just beginning his training
>period. Right?
>
>So the purely intelligent solution is to
>punish the victim here. It's not the more
>solution. It's not even the legal solution.
>But, assuming our very intelligent manager
>believes that he can avoid any legal
>consequences, or that retaining the black
>man would result in equally bad or worse
>legal consequences, it's not a factor.
>
>"Intelligence" is not a synonym for "Moral"
>or even "Ethical."

It may surprise you, however, how often the best moral and ethical
choices turn out to be the most intelligent ones.

[JTEM is my hero]

Martin Harran wrote:

> Do you seriously think it would be possible that *all* jobs in an

Wow, you really did miss the point! It's not just an act!





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/174827120878

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 08:48:00 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is my hero
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Martin Harran wrote:
>
>> Do you seriously think it would be possible that *all* jobs in an
>
>Wow, you really did miss the point!

No - but apparently *you* have missed it.

[JTEM is my hero]

Martin Harran wrote:

> No - but

Relax. I said "Intelligent life." Clearly I
wasn't speaking of you..





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/83383029505

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 17:08:11 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is my hero
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Martin Harran wrote:
>
>> No - but
>
>Relax. I said "Intelligent life." Clearly I
>wasn't speaking of you..
>

You said that sacking the black guy was the intelligent decision. It
wasn't so your basic premise was wrong.

[jonathan]

On 6/14/2018 1:50 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>


> "Intelligence" is not a synonym for "Moral"
> or even "Ethical."
>

Your manager is making an 'intelligent' decision
only if it displays good judgement.

Firing someone without cause and rewarding
bad behavior isn't good judgement.

It's short term or selfish thinking at best
or illegal behavior at worst.

It's analogous to a zero sum game where
the manager wins completely as he's
solved his problem. But the organization
or 'whole' loses in the long run from his
short sighted or illegal actions.

An evolving or coevolutionary system
would be a positive sum game where
both sides are taking into consideration
in the solution and both benefit, and
as a result the 'whole' benefits also.

Positive-sum game
GAME THEORY
https://www.britannica.com/topic/positive-sum-game


So your manager is making a decision that takes
the form of 'unnatural' or man-made.

An intelligent person would understand how
nature, or evolution, works and try to
mimic nature in his problem solving.

And a coevolutionary approach, or positive
sum game is also the definition of moral
and ethical.

> Okay, now for the search for "Intelligent life."
>
> Ouch.
>
>







>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/174863780573
>

--

[*Hemidactylus*]

jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/14/2018 1:50 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>>
>
>
>> "Intelligence" is not a synonym for "Moral"
>> or even "Ethical."
>>
>
>
>
> Your manager is making an 'intelligent' decision
> only if it displays good judgement.
>
> Firing someone without cause and rewarding
> bad behavior isn't good judgement.
>
> It's short term or selfish thinking at best
> or illegal behavior at worst.
>
> It's analogous to a zero sum game where
> the manager wins completely as he's
> solved his problem. But the organization
> or 'whole' loses in the long run from his
> short sighted or illegal actions.
>
> An evolving or coevolutionary system
> would be a positive sum game where
> both sides are taking into consideration
> in the solution and both benefit, and
> as a result the 'whole' benefits also.
>

“Both sides” does not lead to “the whole”. Far from it.

>
> Positive-sum game
> GAME THEORY
> https://www.britannica.com/topic/positive-sum-game
>
>
> So your manager is making a decision that takes
> the form of 'unnatural' or man-made.
>

Morality is humanly constructed.

>
> An intelligent person would understand how
> nature, or evolution, works and try to
> mimic nature in his problem solving.
>

Evolution, nature red in tooth and claw, is the last place you want to
ground your morals. That you think otherwise demonstrates your idiocy and
explains your behaviors here.

>
> And a coevolutionary approach, or positive
> sum game is also the definition of moral
> and ethical.
>

Bullshit! Both sides benefiting in a manner of reciprocity ain’t an example
of morality. This behavior is actually a source of corruption. Politicians
exchange votes for campaign donations. In a free market exchange party A
sells a good or service to party B that creates negative externalities to
society. After multiple iterations of said exchange the government cleans
up the mess at taxpayer expense. These are examples of your A-B vs C
positive sums.

Actually one should think in terms of an impartial third party grounding
judgement in law and morals. Adam Smith recognized such. Some people
internalize such judgement as conscience, something you have shown no
evidence you have, so you are the last person to be lecturing others about
morality.

[*Hemidactylus*]

You are ignoring knowledge, wisdom, changing societal mores, and
compassion. The manager should have had some sort of discriminatory
harassment policy enacted from the start and may have looked into diversity
training and employees signing some zero tolerance agreement. In the short
term the manager eased tensions for the day. In the long term the manager
faces possible lawsuits, boycotts, protests, and a PR mess that could end
the business, especially if minority applicants are subsequently rejected.

