rexgallorum2

Here's another question for you: without reference to IQ or academic achievement, what qualities would you associate with intelligence, or perceive as indicators of intelligence? Have you ever had a hard time figuring out if someone is really bright or not?

There are people who seem to affect the qualities, habits, and quirks of 'highly intelligent' people, yet are probably not particularly brilliant (or even above average) themselves, except perhaps in some social sense. Any thoughts on that? Can you differentiate between the two without reference to IQ? If so, how? Do these people pay the same price for their quirks, and if so, are they better able to compensate? Are they likely to be more successful at whatever they do by appropriating the trappings of intelligence? Think of it as a thought experiment.

I tend to be a critic of IQ and (non-applied) psychology in general, but there must be something of value here.

I've experienced something similar to what is described here, and I know many others who experience it too. The highly intelligent people I've known who are also high achievers tend to have an exceptional work ethic, and yes many (but not all!) come from relatively privileged backgrounds.

Communication problems may in some cases be linked to autism spectrum disorders, but in other cases highly intelligent people are actually exceptional communicators.

However, I would agree with those who point out that intelligence is manifold and encompasses far more than the narrow logical puzzles found in IQ tests. Some people who are not even remotely 'book smart' seem to possess acute intelligence of another kind.

Disclosure: Yes, I read Nassim Nicholas Taleb (who is pretty popular here I think).

For the German bourgeoisie, it's education and cultivation. (Education and profession are probably more important class markers than actual income or wealth.) The genuine upper class may or may not care about either because their status is drawn from other things.

Read it. They're using the wrong expression. 'Oberschicht' might be accurate in some statistical way, but it really means 'upper middle class' in this case. The measure is flawed though because it is based on monthly (presumably earned) income without taking into account net worth. Someone could own millions in property or other investments in Germany and have a relatively low net income, yet have the option of cashing out for a vast amount of money.

'Tolerance Isn’t Easy' is okay, freely translated. The trouble with translating it literally is that you lose the wordplay. 'Einfach' means both 'easy' and 'simple'. 'Tolerance: Easy and Difficult' is even more exact, but sounds kind of stupid in English, so I would prefer the original.

(The green spaces are for drinking too. Possibly with guitars and snacks.)

Known many, and that I respect as well. True alcoholism is an absolute monster, and the truth is that some people simply cannot stop once they start. Don't assume I think everyone should drink just for the sake of it--many people have excellent reasons for not doing so. Totally understandable. Many people who do not drink are beyond reproach.

And then some others are, well, Cathy/Kate from Steinbeck's 'East of Eden'.

Might change my original position to 'I don't trust anyone who doesn't drink without a good explanation such as a medical condition that precludes the enjoyment of the drink, religious convictions, or a history of or proclivity towards alcoholism. Sounds rather like an American prescription drug ad though.

Hope I run into you in the pub! Cheers!

Typical of Northern Europe and much of the US, unfortunately. Blame moral crusaders and prohibitionists. I like the German approach. I can sit on the street in Germany, play music for tips, and drink a beer without being hassled by anyone. And I do.

Medical and religious reasons are totally exempt in my book. Though I strongly recommend getting wasted on Raki with (Muslim) Turks. They have hollow legs. And it totally breaks down any preconceptions or irrational prejudices one might have. I once had a Pakistani Muslim over for Christmas dinner, and I offered him some single malt scotch. He said his duty to accept my hospitality outweighed his duty to abstain from alcohol. We had an excellent time. :)

But really if it's medical, it can't be helped. And if it is really a matter of faith, then abstinence is absolutely worthy of respect.

Solution: 'old man pub'. Might have to go to Ireland or the UK to find it though.

Strongly pro-church agnostic here. Agreed with you. Small community churches served and in some cases still serve a vital role. Megachurches are like the KFC of the religious world.

Good points. Pubs, tea houses, hookah bars, cafés, etc. serve a similar function as local gathering places in a number of cultures. It's important that you won't be pressured to leave if you don't order anything for a while.

:)

Prices are an issue. I support cheap liquor!

Amen! Drinking in public should be as ordinary and mundane as it is in Germany.

That is true, but those are all interest based activities, things you do at 7pm on a Tuesday night, between getting off work and passing out while watching netflix. They aren't places where one can go to simply 'be', or to mingle with strangers. In Ireland for example, people would do those things and then go to the pub afterwards.

Think of the Prancing Pony in the Lord of the Rings...a place where locals and travellers can mix and mingle and converse as much or as little as they please.

Any good neighbourhood needs a little public green space, and a few pubs and coffee houses. To hell with zoning or other rules that separate living spaces from public drinking spaces.

Wait, let me check my health app that monitors my alcohol consumption in real time...

Absolutely! The best thing about the local is that you don't need to make any plans with anyone. You already have a pretty good idea who will be there.

Looks like the usual hatchetators are here to play.

Bars and pubs are not the same. Bars just serve alcohol, but pubs are public living rooms and centres of communal life. A pub is where life's milestones are celebrated, the departed are grieved, friendships are cemented, matches are made, and revolutions are plotted.

And some of us prefer the pleasures and pangs of gradual self-destruction to the quasi-religious cult of self-improvement.

Some of us truly our 'best selves' after a few pints of something dark and bitter.

I for one never trust anyone who doesn't drink.

Cheers!

