A High IQ May Be A Sign Of Flawed Thinking

[zenrealized]

Intelligence tests come in various forms. You have tests of all kinds that attempt to sum up how smart someone is. The question becomes is someone who scores high on an IQ test more intelligent overall? Or could they even be less intelligent?

If you've ever seen the types of questions that would typically be used to compile an IQ score you might wonder why does being able to answer this question make the person intelligent?

Or on a timed test why does being able to answer an identical question faster than another person make that person more intelligent? Why is time even a consideration as a basis for determining an overall IQ score?

Does a timed test that is based in minutes show a defect in thinking that someone with a high IQ might have to come to the determination that time was an important element for completion of an IQ test?

What if someone were using a practical success mindset to solve an impractical problem? What if solving the problem itself is unintelligent when viewed through the selective thought process of a real world thinker?

If someone were trying to determine what was important to know and not important to know through the lens of OPTIMAL survival most information taught in school is useless. As a matter of fact the more selective intelligence that is required to acquire a skill the less useful the information is from a survival stand point.

I want to make clear that having an optimal survival mindset means having the best chance of the highest level of prosperity through all potential societal scenarios. You might ask me well how can I know what information I would need to know? Or Doesn't having the most knowledge mean I must be the most intelligent?

In my opinion what you choose to learn is the most important factor in determining how intelligent you will become. The knowledge itself and the ability to learn and master it within a reasonable period of time are your hardware. The combination of the two is intelligence. You can have average hardware and excellent knowledge selection and be more intelligent than a person with the best hardware and terrible selection.

To have good knowledge selection you have to be thinking strategically about how that knowledge inter-relates. Let me give you an example. Let's say someone offered to PAY ME to learn French. Putting aside the value of the money as a consideration I would say learning French would be harmful to me. French as a language is a declining language. If I calculated the odds of ever NEEDING French for anything useful I can determine that I don't need to know it in this lifetime. To me French is a useless language and there is no logical reason that I would need to know it.

Some people might say that a person who learned French as a second language would be more intelligent then a person of equal intelligence. He would be less intelligent because he wasted time learning something that he could have predicted was useless.

In another thread I made an example about someone charging 10 dollars for a bag of ice after a hurricane and why its a bad decision for them to make. A lot of people think well if I can get 10 dollars for a bag of ice and someone is willing to pay it then I must be a good capitalist. Actually that profit , although enjoyable at the time, poses a significant risk to my business and the perception of my business by both consumers and local government.

Having knowledge for the sake of knowledge is how schools tend to teach. The general thought process is that a well rounded education is important. That somehow by learning chemistry a person will decide that they want to be a scientist. I say for 99 percent of the population learning anything beyond the very basics of chemistry is pointless.

My only happiness about how information is thought of and taught is that it makes competition for the accumulation of the most valuable information low and provides specialists for generalists. If I need a paleontologist so that I can become a billionaire it's important that they have made the decision to become one. The only reason I would value the paleontologist is because he decided to use/waste his time being irresponsible with the full endorsement of other "intelligent" people. When that second meteor hits and I have a plan for that he won't have one even though he's learning about a species that was most likely wiped out from one.

Clearly I'm not saying that the small chance of a meteor hitting should result in anyone taking action who doesn't have the means to do so. I would say though that the chain of decisions that would make the probability of having a way to survive is contained in a knowledge acquisition and valuation strategy.

This is one area where I think attempting to have a positive mind state about things can be harmful and delusional. In a previous thread someone made a statement that they would view a rock with a smooth and a rough side as smooth. That somehow that optimistic thought process provided a sense of happiness that made life more enjoyable by trying to view everything in the best possible light. That somehow seeing the defect in the rock would be thinking negatively. If your house is 300 square feet you might say your house was comfortable so you didn't sound ungrateful about the fact that it's a small living space. Even calling the living space small would be a form of "criticism" in this type of thought process.

How could we determine the likely reality of our living space if we wanted to? Well we could compare our living space to the average living space of people on our street. Or we could compare it to the country. The problem is that we could still delude ourselves into thinking our living space is fine by just saying we were grateful for having it.

So the situation becomes how can we make having a 300 square foot living space not a worthy living space and still be thinking about our conditions in a positive grateful way. The answer is really simple. Are we doing as well as someone with better information than us?

The answer is going to be no. There life will be just as balanced as yours and in practically every category they will have passed you with LESS effort than you. Their result is not in an abstract manifestation it's in the depth of their planning and thinking.

