amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Conclusions:
Let us do Intelligence Quotient first off, in a rather offhand manner; you can do your own search for statistics.
Average IQ is about 115; give or take?
You do know the ‘bell curve’ theory? Good.
Some broad assumptions and generalities here, (I am famous for those, but they do serve a purpose, mundane though it may seem to you.)
Below the average IQ, 115 and under, is not educable in the broad sense, University and all that, you know; the finer things of life.
So, that leaves about half of us, those over 115, to run things, to manage things, to carry on that past that brought us where we are. (wherever that may be)
Of that half left, one could broadly surmise that half of those, (approximately) are male, and half are female. Any problems yet?
Discounting the ‘cows’ and the cheerleaders, I project that about ten percent, one in ten, of the females, are capable of rational thought. Problems there? (I may be generous with ten percent)
Of the males, I suggest that perhaps twenty percent are capable of rational thought, merely from biological considerations, hysteria and all that…(I may be benerous there, also.)
Well…do the math, in an approximate manner of course, half of all, then 10 percent of those and 20 percent of those and the number of rational minds dwindles somewhat.
Consider also the aberrations of narcissistic behavior, psychotic self involvement, about gender equal I propose. Consider also the fixations on addictions, drug and sexual and of course the usual one to three percent of the criminally inclined to whom ethics and morality do not exist…
What are we left with, in terms of percentages and then of numbers, in a functional social setting of those who are capable and willing to see beyond the present, to acknowledge the past and adhere to a rational pattern of behavior?
No, you can’t ‘nail’ me anywhere in that. But continued observations of human interactions, in various settings over a lengthy period of time, have convinced me to conclude that the future of mankind has always been precariously placed in the hands of a very few.
Somewhere above, I should have emphasized the detraction of the ‘believers’, the religious, the cults, the Masons, the Unions, the Democrats, the Republicans, the Liberals, the Conservatives, the right, the left, all the ‘believers’ and ‘followers’, like bureaucrats, who function without thinking. They further reduce the gene pool of ‘possible’ rational thinkers.
I do not, by this, demean the peasants, who live and love and procreate, and should, by all means, multiply and prosper; not at all; good all over them.
I do question what appears to me, after long consideration, to be a gradual demise of those who stand above the fray and peruse existence with a clear eye.
Although the general mathematical enlightenment of humanity rises and falls with alarming regularity, the general trend is upward, but not guaranteed, I think.
Many claim that ‘there is nothing new under the sun’. I think since the industrial revolution, in the mid 19th century, mankind has set off on a new course in which ‘everything’ is new and never before experienced.
I think this ‘rant’ originated with an idea for a new novel. A story line wherein the H5N1 virus decimated the population to less than half of what it is, along with a solar flare, or ‘storm’, that destroyed mankind’s ability to generate electricity, (also killed all the satellites and the internet) (entirely possible); and that ‘global warming’ (from natural ‘cyclical’) causes, that generated tropical cyclones (hurricanes) and sea level increases that inundated coastal cities world wide, which, combined, basically brought the world to a halt.
My ‘novel’ begins, three hundred years after all this occurs, not quite in the year ‘2525’, but close enough.
Anyway….
Amicus…
Let us do Intelligence Quotient first off, in a rather offhand manner; you can do your own search for statistics.
Average IQ is about 115; give or take?
You do know the ‘bell curve’ theory? Good.
Some broad assumptions and generalities here, (I am famous for those, but they do serve a purpose, mundane though it may seem to you.)
Below the average IQ, 115 and under, is not educable in the broad sense, University and all that, you know; the finer things of life.
So, that leaves about half of us, those over 115, to run things, to manage things, to carry on that past that brought us where we are. (wherever that may be)
Of that half left, one could broadly surmise that half of those, (approximately) are male, and half are female. Any problems yet?
Discounting the ‘cows’ and the cheerleaders, I project that about ten percent, one in ten, of the females, are capable of rational thought. Problems there? (I may be generous with ten percent)
Of the males, I suggest that perhaps twenty percent are capable of rational thought, merely from biological considerations, hysteria and all that…(I may be benerous there, also.)
Well…do the math, in an approximate manner of course, half of all, then 10 percent of those and 20 percent of those and the number of rational minds dwindles somewhat.
Consider also the aberrations of narcissistic behavior, psychotic self involvement, about gender equal I propose. Consider also the fixations on addictions, drug and sexual and of course the usual one to three percent of the criminally inclined to whom ethics and morality do not exist…
What are we left with, in terms of percentages and then of numbers, in a functional social setting of those who are capable and willing to see beyond the present, to acknowledge the past and adhere to a rational pattern of behavior?
No, you can’t ‘nail’ me anywhere in that. But continued observations of human interactions, in various settings over a lengthy period of time, have convinced me to conclude that the future of mankind has always been precariously placed in the hands of a very few.
Somewhere above, I should have emphasized the detraction of the ‘believers’, the religious, the cults, the Masons, the Unions, the Democrats, the Republicans, the Liberals, the Conservatives, the right, the left, all the ‘believers’ and ‘followers’, like bureaucrats, who function without thinking. They further reduce the gene pool of ‘possible’ rational thinkers.
I do not, by this, demean the peasants, who live and love and procreate, and should, by all means, multiply and prosper; not at all; good all over them.
I do question what appears to me, after long consideration, to be a gradual demise of those who stand above the fray and peruse existence with a clear eye.
Although the general mathematical enlightenment of humanity rises and falls with alarming regularity, the general trend is upward, but not guaranteed, I think.
Many claim that ‘there is nothing new under the sun’. I think since the industrial revolution, in the mid 19th century, mankind has set off on a new course in which ‘everything’ is new and never before experienced.
I think this ‘rant’ originated with an idea for a new novel. A story line wherein the H5N1 virus decimated the population to less than half of what it is, along with a solar flare, or ‘storm’, that destroyed mankind’s ability to generate electricity, (also killed all the satellites and the internet) (entirely possible); and that ‘global warming’ (from natural ‘cyclical’) causes, that generated tropical cyclones (hurricanes) and sea level increases that inundated coastal cities world wide, which, combined, basically brought the world to a halt.
My ‘novel’ begins, three hundred years after all this occurs, not quite in the year ‘2525’, but close enough.
Anyway….
Amicus…
you gauche, you've put what I was driving at in terms that amicus might just get -anything I could think of was bound to leave him wonderfully underwhelmed.
