That you judge things you still don't minimally understand and resist to start doing so. You can't call polymaths like the ones I mentioned a bunch of whinning idiots with a straight face, out of anything but utter ignorance (and being a "self righteous jackass" yourself). And you embrace it. That's the mind of a slave: the one who thinks that he knows enough and prefers to remain unaware and untroubled. Your relatively high IQ only means that you're skilled at solving mathematical/logical puzzles. I also have one because I was trained as a mathematician and logician for several years. But believe me: that's not intelligence; as far as those tasks go, you or me can very well be replaced by cheap computers (not even AI: no need to); if intellingence has any relation with solving actual problems in life (and one must define that, the notion of "problem", very precisely), IQ certainly does not measure it because life doesn't work that way; logic, as an specific semiotic space ad hoc for a propositional calculus, require of a static state of things, which does not match our effective human/sentient experience of the world (nor of the mind, nor of language as a whole), other than as an attached model useful for very specific purposes. This entire way of thinking which culminated (read: died, epistemologically) with the Circle of Vienna (and which far from being inconsequential shaped and keeps shaping our civilized world) is not a path towards the face of truth at all, but merely another possible way out of many others that, in this case, started with no one else than Parmenides, over 2600 years ago... which you'd know about, if you finally dared to study philosophy, history et al. You could get a much broader and thus more aware figure of the indisputably artificial world and everchanging culture you happen to be a son of, if you just start considering the possibility of (who would have say it!) being currently wrong.
Post edited on 24th Feb 2013, 9:27pm