Their success becomes less and less likely to be a victim of bad luck. Someone who has been at it for a awhile has a plan for everything in the right order. Of course they make mistakes but not very many that are not on purpose.

Too much of anything is bad. Even discipline. So they add each ingredient like a chef in relation to their strength. They for sure don't avoid thinking about reality and the realistic chances of adverse events to maintain a happy face. Seeing reality is what makes them successful. They don't try to see themselves as thin if they are overweight just because they can't prove what overweight is. If you're looking to be accepted for who you are it means that you want permission to give up. You're either admitting that you can't make progress. Or don't feel you need to change because you are perfect. You want the world to accept your unreasonable opinions and delusions. Your opinions are valuable because everyone is entitled to an opinion right?

Criticism is anything that is negative regardless if it is true or not. It really isn't though. Positive thinking doesn't mean you get to escape from admitting you haven't done the work. Or you aren't in a position to give a reasonable opinion because you don't have enough knowledge. It also means that if you decide to control a discussion you should be sure you have thought it through because your power is not enough to do so.

Last couple paragraphs are really important distinctions and are meant to address a certain type of thought process. The closer a judgment is in fairness and accuracy should be the determination of whether it should be allowed. If someone gives 10 detailed reasons that someone is X or a "label" it's increases the probability that the judgment is accurate.

Anyway I sort of went on a rant but my final point is you can't make progress if you don't figure out what your problems are. If you don't want your problems to be used against you fix them.

[Gals]

Really? can you cite your sources?

[The Unconquered]

Originally Posted by Gals

Really? can you cite your sources?

The OP is making a pretty common criticism about overvaluing IQ, although I would phrase it as "Putting too much stock in IQ tests is a sign of flawed thinking."

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by zenrealized

I want to make clear that having an optimal survival mindset means having the best chance of the highest level of prosperity through all potential societal scenarios.

Well, it's a matter of your own definition. I wouldn't necessarily equate prosperity with optimal survival.

For example, you could be very rich and seriously ill at the same time. Or very rich, and constantly engaging in hazardous activities (eg motor racing; unsafe sex and extreme sports) which affect your chances of survival.

[Orionjoel]

In some rspects I agree with you,actually in quite a few ways.

IQ tests I believe can be useful, as long as they are seen for what they are, a way of measuring one type of intelligence, and that is identifying a probelm and using your knowledge of problems to solve that problem.

There is another aspect to all of this though. As a student, in grade 7 (in Australia), I underwent a full on IQ test to evaluate if I should repeat the grade or not. From memory the result was an IQ of 128 or so. Which from what I was told at the time was above average for the average student. Well I was still getting a B or C average.

Another aspect that loosly links in with this, that I have thought about a lot comes down to the level and time that is often put into education to be "qualified" for a certain job, or career path.

To answer from my point of view the ultimate question in the title of this post. I am note so sure that it is flawed thinking as much as it is a flawed system that puts so much emphasise on a system based on such a limited representation of what intelligence really is. While not takinging into account all the aspects of intelligence within the body. The Theory of Multiple Intelligences is an interesting slant on this, Theory of multiple intelligences - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . It looks at mode different type of intelligences.

[The Unconquered]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Well, it's a matter of your own definition. I wouldn't necessarily equate prosperity with optimal survival.

For example, you could be very rich and seriously ill at the same time. Or very rich, and constantly engaging in hazardous activities (eg motor racing; unsafe sex and extreme sports) which affect your chances of survival.

This is a good point. Sometimes what people think is optimal and what is actually optimal in reality are different things. For example, in 1918 being young, strong, and healthy was actually a detriment: You either got shipped off to serve in WWI or you were more likely to die in the swine flu pandemic. So the worst thing to be in 1918 in terms of optimal survival was a young, healthy adult.

[zenrealized]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Well, it's a matter of your own definition. I wouldn't necessarily equate prosperity with optimal survival.

For example, you could be very rich and seriously ill at the same time. Or very rich, and constantly engaging in hazardous activities (eg motor racing; unsafe sex and extreme sports) which affect your chances of survival.

Being rich would be the side effect of the process not the goal. Anyone who engages in extreme sports on purpose is stupid. I might skydive a few times. I would never play football on a team with heavy contact unless I had ridiculous talent or size and could determine a reasonable chance of not getting hurt. Since this probably could never be done it's a bad sport for a smart person to play.

