Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MarineHawk
I agree, though I'm increasingly of the opinon that intelligence and emotional competence are completely unrelated. I think idealists are ignorant inasmuch as they skip the second of the two basic steps in analyzing things: (1) identifying an applicable theory; and (2) assessing its value by applying it pragmatically to real circumstances. For idealists (often liberals), the theory is the end unto itself. They completely skip any rigorous application of step 2. How many times in college did I hear the mindless regurgitation of such preposterous statements as (1) "In theory, communism is the ideal governmental system"; and (2) "It is better that 10,000 criminals go free than one innocent person be imprisoned." Number 1 is wrong, because the theory only works with machine-like being who do not have emotions or the need to continuing economic incentives. It does not, however, work with human beings. A social theory that does not work with humans has no value at all. Number 2 is ridiculous because 10,000 violent criminals going free would cause suffering and death by innocent people on a scale incomparable to one innocent person's regretable loss of freedom.
|
Yes, yes. It would seem there's a point where intelligence and emotional competence completely diverge as each grows. With rarity, the intelligent MAY separate themselves and be able to see the virtue of applying the theory in a manner completely separate of their self in a way to determine it's further meaning. Not just look at the beginning and end of a line but each point in between and to help those points align themselve to populate the theory to fruition. That intelligent person is a leader of a different sort. To achieve the greater good for the all without serving his own is the sign of a true leader.