Page 1 of 2
#1
Tesla, inventor of many things, we can assume to have been tremendously intelligent, yet he died poor, all of his inventions claimed by others.

Thoughts?
#2
26% important.
O.K.

“There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want.”
~ Bill Watterson


O__o
#4
Quote by Grindar
Tesla, inventor of many things, we can assume to have been tremendously intelligent, yet he died poor, all of his inventions claimed by others.

Thoughts?

So he wasn't intelligent in business.
^^The above is a Cryptic Metaphor^^


"To know the truth of history is to realize its ultimate myth and its inevitable ambiguity." Everything is made up and the facts don't matter.


MUSIC THEORY LINK
#5
Barely, it's all who you know and how hard you work.
ᶌῖᶌα ɭα ɌεᶌσɭƲʈιʘϰ
#6
Too many variables, does intelligence help me succeed in my work? No not in the slightest
would being intelligent help a lawyer succeed? probably yeah
seriously the biggest thing is who your parents are, you'll probably be as successful as them


#8
Very important. The other is being savvy with people.

I'd argue that you don't even need luck if these 2 are solid.

...modes and scales are still useless.


Quote by PhoenixGRM
Hey guys could you spare a minute to Vote for my band. Go to the site Search our band Listana with CTRL+F for quick and vote Thank you .
Quote by sam b
Voted for Patron Çıldırdı.

Thanks
Quote by PhoenixGRM
But our Band is Listana
#11
I thought Tesla was a cowboy or something?
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#12
With success being defined by wealth, there's a plethora of people who have proven that intelligence isn't a prerequisite, but it is probably a good virtue if one wanted to maintain their wealth.
Last edited by Rossenrot at Nov 25, 2013,
#13
Quote by Rossenrot
With success being defined be wealth, there's a plethora of people who have proven that intelligence isn't a prerequisite, but it is probably a good virtue if one wanted to maintain their wealth.

I don't think success has to necessarily mean wealth but if we suppose it does in this context, I agree with this.
Quote by beadhangingOne
What happened to Snake?

Snake?

Snake?

SNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE?!


Quote by TunerAddict
you can take my mouse and keyboard from my cold, slightly orange from cheetos, dead fingers


Quote by Baby Joel
Isis is amazing
#14
The noblest people are those despising wealth, learning, pleasure and life; esteeming above them poverty, ignorance, hardship and death.

~DS
#15
How important is this idiosyncratically defined thing to this other idiosyncratically defined thing?
i don't know why i feel so dry
#17
Not at all.

Quote by emad
jthm_guitarist
Warned for trolling!


Quote by metal4eva_22
Didn't you say that you had a stuffed fox that you would occasionally fuck?

Quote by Axelfox
It's not a fox,it's a wolf.
#21
Success in what? Becoming rich?
For that I'd say intelligent is helpful but it isn't a prerequisite.
If it's for something like being a good doctor, or getting a Ph.D, you need to be smart to be able to do those things.
#22
Success comes from two primary factors. Your intelligence, and your ability to form connections, or in other words socialization. There are instances of what you might call luck, where someone found success purely by chance. Justin Bieber as an example everyone will love. A good present day example of success by chance, nonetheless.

You provided Tesla as an example of an intelligent man who died poor. He may have been innovative in terms of his technology, therefore intelligent in that regard. But he may have lacked social connections, attractiveness, assertiveness, or simply wasn't business smart.

Social connections in the end is the more important part of becoming successful. Someone who knows nothing but is attractive and persuasive, can easily compensate for their lack of skills and knowledge by just making people feel good and manipulating what they need out of them.

If you want to be successful, be intelligent and sociable. Be educated in a field, be it medicine, music, construction, or dancing. Know and be friends with people in your field of choice and anyone who may directly or indirectly provide benefits.

But, really, in the end, you personally define your success. Some people, like me, don't have a set end goal. I am constantly searching for new things to learn, new fields to explore, fresh horizons, and constantly expanding my repertoire of skills, my knowledge, and my social connections. Others might say, "I am going to be a lawyer." So they become a lawyer using intelligence and sociability. Success!

All up to you. Shit, if flipping burgers at McDonald's and living in a run down crack house brings you satisfaction, and you're doing it, then... bam. Success!
#23
Quote by Grindar
Tesla, inventor of many things, we can assume to have been tremendously intelligent, yet he died poor, all of his inventions claimed by others.

Thoughts?


Do you define success as being successful in the eyes of others, or as contributing something meaningful to humanity?

