I would be interested to see the results of a more precise question: Smart but unpleasant versus pleasant but not smart (say, IQ = 90). I don't like either - choosing would be hard.
i make a mistake - 13 years ago
¿si el 10 % de los democratas votó NO y el 70 % de los republicanos votó NO, cuantos democratas son de piscis y cuantos de capricornio?
CONFIRMA LA PUBLICACION DE RANDI, JAMES SOBRE ASTROLOGIA Y VOTOS DEL CONGRESO “vote for sign” DATOS REALES
SIGNO// VOTO SI //VOTO NO //SE ABSTUVO
Pisces //23 //3 //1
Capricorn //20 //9 //0
Henry - 13 years ago
I based my vote for pleasant on the assumption that not being pleasant would be the same as being unpleasant. You can be the smartest person in the world, but if you constantly irritate people you will not go far.
Randy - 13 years ago
I didn't even have to think about it. As long as the kid is not profoundly intellectually impaired (i.e. he/she can walk, talk, read, write and cipher) being pleasant is so much more important than being "smart" both to society as a whole and for individual happiness, that the two can't even be compared. And being smart DOES NOT give one the ability to learn to be pleasant, just as it doesn't give one the ability to learn to be happy. It shows a lack of "smartness" even to think so. If it did, there would be some sort of correlation between these emotional states and intelligence. AFAIK there isn't.
Seraphim - 13 years ago
If I can make the child smart, then he/ she could see the value of being pleasant and work on that himself - thus obtaining both qualities.
It is interesting that Smart and Pleasent should be even considered as mutually exclusive, I know many smart and pleasent people like me.
I voted for pleasent because smart unpleasent people often become bullies, selfish, cruel, sadistic, moody, money grabbing, power grabbing, dictators. i.e. Gordon Brown, Gadaffi, Hitler.
I voted for smart as most people are fairly pleasant but not very smart so having a particularly smart child makes for a much greater difference.
Sudhindra - 13 years ago
In the interest that the child grows up to become a responsible and successful adult in a competitive world, smart is the way to be. Thats my view.
Percy Veerance - 13 years ago
My first thought was it would be happier if it were pleasant, but my second thought was that if it was smart it would hopefully learn to be pleasant, but the converse isn't true.
Gavin - 13 years ago
Smart people seem to be less common than pleasant people, so I say address the balance.
Stuart - 13 years ago
In an ideal world, I would rather my child be pleasant. But this isn't. As a Union Rep, I have spent too many years seeing the nice people getting hammered by the system and by the "managers" above them, until they are used up and worn out and all the niceness has been replaced by misery. So I'd choose smart, to give them the best chance of happiness - not to mention security.
Ben rayot - 13 years ago
There are too many smart arses out there and not enough pleasant ones. You can be smart and a real arsehole at the same time.
I would be interested to see the results of a more precise question: Smart but unpleasant versus pleasant but not smart (say, IQ = 90). I don't like either - choosing would be hard.
¿si el 10 % de los democratas votó NO y el 70 % de los republicanos votó NO, cuantos democratas son de piscis y cuantos de capricornio?
CONFIRMA LA PUBLICACION DE RANDI, JAMES SOBRE ASTROLOGIA Y VOTOS DEL CONGRESO “vote for sign” DATOS REALES
SIGNO// VOTO SI //VOTO NO //SE ABSTUVO
Pisces //23 //3 //1
Capricorn //20 //9 //0
I based my vote for pleasant on the assumption that not being pleasant would be the same as being unpleasant. You can be the smartest person in the world, but if you constantly irritate people you will not go far.
I didn't even have to think about it. As long as the kid is not profoundly intellectually impaired (i.e. he/she can walk, talk, read, write and cipher) being pleasant is so much more important than being "smart" both to society as a whole and for individual happiness, that the two can't even be compared. And being smart DOES NOT give one the ability to learn to be pleasant, just as it doesn't give one the ability to learn to be happy. It shows a lack of "smartness" even to think so. If it did, there would be some sort of correlation between these emotional states and intelligence. AFAIK there isn't.
If I can make the child smart, then he/ she could see the value of being pleasant and work on that himself - thus obtaining both qualities.
It is interesting that Smart and Pleasent should be even considered as mutually exclusive, I know many smart and pleasent people like me.
I voted for pleasent because smart unpleasent people often become bullies, selfish, cruel, sadistic, moody, money grabbing, power grabbing, dictators. i.e. Gordon Brown, Gadaffi, Hitler.
If he's smart I can teach him to be pleasant.
I voted for smart as most people are fairly pleasant but not very smart so having a particularly smart child makes for a much greater difference.
In the interest that the child grows up to become a responsible and successful adult in a competitive world, smart is the way to be. Thats my view.
My first thought was it would be happier if it were pleasant, but my second thought was that if it was smart it would hopefully learn to be pleasant, but the converse isn't true.
Smart people seem to be less common than pleasant people, so I say address the balance.
In an ideal world, I would rather my child be pleasant. But this isn't. As a Union Rep, I have spent too many years seeing the nice people getting hammered by the system and by the "managers" above them, until they are used up and worn out and all the niceness has been replaced by misery. So I'd choose smart, to give them the best chance of happiness - not to mention security.
There are too many smart arses out there and not enough pleasant ones. You can be smart and a real arsehole at the same time.