General Knowledge

It seems like there is no longer any respect for what I would call general knowledge anymore. Certainly no one memorizes anything - that's what mobiles and Google are for - but really, there are a few things that we ought to know at all times. Scholars used to be responsible for many, many languages: Greek, Latin, French, German and English, to name a few. Nowadays, of course, no Asian language would be a poor move, either, since that part of the world is the strongest.
When I taught summer school, I was appalled to learn that none of my students knew the following dates: Caesar's invasion of Gaul, Constantine's embrace of Christianity, the fall of Rome, the Norman invasion, the signing of the Magna Carta, COLUMBUS'S landing in the Americas, Napoleon's defeat, the Civil War, and World Wars one and two. I mean, for Christ's sake, people. They, of course, aren't scholars. But they are people who have conversations, and these dates serve as benchmarks when navigating history. If you wish to know something about a Roman, it would be beneficial to know whether he lived under the Kings, the Republic, the Empire, or after the fall, all of which can be revealed to you immediately with the knowledge of his lifetime. If we take someone like Boethius, who lived c. 480-525, we understand immediately that his life must have been fraught with uncertainty, because the Visigoths razed Rome when he was only a teenager. We should all have this sort of ammunition, carried around with us at all times.
A professor I respect, almost above all others, told me about a time she tried to teach her freshmen students about mythology. They all replied, 'We did this in High School', but failed to answer even the simplest of questions: who was Persephone? who was Zeus? who were Thor and Odin? what are the Halls of Dys, and what have they to do with Demeter? We seem to study only to forget. How many of us learned those pesky verb endings for French or Spanish immediately before a quiz, and now we can't remember whether present tense of a first person -ir verb is -is or issis?
Some information is practically made for reference and not memorisation: does the Miller's Tale directly follow the Knight's Tale, or is the Franklin's Tale between them? I would not expect any non-English major to know this (nor would I expect to be held responsible for the shape of pi-bonds in an sp2 orbital), but everyone could do with remembering that Chaucer's pilgrims are headed to Canterbury to pay homage to Thomas Becket. Knowledge makes a lot of life easier, and it allows us to raise our conversations above the banal. It would make life like a class in which everyone has done his homework: we don't need to establish the base every time we approach a subject. If we're talking about Galileo, we should KNOW what Copernicus has already contributed and what Ptolemy has argued.
This is probably the biggest lamentation I have, is that the acquisition of knowledge is difficult, very difficult. It comes easier to some, but most of us have to work very hard to acquire it. For that reason, we tend to become lazy. We read 'A Christmas Carol' when we should have read 'David Copperfield'. We learn some French or Spanish when we should be learning Latin. We learn about Madrid's 'culture' when we should be reading 'Don Quixote'. Americans are the best when it comes to sidestepping actual work.
The problem, of course, is that we become ill-informed. We may never know how much America is hated if we only watch FOX news. We may never understand evolution if we don't try to learn what it really is. And we will be forever foreigners if we don't start learning some other languages -- we will even be foreigners in our own country soon if we do not know Spanish. Why do we stop the immigrants from coming into the US? Why do we try to censor the radio and TV, and ban video games? Make no mistake, it is laziness.
We don't want our cushy jobs taken and we don't want to have to learn aNOTHER language (one is enough, right?). We would hate to have to raise our children ourselves and actually teach them right from wrong ourselves, so we'll just make sure NO ONE can listen to eminem or play GTA. The fact is, many of us grow up with these things (myself included), and we listen to eminem and Dre and play GTA and Halo, and we still know right from wrong. My parents raised me, as many parents do, to know good from bad regardless of what I see or hear.
I want to make an argument against authoritative rule (raising your children kind of rule), something about how religion reinforces one's dependence on authority, and so those whose parents say (ridiculous) things like "my country, right or wrong" begin to stop questioning someone who, say, invades a country on totally false pretenses. But I don't feel like making that argument, though I feel it is accurate.
Lazy ass Americans. God forbid we have to earn our keep and compete with others.

