clever because they can learn to be kind but if they are a dummy they can't learn to be clever
@chessfan124 said in #31:
> clever because they can learn to be kind but if they are a dummy they can't learn to be clever
So, if its logical to be kind, then kindness can be learned from someone who is logical - this makes sense. So, an already good chess player might figure out that to get a game of chess going, in the real world, s/he should be kind first, which gets him or her more chess games he or she already loves!
However, if its kind to be logical, then a kind person can take an interest in something logical, and perhaps, even learn to be good at that chess game. Do kind people ever take an interest in learning the game, even if they won't likely make grandmaster on up in their lifetime? Certainly!
> clever because they can learn to be kind but if they are a dummy they can't learn to be clever
So, if its logical to be kind, then kindness can be learned from someone who is logical - this makes sense. So, an already good chess player might figure out that to get a game of chess going, in the real world, s/he should be kind first, which gets him or her more chess games he or she already loves!
However, if its kind to be logical, then a kind person can take an interest in something logical, and perhaps, even learn to be good at that chess game. Do kind people ever take an interest in learning the game, even if they won't likely make grandmaster on up in their lifetime? Certainly!
clever
If she/he is clever, s/he will also be kind...most likely
If she/he is clever, s/he will also be kind...most likely
@Livenuse said in #33:
> clever
> If she/he is clever, s/he will also be kind...most likely
I agree with you, mostly, and that can be (or represent)
the varsity chess team!
If she/he is definitely kind, s/he will also be clever... most likely, due to the friends he or she has on the chess team! (Not varsity level).
Now, from what I hear, generally, is that people respect talent. They respect elon musk (brains) over the Nobel peace prize winner! (Kindness). Someone please correct me, if they disagree with this notion I am putting forth.
> clever
> If she/he is clever, s/he will also be kind...most likely
I agree with you, mostly, and that can be (or represent)
the varsity chess team!
If she/he is definitely kind, s/he will also be clever... most likely, due to the friends he or she has on the chess team! (Not varsity level).
Now, from what I hear, generally, is that people respect talent. They respect elon musk (brains) over the Nobel peace prize winner! (Kindness). Someone please correct me, if they disagree with this notion I am putting forth.
@Approximation
I mean that a smart person realizes better and sooner that it is better to be kind and forgiving to others. Even if his nature is not kind, being smart helps him become a better person. While the opposite is not true.
Of course, it is clear that everyone wants to be clever and kind at the same time. If I had to choose, I would choose clever. For the reason I said
I mean that a smart person realizes better and sooner that it is better to be kind and forgiving to others. Even if his nature is not kind, being smart helps him become a better person. While the opposite is not true.
Of course, it is clear that everyone wants to be clever and kind at the same time. If I had to choose, I would choose clever. For the reason I said
Kind.
If they're clever, it would be harder to steal candy from them.
If they're clever, it would be harder to steal candy from them.
@Livenuse said in #35:
> @Approximation
> I mean that a smart person realizes better and sooner that it is better to be kind and forgiving to others. Even if his nature is not kind, being smart helps him become a better person. While the opposite is not true.
> Of course, it is clear that everyone wants to be clever and kind at the same time. If I had to choose, I would choose clever. For the reason I said
I'm going to reveal something about myself. I never was a straight A student, but I respected learning. I dont have any college degrees, but I did give it the college try. I'll never be a grandmaster at chess or higher, probably. And, do you know what? I'm ok with this. I know I value human kindness, even though I'm not a genius. Now, Would I give up my kindness to prospectively be a mad genius at something? Hell no. Reason: that's too big of a tradeoff to make. I know that being a good person is worth more than having to learn kindness from making a huge mistake, criminally. Crisis management is mismanagement! And some people have regrets they can't live with, as brilliant or as clever as they are, where they fought the law and the law won.
> @Approximation
> I mean that a smart person realizes better and sooner that it is better to be kind and forgiving to others. Even if his nature is not kind, being smart helps him become a better person. While the opposite is not true.
> Of course, it is clear that everyone wants to be clever and kind at the same time. If I had to choose, I would choose clever. For the reason I said
I'm going to reveal something about myself. I never was a straight A student, but I respected learning. I dont have any college degrees, but I did give it the college try. I'll never be a grandmaster at chess or higher, probably. And, do you know what? I'm ok with this. I know I value human kindness, even though I'm not a genius. Now, Would I give up my kindness to prospectively be a mad genius at something? Hell no. Reason: that's too big of a tradeoff to make. I know that being a good person is worth more than having to learn kindness from making a huge mistake, criminally. Crisis management is mismanagement! And some people have regrets they can't live with, as brilliant or as clever as they are, where they fought the law and the law won.
@Approximation said in #37:
> I'm going to reveal something about myself. I never was a straight A student, but I respected learning. I dont have any college degrees, but I did give it the college try. I'll never be a grandmaster at chess or higher, probably. And, do you know what? I'm ok with this. I know I value human kindness, even though I'm not a genius. Now, Would I give up my kindness to prospectively be a mad genius at something? Hell no. Reason: that's too big of a tradeoff to make. I know that being a good person is worth more than having to learn kindness from making a huge mistake, criminally. Crisis management is mismanagement! And some people have regrets they can't live with, as brilliant or as clever as they are, where they fought the law and the law won.