Cars are important status symbols in Germany, and people who can afford it often do exactly as described--buy a new or slightly used Audi/BMW/Mercedes, use it for a while, keep it in absolutely immaculate condition, and sell it on a couple of years later for close to what they paid for it. Those higher end cars often go through many owners until they no longer pass inspection and finally get exported. 'Ordinary' people are more likely to drive lower end cars, which seem to have a different life cycle, ending as student cars and getting crushed instead of exported. That's my impression anyway, could be wrong. My experience (see Opel reference above) is that those lower end cars can be had for pretty cheap and often in great shape. With a little care, you can keep them running for ages on the cheap.

Your estimated costs are pretty average, but I found the €30k figure curious. Used cars are dirt cheap in Germany, and they are often in really good shape and well maintained compared to used cars in other countries.

I occasionally drive a 20 year old Opel that was purchased 7 years ago for €2500. It works great. I ride my bike most of the time, but it's really handy to have a car to haul kids or heavy/bulky stuff.

The rural poor face some of the same problems as the urban poor (such as car dependency), combined with a whole host of problems unique to rural life. You're right to point out that rural development is widely overlooked, as is the plight of the rural poor.

Your point about urban planning is an important one, and one I often point out when trying to explain the difference between being poor in the US and e.g. in western Europe.

Urban (and rural!) sprawl makes the economic burden of car ownership universal and unavoidable.

Changing course on urban planning and zoning could do a lot of good.

Spear son of Dread?

The food desert thing is a big problem in areas populated by the native-born American poor.

A major problem with your idea about self-limiting vehicle speeds is that speed limits are usually safe driving speeds under ideal conditions only. Speed itself isn't really the problem, but rather poor judgement and unsafe driving habits (often including speeding).

Speed is also an interesting topic in that speed limits are often kept artificially low in order to generate revenue. Any automated system to force cars to respect limits would likely meet resistance from municipalities that are dependent on traffic fines for revenue.

High speeds are allowed on highways in Germany, but only in certain areas, and German drivers are extremely disciplined with regards to lane changing and the 'hierarchy' of the road. However, traffic deaths are lower than the US, even when adjusted to reflect deaths per km traveled. Driver discipline and skill undoubtedly play a role here, but infrastructure quality and maintenance (and urban planning!) is also a big issue. US roads are comparatively poorly designed and maintained, and outdated engineering and planning practices are still widespread (widening streets and removing barriers instead of using traffic calming--perhaps counter-intuitively, the former causes more serious accidents by encouraging speeding and disengaged driving).

I tend to think that at least in urban areas of the US, ditching zoning and onerous anti-alcohol laws (i.e. putting pubs within easy walking distance of where people live) would drastically cut down on drunk driving. Rural areas are of course different.

Just my two cents

Just a few points:

1. Addressing (and reducing) major causes of road accidents and fatalities such as impaired and/or distracted driving (alcohol, drugs, sleep deprivation, inattentiveness, fiddling with phones, radios, touch screens, etc.) would make a tremendous difference, and automated driving systems and sensors could potentially intervene in such situations without necessarily being online all the time.

2. Inattentiveness and distraction caused by (over)dependence on automated systems (as in jets with autopilot) could become a major hazard. This is already a problem with road designs that minimise driver engagement by removing obstacles to traffic and designing roadways entirely for cars (compare European style traffic calming to US style widening of lanes and rounding of corners).

3. As mentioned above, infrastructure and urban planning practices are major issues, both in terms of maintenance and design. Automating passenger cars may improve safety in some respects, but perpetuating the dominance of individual motor vehicles (and the vast infrastructure outlay they require) as the dominant mode of transport is probably the wrong approach. Gradually transforming urban planning and design to promote mass transit, reduce commuting, and accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic would generally reduce the need to use cars in the first place. One difference between traffic death statistics in countries like Germany and the US is that virtually everybody has to drive long distances on a daily basis in much of the US, with few if any alternatives, and urban sprawl encourages lengthy detours to travel trivial distances between fully separated residential/commercial/industrial zones, whereas e.g. in urban Germany, there are many alternatives, and driving is not a necessity (compare death rates per capita vs. per km driven). In Germany and much of Europe, driving is and has always been a privilege, and one that requires a degree of skill to earn, whereas in the US driving is viewed more or less as a right, something everyone does and has to do on a daily basis, i.e. it's easy to get a license and you only lose it for serious infractions, and even then penalties for driving without a license (as many people do!) are comparatively minor.

What I am getting at is that the best way to tackle road safety and environmental problems is to gradually abandon the passenger car as the dominant mode of transportation. Hybrid automated/human-operated vehicles could be a great improvement in the short term, but using bikes would be better in the long term. Freight transport might be another matter though.

If I reflect upon the life outcomes of the truly gifted people I have kept up with, I can divide them into a few broad categories:

-A few went on to have stellar careers in academia, science, medicine, law, IT, engineering, or other fields.

-Some had more modest aims and settled for more ordinary work--big fish in small ponds.

-Some got stuck closer to the bottom of the socio-economic ladder--some are creative types and/or have a history of addiction and self-destructive habits.

I don't think there is any question that highly intelligent people learn new things quickly and grasp complex, nuanced, abstract concepts better and more readily than most other people, but the connection between intelligence and achievement, much less happiness and mental well being, is far from clear. An awful lot of very bright people simply fall through the cracks, and we will probably never know how many.

I would guess that most profoundly gifted people are pretty lonely. There just aren't enough of them around, and at times it must be like seeing colors nobody else can see.