I would consider the latter to be success and I would say that intelligence is very important for that. Success as a subjective arbitrary standard can be achieved by anyone of any level of intelligence.
"This one is machine and nerve, and has its mind concluded
This one is but flesh and faith, and is the more deluded."
#25
Quote by Mud Martian
snip

You say that success is subjectively defined and subject to individual variation.. But through half this post you talked about success in the sense it is popularly used, as though it's an objective thing.

What do most people mean when they say someone is successful? I'm not asking rhetorically, because I would like to know. It sure as hell isn't "that individual appears to be living in accordance with his self-determined system of ethics and life goals"

In fact, I think "success" in the popular sense is a measure of an individuals conformity with social roles ascribed to them based on things like gender, race, economic class and so on. A childless woman might popularly be thought of as unsuccessful, despite her actual desires, goals and abilities. And a mother may be thought of a success in that respect at least, without knowledge of whether she is happy with her position in life and her accomplishments.
#26
You asked such a broad question and didn't even try to narrow it down by at least providing what your definition of success and intelligence were.

Anyways I have no idea how "intelligent" Arnold Schwarzenegger is but that guy is pretty damn successful in my opinion. I hope to one day cultivate the same work ethic he has.
#27
Quote by modus operandi
You say that success is subjectively defined and subject to individual variation.. But through half this post you talked about success in the sense it is popularly used, as though it's an objective thing.

What do most people mean when they say someone is successful? I'm not asking rhetorically, because I would like to know. It sure as hell isn't "that individual appears to be living in accordance with his self-determined system of ethics and life goals"

In fact, I think "success" in the popular sense is a measure of an individuals conformity with social roles ascribed to them based on things like gender, race, economic class and so on. A childless woman might popularly be thought of as unsuccessful, despite her actual desires, goals and abilities. And a mother may be thought of a success in that respect at least, without knowledge of whether she is happy with her position in life and her accomplishments.


I talked about success as it is popularly used for that very reason, it is popular. I was avoiding getting too deep, but it seems you're heading in that direction so I'll put a foot in the water. In order for civilization in general to make any kind of progression and achieve any kind of prosperity, it is necessary for there to be a set standard of expectation for the entire population.

In our modern society that set standard is that you are wealthy, and that your wealth comes from being in a position where you are able to provide something of great value, in exchange for wealth, or at least financial stability, and other boons. A lawyer and a doctor can give far more to society than someone who grills $1 McDoubles or someone that cleans toilets for a living. That is why they also receive more from society: respect, admiration, and wealth. And a lot of envy.

That doesn't mean the "small" deeds done in life can't be labeled as success, which was the point of my final statements.
#28
Quote by Mud Martian
I talked about success as it is popularly used for that very reason, it is popular. I was avoiding getting too deep, but it seems you're heading in that direction so I'll put a foot in the water. In order for civilization in general to make any kind of progression and achieve any kind of prosperity, it is necessary for there to be a set standard of expectation for the entire population.

Partially agreed. I would contest the notion that there need be a singular view of what success entails, and would rather suggest that there are a plurality of views as to what constitutes success. The differentiation is a product of different subcultures and social identities like racial groups, gender, class etc. and an individuals conformance to the expectations born from each.

In our modern society that set standard is that you are wealthy, and that your wealth comes from being in a position where you are able to provide something of great value, in exchange for wealth, or at least financial stability, and other boons. A lawyer and a doctor can give far more to society than someone who grills $1 McDoubles or someone that cleans toilets for a living. That is why they also receive more from society: respect, admiration, and wealth. And a lot of envy.

Well, a lot of people might be judged successful in a popular sense who provide very little in terms of social utility. Those who for example are "famous for being famous", socialites with few -if any- achievements to claim. Do you think this is simply a case of our social mechanisms not functioning as intended? Is it perhaps that the allocation of social rewards fails to match the individual's contribution?

Anyway, we have to consider how essential jobs like waste disposal and so on are. Yet these jobs are hardly glamorous. If the idea of social reward for significant contributions was consistent, why is it the case that there's such stigma against jobs like those I've mentioned?

I think part of the picture is that common notions of success necessarily include common desires and motivations. It may be that success isn't so much a social mechanism but rather a collectivisation of common individual aspirations.
That doesn't mean the "small" deeds done in life can't be labeled as success, which was the point of my final statements.

Sure.
#29
Quote by modus operandi
Partially agreed. I would contest the notion that there need be a singular view of what success entails, and would rather suggest that there are a plurality of views as to what constitutes success. The differentiation is a product of different subcultures and social identities like racial groups, gender, class etc. and an individuals conformance to the expectations born from each.

Well, a lot of people might be judged successful in a popular sense who provide very little in terms of social utility. Those who for example are "famous for being famous", socialites with few -if any- achievements to claim. Do you think this is simply a case of our social mechanisms not functioning as intended? Is it perhaps that the allocation of social rewards fails to match the individual's contribution?