This revelation is admirable.
I also agree with you about most of what you said and especially the value you have for humanity by nature - and not because of failure and mistakes. Also because this is your choice and not unquestioningly following the opinions of others.
I was in university most of my life. I chose this. It can become a good or bad tool in life.
Not all geniuses are crazy and dangerous. In fact, if they were not there, God knows that human civilization would be several centuries or millennia behind than it is now.
> I'm going to reveal something about myself. I never was a straight A student, but I respected learning. I dont have any college degrees, but I did give it the college try. I'll never be a grandmaster at chess or higher, probably. And, do you know what? I'm ok with this. I know I value human kindness, even though I'm not a genius. Now, Would I give up my kindness to prospectively be a mad genius at something? Hell no. Reason: that's too big of a tradeoff to make. I know that being a good person is worth more than having to learn kindness from making a huge mistake, criminally. Crisis management is mismanagement! And some people have regrets they can't live with, as brilliant or as clever as they are, where they fought the law and the law won.
This revelation is admirable.
I also agree with you about most of what you said and especially the value you have for humanity by nature - and not because of failure and mistakes. Also because this is your choice and not unquestioningly following the opinions of others.
I was in university most of my life. I chose this. It can become a good or bad tool in life.
Not all geniuses are crazy and dangerous. In fact, if they were not there, God knows that human civilization would be several centuries or millennia behind than it is now.
@Livenuse said in #38:
> This revelation is admirable.
> I also agree with you about most of what you said and especially the value you have for humanity by nature - and not because of failure and mistakes. Also because this is your choice and not unquestioningly following the opinions of others.
> I was in university most of my life. I chose this. It can become a good or bad tool in life.
> Not all geniuses are crazy and dangerous. In fact, if they were not there, God knows that human civilization would be several centuries or millennia behind than it is now.
If we graph the commandments of a loving God, people follow on the y axis, based on % human nature. If we graph time on the x axis. If we graph technological progress on the z axis (which magnifies % human nature)... then we realize that the y axis variable needs to progress more godly than the progress made on the z axis, because are people ready to understand guns and the 2nd ammendment, for example, magnifying human nature, or do we need better people first, so that we can trust people with guns? Humanity's development of technology faster than morals can be a problem down the road, for genius humans, lacking maturity, being capable of not just a school shooting, but a Hiroshima nuclear blast! (That's the future of collateral damage, if humans develop technology access faster than morality access, I think)
> This revelation is admirable.
> I also agree with you about most of what you said and especially the value you have for humanity by nature - and not because of failure and mistakes. Also because this is your choice and not unquestioningly following the opinions of others.
> I was in university most of my life. I chose this. It can become a good or bad tool in life.
> Not all geniuses are crazy and dangerous. In fact, if they were not there, God knows that human civilization would be several centuries or millennia behind than it is now.
If we graph the commandments of a loving God, people follow on the y axis, based on % human nature. If we graph time on the x axis. If we graph technological progress on the z axis (which magnifies % human nature)... then we realize that the y axis variable needs to progress more godly than the progress made on the z axis, because are people ready to understand guns and the 2nd ammendment, for example, magnifying human nature, or do we need better people first, so that we can trust people with guns? Humanity's development of technology faster than morals can be a problem down the road, for genius humans, lacking maturity, being capable of not just a school shooting, but a Hiroshima nuclear blast! (That's the future of collateral damage, if humans develop technology access faster than morality access, I think)
@Approximation said in #39:
> If we graph the commandments of a loving God, people follow on the y axis, based on % human nature. If we graph time on the x axis. If we graph technological progress on the z axis (which magnifies % human nature)... then we realize that the y axis variable needs to progress more godly than the progress made on the z axis, because are people ready to understand guns and the 2nd ammendment, for example, magnifying human nature, or do we need better people first, so that we can trust people with guns? Humanity's development of technology faster than morals can be a problem down the road, for genius humans, lacking maturity, being capable of not just a school shooting, but a Hiroshima nuclear blast! (That's the future of collateral damage, if humans develop technology access faster than morality access, I think)
Completely agree. There are serious concerns about ethics. (However, I myself have a major problem in this field, that is, in my redmark account, and I am deeply sorry for it and apologize to everyone again).
The world is in chaos. Some people kill innocent people in the name of God, and some people seem to have no problems and enemies except God.
> If we graph the commandments of a loving God, people follow on the y axis, based on % human nature. If we graph time on the x axis. If we graph technological progress on the z axis (which magnifies % human nature)... then we realize that the y axis variable needs to progress more godly than the progress made on the z axis, because are people ready to understand guns and the 2nd ammendment, for example, magnifying human nature, or do we need better people first, so that we can trust people with guns? Humanity's development of technology faster than morals can be a problem down the road, for genius humans, lacking maturity, being capable of not just a school shooting, but a Hiroshima nuclear blast! (That's the future of collateral damage, if humans develop technology access faster than morality access, I think)
Completely agree. There are serious concerns about ethics. (However, I myself have a major problem in this field, that is, in my redmark account, and I am deeply sorry for it and apologize to everyone again).
The world is in chaos. Some people kill innocent people in the name of God, and some people seem to have no problems and enemies except God.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.