208 replies to this topic

[Wadever77]

I want to be intelligent. When I can learn first and know all the things I need to be successful, then I can really be happy later on my life. This is generally a choice. Whether you like to enjoy life now and have all the popular friends or study and enjoy later in life when you get a good job and friends. There are exceptions, some smart kids are popular, they have alot of friends. But I think most popular kids are not smart and most smart kids are not popular. I guess the main reason is because most smart kids do not think like a popular kids and therefore the 2 kind of people cannot hang out together. I want to be intelligent and when I grow up, if I have a good job, I can be popular in the world and not just the school!

[zephyrclaw]

Obtaining high marks in school isn't necessarily a true indicator of intelligence, but it's certainly a start. Although it sounds obvious, changing oneself just to fit in is pretty retarded and in no way rewarding.Generally, people with good personalities who are kind, entertaining and/or likeable will have a natural aura that will ensure so-called "popularity" for them, anyway. Even though life is unfair, it usually works out so that those who deserve to have friends do, and beasts with evil souls are eventually found out and disliked.Also, not everyone is cut out to succeed academically, so in the end it just depends on the strengths of the individual in question. One argument is that attempts to become popular rely on other people, whereas succeeding intellectually is a very much individually rewarding pursuit that essentially relies on no one else. In the end, I'd personally take individual happiness over popularity and being social, but one would always hope that these latter two aspects would come naturally anyway. Although making friends and things of that nature do require effort, they shouldn't require anything that's unduly taxing, or else the person is probably just trying too hard and being fake.

[KM.]

Popularity=Intelligence

What? That doesn't even make sense. I've know some very popular people who happen to be denser than a black hole. Not to say that is everyone, but I think intelligence is far superior to popularity for the very reasons that have been argued in this thread. Not to mention, intelligence can earn popularity in a variety of ways. EX: Someone invents something and gets a patent on it. It sells huge on the market and the guy becomes obscenely rich. Depending on how he spends that money, he could become very popular. Having popularity can get you places, but it leaves your existence empty and shallow. If you want to get the most out of life, seek intelligence. We rely everyday on people who chose intelligence over popularity. They're the people making new discoveries and inventing incredible things to make our lives better. If you simply can't accept a life like that, then at least respect and acknowledge those who did. I know that's a separate subject, but I thought I'd throw it in as well to reiterate the point that intelligence is a better and more useful thing than popularity. It's true that popularity is more enjoyable, but that's only until you get old and become a has-been, or leave behind the people who looked up to you. Intelligence can put you in history books as someone to be studied for years to come. No matter how you look at it, intelligence can very often lead to the popularity you otherwise desire.

[rocky19]

I say intelligence is more important for intelligence could lead to more popularity. However, the reverse does not occur. Furthermore, intelligence could create conditions of making long-term friends, creating money, and the likes. Popularity would only give you many short term admirers.

[jimjim773]

i think both is important cause with both you can get ahead in life and things will be easy for you so it really hard to choose any of them.

[reddeath26]

Judging from your post I'm guessing you have neither.When arguing this subject remember one time tested saying. "It is better to be seen than to be heard" Sex sells, mathematical equations do not. Humans are attracted to physical appearance and power, and while a high level of intellect can lead to a rise in power, having connections and being plugged into the happenings of others is far more effective. Just look at your planet's politicians.

You are making a few fundamentally flawed assertions in this post. Firstly there is no universal human nature, you speak of humans as a single culturally homogenous group. Yet when I look at various different ethnic groups I see vastly different cultural norms and values. Some of which are quite far removed from your capitalism comment.Secondly turn more to popularity, New Zealand has had some rather unpopular politicians in parliament. However due to the nature of our electoral system they are able to get in. One example which springs to mind is Sue Bradford of the Green party.

[reddeath26]

Well first off as you can see from my picture I am reptilian so I am not very well versed in human social circles. However, you're seeming to argue my point about sex selling. Take a look at ads on TV or kids in a high school; you don't see skinny pimply faced brainiacs promoting a hip new beer, getting all the girls, or posing for a calculus textbook ad. Also I did say that intellect can lead to a rise in power which in turn leads to a rise in popularity since power is a desirable and attractive quality. But let's be honest here; popularity is a shorter road to take when trying to reach a goal in many social situations. I never said being good looking or having alot of friends could help you solve math theories.Maybe you misinterpreted my point. A politician may become unpopular after they come to power, but that does not matter once they have achieved said power through popularity within other people in said politician's party and social circles. Do you really believe that a politician's career is built chiefly on intellect and wise decisions? No, it's by doing favors for friends, making sure to know the right people and so forth. While this is not a universal truth it is a general one. How do you think I became the pope of all religions and turned Voodoo mainstream?CROCODYLUS PONTIFEX

You are still making a few false assertions, firstly in your defense of your view you have simply gone further into the same cultural group. Secondly you have not given an assertion for what it means to be intelligent. On the first count as I mentioned there are numerous different ethnic groups which at times have rather contrasting and conflicting views. The first point of difference which comes to mind is the difference between large scale and small scale societies. Even then there can be huge differences between them. Take the Andaman Islands for example there are three distinct tribal peoples who live there. Each of them live in vastly different situations, with contrasting cultural norms and values. The same is also true when one turns to the tribal peoples of Africa, while colonization and exploitation has had extreme costs on them, some still hold onto some of their culture. It is here that I turn to the Ju|'hoansi, while they do not have a government per say, they still have their spiritual healers. As anthropologists have demonstrated they play an extremely important role in their society, yet they are not decided as a result of popularity. I can also assure you that they are not the only people of significence to be chosen without popularity entering the equation.Although turning back to my example of the New Zealand electoral system, we have what is called a Mixed Member Proportional system (MMP). As I mentioned we have had some rather unpopular politicians make it into parliament. The reason for this being that on election day we are presented with two choices. Firstly we choose the politician we want to represent our electorate. At this point I will acknowledge popularity of the politician is important. Our second option is to choose the political party which we want in most. Here is where the popularity of the party take more priority than the popularity of the individual politicians. For how many votes a party gets determines how many seats in parliament they get. Hence while the Green party did not win a single electorate, due to their party vote they were able to get 9 politicians into parliament, one of which was Sue Bradford.