[*Hemidactylus*]

JTEM is my hero <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Martin Harran wrote:
>
>> No - but
>
> Relax. I said "Intelligent life." Clearly I
> wasn't speaking of you..
>

Intelligence is not knowledge, wisdom, or morality.

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 07:29:38 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:


[...]

>Morality is humanly constructed.

So when did humans construct it and from what did they construct it?

[...]

[*Hemidactylus*]

From where did the obviously constructed notion of universal human rights
come from? Seems contrived to me. So also with the ever changing trajectory
of what is deemed moral. It used to be considered a matter of morality for
elders to kill transgressors. Now the death penalty is going the way of the
dinosaur. Same sex relations were once largely regarded as immoral and also
homosexuality was deemed aberrant enough to list in older versions of DSM.
Now even same sex marriage is becoming more acceptable.

Given its ever changing trajectory due to how people argue and apply
constructed concepts of rights and justice, morality is obviously a very
culturally contrived construct. If you cede your views on morality to an
outdated set of scriptures that themselves show a malleable trajectory from
lex talionis to turn the other cheek, I cannot help you. Obviously I keep
hitting a nerve.

[jonathan]

So if you fix my car and in exchange I fix your
roof, that's corrupt?

Symbiotic relationships in nature are corruption?

Come on, think before you speak.

> In a free market exchange party A
> sells a good or service to party B that creates negative externalities to
> society.

The free market system is destructive? Then why are
free market systems far more prosperous then
command economies?

Nature is all about the free interaction among
it's components, so is a proper market system
and that process created life and intelligence.

You call that negative and corrupt?

The highly unconstrained interaction among independent
agents created all we consider beautiful.
To you that is dirty?

Come on, do some homework before you think.

> After multiple iterations of said exchange the government cleans
> up the mess at taxpayer expense. These are examples of your A-B vs C
> positive sums.
>
> Actually one should think in terms of an impartial third party grounding
> judgement in law and morals.

Uh huh, right. Adam Smith from his book
or Morality...


The Theory of Moral Sentiments

"The all-wise Author of Nature has, in this manner,
taught man to respect the sentiments and judgments
of his brethren; to be more or less pleased when
they approve of his conduct, and to be more or less
hurt when they disapprove of it.

He has made man, if I may say so, the immediate judge
of mankind; and has, in this respect, as in many
others, created him after his own image, and
appointed him his vicegerent upon earth, to
superintend the behaviour of his brethren.

They are taught by nature, to acknowledge that power
and jurisdiction which has thus been conferred upon
him, to be more or less humbled and mortified when
they have incurred his censure, and to be more or
less elated when they have obtained his applause."

~ Adam Smith


Second, because God is detached from the system, Smith
argues that human beings are God's regents on earth.
It is up to them to be the judges of their own behavior.
Individuals are necessarily most concerned with themselves
first, and are therefore best self-governed. Only then
can they judge others via the moral system Smith
describes.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/smith/#H2


Couldn't have said it better myself.

> Adam Smith recognized such. Some people
> internalize such judgement as conscience, something you have shown no
> evidence you have, so you are the last person to be lecturing others about
> morality.
>

This from someone that thinks natural processes
are corrupt? Why should I take your personal
attack seriously?


Jonathan


s





>
>
>
>


--

[*Hemidactylus*]

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>
[snip]

>
> Given its ever changing trajectory due to how people argue and apply
> constructed concepts of rights and justice, morality is obviously a very
> culturally contrived construct. If you cede your views on morality to an
> outdated set of scriptures that themselves show a malleable trajectory from
> lex talionis to turn the other cheek, I cannot help you.
>

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a
tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall
smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
Matthew 5:38-39 -
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Matthew%205:38-39&version=KJV

The bible (ironically) is all the proof I need of moral social
construction.

[jonathan]

Good grief, he said this...

"Intelligence" is not a synonym for "Moral"
or even "Ethical."

You really should read past the first sentence
before replying. You're embarrassing yourself.

But you're both completely flippin' wrong.

I mean a child could show you, all you
have to do is LOOK UP the definition of
intelligent BEFORE philosophizing about it.

It's kind of a prerequisite for being taken
seriously ya know.


Definition of intelligent

b : revealing or reflecting good judgment or
sound thought : skillful


'Good judgement' is the FLIPPIN' DEFINITION OF
moral and ethical.

It's incredibly embarrassing to see people
discuss a word like intelligent, ESPECIALLY
a word like intelligent, without knowing
what in the hell the word means.

