Biggest fish out there? (Intellectually speaking)

simu

So, given the choice, would you rather be the biggest fish in a little pond or move on to a bigger pond where you would have more competition.

Or, to put it in a more interesting way, if you could chose between being the smartest person on a planet of people stupider than you or being an intellectual minnow on a planet of extremely intelligent and knowledgeable people, which would you chose?

I think I would chose the latter as it would allow me to have more knowledge of the universe, even if this knowledge was more limited by the structure of my mind than it was for the typical inhabitant of this amazing planet!

Share your thoughts on the topic!

patzer117

I'd definitely pick the latter to be honest. There is nothing worse than being with a bunch of stupid people who you have to explain everything to and who don't get exactly what you are talking about.

if you are on the smart planet then you can learn more, become more knowledgable, having deep intelligent conversations and be challenged intellectually every day.

it's like in a football league - which would you prefer, being near the top of the first division, or being in the premiership albeit near the bottom - it's clearly in the premiership because it's an honour, it's a challenge, and you are playing with the creme de la creme of world sport - and in this you would be with the creme de la creme of intellectuals in the universe.

nice idea btw.

patzer

bonkey

I don't think anyone understands well enough what its like to be smarter or stupider than they actually are to be able to offer a meaningful answer.

jc

jimbling

good post... but the wording is all important. Just because people are "stupider" than you, doesnt mean there all stupid.. just that they are not as intelligent as you. They are the minnows - which you are choosing to be.

Going by that I would obv pick the first.

If it was rephrased as been the smartest person on a planet of incompetent fools, then yes I would go for the second.

sry if im been picky :rolleyes:

Sleepy

It depends on whether the "big fish" of the second planet are good teachers. If they're not, there's little point in being there as your knowledge won't increase any more than it would have amongst the fools and you'd at least have had the satisfaction of raising the standard of thought on planet A.

simu

bonkey wrote:

I don't think anyone understands well enough what its like to be smarter or stupider than they actually are to be able to offer a meaningful answer.

jc

Well, you'd be the same - it's just the people around you that would be less/more intelligent. (I know it's tricky deciding what intelligence is but this is just a hypothetical question). Think of what it feels like when you are struggling to grasp some academic subject you're not very good at.

Oh, and when I say being on a planet of less intelligent people, I mean that everybody there would be far beneath your level. They might be astonished at your ability to do multiplication instantly and they would take weeks to process your most banal conversation. You could have a lot of power and great riches in such a world being so far ahead of all the others.

GuanYin

It depends on how you view the importance of knowledge and intelligence.

If you want to expand and learn and better yourself, it makes no sense to stay where you have no equals or superiors.

If thats not important to you and you would prefer to become (Say) a hockey player, then you have nothing to gain from leaving.

Neuro

simu wrote:

Or, to put it in a more interesting way, if you could chose between being the smartest person on a planet of people stupider than you or being an intellectual minnow on a planet of extremely intelligent and knowledgeable people, which would you chose?

Research has shown that people, in general, would prefer to be the former.The following is from economist Richard Layard and relates to monetary income, but is applicable to any measure of social status:

Let me ask you which of these two worlds you would prefer, assuming prices constant.

Which world would you prefer?
(prices are the same)

A. You get $50k a year and others get half that

B. You get $100k a year and others get more than double that

In a recent study, graduate students of public health at Harvard were asked just that question. The majority preferred the first type of world. They were happy to be poorer, provided their relative position improved.

For more information, click here and here.

Vangelis

Would either make you happier than the other? I don't think so.

jimbling

simu wrote:

They might be astonished at your ability to do multiplication instantly and they would take weeks to process your most banal conversation. You could have a lot of power and great riches in such a world being so far ahead of all the others.

Don't forget..... "People fear what they don't understand"
therefore a realistic outcome for the above scenario is that they would have an intense fear of you, and probably hunt you down.

simu

jimbling wrote:

Don't forget..... "People fear what they don't understand"
therefore a realistic outcome for the above scenario is that they would have an intense fear of you, and probably hunt you down.

You could set yourself up as a god! In fact, I beleive that happened in one episode of Star Trek - two Ferengi set themselves up as living deities on a primitive planet!

jimbling

simu wrote:

You could set yourself up as a god! In fact, I beleive that happened in one episode of Star Trek - two Ferengi set themselves up as living deities on a primitive planet!

lol... well, if it happened in star trek

adonis

id like to be a pike

meditraitor

I would definitely go for the little fish in a big pond option, as it is what I am now, and Im quite happy :v: