we would like to think of ourselves as sophisticated man future civilization, modern man. so much more wise than our prehistoric counterparts. better, smarter, stronger! more rational and righteous! I am laughing! ha! man o war! you cant possibly think that today modern man is more civilized by killing innocent people, stealing, raping, murdering, tricking, fooling, outlawing, outlining how others are to behave. is bin laden dead, did he even exist? did you have to destroy the relics in possibly the most important library museum in the world? our library all of us? I suppose it must have done something wrong, perhaps pissed you off. or did you steal from it by killing children mothers and innocent people who have nothing to do with your war your theft your murderous rampage. how would you like to put your children to bed while bombs explode in your back yard and strangers with guns control your life trying to make you a person your are not, telling you what religion you will be, what you should believe or die? a child afraid every day of his life because you think war is doing something else besides killing the innocent. if this is the modern man, you are no smarter than a ravenous monkey! war is the making of a devil who is calling themselves government picking fights and sacrafices while counting out your stolen bankroll sipping tea laughing while someone else is fooled into thinking that war is the right thing to do and then dieing! oh primitive man you are nothing more than that!
Modern man thinks that technology maketh the man but where that technology came from in the first place is up for scrutiny in my eyes, so egos are ignored here - homosapiens seem to have a long way to go before they can deem themselves civilised…
Our general lvl of intellect, knowledge, rationallity and logic …etc, has increased, though the basic human nature still presist.
Even very retarded people have knowledge of the periodic table, where where even very intelligent people in ancient time would only know of 4 elements.
We know of astronomy, metallugy, math, writing skills, economy, history, forigen cultures, engineering, psycology, ethics, moral, technology, biology …etc …etc, ancient man didn’t have a damn clue about all these things which we take for granted.
Yes, it does! That’s the problem! Now that nature has an almost unlimited arsenal to do it’s bidding, and some of that goes against man and aims at his destruction. It’s like giving an atomic bomb to a child…
I personally think that we are looking at human evolution too linear. They say that people use about 10 % of their brain capacity - evolutionary - that doesn’t make any sence: there shouldn’t be any surplus since the brain was created and evolved through natural selection, by favourising favourable traits and eliminating anything that doesn’t aid survival. My theory is that in the past our ancestors were much more intelligent than modern scholars give them credit. It peaked right before the dawn of civilisation, and afterwards continued to slowly decline. It would account for Stonehenge, pyramids (including ,presumably, the one here in Bosnia) and all the other stuff that we can’t figure out how and when they were made… So far we’ve been propelled forward by the momentum from our predecessors, but i don’t expect it to last - just consider what is today “natural selection”…
Honestly I do indeed think we only use 10%, look at the super savants, those kinds of savants with no down sides to their massive intellect they don’t seem to meet a capacaty barrier.
The 10% was disproved years ago. A normal, un-damaged human brain functions at full capacity all the time.
The myth started (supposedly) when scientists told a newspaper reporter that with current technology only 10% of the neurons appeared to be firing at any time.
He simply misinterpreted it and it stuck.
As far as modern and primitive, they are opinions. and if only age decides, everything will be primitive to the next ones
That might be very true, but still I belive the capacity itself is very inefficient, and we can indeed learn to improve the efficientcy.
No down sides to their massive intellect? I don’t understand.
I suppose we disagree on what an “intellect” refers to.
Savant origin from the french word “retarded genious” …google it.
Sheesh, I wouldn’t have replied if I didn’t know what a “savant” is. Give me more credit than that. Not to be too tedious, but “savant” would be translated as learned, or knowledgeable, not (a)genius.
However, just because savant would be translated as “knowledgeable”, doesn’t mean it would be accurate to describe the people we call savants “knowledgeable”, in the sense the adjective is usually used to describe a person. “Knowledgeable idiot” was a term to describe mentally retarded people who, despite their condition, “knew” (“had knowledge of”) things that—at a time where there was a relatively clear and dramatic line between (the behaviors and abilities of) the “uneducated” and (those of) the "educated—only a “knowledgeable/learned” person would be expected to know (or be able to do).
I wouldn’t call savantism a demonstration of a massive intellect (without downsides), simply because I think intelligence (I’ll use this in place of an “intellect”… of high quality, exceptional ability, however one may put it) is what is lacking in savants–by the definition; “idiot savant”, or “savant”, has meaning as an exceptional skill, or ability, occurring ALONGSIDE a significant lack of intelligence.