It's the ONE WORD ABOVE ALL that people should
know how to spell and define before using.

I mean honestly...


Jonathan



s















--

[*Hemidactylus*]

I pointed to the flaw in your simplistic generalization. There exists no
nepotism nor cronyism in modern society? These anathematic practices stem
from quite natural impulses: kinship and reciprocal altruism. So does
outgrouping and the racism discussed in the OP.

>
>> In a free market exchange party A
>> sells a good or service to party B that creates negative externalities to
>> society.
>
>
>
> The free market system is destructive?

Quite. From the disruptive creative destruction outlined by Joseph
Schumpeter to the negative externalities that impact third parties to the
information asymmetries that facilitate exploitation of second parties and
are sometimes remedied or proactively prevented by third parties in
government agencies. Free market religion sees bureaucrats as demons.

> Then why are
> free market systems far more prosperous then
> command economies?
>

You are imposing a dichotomy on me I do not support. Because Soviet
Implementations of command Marxism failed does not buttress an argument
that can support free market religion.

>
> Nature is all about the free interaction among
> it's components, so is a proper market system
> and that process created life and intelligence.
>

Define free here. People are arguably not free to make decisions given
deficits of the free will argument. People are not free to choose the
conditions of their birth and placement in the socioeconomic structure.
People may enjoy a limited freedom under the social constructions of rights
and equality before the law, but money, status, and power make some people
more equal than others. The result is mass incarceration of minorities into
an ever more privatized prison system that is plantation slavery by another
name.

>
> You call that negative and corrupt?
>

Unrestrained it can go that way. Yep.

>
> The highly unconstrained interaction among independent
> agents created all we consider beautiful.

Empty poetic generalization. Do you consider greenhouse gas emission
beautiful? Superfund sites?

> To you that is dirty?
>

It can be. You are ignoring that.

>
> Come on, do some homework before you think.
>

I have.

I was thinking of:

https://web.stanford.edu/class/history34q/readings/VirtualWitnessDiscussion/SmithImpartialSpectator.html

>
>> Adam Smith recognized such. Some people
>> internalize such judgement as conscience, something you have shown no
>> evidence you have, so you are the last person to be lecturing others about
>> morality.
>>
>
>
> This from someone that thinks natural processes
> are corrupt? Why should I take your personal
> attack seriously?
>

Parasites are natural and they exploit systems to their own benefit and
many of your threads have been parasitic on various newsgroups. Great job
emulating nature.

[*Hemidactylus*]

jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/16/2018 8:42 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> JTEM is my hero <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Martin Harran wrote:
>>>
>>>> No - but
>>>
>>> Relax. I said "Intelligent life." Clearly I
>>> wasn't speaking of you..
>>>
>
>
>> Intelligence is not knowledge, wisdom, or morality.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Good grief, he said this...
>
>
> "Intelligence" is not a synonym for "Moral"
> or even "Ethical."
>
>
> You really should read past the first sentence
> before replying. You're embarrassing yourself.
>
> But you're both completely flippin' wrong.
>
> I mean a child could show you, all you
> have to do is LOOK UP the definition of
> intelligent BEFORE philosophizing about it.
>
> It's kind of a prerequisite for being taken
> seriously ya know.
>
>
> Definition of intelligent
>
> b : revealing or reflecting good judgment or
> sound thought : skillful
>

You skipped over:

a : having or indicating a high or satisfactory degree of intelligence and
mental capacity

Intelligence being: “a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal
with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason
(2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to
think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests)”

Merriam Webster.

Figure out necessity versus sufficiency and get back to me bozo.

>
> 'Good judgement' is the FLIPPIN' DEFINITION OF
> moral and ethical.
>

No it’s not. But you get your morality from evolution, which has produced
parasites.

>
> It's incredibly embarrassing to see people
> discuss a word like intelligent, ESPECIALLY
> a word like intelligent, without knowing
> what in the hell the word means.
>
> It's the ONE WORD ABOVE ALL that people should
> know how to spell and define before using.
>
> I mean honestly...
>

You are intellectually dishonest.

[JTEM is my hero]

jonathan wrote:

> You really should read past the first sentence
> before replying. You're embarrassing yourself.

"Open mouth, insert foot."

Intelligence is not morality. Intelligence is not
emotions, a feeling. Cling to your gospel, it
won't change a thing.







-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/175014671598

[JTEM is my hero]

Martin Harran wrote:

> You said that sacking the black guy was the intelligent decision.

No, I set up a hypothetical which demonstrated that
what people think of as "The right" or "Moral"
choice isn't a strictly intelligent one.