Basketball and baseball are a lot safer. Unsafe sex can be eliminated by testing your harem(lol). Which is what the Sultan of Brunei probably does.

Ultimate fighting is the dumbest sport on earth. Boxing is a pretty dumb sport too unless you can make a ton of money at it through outstanding talent.

In regards to being seriously ill well that's a risk that's not controllable.(this is the part where are the health people argue) I mean the ones you can't control.

Scenario planning doesn't mean you make a plan for crazy risks when you haven't made a plan for more immediate risks. It simply means you try to put yourself in a position where you eliminate chance to the highest degree possible to make its effect on you small. It's very possible you could die before you have a plan to prevent what you might have planned for later. If a meteor hits the earth right now I'm probably going to die just like the rest of the people would.

All "optimal survival" is, is a math problem. It takes the following things into consideration.

1. Probable lifespan
2. Personal talents
3. Personal interests
4. Time to learn information
5. Ability to learn information
6. Competition for success
7. Judgment

You're never going to get it perfect. If you're as talented as Micheal Jackson was then you can print money. Looking at his life it's clear that he wasn't thinking through his decisions very well.

[zenrealized]

Originally Posted by The Unconquered

This is a good point. Sometimes what people think is optimal and what is actually optimal in reality are different things. For example, in 1918 being young, strong, and healthy was actually a detriment: You either got shipped off to serve in WWI or you were more likely to die in the swine flu pandemic. So the worst thing to be in 1918 in terms of optimal survival was a young, healthy adult.

Well most people who are young were healthy. I guess you mean being a male who was young at the time. Clearly that's not something you could really control.

You could have a plan to avoid the swine flu and fight in WWI. Someone with a plan to avoid those things would be more likely to survive then someone else of the same or greater intelligence. That person might decide to figure out a way to be in the part of the world that didn't have swine flu at that time and also to serve in the military without being at risk of having to fight in combat. So then they would increase their survivial chance by strategy while other people died.

[The Unconquered]

Originally Posted by zenrealized

In regards to being seriously ill well that's a risk that's not controllable.(this is the part where are the health people argue) I mean the ones you can't control.

What is controllable? Ultimately, I mean.

[zenrealized]

Originally Posted by Gals

Really? can you cite your sources?

Why would citing sources be valuable to you? My judgment allows me to tell whether something is probably true just by its content even if the source is "credible". There are no credible sources unless what they say is credible.

[zenrealized]

Originally Posted by The Unconquered

What is controllable? Ultimately, I mean.

The only thing that is truly under your control is you. There are three categories.

Controllable
Predictable
Unable to be predicted with known information

For example I can't predict when or if Jesus will come back to earth. I can try to make a determination based on all information what my personal risk would be if it did happen. If I make a determination that I don't believe that Jesus even existed I would have no plan at all. I can't prove that my personal judgments would be accurate or not. I can only try to measure the risk of them being wrong and the benefit of them being right. This determination would guide what I would choose to do based on the "risk" of my judgment being either wrong or right. Since being wrong would have such dire consequences those types of judgments are ones that I would seriously analyze and reanalyze.

Most things are able to be predicted given enough information. Judgment is essentially trying to predict how things outside of yourself have acted, or will act based on what they are doing or have done.

[Martyn13]

Originally Posted by zenrealized

Or on a timed test why does being able to answer an identical question faster than another person make that person more intelligent? Why is time even a consideration as a basis for determining an overall IQ score?

Does a timed test that is based in minutes show a defect in thinking that someone with a high IQ might have to come to the determination that time was an important element for completion of an IQ test?

The spiritual ideal of never acting in haste, does not seem consistent with optimal IQ results.
My feeling is that Western society is nowadays obsessed with the 'time' element. Everything is a lot faster and more impatient than it used to be.
As a result, there is much stress nowadays.

People have different natural tempos - I'm sorry that I am not up to date, but when I used to watch snooker, Jimmy White was called ''whirlwind', whereas Steve Davis, played slower and more reflectively.
At that time, Steve Davis, was easily the best player.

It seems to me that IQ tests favour the 'Jimmy White' type of quick reactive personality. Even though there might be questions of a deeper nature, that Steve Davis might be able to reflect on better than Jimmy White, he might not perform as well because of the 'rush rush' element of the tests.

