Stickler for rules - less intelligent ?

RobAMerc

I have always found that people who are less likely to break the rules and see things as black or white / right or wrong tend to be less intelligent than those who are less rigid in their thinking.

Does anyone else agree ?

By the way I am obviously not talking about criminals or scummers who ignore the law and do as they please, I am talking about the goody two shoes, teachers pet types

petes

I do agree. It is seriously ontroversial!

stovelid

Parents do cramp your unique individuality, it's true.

That said, they buy you stuff so it all evens out.

prinz

I'd love to prove my intelligence OP, but there's a rule against attacking the poster.

Kasabian

No, i don't believe that to be true OP.

Cheap Thrills!

Definitely. I would view automatic, unquestioning obedience of authority as a sign of a lower intelligence.

Dravokivich

RobAMerc wrote: »

By the way I am obviously not talking about criminals or scummers who ignore the law and do as they please, I am talking about the goody two shoes, teachers pet types

So you exclude the people who would often be considered as rule breakers, are we to immediately assume they are the inteligent 1's?

Referring to the "Goody two shoes / teacher pet types" as the "fools..." a bit of resentment as a kid perhaps?

Tbh... I think everyone can be as much a fool in any given moment... this topic's yours...

pickarooney

Is this another cats v dogs thread?

thetonynator

That sounds like complete bullshít.

TanG411

OP, considering your username is 'RobAMerc', I'm guessing you're an intelligent fellow.

RobAMerc

Lets get this straight, I never said that everyone who breaks the rules are more intelligent than those who dont.

I said that those who stick to the rules unwaveringly tend to be less bright than those who don't. There is a difference.

btw Dravokivich - I never refereed to anyone as fools did I ? Please don't miss-quote me.

Mr Benevolent

OP, try applying your theory to the Irish roads. We're not that intelligent.

Kasabian

Larkin91 wrote: »

OP, considering your username is 'RobAMerc', I'm guessing you're an intelligent fellow.

If he was intelligent he would be RobanAudi

RobAMerc

Confab wrote: »

OP, try applying your theory to the Irish roads. We're not that intelligent.

nope - we dont know the rules is the issue here !

Des Carter

I think the person who doesnt break the rules but at the same time doesnt follow blindly are the most intelligent. You know the kind that blend in with the crowd not drawing attention to themselves and is willing to think for themselvs but doesnt let anyone know it unless they have to.

PeterIanStaker

they could be obsessive - compulsive?

MagicMarker

I hope this thread gets locked sooner rather than later.

melekalikimaka

for a yes no reply, i'd say yes your right... its to do with imo confidence in decision making... dumbasses are too stupid to have the confidence to do something different.

there i said it.

Schism

Don't insult peoples intelligence, people find that insulting.

Dravokivich

RobAMerc wrote: »

Lets get this straight, I never said that everyone who breaks the rules are more intelligent than those who dont.

I said that those who stick to the rules unwaveringly tend to be less bright than those who don't. There is a difference.

Both those statements seem rather conflicting to me... you are hinting towards 1 or the other...

RobAMerc wrote: »

btw Dravokivich - I never refereed to anyone as fools did I ? Please don't miss-quote me.

Less intelligent =/= fool?

You're playing with terminology here... it comes across as the same thing.

biko

RobAMerc wrote: »

I have always found that people who are less likely to break the rules and see things as black or white / right or wrong tend to be less intelligent than those who are less rigid in their thinking.

RobAMerc wrote: »

I said that those who stick to the rules unwaveringly tend to be less bright than those who don't. There is a difference.

Although at first thought it seems true, less intelligent people adhering more to strictly to rules because it's easier and requires less thought, I'm not sure that I'm willing to accept your assumption without some form of linkage/backup.

Rules are set to show the limits, smart or not you are supposed to follow them.
Or are there any particular set of rules you're referring to?

prinz

melekalikimaka wrote: »

...dumbasses are too stupid to have the confidence to do something different..

You mean like the people who see the sign Do Not Enter The Lion Enclosure and think they're so intelligent the rules don't apply to them? Check out the Darwin Awards for a list of people many of whom had the confidence to try something different..

Mr Benevolent

Are we talking social rules or legislation here OP?

melekalikimaka

prinz wrote: »

You mean like the people who see the sign Do Not Enter The Lion Enclosure and think they're so intelligent the rules don't apply to them? Check out the Darwin Awards for a list of people many of whom had the confidence to try something different..

well done, take what i said out of context...

most people understood what i was getting at, its more about critical thinking and what not as opposed to unquestioning autonomy.

thetonynator

I would actually be inclined to say that people who have a disregard for rules would be more likely to be of less than average intelligence that those who stay on the correct side. I'm not saying anyone should follow anything that goes against common sense blindly . . .