Your reaction is kind of proving the point that
most people don't know there is a difference.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/175014671598

[JTEM is my hero]

Again, your emotional splatter is proving my
point, not disputing it.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/175014671598

[JTEM is my hero]

jonathan wrote:

> Your manager is making an 'intelligent' decision
> only if it displays good judgement.

Your emotions are causing you to imagine details
that did not exist. The "solution" was the most
intelligent answer, the one that ended conflict
the quickest with the lowest cost.

Intelligence != Morality





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/175014671598

[*Hemidactylus*]

JTEM is my hero <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> Again, your emotional splatter is proving my
> point, not disputing it.
>

Given you completely snipped my post I infer you lack the intelligence to
address it directly and the morality to act in a courteous manner that an
impartial spectator wouldn’t find abhorrent.

[*Hemidactylus*]

JTEM is my hero <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> jonathan wrote:
>
>> Your manager is making an 'intelligent' decision
>> only if it displays good judgement.
>
> Your emotions are causing you to imagine details
> that did not exist. The "solution" was the most
> intelligent answer, the one that ended conflict
> the quickest with the lowest cost.
>
> Intelligence != Morality
>

Expedience != Wisdom

[zencycle]

On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 1:05:02 AM UTC-4, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> jonathan wrote:
>
> > Your manager is making an 'intelligent' decision
> > only if it displays good judgement.
>
> Your emotions are causing you to imagine details
> that did not exist. The "solution" was the most
> intelligent answer, the one that ended conflict
> the quickest with the lowest cost.

It wasn't the most intelligent decision, it was the most pragmatic, and a short-sighted one at that. Jonathon was correct, but not for the reasons he thinks (as usual)

The manager rewarded bad behavior, and punished an innocent person. These are neither intelligent or moral.
- Firing the non-white may have resulted in a benefit of avoiding an ongoing conflict with his white employees (not very likely), but now he is restricted to hiring whites only. This is not a moral, intelligent, or pragmatic situation.
- the employees emboldened by their bad behavior will likely use that 'power' to force other changes in the department based on their prejudices/irrational preferences.

A good manager leads her/his employees. If the employees had an issue with a person because of the color of his skin, the right decision would have been to counsel the disgruntled employees, and if that didn't work, sanction them. Worst case, the manager should issued an ultimatum to the problem employees - "(blank) is the best person for that position. You need to find a way to get along with (blank). If you can't do it, I can and will replace you."

> Intelligence != Morality

this is correct, contrary to jonathons weirdness. An intelligent person isn't necessarily moral, and a moral person isn't necessarily intelligent.

However, showing good judgement requires some level of both.

"But, assuming our very intelligent manager
believes that he can avoid any legal
consequences, or that retaining the black
man would result in equally bad or worse
legal consequences,"

Both of these assumptions show either a stunning lack of intelligence or morality, and likely a lack of both.

[JTEM is my hero]

*Hemidactylus* wrote:

> Given you completely snipped my

It was gone long before I came around if indeed
you ever had one.

You're emotional. You have a need to dispute me,
hence your confusion of intelligence with emotions.

Social mores are not "Intelligence."





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/175125780323

[JTEM is my hero]

*Hemidactylus* wrote:

> Expedience != Wisdom

Sound bites != Arguments






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/175125780323

[JTEM is my hero]

zencycle wrote:


> It wasn't the most intelligent decision

Of course it was. He got what he wanted at the
absolute lowest cost to him. He suffered the
least, gained the most.

Traditional discrimination is the opposite. I had
a friend who swore that he witnessed merchants, in
the deep south, refusing business from a black man.

This would be the opposite of intelligence as he
would be detracting from his own wealth out of
animosity towards another...

Another person's pain can only be a gain for you
EMOTIONALLY, not intellectually.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/175125780323

[*Hemidactylus*]

JTEM is a zero <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>
>> Given you completely snipped my
>
> It was gone long before I came around if indeed
> you ever had one.
>
> You're emotional. You have a need to dispute me,
> hence your confusion of intelligence with emotions.
>
> Social mores are not "Intelligence."
>

You are intellectually dishonest.

[JTEM is my hero]

*Hemidactylus* wrote:

> You

Your vulgar, over the top emotional reaction is
entirely uncalled for. After all, the subject
is intelligence. Clearly nobody was speaking of
you.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/144760592142

[*Hemidactylus*]

JTEM is my hero <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>
>> You
>
> Your vulgar, over the top emotional reaction is
> entirely uncalled for. After all, the subject
> is intelligence. Clearly nobody was speaking of
> you.
>

JTEM is a zero

[JTEM is my hero]

Like I said, you have no reason to be
offended. Nobody was speaking of you.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/175223471293