Anyway, we have to consider how essential jobs like waste disposal and so on are. Yet these jobs are hardly glamorous. If the idea of social reward for significant contributions was consistent, why is it the case that there's such stigma against jobs like those I've mentioned?

I think part of the picture is that common notions of success necessarily include common desires and motivations. It may be that success isn't so much a social mechanism but rather a collectivisation of common individual aspirations.

Sure.


The question you asked me that stood out was in regards to popular figures who provide nothing to society but their popularity. "Famous for being famous" as you put it. It's important not to forget that the vast majority of individuals considered successful are people that exist within communities, be they large or small. A city has it's well known and well accomplished doctors. A small town may have a very reputable sherrif.

Society is going through a bit of a cultural shift, so to speak, with the addition of global media making access to information far easier. This is not the first time in history that our society became stargazed by glamorous people, some glamorous only because they were born into wealth. Famous for being the child of a well known actor, or of an accomplished businessman. I need not recount all the instances of this phenomenon throughout human history. But I'll point to Princes and Princesses of English monarchies - something we still have today - as an example.

The way we observe these people are different, and their origins may be different, but the effect remains the same. In my opinion our society isn't being harmed by this enormous attraction to pop stars, or the glamorous offspring of more important individuals. It seems that way because the media has become so widespread and pervasive, and because thousands upon thousands of people like you and I can simultaneously talk about it in the same place.

There is a singular view of success, and we've had it for a very long time. I maintain that when it comes down to our personal lives, in our hometown, amongst our friends, our family, our colleagues, our acquaintances, we're not being judged by whether we're Martin Sheen's son, or whether we totally slept with Lindsey Lohan once. We're being judged by what we provide for ourselves, for our family, and for our community.

In any case, it doesn't serve one well to complicate the definition of success to such an extreme point. If one is concerned that the job that they do or the job that a certain group may do - waste disposal was the example you chose - is not being recognized the way it should be, then it is up to those individuals to gather together and make us all notice. Intelligence and socializing. Having connections, being known, making noise, and doing it with a clear, educated mind. Except I can't see why we would want the garbage man to have such enormous levels of attention, and I've never met a garbage man eager to become a famous garbage man.
#31
The word success has no strict definition because you 'success' means something different to every person. I'd say intelligence has very little to do with it. What's more important is hard work, motivation, circumstance and a shit load of luck.
#32
I'd say intelligence is at least 25% of the whole thing. The others are not being a lazy ****, opportunity and finances.
#33
Its pretty important

If your a stupid ****, you will have a hard time achieving your goals because your ideas will be stupid
Quote by The Spoon
Unless you're sure she likes you, telling her you like her has a 110% chance of failing.

But hey, at least you have a 10% chance of absolutely guaranteeing failure.
#34
Success is pretty subjective you know.
Quote by Dave Mustaine
If you want to be treated intelligently, act intelligent.

#36
Uhhh yeaaah...no.



But Tesla was pretty damn successful, just not as successful as he should have been because screw Edison up the bum. It depends on your definition of successful too. Tesla basically brought in the modern world with AC. I would not call money successful but it also depends on the type of intelligence. EQ, IQ, business vs science smarts.

tl;dr: Too many variables.
Last edited by PapaKooLay at Nov 26, 2013,
#37
If success = wealth, then you don't have to have a shred of intelligence to get it.

Celebrity culture sort of proves this. You don't have to be smart to ***** yourself out in the name of fame and fortune.
I have nothing important to say
#38
Well maybe Tesla does the Astro.

OT: I've seen a few people say intelligence is slightly important, but being able to socialise, make connections and manipulate people that way helps. I'd argue that's a form of intelligence in itself.
My old signature was too long. Have a daisy.

#40
Quote by Grindar
Tesla, inventor of many things, we can assume to have been tremendously intelligent, yet he died poor, all of his inventions claimed by others.

Thoughts?

In 1900, with US$150,000 (more than $3 million today) 49% of which was his own money and 51% from J. Pierpont Morgan, Tesla began planning the Wardenclyffe Tower facility.

The Wardenclyffe Tower facility was an early wireless transmission tower and it was pretty much the beginning of Tesla's downfall caused by the effects of the Panic of 1901 (the first stock market crash on the New York Stock Exchange) which was ironicaly, in part, caused by his business partner J. Pierpont Morgan, and then by the economic effects of the first world war starting. Tesla just couldn't get funding for his inventions during the war, so he sunk everything he had left into financing himself and lost the lot, but before this happened his intelligence had made him a very wealthy man.
Page 1 of 2