SugarHigh

Define intelligence.

SugarHigh

melekalikimaka wrote: »

for a yes no reply, i'd say yes your right... its to do with imo confidence in decision making... dumbasses are too stupid to have the confidence to do something different.

there i said it.

This makes no sense. Confidence is no indication of ability. Sometimes the person who has no understanding of how difficult something will be too achieve will the one who is most confident that he will achieve it.

pickarooney

I kind of agree with the OP, particularly with regards to people who stubbornly go against what would normally be considered common sense, in order to adhere stictly to the rules.

I've worked with a number of people like that and, to be honest, they seem a bit lacking.

longshanks

so we are all in agreement then?

SugarHigh

Cheap Thrills! wrote: »

Definitely. I would view automatic, unquestioning obedience of authority as a sign of a lower intelligence.

But that is not what the op said.

I could question the rules and then come to the conclusion that it makes the most sense to follow them.

Mark200

Des Carter wrote: »

I think the person who doesnt break the rules but at the same time doesnt follow blindly are the most intelligent. You know the kind that blend in with the crowd not drawing attention to themselves and is willing to think for themselvs but doesnt let anyone know it unless they have to.

That seems to describe me, so therefore I agree.


But seriously, if you think back to primary or secondary school... surely the people who broke the rules most were more often than not the wasters in class who are more likely to be in a dead end unskilled job or unemployed right now*... ?

*Not that all people in those situations are wasters.

SugarHigh

pickarooney wrote: »

I kind of agree with the OP, particularly with regards to people who stubbornly go against what would normally be considered common sense, in order to adhere stictly to the rules.

I've worked with a number of people like that and, to be honest, they seem a bit lacking.

Sometimes you need rules to control common sense because quite often common sense is in fact wrong.

pickarooney

SugarHigh wrote: »

But that is not what the op said.

I could question the rules and then come to the conclusion that it makes the most sense to follow them.

The OP explicitly referred to people who see the world in black and white, right and wrong and thus wouldn't question the rules.

NothingMan

Des Carter wrote: »

I think the person who doesnt break the rules but at the same time doesnt follow blindly are the most intelligent. You know the kind that blend in with the crowd not drawing attention to themselves and is willing to think for themselvs but doesnt let anyone know it unless they have to.

*Listens quietly to discussion while peaking in from the bushes*

prinz

SugarHigh wrote: »

I could question the rules and then come to the conclusion that it makes the most sense to follow them.

No you couldn't do that. Everyone knows your just a goody two shoes who follows rules for no good reason.

prinz

pickarooney wrote: »

The OP explicitly referred to people who see the world in black and white, right and wrong and thus wouldn't question the rules.

Then the question becomes how the OP knows who has questioned the rules and who hasn't.

Person A questions a rule, decides it's for the best and follows it.... Person B questions the rule, decides it's not and doesn't follow it. It's fairly obvious that Person B questioned the rule, not so obvious that Person A put just the same amount of intelligence and thought into it.

It's not like everyone announces to the world everytime they think about something..

The sign says Queue here! "OK everybody I am internally questioning this rule just so you don't question my intelligence!"

pickarooney

You know a stickler by the way they apply the rules when it would be better to bend them a little. A stickler by nature is not given to discourse or reflection.

Mr Benevolent

Switzerland. Far more successful, law abiding and corruption-free and they all obey the rules. OP's question is too simplistic. Only in Ireland would that question be mooted.

Hazys

RobAMerc wrote: »

I have always found that people who are less likely to break the rules and see things as black or white / right or wrong tend to be less intelligent than those who are less rigid in their thinking.

Does anyone else agree ?

By the way I am obviously not talking about criminals or scummers who ignore the law and do as they please, I am talking about the goody two shoes, teachers pet types

People in lower classes are less educated.
People in lower classes are more likely to break the law.
Therefore people who are of less intelligence are more than likely to break the rules.

People who grow up in well structured families and strick upbringings where they dont break the rules, tend to be more focused, do better in education and have more sucessful lives.

People who dont have strict upbrinings and who dont have strick black and white rules to follow get distracted and becomes less successful in education and life.


This statement makes no sense, its way too vague. Intelligence is measured in many different aspects from a person's reasoning ability to ability to plan to a person's abilty to communicate.

For example compare a successful Univerisity Professor who gets a 10 out of 10 in reasoning but gets 0 out of 10 in communication to a sucessfull business man who may get 5 out of 10 in reasoning but gets 5 out of 10 in communication, whos more intellegent?

