How does a person with high intelligence think?
My IQ happens to be on par with a gifted individual, although I don’t come in the ranks of a ‘genius’, so to speak.I will define my intelligence capacity as fairly high. (IQ: 150 sd15)Here is how I think:I am open to learning more and I am not ashamed to admit I don’t know something or if I analyzed something incorrectly.I am excellent in dire situations that require me to solve problems, but at the same time, I am likely to have inputs from everyone.I do tend to become complacent with what I already know, which comes off as arrogant to those around me. I don’t bother myself with their opinions knowing there is no point pondering over something that doesn’t benefit me.I am driven by efficiency and getting solutions to the table.I am not always a perfectionist, but I like to have a doable plan before I take up something.For me to indulge in anything, I want to give my 100% to it. I cannot do anything half-heartedly. It is like sex, half is worse than nothing.I need to keep my mind agile and sharp at all times. Without keeping up with that, I become stagnant and irritable. If something doesn’t challenge me, I don’t take it up.I hold knowledge and duty to a very high standard. A person who lacks these two loses their value in my eyes.I keep my eyes, ears open for anything and everything. Unlike, Sherlock who doesn’t know about Solar System! I find that odd. An intelligent person, who holds a high capacity for knowledge, hoards that knowledge for a rainy day.Since I have a highly intuitive mind, I allow my gut to make some decisions for me, knowing that my very strong sub-conscience mind picks up things well. I also indulge in exercising my sub-conscience by enrolling in as much multi-tasking I can possibly do and aspire for significant mental gymnastics.
Global warming skeptics - can you account for this?
Here are some facts that everyone should accept: 1) Historically, atmospheric CO2 increases have lagged behind (and amplified) global temperature increases by several centuries. This is an argument man-made GW skeptics often make, and it's true. 2) Currently, atmospheric CO2 concentrations and avg. global temperature are increasing at roughly the same time and rate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instr... 3) As a greenhouse gas, CO2 causes GW. It doesn't necessarily INITIATE GW - if something else has already initiated GW then CO2 will act as a feedback and amplify it - but increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations will cause GW to increase. Now, if CO2 lags behind GW by centuries when something else initiates it, and CO2 and GW are currently increasing at the same time and rate, how do you account for this discrepancy if the current GW isn't primarily caused by humans?