I think that Einstein did not have an unusually high IQ but ironically, his name is synonymous with super intelligence.
This is because he was able to reflect and analyse to a much deeper level than anyone else, but always at his own pace.
Similarly, a very slow reflective person E.g. someone with aspergers syndrome, might be able to solve programming problems better than anyone else, but to fathom out solutions at their level might take a relatively long time - definitely not conducive to performing well in IQ tests.

So yes, timed tests have been a 'hobby horse' of mine.
I'll even agree that timed tests work for most people, but for the minority, they don't work.
For example, very deep people might obtain false negative results, whereas very reactive people might get false positives - in my opinion!

[The Unconquered]

Originally Posted by zenrealized

The only thing that is truly under your control is you.

But there is only so much that I can control, even when it comes to myself.

[The Unconquered]

Originally Posted by Martyn13

Similarly, a very slow reflective person E.g. someone with aspergers syndrome, might be able to solve programming problems better than anyone else, but to fathom out solutions at their level might take a relatively long time - definitely not conducive to performing well in IQ tests.

<tangent>Many people with Asperger's can be very quick on their feet mentally.</tangent>

[zenrealized]

Originally Posted by The Unconquered

The OP is making a pretty common criticism about overvaluing IQ, although I would phrase it as "Putting too much stock in IQ tests is a sign of flawed thinking."

I'm saying that if you would or could answer questions that contribute to a high score especially on timed IQ tests that your ability to do so could be a sign that you use your information and skills in the rest of your life to learn unintelligent things. These bad choices are what allow you to answer the questions so fast. This is not always the case though as someone with super high raw brain power would be able to learn enough information in a short enough period of time to make them being able to answer the questions not a reflection of bad survival choices. They would be so intelligent that they learn everything in a fraction of the time that anyone else could.

This standard would only apply to the highest IQ scores. Generally speaking the higher the IQ score the less likely it would be true. I would hold as suspect anyone who scores in the medium range.

I would also say that anyone who scored above 130 could learn anything that someone with a higher IQ could learn and that them not scoring in the medium range of 130-160 would almost always be in their favor. Anyone above 160 might have the ability to score higher and have good knowledge selection because their limit on capacity would allow them the ability to learn everything in a reasonable time. It still doesn't mean that they will make good decisions it just means that they are likely to be able to make good decisions because they will have the information to do so, coincidently.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by zenrealized

I'm saying that if you would or could answer questions that contribute to a high score especially on timed IQ tests that your ability to do so could be a sign that you use your information and skills in the rest of your life to learn unintelligent things. These bad choices are what allow you to answer the questions so fast.

I really don't see the connection.

Unless the person is of such a personality that he repeatedly practises IQ tests so that he can get a high score ... and repeatedly spends times on other types of activities which aren't very constructive or useful (i.e activities which don't contribute to his "optimal survival").

At the same time, I would point that there must be plenty of people in the world with only average IQs who also spend a lot of time on activities that don't really contribute to their "optimal survival".

In fact, I'd say that anyone who regularly watches TV would be an example of that.

[The Unconquered]

Originally Posted by zenrealized

I'm saying that if you would or could answer questions that contribute to a high score especially on timed IQ tests that your ability to do so could be a sign that you use your information and skills in the rest of your life to learn unintelligent things. These bad choices are what allow you to answer the questions so fast. This is not always the case though as someone with super high raw brain power would be able to learn enough information in a short enough period of time to make them being able to answer the questions not a reflection of bad survival choices. They would be so intelligent that they learn everything in a fraction of the time that anyone else could.

This standard would only apply to the highest IQ scores. Generally speaking the higher the IQ score the less likely it would be true. I would hold as suspect anyone who scores in the medium range.

I would also say that anyone who scored above 130 could learn anything that someone with a higher IQ could learn and that them not scoring in the medium range of 130-160 would almost always be in their favor. Anyone above 160 might have the ability to score higher and have good knowledge selection because their limit on capacity would allow them the ability to learn everything in a reasonable time. It still doesn't mean that they will make good decisions it just means that they are likely to be able to make good decisions because they will have the information to do so, coincidently.

1) Which kind of timed IQ tests are you complaining about when it comes to learning "unintelligent things"? There are several different ones that are periodically revised.
2) I'm confused. Why do you consider 130-160 to be in the "medium" range? Scores in that range are generally considered to be in the top 2% of IQs and above. 100 is average.