Since planning is considered an aspect of intelligence, which direct relates to be organised and following the rules and goals set out, therefore people who can plan and follow simple rules are considered intellegent along with people who are extremely creative.

Its all relative.

Edison: "Genius: one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration"

thetonynator

Hazys wrote: »

People in lower classes are less educated.
People in lower classes are more likely to break the law.
Therefore people who are of less intelligence are more than likely to break the rules.

People who grow up in well structured families and strick upbringings where they dont break the rules, tend to be more focused, do better in education and have more sucessful lives.

People who dont have strict upbrinings and who dont have strick black and white rules to follow get distracted and becomes less successful in education and life.

Was said yesterday, I think it applies today here too, There are no classes in Ireland, and usually the only ones who think there are are from foxrock or someplace . . .

pickarooney

Confab wrote: »

Switzerland. Far more successful, law abiding and corruption-free and they all obey the rules. OP's question is too simplistic. Only in Ireland would that question be mooted.

Proof, if it were needed that rule-sticklers a soulless, humourless bunch.

Pherekydes

pickarooney wrote: »

Proof, if it were needed that rule-sticklers a soulless, humourless bunch.

But less intelligent?

Pherekydes

Hazys wrote: »

People in lower classes are less educated.
People in lower classes are more likely to break the law.
Therefore people who are of less intelligence are more than likely to break the rules.

Are you confusing knowledge with intelligence?

Hazys

Pherekydes wrote: »

Are you confusing knowledge with intelligence?

No


By being educated obviously you acquire knowledge but the fact that you are educated shows you have an aptitude for learning and reasoning.

Pherekydes

Hazys wrote: »

No
By being educated obviously you acquire knowledge but the fact that you are educated shows you have an aptitude for learning and reasoning.

How does not being educated show that you don't have an aptitude for learning and reasoning?

Hazys

thetonynator wrote: »

Was said yesterday, I think it applies today here too, There are no classes in Ireland, and usually the only ones who think there are are from foxrock or someplace . . .

I never mentioned Ireland.

Its a common fact all through history that:

• People in lower classes are less educated
• People in lower classes are more likely to break the law

Saying a place has different classes doesnt make you elitest, it makes you realistic. Ireland may not have clear classes like in larger countires because the vast majority of people are classified in the middle class and small populations in lower and higher classes, but people can be still classifed in a class.

Hazys

Pherekydes wrote: »

How does not being educated show that you don't have an aptitude for learning and reasoning?

I'm taking in the majority of cases, obviously there are highly intelligent people who prefer to become builders, plumbers, althletes etc, but in the vast majority of cases the people who go onto 3rd level education are more likely to have a higher aptitude for learning and reasoning than somebody who doesnt get to chance because their grades are not good enough.

swe_fi

RobAMerc wrote: »

I have always found that people who are less likely to break the rules and see things as black or white / right or wrong tend to be less intelligent than those who are less rigid in their thinking.

Does anyone else agree ?

By the way I am obviously not talking about criminals or scummers who ignore the law and do as they please, I am talking about the goody two shoes, teachers pet types

I have always found that too + they annoy the shti out of me. What annoys me even more is that it does not annoy more people. I nearly prefer criminals. At least they often make things interesting.

steelcityblues

At the same time, there seems to be too much admiration for the 'rogue' in this country. Look at some of the politicians who have been elected time and time again!

Pherekydes

Hazys wrote: »

I'm taking in the majority of cases, obviously there are highly intelligent people who prefer to become builders, plumbers, althletes etc, but in the vast majority of cases the people who go onto 3rd level education are more likely to have a higher aptitude for learning and reasoning than somebody who doesnt get to chance because their grades are not good enough.

Access to third level education has changed quite a bit in the last few decades. Go back a bit farther and you'll find that women were excluded from formal education completely. Does this mean they were less intelligent? When I left school, people from my background simply couldn't afford third level education.

Third level is mostly about access and perseverance, not intelligence.

Hazys

Pherekydes wrote: »

Access to third level education has changed quite a bit in the last few decades. Go back a bit farther and you'll find that women were excluded from formal education completely. Does this mean they were less intelligent? When I left school, people from my background simply couldn't afford third level education.

Third level is mostly about access and perseverance, not intelligence.

Yes, access is important to getting education but im trying to break the argument down to its simplest terms and remove as many external factors as i can. Fortunately when i went to college it was free for all (maybe still not fully equal access), so its my perspective is talking about people of my generation 20 somethings.

Being educated shows you have a higher aptitude for learning and reasoning than a person who isnt as educated if that person has the same level of access to education (obvious statement of the year). I think we are going off topic now anyway.