Why be smart?

While it is understandable that intelligence may assist those seeking advancement in society, brilliance may perhaps be a hinderence. In my case, and that of those with whom I conspire, being smarter is accompanied by a different understanding of the world. I say different instead of better because the understanding is more objective than that of lay people--not specifically better. This perspective of the world is filtered through an eye of equations and empirical observations. Thus, through the objective eye, everything is abstracted from its context and true meaning. A leaf no longer represents a beautiful appendage of a tree, but a collection of cells with the primary purpose of transforming energy. While energy transfer is the leaf's purpose, there is much more to it than that. The best way to demonstrate this is through a quote by John Sanbonmatsu. He would say, "If I were to describe someone to you--say for a blind date, I would not begin by describing that they have two kidneys, about nine feet of lower intestine, and a brain. Furthermore, I would not use even more specific details, perhaps a measure that is perfectly unique to them and identifies them specifically. No, you begin by describing what the person is like, what they have done. It is not mere physical being that makes a thing, it is the experiences of that thing." In the empirical understanding of the leaf, there is no room for a story about how it was the first to grow to its full size in the spring, or that that particular leaf is the favorite of a bird that lives in a nest just a few feet away. Perhaps that is a bit too much anthropomorphism, but the point is still there. Such perspectives make sense when considering Descartes's ideas regarding separation of body and mind. It is from Descartes's objective observation that the scientific method was derived. Questioning the validity of my perspective in the first place is a product of his writings.
Moving on, it is not clear yet if this perspective is limited to the intelligent. The primary argument for this is that most people do not consider such subtitles as non-ideal behavior of solutions--even when they encounter such solutions constantly. This disregard or perhaps ignorance can be extended to nearly any topic of chemistry or physics or biology or any other science. So then it is through a vivid understanding of quantized physical processes that I am distanced from my world. It follows then that those who are not familiar with the knowledge of the subtle workings of processes are not distanced from nature. This is not to say that they are unintelligent, but merely ignorant.
Marx would make a contrary argument, attributing this estrangement from nature to our economic structure. Working estranges the worker from everything around him, and himself. This is done, according to Marx, because the product of labor is not the possession of the laborer. One who is working puts oneself into a product which is only to be taken away, taking away oneself as well. When labor becomes necessary for survival (as it is in contemporary society), the natural need for survival is supplanted by labor, and thus labor becomes natural and that which was previously natural (eating, drinking, sleeping) becomes animal. It is thus through labor that we are disconnected from the world. Clearly, this does not apply only to those who look at the world through an empirical lens. Under Marx's argument, all members of Contemporary American Society are disconnected from the true function and true reality of all that surrounds us.
How can this disconnection be overcome? According to Marx, the estrangement as a product of labor is a natural step in the transition to communism. Thus, he (as no doubt Hegel would too) would argue that it will subside with the progression of time Perhaps even by merely recognizing it one can transcend the confines of this mind state (a very Buddhist idea). These two ideas seem that they could work for disconnection via labor, but how does one overcome disconnect rooted in intelligence or, more accurately, understanding. Does gaining knowledge of the fact that there is more to something that what can be measured constitute an escape from an empirical analysis? Can this problem, as many philosophers would argue, be solved through philosophy, by merely considering what could be behind the numbers? More importantly than these two questions, does one who lacks understanding have a more intimate connection with the truth of everything they see? This last question becomes even more important when one considers that a Cartesian perspective is rooted in human observation. With this in mind, one can conclude that those who are better versed in empirical knowledge gain a more human understanding of the world. Therefor, a less empirical and more intimate understanding must be closer to what the true or pure relationship is intended to be. At any rate, I must end my post here (though still incomplete).

MENSA, high-IQ, low-functioning

Why would someone with an IQ of 150 or higher, mine being 149, of course, have problems functioning in society?