[zenrealized]

Originally Posted by Martyn13

The spiritual ideal of never acting in haste, does not seem consistent with optimal IQ results.
My feeling is that Western society is nowadays obsessed with the 'time' element. Everything is a lot faster and more impatient than it used to be.
As a result, there is much stress nowadays.

People have different natural tempos - I'm sorry that I am not up to date, but when I used to watch snooker, Jimmy White was called ''whirlwind', whereas Steve Davis, played slower and more reflectively.
At that time, Steve Davis, was easily the best player.

It seems to me that IQ tests favor the 'Jimmy White' type of quick reactive personality. Even though there might be questions of a deeper nature, that Steve Davis might be able to reflect on better than Jimmy White, he might not perform as well because of the 'rush rush' element of the tests.

I think that Einstein did not have an unusually high IQ but ironically, his name is synonymous with super intelligence.
This is because he was able to reflect and Analise to a much deeper level than anyone else, but always at his own pace.
Similarly, a very slow reflective person E.g. someone with aspirer's syndrome, might be able to solve programming problems better than anyone else, but to fathom out solutions at their level might take a relatively long time - definitely not conducive to performing well in IQ tests.

So yes, timed tests have been a 'hobby horse' of mine.
I'll even agree that timed tests work for most people, but for the minority, they don't work.
For example, very deep people might obtain false negative results, whereas very reactive people might get false positives - in my opinion!

Yes this is true also. Wanting to make good decisions might be very significant in determining how IQ tests should be structured. Does the person answering the question quickly not take as much time because they don't really think about the problem? Are they just picking the correct answer faster because they make all their decisions impulsively and don't really care if the answer is right? Is that approach on an IQ test successful because nothing is at stake? Are they using a part of their brain that allows them to trick the test without understanding why the answer is right verses the other answers?

[zenrealized]

Originally Posted by The Unconquered

1) Which kind of timed IQ tests are you complaining about when it comes to learning "unintelligent things"? There are several different ones that are periodically revised.
2) I'm confused. Why do you consider 130-160 to be in the "medium" range? Scores in that range are generally considered to be in the top 2% of IQs and above. 100 is average.

I'm thinking that there have to be certain types of cutoffs. The first one is raw processing ability. Could this person ever figure out this concept or problem regardless of how much time it takes them to do it. So let's take quantum physics. Could a person with a 90 IQ understand it? If he can't understand it completely what percentage of it could he understand if he had unlimited time to learn it. If the answer is that he could never understand the most advanced concepts of it no matter what then those parts of it would mean he is truly not intelligent enough to comprehend it even if he had all of eternity to learn it.

As you go higher and higher up the chain of IQ scores the complexity and significance of the score becomes harder to quantify. Let's say everyone with an IQ test of 120 was given as much time as they needed to understand quantum physics in its entirety. What percentage if any would understand it throughly enough with unlimited time? All, none? How about what percentage of them could understand it? All, none,half? There has to be a cutoff IQ score or an approximation of that score where given enough time that person could understand 97.2 percent of the concepts of a given discipline based on their raw intelligence alone of almost any subject matter. A point where time becomes the determining factor and not the difficulty of the subject matter.

Well if the score is accurate that cutoff point would be two standard deviations from the norm on a bell chart. So I'm going to assume the cutoff for that would be 130. Where no subject would be beyond the comprehension of that person eventually.

Anything above that number would be contained in the 2.7 percent of the information that completes the third standard deviation. So those people would have the ability to understand 99.9 percent of any discipline eventually.

The fourth standard deviation would allow the person to understand almost everything eventually. Which would take them up to 160.

Anything beyond is likely to be raw increases in processing ability as evidenced by the score. The ability to score that high is likely to mean that they have the ability to process information within a discipline faster than someone else would because the DIVERSITY of the questions on the test would be less and less likely the result of knowledge bias. It doesn't mean it couldn't be true. The person would have to spend most of their time doing puzzles and practicing scoring high on IQ tests for them to trick the accuracy of the test but in reality have a lower IQ.

So what I mean by this is that it would be very difficult for a person with a "real" processing power IQ of 130 to consistently trick IQ tests unless they spent all their time doing an activity in their life that would be either really specialized or more likely pointless.

Also I think it's possible that mastering any one aptitude would allow a person to learn huge chunks of other ones. I call this concept duplicated learning. So someone who mastered chess would at the same time be learning other aptitudes that they weren't even trying to learn. It might allow them to learn 30 percent of 8 other things. Mastery itself unlocks tremendous ability. Especially mastery that can't be made faster through raw processing power but only through practice.

