Is it better to be smart or stupid?
BMJ 2004; 329 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.329.7468.0-h (Published 23 September 2004) Cite this as: BMJ 2004;329:0-h
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I fully approve of publishing articles such as that of Willis et al.
in major medical journals. I don't think anyone will deny that the work is
interesting, even if the direct clinical relevance or applicability of the
work is not yet clear. Interesting work (even with some elements of
humour) should sometimes be encouraged for its own sake. The publication
of this type of research will stimulate clinicians to look beyond
conventional ideas and examine common, unexplained observations and
anecdotal reports which may be of importance when examined in greater
detail. I have a strong feeling that, in this age where any proper
research must undergo "ethical" review, the proposal for this study may
not pass the scrutiny of peer review or ethics committee in some
institutions! The acceptance and recognition of this work by a major
medical publication should help in pushing through unconventional but
interesting ideas, even if direct clinical relevance is not yet in sight.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
This reminds me of the book called 'Elephant Elements' (can't
remember the authors' names). This book is apparently for children. It
uses pictures of elephants to illustrate opposites. For 'intelligent' and
'stupid' there is no perceptible difference in appearance between the two
elephants.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
The stupidity of beetles and bacteria provides them with an advantage
over the intelligent human species......Why ?
Because they are ,although primitive,still unconditioned.
All the material world is manifestation of energy (e=(mc)2.) This
energy ,better called 'Consciousness' is more evolved and specialised in
the humans, but it is also more conditioned in them. This conditioning
provides the human beings with an identity. At the same time, it limits the
potentiality of expression of the Force of Consciousness.
In contrast, the bacteria and other lower species have no sense of
identity and therefore they are more in an unconditioned or egoless
state. They have no preference to kill ,no will to kill and are living
their life quite true to their nature.
In a sense it is like water in an ocean and water in a pot.
The drop of water in the ocean has no identity of its own but yet is
representative of the whole ocean. The water in the pot has its own identity
but the very same identity limits its confines.
The real advantage which the humans have is their capacity to
willfully exceed themselves through sustained efforts towards 'growth of
consciousness'. This would enable them to grow in oneness with the source
of energy; to become the vehicles of consciousness rather than the
possessors of the consciousness.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Medical research goes to the dogs
That dogs possess a keen sense of smell hardly require an evidence
based support,but precisely such an effort finds favour with the editors`
choice as well is amusing.It is perhaps a reflection of the respect new
ideas generate amongst the scientific community-there are so few of them
now-a days.But it is also a reflection of the fact that today`s medical
mind is rather preoccupied with statistical jargon(41% Vs 14%),restless
activism,and freedom to explore.
A similar study testing the fact that canines can actually see angels of
death (a notion prevalent in some parts of the world)would generate ,in
all probabilities, similar results, and would also help in bridging gap
between different view points.Alas, in this era of evidence based
medicine,this has to be shown- but who will fund such a study?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests