“The foregoing intelligent individuals were responsible for enormous social costs.”

Only because they could out think the stupid individuals; otherwise the “stupid” would have been responsible for even greater social costs.

What is the difference between a smart man and a stupid one?

A smart man can tie his own shoe laces, a stupid one needs to impose upon me to tie them for him.

And stupid folk would be less likely to invent the slip-on shoe.

Dear David f,

Let me clarify my argument further: Ultimately, the prospects for peace depend on the collective action of ordinary people. This may seem paradoxical at first, for individuals often feel powerless in the face of distant governments and mighty arsenals. Yet if sociology has a central lesson, it is that societies, together with all the social institutions and social behaviour they contain, are continuously created and re-created by the acts of countless individuals, whether these individuals realize their role in the grand sweep of history or not.

If a modern society goes to war, it is not just because the leaders have opted for war, but because the people have implicitly or explicitly done so also - or at least, they have not opted for peace.

A striking example of collective action to stop war occurred during the 1960s, when the United States became embroiled in the longest and most humiliating military conflict in its history. The Vietnam war came to an end largely as a result of the antiwar movement, a social movement that consisted disproportionately of young people, including many college students.

When the antiwar movement first challenged the war, it received little support from politicians or the press, and its goals seemed almost hopeless. But the tide of public opinion gradually began to shift. In the 1968 presidential primaries, an antiwar candidate backed by student volunteers did unexpectantly well and President Johnson decided not to run for re-election. From that point on, political debate on war focused not on how to stay in it, but on how to get out of it. Similar to what is happening in America today - regarding the war in Iraq.

Through collective action, ordinary people with few resources other than their own determination had changed a national consensus of war to a national consensus for peace.

A fundamental insight of sociology as I've stated previously, is that once people no longer take their world for granted, but instead understand the social authorship of their lives and futures, they can become an irresistible force in history.

Lets get some facts straight - Darwin had nothing to do with genetics, that was Gregor Johann Mendel, Darwin observed what he saw, so did Mendel.

These guys were not necessarily "intelligent" they were seekers of truth.

There are modern day seekers of truth in many fields today, some making discoveries more important than all the smarty pants mentioned in prior posts.

If you don't like it tough luck it is not going to stop. Or maybe you think Pol Pot was correct.

david f sorry you are wrong, a slower pace of seeking the truth would have resulted in social misery.

"The forces unleashed by the intelligence of Einstein, Newton and Darwin are destroying us because we cannot handle them. Would we better off if those outstanding individuals had not existed."

I have great trouble understang all this

like "Mr Archemedes get back in the bath, slow down"

brilliance does not conform to any rules, it just happens and while it is evolving it consumes the individual as every waking second gets devoted to wrestling with the huge number of matters that must come together like a jig saw, BUT a jig saw WAS whole once so DOES have a solution, whereas there may not BE a solution to scenario the brilliant person posed for himself [normally him]

it is only the mere followers of a solution who can "arrange" their workload around using the guts of the brilliant solution to make a PC and commercial gain

there is no heart, no intelligence, no soul, no nuthin

best ever example was the $200 billion Y2K fraud

“The foregoing intelligent individuals were responsible for enormous social costs.”

Fair enough david f….. if you perceive intelligence as good mental aptitude for one or more subjects while not necessarily being good in a holistic sense.

True intelligence surely has to be holistic. I can hardly consider the likes of Napoleon or Hitler to be truly intelligent, when they ran so wildly off the rails, with enormous negative consequences.

I think that the vast majority of people that we uphold as being of superior intelligence are/were at least to some extent savant. That is; very good at some things while being very ordinary or below average at others…..and not at all good at using their intellect in an overall beneficial manner.

I can hardly consider those who made great medical breakthroughs to be of superior intelligence, unless they were very actively involved in mitigating the downsides of their discoveries. For example, with medicines that reduced infant mortality, that would have meant being heavily involved with efforts to keep the population growth rate from exploding.

Foxy wrote;

"True intelligence surely has to be holistic. I can hardly consider the likes of Napoleon or Hitler to be truly intelligent, when they ran so wildly off the rails, with enormous negative consequences."

Dear Foxy,

You are redefining intelligence to contain humanity. Intelligence doesn't have to be anything but intelligence. It is neither good nor evil. Napoleon was extremely intelligent whether or not you like what he did with that intelligence.