A master carpenter who had not taken an IQ test in awhile might score a lot higher. Some forms of mastery might actually lower an IQ score depending on the subject.

Anyway I've been on the computer too long and my brain is fried. One thing I think should happen is that all timed tests for IQ should be eliminated to really get a raw score. Even a test that was allowed to happen over a period of a couple days should be considered. Have to take all things into consideration to get accuracy. Like the persons endurance. Maybe things as simple as people just enjoying when they know they have the right answer and daydreaming about it for a minute after the question. I don't know if that is intelligent but I've personally done that when I find a question interesting I'm thinking of other parts of what I know that I can update with the information I just learned.

[vartann]

Originally Posted by zenrealized

1- To have good knowledge selection you have to be thinking strategically about how that knowledge inter-relates. Let me give you an example. Let's say someone offered to PAY ME to learn French. Putting aside the value of the money as a consideration I would say learning French would be harmful to me. French as a language is a declining language. If I calculated the odds of ever NEEDING French for anything useful I can determine that I don't need to know it in this lifetime. To me French is a useless language and there is no logical reason that I would need to know it.

2- Some people might say that a person who learned French as a second language would be more intelligent then a person of equal intelligence. He would be less intelligent because he wasted time learning something that he could have predicted was useless.

1 - mamma mia, sounds like a dissatisfied employee - you are not doing Business, are you ?. in which case i might humbly suggest you review your GeoStrategies...

2 - needs qualifying, prego: French is my first language, which obviously accounts for my being even more stupid than those who mindlessly chose it as a second language - so to you all who launched on this numbskull path and literally wasted SWATHES of time: here i am, offered as a sacrificial beast to redeem your meaningless French lessons ....


Well is ok i can cope wit that

[zenrealized]

Originally Posted by vartann

1 - mamma mia, sounds like a dissatisfied employee - you are not doing Business, are you ?. in which case i might humbly suggest you review your GeoStrategies...

2 - needs qualifying, prego: French is my first language, which obviously accounts for my being even more stupid than those who mindlessly chose it as a second language - so to you all who launched on this numbskull path and literally wasted SWATHES of time: here i am, offered as a sacrificial beast to redeem your meaningless French lessons ....


Well is ok i can cope wit that

Just you being able to write in English sort of proves what I'm saying. Your choice of that language was a really good decision. Everyone should move out of France,Germany,Russia, and a bunch of other places. English is the only language that matters now.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by zenrealized

Just you being able to write in English sort of proves what I'm saying. Your choice of that language was a really good decision. Everyone should move out of France,Germany,Russia, and a bunch of other places. English is the only language that matters now.

I'm sorry but I think that you're mistaken. I already disagreed with your French example earlier - I just didn't mention it.

No one ever NEEDS to know more than one language. You can live all your life in one country, and get on fine, if you just know the one main language of that country.

On the other hand, it can be very useful to know another language. It opens additional opportunities for you.

Here is a simple example. I work in a large corporate organisation, operating in 70 countries around this planet (in other words, it's a typical large MNC).

From time to time, specific opportunities for career advancement will come up. They will often involve relocating to another country, to take up a more senior role.

If you know an extra language, this obviously can be a major advantage. While English is the most international language, there are still many significant countries where most people do NOT speak English. In order to be able to operate effectively in those economies, you would have to know the local language.

Please note that the world's 2nd, 3rd and 4th largest economies (Japan, China and France) are all countries where little English is ever used.

[zenrealized]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I'm sorry but I think that you're mistaken. I already disagreed with your French example earlier - I just didn't mention it.

No one ever NEEDS to know more than one language. You can live all your life in one country, and get on fine, if you just know the one main language of that country.

On the other hand, it can be very useful to know another language. It opens additional opportunities for you.

Here is a simple example. I work in a large corporate organization, operating in 70 countries around this planet (in other words, it's a typical large MNC).

From time to time, specific opportunities for career advancement will come up. They will often involve relocating to another country, to take up a more senior role.

If you know an extra language, this obviously can be a major advantage. While English is the most international language, there are still many significant countries where most people do NOT speak English. In order to be able to operate effectively in those economies, you would have to know the local language.

Please note that the world's ND, RD and 4th largest economies (Japan, China and France) are all countries where little English is ever used.