I don’t think savants possess a kind of “intelligence” that most of us aren’t tapped into. In fact, I recall reading about studies where… I think it was low frequency waves, were emitted to the left side of “normal” people’s heads, deactivating significant parts of the brain (notably involving language), and as a result people exhibited a kind of “savant effect”, where they became dramatically more skilled at certain tasks common in savants. Many think that this “potential” is, in a sense, “in our brains” (for example, that our brains do, as certain points,… “contain data” of extremely detailed and thorough memories), but it is “lost” through several functions/processes that “normal” people’s brains do that results in the minimum level of “intelligence” distinguishing a “not mentally retarded” person from a mentally retarded person.
@ matthatter
There isn’t just 1 kind of savant with 1 kind of intellect, but a wide multitude of kinds. Some are low stimulated, others are high stimulated some are super savants with no downsides to their immense genious.
Some are number savants, others are music savants, it can be ability to draw a whole city with just 1 look …there are no real limitations.
We’ll have to agree to disagree, then.
I don’t know what “super savants” with no downsides to their “immense genius” you refer to. I am interested in whatever sources you may provide.
This simply seems to be a matter of you and I having/using conflicting meanings of (the words) “intelligence”, and “genius”. It’s not that I think there is just “1 kind of savant”, it’s not that I don’t know of how much variation there is, it’s that I don’t categorize the results as “works” (or reflections, or demonstrations, etc.) of great intelligence, or of genius.
I’ve seen a video of the guy who flies over a city in a helicopter and then draws it afterwards. I don’t consider that “genius”.
You say “there are no limitations”, but the definition of savantism very clearly includes developmental disorders. I think it’s worth considering why the most extraordinary savant “skills” are accompanied by obvious severe “limitations” to what we would expect of a person “Using his head”.
There are 7-9 main intellects, where you can be retarded, idiot, normal, genious and savant …roughly speaking in neurology.
Dude, it’s been like 15 years since I’v studied it, so I don’t have any ready sources to give, so all I can offer is google.
It’s a shame for weaklings that civilization itself requires the cutting away and destruction of weeds in order to make an attractive garden; that the very protective environment they seek where all kinds of genetic mutations and mental deficiencies can be sheltered is one that protects them from the consequences of their own natures. Hence, the problem today is that we are over-civilized, we see the proof of this all around us and enshrined in such corrupting values as ‘rights’ which are extended to all kinds of minority groups that would otherwise be rendered powerless or physically extinguished.
We are always in a state of war. Someone is always trying to impose his will on another. Even in times of “peace” there will always be someone out there trying to get a bigger piece of the pie, have the most influence, be the leader. That’s just how it is (blame it on evolutionary process if you want). The means of asserting influence might be varied, but the underlying process is the same; your autonomy is always challenged by another’s will, even if subtly, if you’re not willing to stand up and defend yourself you’ll end up under someone else’s control.
But we do not “know” that we are children of the earth and that we are children of the sun. As is the tree as is the fish as is the bear. They are our brothers. The sun is the force and the earth is the nurture. “Primitive” man saw this fact. Modern man is the owner, the disposer not related to the bee or the mountains. Technology made man turn his back on his family.
Seriously? Jesus H. Christ.
sa-vant : (noun) : a person of learning; especially : one with detailed knowledge in some specialized field (as of science or literature)
Nowhere in there does it say anything about “retarded genius”.
etymology – French, from Middle French, from present participle of savoir to know, from Latin sapere to be wise — more at sage
First Known Use: 1719
“Savant” in no way means “retarded genius”, you fucking brilliant person.
What kind of nonsens is this? How are we children of planets, and how are some silly things in nature our brothers?
…get u’r head straight?
He’s basically saying that “primitive” peoples like Native Americans and Pagans and 1st Nations were closer to nature and viewed themselves as parts of nature rather than “modern” man which views itself as the owner of nature.
That current society makes us cruel to nature and we abuse it for wealth.
Delivery was unclear, this is a perfect example of why i hate it when people try to be deep and don’t just say things clearly.
People in primitive cultures are in “harmony” with nature, because they don’t know better, because they don’t have the needs of exploiting nature, nor can exploit nature as they simply doesn’t have the technology nor knowledge to do so.
In western countries we have a preservative list for endangerd animal and plant species, also laws for animal humanity and handling.
So in short, I don’t really see your persepctive of the mattter.