Sure any information can be useful if you choose to make a suboptimal decision. That's the whole purpose of what I am writing about. Maybe needing it later is not enough of a reason to put in the time of learning it. If you read about China you'll read that many Chinese people are learning English but I doubt you'll see many Americans and Canadians and British etc learning Chinese.

Actually it might slow progress overall by learning that language by perpetuating the less used language over the more used language. Why go back wards and make communication more difficult by learning a language that the people who know it refuse to abandon. I'm sure that a lot of people know Swahili too but if that MNC gave me a prime job in Africa I probably wouldn't take it unless the pay was ridiculous enough for me to get out of there as soon as I could.

The English didn't colonize for nothing.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by zenrealized

If you read about China you'll read that many Chinese people are learning English but I doubt you'll see many Americans and Canadians and British etc learning Chinese.

Your example, at best, supports this proposition-

"If you do not know English and wish to learn a new language, then English is the best choice."

However, it does not support the following proposition:

"If you already know English, it is useless to learn any other language in the world."

[zenrealized]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Your example, at best, supports this proposition-

"If you do not know English and wish to learn a new language, then English is the best choice."

However, it does not support the following proposition:

"If you already know English, it is useless to learn any other language in the world."

It's very close to useless and possibly harmful. Maybe not at this immediate moment in time in the world. Eventually it will be true though.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by zenrealized

I'm sure that a lot of people know Swahili too but if that MNC gave me a prime job in Africa I probably wouldn't take it

Why not? The answer probably has something to do with the standard of living you expect to find in Africa.

But there are many non-English speaking countries in the world which have a very high standard of living. Japan, France and South Korea, for example.

Need I add that to enjoy the advantage of knowing a foreign language doesn't necessarily mean that you have to move to that country? For example:

1. Suppose you run an online web-based business. The fact that you know a foreign language could mean that you could provide a foreign-language version of your website. Eg if you could provide a Japanese version of your website, you immediately expand your market to include all the Japanese-speaking Internet users in the world.

2. Within your own country, you could have career opportunities as a tour guide (for non-English speaking foreigners) or as an interpretor or translator, or as an English teacher to foreigners whose language you also know.

3. Your language skills could also be important if you work for a company, in your country, where the company's HQ is in a non-English speaking country. Eg you know French and work for Carrefoure outside France; or you know Japanese and work for Toyota outside Japan. This is because chances are you'll still be interacting with many French / Japanese colleagues.

4. Your knowledge of a foreign language could also come in handy, if you work in a business which has important suppliers or customers who are overseas and use that foreign language. Eg you sell electronic goods in the USA, and the goods are manufactured in China or Korea, meaning that you often have to liaise with your Chinese / Korean suppliers.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by zenrealized

It's very close to useless and possibly harmful. Maybe not at this immediate moment in time in the world. Eventually it will be true though.

I think that your high IQ is leading to your flawed thinking.

[zenrealized]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I think that your high IQ is leading to your flawed thinking.

I didn't say usefulness in a situation where it would useful. I said VALUE when deciding to learn something in advance. If a situation came up that provided an incredible opportunity to learn specified information like the French language I would wait for that to happen because the information that is of UNIVERSAL(or close) value immediately is more important to know. If you had unlimited time then you could learn everything in any order you wanted to.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by zenrealized

If a situation came up that provided an incredible opportunity to learn specified information like the French language I would wait for that to happen because the information that is of UNIVERSAL(or close) value immediately is more important to know.

Then your comments about learning French must be seen in their correct context - that is to say, your own specific life situation.

For other people, knowing French (or Mandarin, or German, or whatever) may well open up new, immediate and important opportunities.

[zenrealized]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Then your comments about learning French must be seen in their correct context - that is to say, your own specific life situation.

For other people, knowing French (or Mandarin, or German, or whatever) may well open up new, immediate and important opportunities.

Yes if they have immediate or close to immediate opportunities then yes learning the French language would be a valuable decision for them. Clearly every example will have an exception somewhere in the world. I still think on a global level that it is inefficient to perpetuate non universal languages because it puts the lesser used language in the driver seat of importance.

It also comes across like I am some robot that only learns the most efficient thing in order when the reality is not true. I don't take the concept to such an extreme point but I do avoid certain subjects.

Anyway to all the people learning French right now, I wish you all good luck lol. Merci beau coup!